Advocate February/March 2020

THE ADVOCATE Newsletter of The Baltimore County Bar Association VOLUME XXIX, NO. 7

February/March 2020

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

by Hon. Michael W. Siri The BCBA is here to help, as best we can, for a situation we and our members have never truly faced.

COVID-19 closed schools, courts, law firms, and the bar office. For our members juggling the demands of working remotely from their kitchen tables, while simultaneously managing their clients, and homeschooling their children, we want you to understand that you are not alone.

The BCBA is doing our best to disseminate and distribute information directly affecting our members. This includes twiceweekly emails with topics varying from available grants and loans for small businesses affected by COVID-19 to updates related to the Courts to available technology to assist our members as they work remotely for the foreseeable future.

Additionally, BCBA members may access all available information at www.bcba.org/covid-19.

medical professionals.

Information will be provided to our members if they are interested in making donations through the BCBA or if they intend to make donations directly.

And for members in need of assistance, the BCBA is working with Lawyer’s Assistance to find methods our members may use to deal with the additional stress associated with our new “normal.” During this period of social distancing, we need to ensure our members are not socially isolated.

As I sit at my kitchen table drafting this message, I, like many of you, do not know when this will end, what will happen when it does, and what will never be the same. The only certainty is we will all get through this together and will need to rely on each other. If you are fortunate For members wanting to give back, enough to help during these time, we are organizing a supply drive please do. for local hospitals and plan on donating meals to front line Continued on page 2

Inside This Edition Annual Charity Bench/Bar Update Black Tie Banquet Bollinger Portrait Unveil.

Calendar of Events Civil Law Update County Council Update Court Notices Family Law Kahl Portrait Unveiling Law Library Member Ads Member News MVLS Professionalism

Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg.

25 5 8 22 3 19 14 4 16 12 26 36 30 24 18

Insight Network Consultants THE ADVOCATE

Page 1

February/March 2020

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

by Hon. Michael W. Siri

If you need help, whether it requires assistance with technology, running an errand, or emotional support, our members are here for each other. All you need to do is ask. The BCBA’s greatest asset is our membership and we will coordinate any requests during this time.

May you be safe and healthy during this unusual time in our lives.

Judge Michael W. Siri BCBA President, 2019-2020

The BCBA usually holds two programs for Law Day; a breakfast program and a noon program.

Each year we honor members of the community by giving out awards for an art contest for students in grades K through 8 and an essay contest for grades 9 through 12. We also recognize the winning Mock Trial Team and present the Law Day Award and the Judith P. Ritchie Award. Due to the current extraordinary circumstances, both programs have been cancelled but we will still celebrate Law Day! On Friday, May 1, please visit www.bcba.org to watch the Law Day 2020 video. We will hear from BCBA President, Judge Siri and Law Day Chair, Tracee Fruman. The high school student with the winning essay will read their essay and a representative from the winning Mock Trial team will make remarks.

THE ADVOCATE

Please join us in congratulating this year’s awardee for the Law Day Award, the Honorable Kathleen G. Cox and the awardee of the Judith P. Ritchie Award, Mary R. Sanders. Judge Cox and Mary will receive their awards in person at the Stated Meeting of the BCBA on October 15 at 4:30 p.m.

The theme for this year’s Law Day is Your Vote, Your Voice, Our Democracy - The 19th Amendment at 100.

The women’s suffrage movement forever changed America, expanding representative democracy and inspiring other popular movements for constitutional change and reform. Yet, honest reflection on the suffrage movement reveals complexity and tensions over race and class that remain part of the ongoing story of the Nineteenth Amendment and its legacies.

Page 2

February/March 2020

C ALENDAR

2019-20 Officers President Pres-Elect Secretary Treasurer

OF

E VENTS

Hon. Michael W. Siri Jay D. Miller Stanford G. Gann, Jr. John G. Turnbull III

Executive Council Lisa Y. Settles Sondra M. Douglas Richard Grason VI Robert K. Erdman, Jr. Tyler J. Nowicki Michelle D. Siri Rebecca A. Fleming, Immediate Past President Whitney E. Wilder, Young Lawyers’ Chair

The Advocate Adam E. Konstas Committee Chair

Michael S. Barranco Committee Vice -Chair

February 2020 3. ADR Committee Meeting, 4:30pm, Grand Jury Room 13. Bench/Bar Committee Meeting, 8am, 4th Floor Judicial Conference Room 17. Courts and Bar Office closed for Presidents ’ Day 18. Estates & Trusts Committee, Ethical Considerations of Clients with Diminished Capacity, 5pm, Grand Jury Room 19. Family Law, Minimizing Conflict (Family Law Lawyer as a SOLDIER), 6pm, Vito Ristorante, 10249 York Rd, Cockeysville 20. Bar Foundation Meeting, 3:30pm, Ceremonial Courtroom 5 20. Stated Meeting, 4:30pm, Ceremonial Courtroom 5 27. Bar Wars Trivia Competition, 5:30pm, The Greene Turtle, 408 York Rd, Towson

Contributing Writers William Alcarese Michael Barranco Robert K. Erdman, Jr. Suzanne Farace Alexis Holiday Michael Jacko Adam Konstas Hon. Stacy Mayer Ceecee Paizs Adam Phillips

March 2020 4.

5.

Historical Committee Meeting, 5pm, BCBA Mezzanine offices ADR Committee Training & Happy Hour, Grand Jury Room, Nacho Mama’s

The Advocate is a monthly publication of the Baltimore County Bar Association informing its members about current events relating to law.

Articles do not necessarily reflect the official position of the BCBA and publication does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed.

The contents of advertisements are the responsibility of the advertisers and are not recommendations or endorsements by The Advocate.

Publication deadline: 10th of the month preceding publication.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 3

February/March 2020

COURT NOTICES

The Circuit and District Court of Baltimore County continue to operate with essential personnel, including judges. Click on the following link to Circuit Court for guidance on the current operations of the Circuit Court, including criminal, family, juvenile, and guardianship matters.

Click on the following link for guidance on the current operation of the District Court, including bail reviews, bench warrants, body attachments, emergency evaluation petitions, and quarantine and isolation violations. Additionally, emergency matters will be reviewed by the District Court to determine whether the matter must be heard in person, by remote electronic participation, be scheduled after the emergency period ends, or may be decided without a hearing: protective orders, criminal competency, contempt hearings related to peace or protective orders, matters involving locally incarcerated defendants, and motions regarding ERPOs, protective orders, and peace orders.

Information on the operations of other jurisdictions in Maryland can be found here.

Approximately 15 clerks in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County’s Clerk’s Office are performing their duties remotely, leaving approximately 25 clerks working daily at the courthouse. As a result, some telephone calls are not immediately addressed because of the decrease of onsite clerks. To better respond to inquiries from attorneys and parties, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County has established group email addresses for specific departments, including

THE ADVOCATE

Assignment, Civil, Criminal, Family, Juvenile, and Records. A clerk will be devoted to monitoring all incoming emails to reply and provide any necessary assistance.

The group email addresses are as follows: Assignment ccbaltcoclerkassignment@mdcourts.gov

–

Civil – ccbaltcoclerkcivil@mdcourts.gov Criminal – ccbaltcoclerkcriminal@mdcourts.gov Family – ccbaltcoclerkfamily@mdcourts.gov Juvenile – ccbaltcoclerkjuvenile@mdcourts.gov

Records – ccbaltcoclerkrecords@mdcourts.gov The first-floor front lobby of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County contains two drop boxes – one for Land Records and one for the Clerk’s office. The drop boxes are checked twice a day for delivery to the appropriate department.

Finally, a public access computer from Land Records may be accessed at the corner Information Desk on the first-floor front lobby of the Circuit Courthouse. Printing of any documents requires a HECON key. If an individual does not have an issued HECON key but wishes to print documents, contact the Land Records Copy Center at 410-8872657 to obtain a temporary HECON key. The individual must surrender their Driver’s License until payment for the documents have been made.

Page 4

February/March 2020

BENCH/BAR UPDATE

By Suzanne K. Farace

The December meeting of the Bench Bar Committee took place on December 12, 2019. The Committee Chair, Christopher W. Nicholson, called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. The Minutes of the meeting of November 14, 2019 were voted on and approved.

In attendance were: The Honorable Kathleen G. Cox, Magistrate Wendy Schenker, Debra A. Thomas, Debra G. Schubert, The Honorable Dorothy J. Wilson, Timothy Sheridan, Carol Miller, The Honorable William R. Evans, Carl R. Gold, The Honorable Dennis M. Robinson, Jr., Laurence A. Ruth, Alaina Storie, Suzanne K. Farace, Fred Allentoff, Harry Chase, The Honorable Will Somerville, Maria Fields, Donald Zaremba, The Honorable Michael Siri, Christopher W. Nicholson and Raphael J. Santini.

Circuit Court Reporting for the Circuit Court, the Honorable Kathleen G. Cox indicated that the Circuit Court has need of two additional Judges. Application has been made for an additional Judgeship in the proposed budget.

Mr. Timothy Sheridan is doing a study analysis with respect to accommodations for more spaces for Judges.

Circuit Court Administration Reporting for the Administrative Office of the Circuit for Baltimore County, Timothy Sheridan indicated that there will be a ramp built from the plaza to the front door of the Circuit Court building by the Summer of 2020.

District Court

Executive Council

Reporting for the District Court, the Honorable Dorothy Wilson indicated that the Towson District Court would close at 4:30 p.m. on January 3, 2020 and reopen at 8:30 a.m. on January 6, 2020 in the new Catonsville District Court building at 1 Rolling Cross Road, Catonsville, Maryland, 21228. On January 6th and January 7th, 2020, the new Catonsville District Court would have a limited docket -- Domestic Violence and Bail Reviews – but the regular docket would resume on January 8th.

Reporting for the Executive Council, the Honorable Michael W. Siri advised that the Bar Association is helping 35 families for Christmas through the Y's Adopt a Family Program. The Annual Black Tie Banquet will be held on January 30, 2020 at Martin's Valley Mansion.

There have been various announcements and News Releases, including on WBAL radio, as well as signs posted in the District Court in Towson and in the garage and library in Towson regarding this move.

Reporting for the Office of Administrative Hearing, the Honorable William J.D. Somerville, III, indicated that the Honorable Michael D. Carlis has retired from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The Police Department and Bailiffs have toured the new Catonsville District Court courthouse.

District Court Administration Reporting for the District Court Administration, Maria Fields indicated that all the Towson District Court files were being packed for the move to the new Catonsville District Court. Notices were being sent with respect to the move to the new Catonsville District Court.

THE ADVOCATE

Judge Siri also reported that applications for a position on the Executive Council were due just after the first of the year.

Office of Administrative Hearings

Orphan’s Court Reporting for the Orphan’s Court, the Honorable William R. Evans indicated that Kathy Forbes left and Renee Boyd will replace her. Judge Evans also reported that the Register of Will’s Office is running smoothly and will not be using MDEC.

Page 5

Continued on page 6 February/March 2020

BENCH/BAR UPDATE

By Suzanne K. Farace

The portraits of Judge Daniels and Judge Dugan are Reporting for the Magistrates, Magistrate Wendy in the process of being completed.

Zerwitz Schenker advised that the new Parenting Plan Family Law forms will be required for all cases filed on or after Reporting for the Family Law Committee, Chair January 1, 2020. The forms will be handed out at Alaina L. Storie reported that there would be Family Scheduling Conference and must be turned in at the Law Programs on January 8, January 15 and January Settlement Conference.

23 of 2020. The Family Law Committee will be Magistrates

scheduling another event addressing the new Reporting for the Bar Association of Baltimore City, Parenting Plan forms. Please check the Baltimore Harry Chase indicated that as of January 1, 2020, the County Bar Association website for topics and times.

Honorable Michael A. DiPietro will now be in charge The following committees did not have official reports: the Circuit Court Clerk's Office, the Office of Family Court Administration in Baltimore City. of the County Attorney, the Office of the State's Portrait Committee Attorney, and the Office of the Public Defender, the Reporting for the County Bar Portrait Committee, Criminal Defense Bar, the Harford County Bar, and Harry Chase indicated that: the Young Lawyers Committee.

Judge Bollinger’s portrait unveiling was standing There was no new business and no old business to room only; discuss. A motion to adjourn was made, there was a Judge Kahl’s posthumous portrait unveiling was very second and the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 a.m. emotional; and The next meeting will be held on January 9, 2020.

Baltimore City Bar

BENCH/BAR UPDATE

By Hon. Stacy A. Mayer

The January meeting of the Bench/Bar Committee was held on January 9, 2020, with Chairperson Christopher Nicholson presiding.

report by indicating that all is well and there is an ongoing review of the large dockets.

Judge Kathleen Cox opened the Circuit Court report with a request for members to serve as judges for mock trial. Anyone interested should contact Judge Cox’s chambers. Judge Cox also reported that Judge Nagel is out for surgery and that the Circuit Court will be increasing domestic violence dockets given the temporary closure of the Towson district court.

There is currently a commission looking into a method to reduce postponements in circuit court and a recent change to the uniform subpoena.

Information about the subpoena change can be found on the Bar Association home page.

The District Court Bench reported that the new district court building is fabulous and open for business. Judge Dorothy Wilson urged everyone to have patience as there are some growing pains. The Department of General Services is still busy moving furniture into the courthouse and courtrooms 7 and 8 remain under construction. The Public Defender’s Office and the State’s Attorney’s Office have operational offices, but Parole and Probation has not yet moved in. Judge Wilson congratulated Maria Fields on her hard work in ensuring a smooth move and noted that construction has now begun on the Towson District Court building.

Tim Sheridan gave the Circuit Court Administration

Maria Fields gave the District Court Administration

THE ADVOCATE

Page 6

February/March 2020

BENCH/BAR UPDATE

By Hon. Stacy A. Mayer

report and noted that the clerk’s office is on the second floor of the new building. There are some problems with the electronic docket boards and, as a result, paper dockets are being used for the time being. There is a shuttle service from the Towson district court to the new Catonsville courthouse for interested persons and that schedule can be located on the District Court home page.

The Executive Council report was given by Jay Miller, who reported that Judge Larry Daniel’s portrait unveiling will be scheduled shortly, and additional information will be forthcoming on the home page. The Bar Wars will be held at the Greene Turtle on February 27th and will include a guest bartender. All proceeds from the event benefit the YMCA of Central Maryland.

On April 1, 2020, the Baltimore County Bar Association will have an oath ceremony at the United States Supreme Court. All are welcome.

Additional information can be found on the home page.

Magistrate Wendy Schenker reported for the Magistrates that the parenting plan is in full effect.

Don Zaremba gave the report from the Office of the Public Defender, indicating that their office in the new courthouse is open for business.

the Law. Two new attorneys, Glenn Marrow and Dorrell Brooks, have recently been hired.

William Somerville, for the Office of the Administrative Hearings, reported that ALJ Mary Shock will be retiring.

The Family Law report was given by Alaina Storie.

The Committee is very busy and currently planning a joint program with the Estates and Trust Committee.

The Young Lawyers report was submitted in writing

by Chair Whitney Wilder. On December 4, 2019, the Young Lawyers had another successful Holiday Lunch Toy Drive to benefit the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). The event was wellattended and raised $580 dollars and several boxes of toys for CASA. The Bull and Oyster Roast will be held on April 5, 2020 at the American Legion with proceeds to benefit the YMCA of Central Maryland. A planning meeting will be held in February. There will also be another Chambers’ Chat this spring and planning for that lunch is in the works.

The next meeting of the Bench Bar Committee will be held on February 13, 2020 at 8 am. If anyone has an issue to bring to the Bench Bar Committee, please speak with an at-large member. The list of at-large members can be found on the Bar website.

Gregory Gaskins gave the report for the Office of

Paul E. Alpert, Retired Judge Available for Mediation and Arbitration Former Judge of District Court, Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals

410-484-2088

THE ADVOCATE

Page 7

February/March 2020

98TH ANNUAL BLACK TIE BANQUET The 98th Annual Annual Black Tie Banquet of the Baltimore County Bar Association, the BCBA ‘Prom’ was held on Thursday, January 30th, 2020 at Martin’s Valley Mansion in Cockeysville. Attended by nearly 650 attorneys and judges from throughout the State, the Black Tie Banquet was another success.

Thank you to the following organizations for generously sponsoring the President’s Reception preceding the banquet:

Advantage Sentencing Alternative Programs, Inc. An Poitin Stil Multi Specialty Healthcare Over 350 children’s books were collected for this Minnesota Lawyers Mutual year’s designated charity, The Y in Central Maryland and Read Across America. BCBA 100th Anniversary Planet Depos lapel pins were handed out to attendees and a Vallit Dispute & Valuation Advisors slideshow with photos from the BCBA’s past was shown to all in attendance.

Judge Michael W. Siri, BCBA President, recognized and thanked the Executive Council and announced the newly nominated Executive Council at-large member for 2020-2021, Alaina Storie. He reognized committee chairs and vice-chairs and all of the BCBA members who have selflessly dedicated their time for the benefit of all of the members of the bench and bar.

He asked all past presidents of the BCBA to stand and thanked them for laying the foundation for the current and future officers to continue to lead and support our legal community. Judge Siri also discussed the formation of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee of the Baltimore County Bar Association and invited input and participation from all members. Judge Siri then presented a gift of thanks to his law school classmate and friend, Rebecca A. Fleming, BCBA Immediate Past President.

Bill Alcarese, Jr., Chair of the Professionalism Committee presented this year’s J. Earle Plumhoff Professionalism Award to a very deserving Suzanne K. Farace. After praising her for her dignity, integrity and civility, Bill listed Suzanne’s many contributions and accomplishments both in Baltimore County and throughout Maryland.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 8

February/March 2020

98TH ANNUAL BLACK TIE BANQUET

All photos courtesy of C. Theresa Beck, Myles F. Friedman and Kimberly Dean Photos.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 9

February/March 2020

98TH ANNUAL BLACK TIE BANQUET

THE ADVOCATE

Page 10

February/March 2020

98TH ANNUAL BLACK TIE BANQUET

THE ADVOCATE

Page 11

February/March 2020

JUDICIAL PORTRAIT UNVEILING FOR JUDGE CHRISTIAN M. KAHL

By Michael Barranco

On November 25, 2019 the judicial portrait of the Honorable Christian M. Kahl was unveiled.

The ceremony was conducted in Courtroom 2 of the Circuit Court and began with greetings from Harry L Chase on behalf of the Baltimore County Bar Foundation Judicial Portrait Committee. The Honorable Timothy J. Martin (Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Retired), who served on the bench with Judge Kahl, welcomed those assembled for the unveiling ceremony.

Before the unveiling of the portrait, remarks were delivered by Bruce White and the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. (Maryland Court of Appeals, Retired) whose service on the Circuit bench also overlapped with that of Judge Kahl. Judge Kahl’s sons, Christian H. Kahl and Andrew G. Kahl, unveiled the portrait, which was created by artist, Katherine Meredith. A response from the bench was delivered by the Honorable Kathleen G. Cox.

Judge Kahl was appointed an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, and was elected for a full term of fifteen years in 1992.

Judge Kahl retired from the Circuit Court at the mandatory age of 70 on December 20, 2005. He continued to serve in a recalled status for many years thereafter on the District and Circuit Courts. Judge Kahl passed away on September 26, 2016

Judge Kahl was born in Baltimore, Maryland on December 21, 1935 and raised in Reisterstown. He was the son of Christian Henry Kahl, Baltimore County's first elected county executive. Judge Kahl attended McDonogh School, graduated from Franklin High School in 1953 and received his B.A. degree from Johns Hopkins University in 1958 and was simultaneously commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army Infantry. From 1960 until 1963, Judge Kahl attended Eastern College of Commerce and Law and graduated from the Mount Vernon School of Law with an LL.B. Degree in 1963.

During 1962 and 1963 Judge Kahl served as law clerk/ bailiff to Judge Lester L. Barrett of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Judge Kahl was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1963 and began practicing law in 1964. He later became a partner with the firm of Beach, Cadigan and Kahl.

Judge Kahl served as an Assistant Baltimore County Solicitor from 1965 until 1968. In 1969 he was named as a Juvenile Court Master of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and served part-time in that position until his appointment as an Associate Judge of the District Court of Maryland (District 8, Baltimore County) on August 16, 1984. In September of 1990 THE ADVOCATE

Page 12

February/March 2020

JUDICIAL PORTRAIT UNVEILING FOR JUDGE CHRISTIAN M. KAHL

By Michael Barranco

THE ADVOCATE

Page 13

February/March 2020

COUNTY COUNCIL UPDATE

By Adam Phillips

shows that are held within the same areas.

Greetings! The members of the Baltimore County Council are grateful for the opportunity to update the County Bar on the activities of our County’s legislative body. Your seven member County Council serves as the independent Legislative Branch of County government. The Council meets year-round, generally in bi-monthly Legislative Sessions (held at night) and bi-monthly Work Sessions (held during the day). All proceedings are open to the public, and the Legislative Session is broadcast on BCTV (Comcast & Verizon channel 25).

The Council’s Website at www.baltimorecountycouncil.org provides helpful information as well.

At its January 21, 2020 Legislative Session, the County Council passed Bill 72-19, known as the Secure All Firearms Effectively (“SAFE”) Act, which imposes new requirements for firearm retail establishments in Baltimore County to install appropriate security measures to protect their inventory from theft. Specifically, the bill creates a new County license that will be required prior to storing firearms inventory in a firearm retail establishment, if the store is located inside or within 100 yards of a park, house of worship, school, public building, or other place of public assembly. A license will also be required for temporary gun

THE ADVOCATE

The Council also passed Bill 69-19 to allow the County to accept a bond as a performance security for certain County development contracts.

Previously, the only forms of security permitted under Section 32-4-101 of the County Code were letters of credit, a cashier’s check, or cash, with the most common form of security held being a letter of credit. Historically, the County had preferred letters of credit to bonds as a matter of policy. However, most major surrounding jurisdictions, including Harford, Howard, and Montgomery Counties, have begun accepting bonds from sufficiently rated financial institutions and have found them to be an effective means of securing performance because developers do not want to jeopardize their ability to obtain bonds and financing from the financial institutions with which they have relationships by having disputes and claims filed.

Finally, the Council confirmed Kelly Madigan as the first Director of the Baltimore County Office of Ethics and Accountability. This new independent office will provide increased oversight of county government by working to identify any fraud, abuse or illegal acts. Director Madigan comes to Baltimore County government from the Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor where she served as the Deputy State Prosecutor. The State Prosecutor investigates and prosecutes public corruption, bribery, misconduct, and election law crimes on behalf of the State of Maryland. Director Madigan brings a wealth of knowledge and over 15 years of prosecutorial experience to this exciting new office.

The formation of the Office of Ethics and Accountability

Page 14

February/March 2020

THE ADVOCATE

Page 15

February/March 2020

FAMILY LAW - OUR FAMILY WIZARD

By William F. Alcarese, Jr.

On January 23, 2020, the Family Law Committee presented a lunch time program on the co-parenting tool, OurFamilyWizard (https:// www.ourfamilywizard.com/). Katrina Volker and Danielle Kestnbaum, Esq. came all the way from Minnesota to give a thorough presentation about OurFamilyWizard to a crowded courtroom of attorneys.

OurFamilyWizard is an online and mobile application designed to make co-parenting easier and less stressful. Parties can communicate directly through the program, similar to e-mail, and there are confirmations of messages sent and viewed. No longer can one party deny receiving a message.

There is even a tone meter that can guide a party in writing neutral messages, as opposed to messages that are too emotional or aggressive.

Another feature is the centralized calendar that allows the parties to set the access, holiday and vacation schedules and share appointments and activities for the other parent to see. There is an info bank where all of the child(ren)’s important and relevant information ranging from immunization records to clothing sizes can be shared. Documents such as medical records, report cards, photographs, etc. can be uploaded for the other party to access and view.

Parties are able to track expenses for reimbursement, and payments can even be electronically processed through the program. Each parent can maintain a journal of the activities involving the child(ren).

Everything is documented and preserved, so there is proof and accountability.

Attorneys also have access to OurFamilyWizard in THE ADVOCATE

one of two capacities – as the attorney for a party, or as a neutral attorney, i.e. a Best Interest Attorney.

The attorney can review and monitor the client’s entire account, i.e. communications, calendar, journal, expenses, etc. The neutral attorney is able to view both parties’ accounts by toggling back and forth between the parties.

As a practitioner, I have clients that use OurFamilyWizard and it has been an extremely beneficial tool throughout the representation of the client especially during discovery and for trial preparation.

OurFamilyWizard is becoming more popular in all family law cases, not just the acrimonious ones.

Parties are receptive to this concept to engage the other about matters pertaining to the child(ren). In fact, some Judges have ordered parties to register and use OurFamilyWizard as a more effective means of transmitting information between the parties to reduce the tension and, hopefully, the litigation.

There is a fee to use OurFamilyWizard, and it seems to be worth the value. The cost for the program is $99 per year, per party. There are also fee waivers for parties that may qualify, i.e. on government assistance, low income, in the military, etc.

Attorneys are provided a free account.

On behalf of the Family Law Committee, I would like to thank Katrina and Danielle for providing all of their expertise, insight and knowledge about OurFamilyWizard, and for sponsoring this event which included a free lunch for the attendees.

Page 16

February/March 2020

FAMILY LAW - PARENTING PLAN WORKSHOP

By Alexis L. Holiday

The Baltimore County Bar Association held a workshop on January 23, 2020, led by Mary Roby Sanders, Esquire, and Christopher W. Nicholson, Esquire, of Turnbull, Nicholson & Sanders, P.A. The presenters were a very distinguished group who were instrumental in getting the Parenting Plan Rule passed.

They were Mary & Chris as well as Risa Garon, LCSW -C, BCD, CFLE, Executive Director of the National Family Resiliency Center, Inc. and Keith Schiszik, Esquire of Offit Kurman. The Honorable Kathleen G. Cox and the Honorable Ruth Ann Jakubowski gave comments from the bench regarding the new Rule and how they believe it will be an invaluable tool for the litigants and the bench in formulating the best possible resolution for children.

Effective January 1, 2020, the Maryland Rules now require all parents to complete a Parenting Plan during in any custody dispute. A Parenting Plan is a written agreement describing how parents will care for and make decisions for their child(ren). The Parenting Plan acts like any other written agreement between the parties. Decision-making authority, communication between the parents, information sharing between the parties, parenting time of each parent, transportation and exchange of the child(ren), and child care should be addressed in the Parenting Plan.

Risa Garon stressed the importance of developing a solid parenting plan that will help parties minimize conflict and to tailor each plan to each family. Keith Schiszik provided a history of the Rule and how it was developed and approved by the Rules Committee.

Christopher W. Nicholson discussed the role of the Best Interest Attorney in developing a Parenting Plan, and that a Best Interest Attorney should not file his/her own Plan. Attendees of the workshop then broke off into small groups to work on different scenarios, developing and completing the required forms for the new Parenting Plan Rule. All attendees received materials including the new Rule, the Parenting Plan Statement, the Parenting Plan Tool (forms) and information regarding the new rule.

Parenting Plans are critical to successfully resolving THE ADVOCATE

custody issues, because they reduce conflict, avoid extra costs involved with litigation, and identify key areas where parents agree and disagree. The Parenting Plan Rule is intended to force parents to make their decisions child-focused. If parents do agree on some terms, the Court will integrate those terms into its final Order if it finds that it is in the child(ren)’s best interest. A Parenting Plan “tool” will be provided to the parents at their first court appearance. The tool asks questions and will assist the parties in agreeing to certain terms, while highlighting where there is disagreement, so further work can focus on those areas.

If by the time of trial parents cannot agree on terms of the care for their child(ren), then parents are to complete a “Joint Statement Concerning Decision Making Authority and Parenting Time” identifying their disagreements. This joint statement is due ten (10) days before the case’s Settlement Conference.

If there is no Settlement Conference, the joint statement is due twenty (20) days before trial. At least thirty (30) days before the due date, each party should exchange a joint statement identifying their disagreements regarding the care for their child (ren). Fifteen (15) days before the due date, the Plaintiff must serve the Defendant a proposed joint statement that reflects both parties’ positions. If the Defendant agrees with the Plaintiff’s proposal, then the Defendant must file it with the Court before the due date. If parents do not agree on some terms, the Court is aware of these disagreements and will decide what is in the best interest of the child(ren).

The parents may work together, separately, or with a mediator to complete their Parenting Plan.

Family Court Services will work with the parties during mediation to complete the Parenting Plan tool and the Joint Statement. The parties’ attorneys may also assist the parents in completing both.

For further information please visit https:// mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/court-forms/ ccdrin109.pdf.

Page 17

February/March 2020

PROFESSIONALISM - AVOIDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST INVOLVING PRIOR PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS

By Michael Jacko

In addition to a duty of loyalty to current clients, the Rules of Professional Responsibility impose a similar duty to both former clients and to former potential clients. Intuitively, the rules contemplate a less onerous duty of loyalty to a potential client than to a former client. (This stands in contrast to the treatment of the duty of confidentiality, which applies equally to both groups. See Md. Rule 19‑301.18(b).) Understanding this distinction has important implications for the handling of consultations with potential clients so as to prevent conflicts of interest in the future.

Rule 1.18 governs duties to prospective clients. It states that even when no attorney-client relationship comes to be, the attorney shall not (barring an informed waiver) “represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the attorney received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.” Md. Rule 19‑301.18(c). This is distinguishable from Rule 1.9, governing duties to former clients, which identifies a conflict without mentioning the sharing of harmful information. See Md. Rule 19‑301.9(a).

Essentially, the Rules presume that an attorney does not receive harmful information in a consultation with every prospective client but reverse this presumption once the attorney -client relationship is fully realized.

Attorneys wishing to avoid tomorrow’s conflict of interest with today’s potential client may employ a combination of several tactics to do so. The most obvious strategies are limiting the receipt of “significantly harmful information” from prospective clients, seeking advanced waivers from prospective clients, and maintaining records on consultations with prospective clients that include what information was shared.

Appreciating the distinction discussed above, the first way to avoid a conflict stemming from one’s next consultation is to only receive as much THE ADVOCATE

information as is necessary for both parties to make a decision about retaining the lawyer. If the attorney does not receive any information from the prospective client that could be harmful to that person, then the attorney will not be prevented from representing an adverse party in the future. See Md. Rule 19‑301.18 Comment [6]. “Significantly harmful” information may include (1) sensitive personal information; (2) financial information; (3) settlement positions; (4) litigation strategies; and (5) information that could be used against the prospective client, for example, as impeachment evidence. See Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF 10‑03 (cited favorably by MSBA Ethics Docket 2019‑05).

Because conflicts involving potential clients are waivable, a second way to avoid creating a future conflict of interest emerging from a consultation is to have every prospective client agree up front that no information they share will prohibit the attorney from going on to represent another client in a related matter.

See Md. Rule 19‑301.18 Comment [5]. The rules governing informed consent apply to such waiver, id., so the attorney will need to exercise caution when explaining the potential risks inherent in agreeing to such terms. Admittedly, it may not always be possible to fully explain to a layperson the risk of disclosing information when the attorney does not yet know what information might be disclosed.

Maintaining good records on prospective clients with whom one meets is a third strategy to prevent future conflicts of interest. Attorneys are obliged to maintain lists of prospective clients with whom they consult.

See MSBA Ethics Docket 2019-05. Moreover, should the attorney later desire to represent another party with interests that are materially adverse to those of the prospective client, then a record of the material discussed in the consultation might help to demonstrate that no significantly harmful information was shared, and thus, that there is no conflict. See id.

Finally, it should be noted that while conflicts involving prospective clients are imputed to other

Page 18

February/March 2020

CIVIL LAW UPDATE

By Ceecee Paizs

Review of the Amicus Curiarum for December , 2019 revealed the following civil case of interest: THE COURT OF APPEALS: Credible Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Emmanuel Johnson, No. 19, September Term 2019, Filed November 20, 2019. Opinion by Greene, Judge Credible Behavioral Health, Inc. (CBH) provided tuition assistance to its employees, in the form of loans to the employees. The amount that is required to be repaid was dependent on how long the employee remained with CBH after obtaining his/her degree. In 2016, Mr. Johnson entered CBH’s tuition loan program to fund his education. A promissory note memorialized the agreement in which Paragraph 1(a) contained a repayment provision that outlines the amount an employee must repay based on the length of employment post degree and which also contained the language that state “[i]f you terminate employment with the Company[.]” In December 2017, CBH fired Mr. Johnson before he had obtained his degree. CBH brought an action seeking repayment of the loan in

PROFESSIONALISM CONTINUED

By Michael Jacko

members of an attorney’s firm, screening of the affected attorney is also possible. See Md. Rule 19301.18(d).

By remaining mindful of one’s duty of loyalty to prospective clients, an attorney can develop habits that will minimize the chance that he or she unknowingly creates a conflict that will one day prevent him or her from representing another party involved in the same or a related matter.

THE ADVOCATE

District Court, which found that since Mr. Johnson was fired rather than terminating his employment himself, he was not required to repay the debt.

CBH appealed to the Circuit Court, which heard the case on the record and the Circuit Court affirmed, finding that the district court “was not clearly erroneous in its interpretation of the promissory note at issue in this case”. CBH filed a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, asking the Court to determine: (i) whether the circuit erroneously applied Maryland Rule 7-113(f) when it reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the promissory note for clear error; and (ii) whether the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the promissory noted.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that when the circuit court reviews a judgment of the district court under Maryland Rule 7-113(f), the circuit court reviews the district court’s factual determinations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Because the interpretation of a contract is a legal endeavor, the Court held that the circuit court erred by applying the incorrect standard of review to the district court’s legal conclusions. Further, the Court held that under the promissory note at issue CBH employees are required to repay the loan in accordance with the repayment schedule set forth in Paragraph 1(a) whether an employee is fired or quits. The Court held that the final part of Paragraph 1(a) constitutes an independent obligation to repay the loan and that an interpretation that repayment was only required in situations where an employee quits defies Maryland’s common sense approach to contract interpretation.

THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS: Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Construction, Inc. , No. 2827, September Term 2018, filed November 21, 2019. Opinion by Kehoe, Judge The parties to this matter entered into two separate agreements, a teaming agreement which did not

Page 19

February/March 2020

CIVIL LAW UPDATE

By Ceecee Paizs

contain an alternate dispute resolution provision, and a design subcontract which contained a clause that required a three-phase dispute-resolution process.

While construction was ongoing, the builder realized that the engineering firm had underestimated the quantity of materials needed to complete the project.

To settle this potential claim, the parties entered into (1) direct discussions and then (2) mediation. When mediation did not resolve the dispute, the builder made a demand for arbitration, step 3.

The engineering firm filed a petition to stay arbitration in the Circuit Court arguing that the builder’s right to arbitration had been waived due to the lapsing of the three-year statute of limitations and that since the builder’s claim related solely to services preformed under the teaming agreement, it fell outside the scope pf the arbitration clause in the design subcontract.

The circuit court denied the petition to stay arbitration.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, finding that the right to arbitrate is not waived simply because the same claim, if brought before a court would be time barred. Such a required would need to be specifically provided for in the contract. The Court further held that the scope of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate extends to all disputes, including those caused by a breach of the teaming agreement, as it is related to the design subcontract’s performance or breach.

Therefore the dispute herein fell within the substantive scope of the arbitration clause.

Natella Azizova v. Muzaffar Suleymanov, No. 2338, September Term 2018, filed November 21, 2019.

Opinion by Battaglia, Lynne, Judge.

Mother and Father lived together for nine months after their child was born, at which time Mother left Maryland to live with her mother in Georgia. Father filed a complaint for custody in Maryland and Mother filed a counter-complaint for custody. After a hearing, a Family Magistrate recommended that Mother be granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the child while providing Father with visitation right.

The circuit court judge, after THE ADVOCATE

considering the factors pertinent to custody determinations, disagreed and awarded the parties joint legal with Father having primary physical custody of the child. The judge concluded that the best interest of the child would be served by awarding Father primary physical custody, stating that Mother was unfit due to her youth her decision to enroll in school, work part-time and an isolated incident of intoxication at a concert.

The Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded, holding that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding Father primary physical custody based upon factors cited in her opinion. The judge misapplied the best interest child standard and failed to articulate how Mother’s choices directly and adversely impacted the well-being of the child.

Further, the Court stated that the judge’s comments inferring that it was inappropriate for a mother to work or attend school absent financial necessity when she has a young child at home lacked support in the record and demonstrated gender bias in her decision making.

Review of the Amicus Curiarum for January 2020 revealed the following civil case of interest: THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS:

In the Matter of Ronald Meddings, No. 2096, September Term 2018, filed December 23, 2019.

Opinion by Wells, Judge As the result of a violent incident at a VA Hospital, Mr. Meddings was charged with first and seconddegree assault. During the prosecution, based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia the Circuit Court found Meddings incompetent to stand trial and committed him. While committed, Meddings refused to take prescribed medications to treat his psychosis and atrial fibrillation.

The Clinical Review Panel (“CRP”)approved medicating Meddings involuntarily, but was not authorized to order treatment for the atrial fibrillation. The hospital filed a petition seeking the appointment of a guardian for Meddings’ on an on-going basis in order to treat

Page 20

February/March 2020

CIVIL LAW UPDATE

By Ceecee Paizs

Meddings on an on-going basis and the CRP did not effectively allow the hospital to protect Meddings from himself or others. Meddings argued that the CRP provided a less restrictive alternative to guardianship.

The Circuit Court granted the hospital’s petition for guardianship of Meddings’ person.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, establishing that the appropriate standard of review in an adult guardianship case should be the same as the tripartite and interrelated standard review in child guardianship cases, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that, no less restrictive form of intervention was available.

Meddings was incompetent to execute an advanced directive and a surrogate decision-maker was not a viable option either. Further, the Court determined that the CRP is not a less restrictive alternative form of intervention. The evidence adduced at trial showed that on one occasion, the CRP could not be convened before Medding’ anti-psychotic medicine ran out and Meddings was violent, endangering himself and the hospital staff. In addition, the CPR cannot address Meddings’ atrial fibrillation which if untreated would likely be fatal. For these reasons, the Court held that the circuit court’s appointment of a guarding in Meddings’ case was not an abuse of discretion.

In the Matter of Gerald S. Dory, No. 1084, September Term 2018, filed December 23, 2019. Opinion by Leahy, Andrea Judge Ms. Sullivan was appointed guardian of the property of Mr. Dory, an elderly widower who was diagnosed with dementia and an altered mental state. When Mr. Dory’s real property went into foreclosure, Ms Sullivan filed a petition requesting authorization to conduct a private sale. The order was issued and the circuit court subsequently ratified the contract of sale, which included a sales price above the property’s appraised value. Ms. Sullivan petitioned for a commission on the sale which she calculated pursuant to the rate specified in Local Rule BR7 of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, determining that the commission THE ADVOCATE

was not in Mr. Dory’s best interest and that it was wholly inequitable when considering the time and labor expended by Sullivan.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard in denying Ms. Sullivan a commission on the sale of Mr. Dory’s real property.

Reading the local rule and harmonizing the provisions of Estates and Trusts §§13-281(a) and 14.5-708, a guardian of property is entitled to a commission for the sale of real property approved by the court and absent a petition by an interested person or agreement to the contrary, that commission may not be diminished except in the narrow circumstances articulated in ET §14.5-708 (a)(1)(iii) and Local Rule BR7. In this case the circuit court erred by engaging in a determination of whether the commission was in Mr. Dory’s best interest, whether the commission was equitable in light of the services and labor expended by Ms. Sullivan and whether unusual circumstances exited to allow the commission and the case was remanded with instructions to determine Sullivan’s commission consistent with the Local Rule and applicable sections of the ET provisions.

Paul W. Nusbaum, Jr. v. Marzha R. Nusbaum,, et al. , No. 480, September Term 2018, Filed December 20, 2019. Opinion by Wells, Judge Father and Mother were divorce in Maryland in 2005. At the time, the circuit court ordered that Father pay $3250 per month in non-modifiable alimony and $1422 per month in child support for their four children. The funds were paid through an Earnings Withholding Order paid through the Office of Child Support (“OCSE”). IN 2008, Father moved to Georgia, where his wages did not meet the full monthly amount of either child support or alimony. In 2010, Father requested a modification of his child support payment. At that time, Father owed $36,262.60 in unpaid child support and $117,127.22 in unpaid alimony.

Page 21

Continued on page 29 February/March 2020

JUDICIAL PORTRAIT UNVEILING FOR JUDGE THOMAS J. BOLLINGER

By Adam E. Konstas

On December 2, 2019, members of the Baltimore County Bar Association, colleagues, friends, and family, gathered in Baltimore County Circuit Courtroom #2 for the unveiling of the judicial portrait of the Honorable Thomas J. Bollinger.

The Honorable Kathleen G. Cox presided over the event and called the gallery to order. Guests were treated to an invocation by Father Jack B. Ward, and John B. Gontrum of the Baltimore County Bar Foundation Judicial Portrait Committee welcomed guests and thanked those who made the portrait unveiling possible. Judge Bollinger’s former judicial assistant, Angela Miller, delivered the remarks ahead of the portrait unveiling, which Judge Bollinger and his wife Marguerite received along-side family and friends. Judge Robert E. Cahill Jr. delivered closing remarks, as the attendees gathered together around the portrait to celebrate.

Judge Bollinger was appointed to the position of District Court Judge for Baltimore County by then Governor William Donald Schaefer in September 1989. Just 19 months later, Governor Schaefer appointed Judge Bollinger to the Baltimore County Circuit Court. Judge Bollinger served on the Baltimore County Circuit Court bench until June 3, 2011, the date of his retirement. Judge Bollinger has been a longstanding member of the Baltimore County Bar Association, American Legion, and Towson ELKS. When not serving those organization, Judge Bollinger enjoys boating (when THE ADVOCATE

his boat is running); fishing (which usually requires the use of a running boat); golf (the 19th hole and Golf Digest); cooking (there is “talk” of a restaurant!); and weekly trips to Costco for the latest bulk specials.

The BCBA thanks the Jacqueline Dawson Portrait Fund, Judge Bollinger’s family, and Katherine Meredith (the talented artist) for making the portrait possible.

Page 22

February/March 2020

JUDICIAL PORTRAIT UNVEILING FOR JUDGE THOMAS J. BOLLINGER

By Adam E. Konstas

THE ADVOCATE

Page 23

February/March 2020

MVLS EXPANDS HUMAN TRAFFICKING PREVENTION PROJECT MVLS Expands Human Trafficking Prevention Project Thanks to Funding from the Venable Foundation BALTIMORE, January 13, 2020 – Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service (MVLS), the largest provider of pro bono civil legal services to lowincome Marylanders, today announced a generous grant from the Venable Foundation to support its Human Trafficking Prevention Project (HTPP), which was launched in 2016 in partnership with the University of Baltimore School of Law. January is recognized as National Human Trafficking Awareness Month and the new funding will be critical in matching pro bono attorneys with survivors of human trafficking to provide legal counsel and full representation for their civil cases. Since 2016, MVLS has trained more than 75 pro bono attorneys to assist more than 100 clients that are survivors of human trafficking or those at risk of being trafficked.

“We are thrilled to receive ongoing funding from the Venable Foundation to support our Human Trafficking Prevention Project in Maryland,” said Susan Francis, executive director, MVLS. “With this funding, MVLS will be able to improve the project’s capacity to provide comprehensive civil legal services to survivors, which helps them on their path to recovery from the severe trauma they experienced while trafficked. Venable is a loyal supporter of MVLS and makes pro bono work a priority for its attorneys as many Venable attorneys are a part of MVLS’s volunteer network. We look forward to matching our network of pro bono attorneys with survivors of human trafficking for brief advice or full representation.”

Survivors of human trafficking and those at risk of being trafficked can find themselves with a record of criminal convictions and civil issues that create a need for legal help with family law matters, consumer and housing issues, the need for criminal record expungements, and vacatur of prostitution convictions. Assistance from pro bono attorneys help these survivors move forward on their road to recovery.

“We are honored to provide funding to Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service for the remarkable legal assistance they are providing to Marylanders in need, THE ADVOCATE

especially survivors of human trafficking,” said Michael W. Bigley, director of the Venable Foundation at Venable. “We will continue to encourage and inspire attorneys to share their skills with those who need help navigating the civil legal system.”

The HTPP provides on-site intake at multiple community-based organizations, including Pride Center of Maryland, Family Crisis Center of Baltimore County, TurnAround, Inc., Helping Up Mission, Support, Partnership, and Realtime Communication (SPARC) Center for Women, Pivot Program, and Catholic Charities’ My Sister’s Place Women’s Center.

To learn more about MVLS or to become a volunteer, please visit www.mvlslaw.org.

Founded in 1981 with a mission to provide access to justice for all, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service (MVLS) serves Maryland’s low-income residents by offering legal counseling and full representation for civil cases. MVLS matches clients with volunteer lawyers who represent them in a wide range of consumer, family and workforce re-entry situations, including foreclosure, bankruptcy, income tax disputes, landlord/tenant disputes, estate planning, criminal record expungement, divorce/custody and deed changes.

For more information about MVLS’ services, visit www.mvlslaw.org.

The Venable Foundation, Inc. was established in 1983 to support a wide variety of charitable, civic, and cultural endeavors, as well as public interest law needs in our communities. In the past 10 years, the Venable Foundation granted more than $25 million to worthy organizations that provide critical support to those in need. These include children's services and funding for disadvantaged families and individuals; homeless shelters and food programs; community organizations, hospitals, hospices, and local chapters of national health organizations; and educational, artistic, and cultural events and organizations. The Foundation is funded by the partners of Venable LLP. To learn more, please visit www.venable.com.

Page 24

February/March 2020

Y IN CENTRAL MARYLAND— 2019 OPEN DOORS SUMMARY

THE

As a cause-driven, charitable organization, the Y values the practice of inclusion for all and is deeply committed to raising the funds necessary to remove income as a barrier. Through the Y Open Doors Financial Assistance program, everyone in the community can participate in Y membership, programs and services that encourage positive growth, promote a healthy lifestyle, build community and support social responsibility.

"Great staff and teachers, safe atmosphere. My daughter loves it here and is learning fundamental educational and social skills."

"The Y has given my grandson and I a chance to bond."

In 2019, through the Y Open Doors program and with the help of generous donors, the Y provided financial assistance to: 3,530 individuals and families totaling $1.9M for Y membership 361 children in Y Camp programs totaling more than $216,000 104 children in Y Preschool programs totaling more than $312,000 77 children in Y Before & After School Enrichment programs totaling almost $47,000 The Y could not do so much for so many without the support of organizations like the Baltimore County Bar Association. Here are just a few words of thanks from Y scholarship recipients.

"I am so thankful for my Y membership. My family was given a scholarship and I cannot even state the impact it has had. The Y is a safe place for my children. The people are friendly and make me feel like I belong."

"I’m so grateful to the Y. My son comes home happy every day and he is learning so much! I can’t thank you enough."

"For me, being retired, it’s nice to be able to get out of the house and meet people."

"My daughter was able to go to camp at a discounted rate. She said it was her best summer ever. Now she will be able to start swim lessons."

THE ADVOCATE

Page 25

February/March 2020

LAW LIBRARY NEWS MDEC & Guardianship Recent changes to the Maryland Rules now limit access to guardianship documents in MDEC. This includes what can be viewed via Kiosk in the Law Library. Please be aware of these changes and how they impact your role as an attorney of record or when reviewing the case file of a potential client.

From the Maryland Judiciary: Per Legislation update of amendments to Md. Rule 16-907 adopted by the Court of Appeals in the 11/19/2019 Report Rules Order, access to documents filed in guardianship cases are to be restricted from the public except for docket entries and orders entered under Md. Rule 10-108, with the exceptions below: •

Orders appointing a guardian

•

Orders assuming jurisdiction over a fiduciary estate other than a guardianship

•

Letters of guardianship

•

Modifications of guardianship

THE ADVOCATE

New Titles The staff added the following titles to the law library’s collection: Antitrust Law and Economics In A Nutshell by Ernest Gellhorn et al. – West Academic Publishing, 2004. KF 1652 .G4

Biotechnology and the Law, 2nd Ed. By Hugh Wellons et al. – ABA, 2019. KF 3133 .B56 The Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women, 4th Ed / Leslie Goldstein et al. – West Academic Publishing, 2019. KF 4758 .A7 .G66 Contracts in a Nutshell, 8th Ed by Claude Rohwer et al. – West Academic Publishing, 2017.

KF 801 .Z9 .C66

Page 26

February/March 2020

The Bar Association offices are currently closed, but the Lawyer Referral & Information Service is still fully operational. Please direct the public to call 410-337-9100 Monday—Friday from 9:00 a.m.—4:30 p.m. The 2020-2021 Lawyer Referral & Information Service Panel Application will be available soon.

Contact Rachel Fuller at rfuller@bcba.org if you are interested in participating in Lawyer Referral or if you have any questions. All current panel members will receive the new application via email.

Remember...You can join or renew at any time! CLICK HERE for more information.

BALTIMORE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION HISTORICAL COMMITTEE Do you have old photos of past Baltimore County Bar Association events and programs? We would love to have them! Please email Rachel Ruocco at rruocco@bcba.org to coordinate.

Did you know???

The Baltimore County Bar Association held their first meeting on May 21, 1920.

The Baltimore County Bar Association was founded on May 4, 1921.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 27

February/March 2020

MEMBERS ON THE MOVE continuing its growth in2020. “We couldn’t be more excited about Michael’s joining our growing team,” said Kate Lawrence. “My brother Greg and I created Lawrence Law to be a place where talented people love to work and to deliver excellent results to our clients. Michael is the perfect fit. He is atenacious litigator and respected business lawyer who always explores creative alternatives toachieve superior results.”

Seasoned Litigator and Business Lawyer Michael Lentz Joins Lawrence Law (Baltimore, Maryland, January 27, 2020)— Lawrence Law, LLC welcomes seasoned litigator and business lawyer Michael Lentz to the firm. Lentz brings twenty years of experience in business and commercial litigation and significant transactional matters.

Lentz joins Lawrence Law from a large, Mid-Atlantic law firm, where he headed its commercial litigation practice. At Lawrence Law, Lentz will continue to represent businesses ofall sizes—and their owners, officers, and directors—in litigation before federal and state courts and in private arbitrations. He will also represent personal representatives, trustees, and other fiduciaries. Further, Lentz will assist business clients with asset sales, mergers, and acquisitions, and with day-to-day legal matters.

Lentz received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University. He is a member of the Maryland State and Baltimore County Bar Associations. Lentz has taught Legal Analysis, Research and Writing at the University of Baltimore School of Law, and he served on the Board of Trustees of the Alumni Association of the Gilman School. He formerly lived in Seville, Spain, and he speaks Spanish proficiently. Lentz is admitted to practice law in the Maryland, Nevada, and California.

Lawrence Law is a boutique business law firm focused on solving legal issues for businesses and businesspeople. From high-stakes litigation to dayto-day employment law advice and contract drafting, Lawrence Law attorneys bring in-depth experience, professionalism, and responsiveness to every issue they handle. When litigation is necessary, Lawrence Law attorneys have a proven Lentz is the third new attorney in three months to join record of success in complex and high-profile cases Lawrence Law since it moved into The Warehouse at across the nation and are aggressive, trial-ready, and Camden Yards in November. And the firm intends on focus on the heart of a dispute.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 28

February/March 2020

CIVIL LAW UPDATE

By Ceecee Paizs

Since two children had emancipated by 2010 the court reduced his child support payment accordingly. In 2016, Father requested that the court order OCSE to perform an audit and established his arrears for both alimony and child support after he learned that Georgia allocated his monthly payments differently than Maryland. While Maryland declared his child support arrears were $80,905.25, Georgia allocated a greater percentage of his monthly payments to child support, leaving an arrears of approximately $30,000

by Georgia’s calculations. Father requested that an audit be performed that credited all payments made for both spousal and child support solely to his child support obligation until satisfied and then credited towards spousal support.

After a hearing on Exceptions to a Magistrate’s findings, the trial court ordered OSCE to perform the audit and beginning crediting any future payments Father made solely to child support. Only after that obligation (plus arrears) was satisfied would any remaining payments be credited to his alimony obligation.

Only after Mother’s motion to alter or amend and OCSE’s concomitant motion to reconsider, the circuit court determined that Father was judicially estopped from reallocating all of his payments solely to child support, as he requested. The Trial court declined to address the threshold question of whether it was

THE ADVOCATE

permissible for the court to order the reallocation in the first instance.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, concluding that although the circuit court erred in its application of judicial estoppel, the circuit court could not have ordered the reallocation in any event. The Court held that although Father claimed part of his payments to Mother as alimony on his income tax returns that act was not “an inconsistent position” in different litigation (first element of judicially estoppel) and that fact was not “a position accepted by the court”, (2nd element). While Mother may be correct that the third element, that being intentionally misleading the court to gain an unfair advantage may have been met, the first two elements were lacking and therefore judicial estoppel could not apply. Equitable estoppel also did not apply as Mother did not conclusively prove a present detriment. Most significantly, the Court held that the circuit court could not have ordered the requested reallocation under the separation of powers doctrine. As long as OSCE’s method of carrying out a statutory mandate is lawful, the Court is precluded from ordering the agency to alter that method and further the agency’s allocation method is not incompatible with the best interests of the child standard.

Page 29

February/March 2020

MEMBERS ON THE MOVE Kramon & Graham, a leading law firm providing litigation, real estate, and transactional services, is pleased to announce that prominent Maryland defense attorney David B. Irwin has joined the firm as Of Counsel.

Known for his work in high-profile criminal and civil cases, Mr. Irwin is a veteran attorney with more than four decades of experience. Mr. Irwin has handled cases of national and international interest, including the representation of a former currency trader for Allied Irish Banks (Allfirst Bank), and a former U.S. civil servant who played a pivotal role in the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. David also represents corporations, public officials, doctors, lawyers, members of the judiciary, and other professionals in both civil and criminal liability matters.

David regularly testifies as an expert witness on civil and criminal matters. Most recently, he was engaged as an expert in the post-conviction defense of the main subject of the podcast "Serial."

"David is a skilled litigator with an outstanding and well-earned reputation from many years of successfully handling high-profile matters," commented Kramon & Graham managing principal

Dave Shuster. "He is a gifted lawyer and makes an excellent addition to our team."

"Kramon & Graham attorneys have the experience and resources to handle even the most complex of cases," said Mr. Irwin. "The firm has an enviable record of courtroom success and a long-standing reputation for providing quality representation. I am thrilled to join such a distinguished team."

Mr. Irwin began his legal career in 1973 as an assistant state's attorney, first in Baltimore City and then Baltimore County, where he ultimately served as Chief of the Felony Trial Division. In 1980, as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, he was appointed by the Attorney General of the United States as the Chief of Narcotics Cases.

In 1983, he was assigned to the United States Department of Justice as a U.S. Attorney Coordinator for the President's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Mr. Irwin joined Venable in 1985 before founding his own firm in 1988.

Mr. Irwin received his law degree in 1973 from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and his undergraduate degree in 1970 from Cornell University.

Jennifer R. Bowman Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 6048 Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone: (410) 537-3042 Fax: (410) 537-3943 jennifer.bowman@maryland.gov

THE ADVOCATE

Page 30

February/March 2020

MEMBER NEWS WELCOME NEW MEMBERS! Law Students

2-Plus Years in Practice

Antonia Clay

David Baxter

Taylor Ann Mooney

Aleksandr Binder

Onome Obazee

Jana Corn Burch Mollie G. Caplis

1st Year Attorneys

Elizabeth Erin Crow

Sara Assaid

Timothy J. Doory

Abigail Quinn Belcher

Syeetah Hampton-El

Jessica Erler

Hossein Parizian

Aaron David Fray

Stuart Jay Robinson

Zachary Austin Phillips

Florian Tabaku

Caitlin Anne Rayhart Adam Richard Rutherford

Government/Non-Profit

Ryan Zachry Ullman

Amanda Rodriguez

Christopher Paul Wheatcroft Carley Wilbourne Amber Williams

MARY ROBY SANDERS, CHRISTOPHER W. NICHOLSON, REBECCA A. FLEMING & ALAINA L. STORIE of TURNBULL, NICHOLSON & SANDERS, P.A. are pleased to welcome to their firm

SNEHAL P. MASSEY, Esq. & ALEXIS L. HOLIDAY, Esq. The firm shall continue to concentrate its practice in the negotiation, litigation, arbitration, and mediation of Family Law matters.

210 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 420, Towson, Maryland 21204 (410) 339-4100

THE ADVOCATE

Page 31

February/March 2020

THE ADVOCATE

Page 32

February/March 2020

THE ADVOCATE

Page 33

February/March 2020

THE ADVOCATE

Page 34

February/March 2020

Signature Sponsors The Baltimore County Bar Association continues its Signature Sponsor program, which enhances the opportunities for our sponsors, as well as our members. This singletier program provides more engagement between our sponsors and our members. Each Signature Sponsor can host an event during the year, thereby reducing the cost of the event for members while providing added benefits.

Sponsorships help the Bar Association maintain its current dues level despite the increasing costs of providing top-shelf legal education programs, social events, networking opportunities and Bar Office services available in the County Courts Building. If you know of a business that would be interested in one of these limited sponsorship opportunities, please contact Rachel Ruocco (410) 337-9100 or rruocco@bcba,org).

For the last 12 years, Insight Network Consultants has offered managed IT services and phone solutions as a competitive advantage. Whether you have 5 employees or 100+, we have you covered.

Call Insight and you will always get to our support staff on the first ring.

410-INSIGHT Www.insightnc.com

THE ADVOCATE

Page 35

February/March 2020

Baltimore County Bar Association

Presort Standard U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1262 Baltimore, MD

100 County Courts Building 401 Bosley Avenue Towson, MD 21204-4491 410-337-9103-Telephone 410-823-3418-Facsimile www.bcba.org

Member Advertisements TOWSON. Furnished office available in beautifully appointed suite in the heart of Towson. Use of conference room and other amenities. Contact Susan at 410-583-7007.

TOWSON. Second floor office for rent with space available for admin/secretary. On site parking with shared conference room. Email nfick@neurolaw.com or call 410-321-5000 if interested.

TOWSON. Small firm in Towson looking for an experienced part-time legal assistant/secretary two to three days a week. Any experienced candidates should contact Robert Jacobson at 410-583-8883.

TOWSON. 303 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Towson across Bosley Avenue from the Circuit Court Building, three offices with bathroom on the second floor, 3rd floor four offices available, conference room, bathroom and kitchen on first floor, free parking space available, rent negotiable $50 to $100 less than comparable spaces. $400-$500 per office, great satellite office with possibility of overflow work. Contact Joe Glass at 410-823-4214 or 410-790-1980.

CATONSVILLE. Office Space for Rent. Catonsville, 1002 Frederick Road, 2nd floor office. Private entrance, semi private restroom, use of conference room and kitchen on first floor. Free parking. Would be a great satellite office.

Please contact Lou Weinkam, Jr. at 410-744-3256 ext. 103.

TOWSON. 309 Allegheny Avenue. 2nd floor offices with private restroom, 3 regular offices, partially furnished, 1 executive office (can be made into five offices) fully furnished. Private restroom. Tenant will have available to them a conference room, print/scan/fax center and kitchenette on 1st floor. Additionally, 2nd floor has 2 private entrances, 5 free parking spaces, and approximately 800 sq. ft. of combined dry/secure storage on 3rd floor and basement.

TOWSON. Sublease available one block from courthouse. Space in excellent condition. Spacious conference rooms, 34 offices, reception area, copy/supply room, and kitchen. Sublease until August, then take on new lease. Rent negotiable. Contact towsonfirm@gmail.com to schedule a tour or get more information.

TOWSON. Office for Rent: $990/month for one office with reception area right off the elevator. Located in Towson within walking distance to courthouse. Newly renovated and furnished. $1,200 to add an additional office connected to entire suite. Includes electric, internet and one parking space. For more information email doug@dbmcommunications.com or call 410-825-7400.

TOWSON. Office sharing available. One block from Courthouse. Use of phone system, copier, fax and secretarial available. Please call Beverly at 410-296-6820.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 36

February/March 2020