Advocate September 2021 by Baltimore County Bar Association

THE ADVOCATE

Newsletter of The Baltimore County Bar Association VOLUME 2 1 VOLUMEXXXI, XXXI,NO. NO.

September2021 2021 July/August

The President’s Message PRESIDENT’S As By we Stanford honor our past 100 years and look Riddle me this: How is it that the BCBA wasforward formed to our future, I on May 21, 1920, and yet, it is this year, 2021 – 2022 wonder what will during which we will celebrate our 100 years as a bar be our how largest association? As a corollary to this anomaly, am event this coming I your 103rd president, for which I am honored and year: our 100thrilled to be presiding over this celebratory year? Year Membership event, These and so many other questionsKickoff are revealed and fondly “Our referred reflected in our century album, entitled First to asService the “Party 100 Years – A Centennial of and in the Plaza,” Friendships” This year was chosen as the centennial on Thursday, year in 2018, during past President Rebecca September 23, Fleming’s term. Indeed, she was the 100th president 2021, 5 – 9:30 p.m. or our Bar Banquet, i.e., the “Prom” of Thursday, the BCBA, January and I was27,lucky able to that workwewith on 2022?toIbe recognize all her and so many others on the Executive Council. face similar questions in varying contexts.

Our festivities this year will in large part be through

When I gave my remarks at our Stated Meeting in June, incredible foresight and generous follow-through itthe seemed as though COVID-19, masks and Zoom were during past President Judge Michael Siri’s ofterm more in our rear-view mirrors than on the road ahead us. followed the most recently by our task immediate past Fortunately, BCBA has a COVID-19 force in place Jay looks Miller. ifpresident, the latterand partmy of friend, September vastly different from the rose-colored picture from the latter part of June. Back On September 23, 2021, we will distribute free to again are masks, especially while indoors, but, increasingly, everyoutdoors, memberasofwell. the Gone BCBA copyin-person of our 250+ page even area some meetings hard-bound keepsake, our 100-Year replaced, yet again, with Zoom during and the like.

MESSAGE

scheduled, though vaccinations, proper maskG.proceeding Gann,asJr.

wearing and social distancing are, certainly, encouraged.

Thehope BCBA’s guide will continue to be prudence. We everyone will cherish the album and Thankfully, the Plaza is a large, beautiful, outdoor open their spaceefforts. where everyone will be able to enjoy more freely

than an indoor event. And what an extravaganza we have Having attended every planned in the Plaza and ALL AT NO CHARGE TO committee ANY OF OURplanning MEMBERS, including dinner, drinks, and meeting to date, am colleagues, live bands, and plenty desserts with friendsI and so impressed with the of memorabilia and giveaways, not least of which will be commitment by our our beautifully bound, hard-cover album, Our First 100 committee chairs and of Service and Friendships. Years – A Centennial There will eventobe an old-time photo booth with a new-time vice-chairs make twist. The party will proceed, shine or liquid shine, and we this year an exciting can’t wait to see everyone. and full year ahead.

We hope each of you, our members, and prospective During my remarks at our Annual Stated Meeting, I members, guests, dignitaries, and others will cherish this called on all once-in-a-century members and judges, our memorable, event and and especially catch-up with committee leadership, to be ambassadors for the old friends while making new ones. This is the perfect BCBA. Please reflect on opportunities you have opportunity for all of us to serve as BCBA ambassadors and every daya friend to make a connection between and to bring or colleague to learn about practice and to enjoy bar association If you have not who already the BCBA. It is alsoactivity. the best opportunity for those have been lessyour activeMYBCBA lately to renew the benefits of MYBCBA updated account, it is easiest way to and the life-long connections. Asand a member, your MYBCBA become and remain involved connected. account on our website is the easiest way to stay involved

Iand am connected. humbled and honored to will leadhave the BCBA I hope you all a “glass through on me” this bar year as we transition from a more virtual when we meet in the Plaza soon. Cheers! Membership kickoff event. Stay tuned for more exploiting Our COVID-19 task force continues to monitor the ever- world to a more real world, - while Stanford G. Gann,the Jr. details, but everyone is welcome to attend to meet changing situation with the current variants and others, sadly, benefits of the lessons from both worlds. With BCBA President, 2021-2022 new andAs older members between 9:30 p.m. to follow. I write this message, the 5:00 Party and in the Plaza is collaboration and the many strengths and on Thursday, September 23, 2021. opportunities we are blessed to have, I look forward Special Thanks to the Baltimore County Association Over the past three years, our Annual HistoricalSponsors Committee, oftothe a wonderful ride this year as Bar we begin our next 100 chaired and co-chaired, respectively, by my friends, years. Title Sponsor - Law Firm Partner Sponsor - Law Firm Matt Nelson andAlbers Marc & DeSimone have undertaken Associates Rice, Murtha & Psoras the painstaking efforts of putting together the album. Stanford G. Gann, Jr. Signature Sponsors - Corporate Partner Sponsors - Corporate BCBA President, 2021-2022 Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Sandy Spring Bank Multi-Specialty HealthCare Supporter Sponsors - Corporate Vallit Advisors Albers & Associates AbacusNext Health Quest September 2021 THE ADVOCATE

The Advocate Page 1

May 20211

The Advocate

September 2021

2021-22 Officers

President President-Elect Secretary Treasurer

Standford G. Gann, Jr. John G. Turnbull III Lisa Y. Settles Sondra M. Douglas

Executive Council Richard Grason VI Robert K. Erdman, Jr. Tyler J. Nowicki Michelle Daugherty Siri Alaina L. Storie Mariela D’Alessio Jay D. Miller, Immediate Past President Adam E. Konstas, Young Lawyers Chair

The Advocate Tracee Orlove Fruman Committee Chair Tommy Tompsett Committee Vice-Chair

Contributing Writers Tracee Orlove Fruman The Honorable Syeetah Hampton-El Shannon Kreiner Wendy Meadows Ceecee Paizs Jennifer Ritter Stuart Schadt Christopher Sweeney Erika Surock Whitney Wilder

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.

Calendar of Events Please go to www.bcba.org and click on Calendar for an up-to-date listing of programs, events, and to register for all programs and events.

Inside This Edition Ask the Trial Doctor....................................................... 19 Automatic Expungement................................................ 18 Circuit Court Drug Court............................................... 10 Code of Professionalism................................................... 6 Criminal Law Update..................................................... 20 District Court Schedule.................................................... 4 Law Clerk Spotlight........................................................ 15 Lawyers Assistance.......................................................... 23 LGBTQ+ Issues Article.................................................. 16 Mock Trial Article........................................................... 24 Wellness Article............................................................... 26 Spotlight on New ALJ Chief .......................................... 14

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. September 2021

The Advocate

Court Notices September District Court Schedule BALTIMORE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT JUDGES’ ASSIGNMENT FOR SEPTEMBER 2021 1

8-1 #1

KJR

SDW

GJP

8-1 #2

MWS

NBS*

KYW

GJP

MLR

GJP

8-1 #3 8-1 #4 8-1 #5

KYW

MWS

KYW

JHH*

KYW

KDP

KYW

KDP

KYW

MWS

KYW

MWS

8-1 #6 8-1 #7 8-1 #8 8-4 #1

8-4 #2

VJ*

KJR

8-4 #3

PNT

8-4 #4

KMT

8-4 #5

KMT

MWS

KMT

8-4 #6

SCZ

8-5 #1

MWS

BEF

8-5 #2

MTP

8-5 #3

LAP

Chambers

DJW

DJW/pm

MLR/pm

KJR

MLR

KJR

KEM*

KJR

KMT

MLR

PNT

PNT*

PNT

KMT

NRS

SDW

MLR

KMT

KYW

KMT

MLR

KYW

KMT

MLR

KMT

SCZ

SDW

MWS

VJ*

BEF

MWS

KYW

BEF

MWS

BEF

MWS

MLR

BEF

MTP

NRS

MTP

MLR

MTP

MWS

LAP

MTP

LAP

MTP

LAP

MLR

LAP

MLR

LAP

VKB*

LAP

DJW KMT

DJW*

DJW/am

DJW KDP

DJW* KYW KP GJP BEF

DJW*

DJW/am

DJW

DJW* MLR BEF/am

DJW MLR

DJW*

DJW MLR/am

DJW

DJW*

DJW KMT

DJW

DJW MLR/am

DJW KJR

DJW KYW GJP

JUDGES KYW- Kevin Y. Wiggins, KDP- Keith D. Pion, KP-Karen Pilarski, KMT-Kimberly M. Thomas, PNT-Philip N. Tirabassi, LR- Leo Ryan,

MLR-Marsha L. Russell, MTP-Michael T. Pate, LAP-Lisa A. Phelps, DJW-Dorothy J. Wilson, GJP-Guido J. Porcarelli, MWS- Michael W. Siri, BEF-Bruce E. Friedman, SDW-Steven D. Wyman 9Y5, NRS-Norman R. Stone 9P8, NBS-Nancy B. Shuger 9J8, JHH- Jamey H. Hueston 9I5, VKB-Victor K. Butanis 9M5, KEM-Keith E. Mathews 934, *VJ Indicates Visiting Judge to be assigned Judges’ assignments are subject to change without further notice

Please be on the lookout for a Membership Survey to be circulated in early November of this year for input from our members as the BCBA prepares its comprehensive Planning Report this Bar Year to enhance the good and to address any concerns to help us be more successful as we proceed forward. Our goal with this important Planning Project is to implement desired changes to make the BCBA membership experience even more rewarding. If interested in serving on the BCBA Planning Committee or in the Planning process and the planned Retreat from which our Report will be generated, please e-mail President Gann at sgannjr@levingann.com. We hope all members will take a few minutes to complete the survey by mid-November, which will be designed to take only a few minutes to complete, but will be invaluable as we proceed. Of course, we always welcome your feedback and support within and beyond a formal survey. Thank you.

The Advocate

September 2021

The Advocate

Court Notices BCBA Code of Professionalism Were you aware that our Association publishes a “Code of Professionalism” which can be accessed through the BCBA website? The Professionalism Committee is in the process of researching the history of the drafting and adoption of the Code, and exploring whether it should be updated in any respect, as well as how best to promote the ideals of professionalism as expressed in the Code. As it undertakes this review, the Committee is interested in the views and suggestions of our Association members. Please contact Professionalism Committee Vice-Chair, Michael Barranco, to provide your comments and thoughts at mbarranco@frankdailylaw.com. The current version of the Code is set forth below. BALTIMORE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION CODE OF PROFESSIONALISM PREAMBLE AS A MEMBER OF THE BALTIMORE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONTINUED SUCCESS OF OUR NOBLE PROFESSION DEPENDS ON THE EXERCISE OF BASIC COURTESIES TO OTHERS. I, THEREFORE, PLEDGE TO ABIDE BY THE FOLLOWING CODE OF PROFESSIONALISM: CIVILITY: I shall (1) conduct myself in a manner that enhances the public perception of lawyers; (2) strive to exemplify and promote the highest ideals of the legal profession; (3) be courteous in all professional relations; and (4) encourage courteous behavior in others. PREPARATION: I shall be adequately prepared to represent my client on all occasions. ZEAL AND COMMITMENT: I shall represent my client zealously and, after becoming thoroughly knowledgeable concerning the facts of the matter and the applicable law, strive to achieve a desirable result as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. In doing so, I shall exercise independent professional judgment as to the merits of the issue and its appropriate resolution. I will not permit my client’s ill will to interfere with the proper discharge of my obligations as an officer of the Court. PUNCTUALITY: I shall be punctual in communicating with others. I shall return phone calls promptly. I will be prepared for all hearings, depositions, and other proceedings. I shall make best efforts to notify promptly all other persons affected by any delay that prevents me form appearing on time.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LAWYERS: I will be certain that others can rely on my word. I will always be courteous, candid and honest in my communications with other lawyers. I will observe all oral agreements I make and will memorialize those agreements promptly in order to avoid misunderstandings. I will not criticize counsel personally at any time. In negotiations, I will act courteously and in good faith. I will state information and proposals to other parties accurately and within the authority granted by my client. I will not quibble unnecessarily over style, but will focus on the substance of the matter at issue. DEADLINES: (1) Before scheduling dates or imposing deadlines, I shall endeavor to accommodate calendar conflicts resulting from previously scheduled hearings, depositions, meetings, conferences, vacations, seminars, or other functions. (2) I shall agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time and for waiver of procedural formalities when the legitimate interests of my client will not be materially or adversely affected. (3) I shall not request an extension of time solely for the purpose of unjustified delay or to obtain a tactical advantage. (4) I shall avoid last-minute cancellations or requests for extension of time except in cases of legitimate necessity. (5) I shall not make scheduling, filing or service decisions that unfairly limit another party’s opportunity to prepare or respond. (6) I shall not impose arbitrary or unreasonable deadlines for actions by others. (7) I shall notify other counsel at the earliest time when hearings, depositions, meetings, or conferences are to be cancelled or postponed. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT: (1) I shall speak civilly to all court personnel. (2) I shall be mindful of time constraints when requesting hearings, and shall attempt to schedule lengthy proceedings well in advance. (3) I shall not attempt to alter the appearance of neutrality in my dealings with court personnel. (4) I shall promptly notify the court when cases have been settled. (5) I shall refrain from making unauthorized ex-parte communications. DISCOVERY: (1) I shall (a) limit my discovery requests to items that are necessary for the preparation and evaluation of my client’s case; (b) conduct discovery in a courteous and respectful manner; (c) conduct discovery without harassing or intimidating any person; and (d) voluntarily withdraw any claim or defense that should be withdrawn as a result of information received during discovery. (2) I shall refrain from (a) interpreting the adverse party’s discovery requests in an artificially restrictive manner; (b) engaging in any conduct during a deposition

The Advocate

September 2021

that would be inappropriate in open court; (c) delaying my response to discovery requests; or (d) producing documents in a disorganized or unintelligible fashion, or in a way calculated to obscure a particular document. NEGOTIATIONS: (1) I shall always encourage my client to explore the possibility of settlement as soon as enough is known about the case to make settlement

September 2021

discussions meaningful. (2) I shall always consider the issue of whether my client’s interest would be better served by alternative methods of dispute resolution. GENDER, RACIAL AND ETHNIC BIAS: In both my personal and professional life, I shall, at all times, refrain from engaging in conduct that creates the appearance of gender, racial or ethnic bias.

The Advocate

Court Notices

The Advocate

September 2021

Family Law Notice to Bar 1. New Screening Process – Office of Family Mediation – Annamaria M. Walsh, Esquire, Director of the Office of Family Mediation has provided the following important new policy regarding the screening of Family Law cases: Beginning in October 2021, all family law cases that are set in for a Scheduling Conference will be screened prior to the conference (approximately 2 weeks out) for indications of Intimate Partner Violence and other high conflict issues. These “Intake Interviews” will be conducted either via Zoom as an interview with a staff member from the Office of Family Mediation or the Office of Family Services, or as a self-administered online questionnaire. The interview is confidential, and attorneys do not participate. If a high level of IPV is indicated, the screener will provide the party with the contact information for the House of Ruth and the Women’s Law Center and advise the party to let their lawyer know they’ve received a referral. No counseling or legal advice will be provided. The screener will make a recommendation to the Magistrate as to the appropriateness of mediation and whether the case should be further screened at the Scheduling Conference by a social worker for services such as a Child Access Evaluation. 2. Child Counsel Appointment List Update – For any attorney wishing to remain on the Circuit Court for Baltimore County’s List of Child Counsel, or any attorney wishing to be added to that list, please see the attached letter from Magistrate Catherine F. Woods. 3. Settlement Conferences will be held remotely until the end of 2021 – There are reports of attorneys still showing up in person to the Settlement Court, even after the issuance of corrected Scheduling Notices converting all in person conferences to remote conferences. For those who may have missed it, here is a reiteration of Judge Jakubowski’s August 16, 2021 policy statement: The Circuit Court for Baltimore County will continue to conduct remote settlement conferences in Civil and Family law cases through the end of 2021. Due to the increase in Covid cases and in compliance with administrative orders issued on August 6, 2021 by Judge Barbera mandating social distancing and masking, the Circuit Court is unable to conduct “in person” settlement conferences as planned. All “in person” settlement conferences will be reset for remote “Zoom” conferences. Counsel will be receiving zoom links and new notices for their cases set between October 18 through December 17, 2021. Every effort will be made to keep the settlement conference on the originally scheduled date. Some cases will have to be reset to another date to accommodate the remote hearings. 4. Welcome to Amy Clayton – The Clerk’s Office has hired Alicia Aybar’s replacement and the Division welcomed Amy Clayton to her new position of Supervisor, Family Law Department.

Very truly yours, Bill Levasseur, Jr Martha White Bar Co-Liaisons to the Baltimore County Family Division

September 2021

The Advocate

Court Notices Problem-Solving Courts 101 On Wednesday, August 24, 2021, the Baltimore County Bar Association presented a seminar entitled “Problem Solving Courts 101” as a primer in anticipation of the soon-to-be-implemented Circuit Court Adult Drug Court. Judge Nancy Purpura, assisted by Judge Sherrie Bailey and Jessie Roberson, the Adult Drug Court Coordinator for Baltimore County, were the moderators. Gray Barton, Director of Maryland’s Problem Solving Courts Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts, presented the program. Mr. Barton provided an overview of all of Maryland’s categories of Problem Solving Courts and then discussed the Drug Courts in more detail. In 2002, Maryland only had nine problem-solving courts in the entire state. Today, 59 problem-solving courts serve every county and include the following specialty courts: Mental Health, Veterans, Truancy Reduction, Re-entry, Back on Track, and Drug. These courts strive to help protect the citizens of our communities by balancing the competing sentencing considerations of punishment vs. rehabilitation by addressing matters under the court’s jurisdiction through a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach that incorporates collaboration of the courts with community and government organizations. Staggering statistics include that as of 2016: 1) over 2 million people in the United States were incarcerated; 2) correctional authorities supervise approximately 7 million Americans either directly in prisons or through probation, parole, or an alternative sentence program; and, 3) the United States houses almost 25% of the world’s prisoners, even though it accounts for only 5% of the world’s population. A significant contributor to these statistics are severely drug-addicted individuals who commit approximately 63% of crimes per year, e.g. possession, distribution, theft, burglary, driving while under the influence, while suspended, or without a license. So the easy answer seems to be to just refer these offenders for treatment. The problem is that addicts are typically

resistant to change; in fact, about 95% of people receiving treatment don’t think they need it. In addition, we know from statistics that treatment only works if the individual goes and participates. Thus, the goal of the Drug Courts are to implement a system which strives to rehabilitate, rather than punish, severely addicted individuals that are engaged in the court system by utilizing a “team approach,” whereby a Drug Court Team comprised of the Judge, Coordinator, Probation Agent, Treatment Provider, State’s Attorney, Defense Counsel and Law Enforcement all collaborate to help decide the appropriate plan for supervision and treatment. This process is facilitated by the prosecution and defense using a non-adversarial approach to promote public safety while protecting the participant’s due process right. A key to the plan’s ultimate success is an early assessment to identify the need for treatment for the clinically eligible and prompt placement into the appropriate program. Once entered, Drug Courts provide a continuation of alcohol, drug, and other treatment and rehabilitative services, including frequent, random, and monitored testing, regular supervision and monitoring, and ongoing judicial interaction. Recognizing that the road to recovery is long and winding, the Drug Court provides incentives to reward positive behavior and imposes sanctions for negative behaviors, which in the long run promotes compliance and accountability. Participants in the program are typically engaged for a period of sixteen or more months. On behalf of the BCBA and those that attended the event, we thank Gray Barton and the moderators for such an informative and enlightening program. Rumor has it that in the near future, the BCBA, in conjunction with the Criminal Law Committee, are planning a seminar that will provide more detail about the specifics of the Baltimore County District Court Adult Drug Court. Keep your eyes peeled to the Advocate for more information. – Stuart Schadt

Your ad could be here! Contact Rachel Ruocco at rruocco@bcba.org or 410-337-9103 10

The Advocate

September 2021

The Advocate

Criminal Law Update The Court of Appeals this month issued two important opinions addressing the issue of when a scientific report is testimonial for confrontation purposes and who may provide expert testimony related to the report. The cases, James Leidig v. State, No. 19, September Term, 2020 and State v. Miller, No. 24, September Term, 2020, provide much needed guidance to practitioners and trial courts who have struggled to apply the fractured federal jurisprudence addressing the applicability of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), to forensic test results. In these two opinions, the Court of Appeals “decline[s] to wait any longer for the Supreme Court to provide clarity under the Sixth Amendment where the Maryland Constitution provides independent rights to confrontation and cross-examination – indeed, where Maryland declared the existence of those rights before the Sixth Amendment came into existence.” Leidig, slip op. at 58. Leidig involved the burglary of a home and blood left behind on a window frame and curtain. An initial DNA report was prepared identifying an unknown DNA profile. The profile was uploaded to CODIS and a hit was generated identifying the Defendant, Leidig, as a possible match. After a known DNA sample was collected from Leidig and compared to the sample developed from the window and curtains, it was determined that Leidig’s DNA matched that of the unknown sample. At trial the State called the DNA examiner who performed the analysis of the known sample and compared it to the unknown sample. She was also an “administrative reviewer” of the original DNA report. The State did not call the author of the original report. Over objection, the witness was permitted to discuss the original report and present her conclusions. Her report was also admitted into evidence. The question before the Court was whether the trial court erred in allowing the witness to testify regarding the original report. Specifically, the petitioner asked the Court “to clarify when a forensic report constitutes testimonial hearsay such that the defendant has the right to confront the analyst who prepared the report.” Leidig, slip op. at 15. The Court held that in Maryland, “under Article 21, a statement contained in a scientific report is testimonial if a declarant reasonably would have understood that the primary purpose for the creation of the report was to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. If the trial court concludes that a scientific report is testimonial under this standard, the report (and/or testimony relaying the information set forth in the report to the trier of fact) is inadmissible under Article 21 unless the declarant is unavailable to 12

testify and the defendant previously had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant concerning the report.” Id. at 65. In applying this standard, a trial court should employ an objective standard and the totality of the circumstances. Id. In making its evaluation, a trial court should consider, among other factors, “whether the report is ‘accusatory’ in that it specifically targets the defendant, or whether the report is ‘formal’ or ‘solemn’ in that it certifies the accuracy of the results.” Id. The Court helpfully went on to address two other issues often raised when discussing the right to confrontation and forensic reports. First, the issue of who is a competent witness to testify regarding a report and second, whether the State is required to call every technician who performed some part of the testing that went into the analysis. The first question was discussed in detail in a second opinion issued by the Court on this topic and discussed in greater detail below, State v. Miller, No. 24, September Term, 2020. Regarding the second question, the Court held that “the State is not required to call every technician who performed some part of the testing that lead the authoring analyst(s) to state the results and conclusions contained in the report.” Leidig, at 67. The Court quoted with approval State v. Walker, 212 A.3d 1244 (Conn. 2019), “We observe that this opinion does not conclude that all analysts who participate in the process of generating a DNA profile necessarily must testify. We simply conclude that, where the generation of a DNA profile is testimonial, ‘at least one analyst with the requisite personal knowledge must testify.’ In this regard, . . . ‘the analysts involved in the preliminary testing stages, specifically, the extraction, quantitation or amplification stages,’ are not necessary witnesses. Rather, ‘it is the generated numerical identifiers and the calling of the alleles at the final stage of the DNA typing that effectively accuses [the] defendant of his role in the crime charged.’” Walker, 212 A.3d at 1267 (quoting People v. John, 52 N.E.3d 1114, 1126 (N.Y. 2016)). Expanding on the holding in Leidig, the Court in State v. Miller, No. 24, September Term, 2020, continued its analysis of confrontation and forensic reports to further discuss who a competent witness is to testify regarding the report. Like in Leidig, an unknown DNA profile was developed following the commission of a crime and then a subsequent CODIS hit. Miller involved a DNA profile developed from a sexual assault committed in 2008 and a CODIS hit nine years later. The author of the original report generating the DNA profile and the second report, identifying the defendant as a match, was the same person. The analysts, however,

The Advocate

September 2021

were no longer available to testify by the time the matter came to trial. The State called two substitute analysts who were the “technical reviewers” of the reports. The issue before the Court was “whether a trial court violates a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, where the court allows the technical reviewer of a report analyzing DNA evidence to testify about the results of that analysis, without requiring the primary author of the report to be available for cross-examination.” Miller, slip op. at 2. The Court held that the substitute witness, who was a technical reviewer and signatory of the report, had a sufficient degree of involvement in the creation of the report to permit her to testify without violating the defendant’s rights to confrontation. Miller, slip op. at 30. All laboratories that participate in the CODIS program must comply with the FBI’s Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories and undergo periodic audits to ensure compliance. As part of the standards, multiple people review DNA reports. There is the primary analyst, a technical reviewer, and an administrative reviewer. The primary analyst authors a report, conducts all of the necessary computations, and renders an opinion. The technical reviewer conducts a “thorough and substantive review of the primary analyst’s work.” Id. at 5. “A technical review includes ‘an evaluation of reports, notes, data, and other documents to ensure there is a sufficient basis for scientific conclusions.’” Id. (quoting FBI, Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing

September 2021

Laboratories, Std. 12.1 (2011), available at https://perma. cc/D227-A2GU). Finally, the administrative reviewer reviews the case file for clerical errors and ensures the relevant information is included in the report, reviews the chain of custody and disposition of the evidence, and ensures all procedures were properly followed. Miller, slip op. at 4. It is the detailed and substantive review of all of the data that makes the technical reviewer a qualified witness to testify regarding the report. “A technical reviewer’s adoption of a report’s results and conclusions – based on a complete review of the same data the primary author used, and as part of the process of finalizing and releasing the report” renders the witness competent to testify. Id. at 31. The Court did caution, however, that simply labeling a witness as a “technical reviewer” is not sufficient to qualify the witness. “If challenged, the State must lay a foundation demonstrating that the witness performed the type of thorough, substantive review of the primary author’s work that the QAS contemplate a technical review will encompass.” Id. at 41. In Leidig, the State relied on the administrative reviewer in introducing the report. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision holding that the administrative reviewer was not the appropriate witness. By contrast, the witness in Miller was the technical reviewer and did possess the necessary first-hand knowledge.

The Advocate

– Jennifer W. Ritter

Welcome Chief Administrative Law Judge Chung Pak On July 1, 2020, Chung Pak joined as the newest Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Since its inception in 1990, the OAH has had only two others serve as CALJs, namely, John Hardwick (1991 - 2002) and Thomas Dewberry (2002 - 2019). Joining any new position can be challenging, but imagine joining as the newest CALJ during a global pandemic. I discussed this and other topics with Chief Pak during our time together. Chief Pak is from Seoul, South Korea, and immigrated to the United States with his family at a young age. He grew up in a small town in Alabama surrounded by his family. At the time, the United States presented both opportunities and obstacles for Chief Pak. Before coming, he took classes to learn the English language and continued to learn English in Alabama. He said that his family overcame many obstacles due to “hard work, faith, and the help from neighbors.” Remembering the opportunity and obstacles as an immigrant, he continues to volunteer with Korean immigrant families. Before being appointed as the CALJ, Chief Pak served as an Administrative Patent Judge at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board for over twenty-three years, where he adjudicated over 6,000 patent cases. Patent judges hear cases in a panel of at least three patent judges. As a patent judge, he identified issues, made factual findings, and reached conclusions by applying the facts to the law. Thus, his former position and OAH share many similarities, specifically serving as a decision-maker or trier of fact. Fast forward to July 2020, Chief Pak began as the newest CALJ at the OAH, after being appointed by Governor Hogan on June 9, 2020. The State of Maryland and the entire country were in the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic. Chief Pak said the pandemic created different challenges not previously contemplated. He stated, “the pandemic created opportunities for the OAH to improve the work-life balance for all employees [and] expand both teleworking and remote hearings.” Specifically, expanding remote hearings allows the OAH to “provide convenient access to justice in a safe and timely manner while providing an outstanding quality of service.”

Now one year later, while we continue to deal with the global pandemic, Chief Pak and the OAH management team have instituted changes at the OAH. Mediations, settlement conferences, MVA and other hearings are held via the Webex video conferencing platform. Many other hearings have returned to in-person in Hunt Valley or Rockville. Chief Pak stated more changes would come based on IT improvements and input from the OAH stakeholders, including members of the legal community. These changes will permit the OAH to provide accessible and timely due process with high-quality service making hearings both convenient and accessible. In addition to the changes in how the OAH provides flexible due process, he has welcomed seven new ALJs to the office. The seven newest ALJs have filled positions created due to retirements or appointments to the Maryland Judiciary. Chief Pak said it is important to continue to attract and select outstanding ALJs from all backgrounds. Chief Pak remains active in both bar association and community service projects. In the past, he focused on the areas of intellectual property, but now he is involved in the MSBA Administrative Law Section, Central Panel of ALJs, and the National Association of Administrative Law Judges (NAALJ). He supports and encourages ALJs to participate in bar association activities. Although he is a proud Marylander, Chief Pak is an Auburn University graduate and loves football. If not the law, Chief Pak planned to become an engineer. In fact, he received a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Auburn University. Lastly, in preparation to assume the position of CALJ he read a memoir on leadership written by Colin Powell. Chief Pak said the leadership book focused on learning from others and he has used this skill during his year at the OAH as the CALJ. I enjoyed the opportunity to interview the CALJ and as a current ALJ I can personally attest to his commitment to the OAH. Chief Pak is friendly and has a genuine interest in learning about the OAH past as he lays out his vision for the future. – The Honorable Syeetah Hampton-El

Check out our YouTube channel! Follow us and receive notifications when we post a video. 14

The Advocate

September 2021

Law Clerk Spotlight Pavel Glazunov is currently serving as judicial law clerk for the Honorable Justin J. King. Mr. Glazunov is from Moscow, Russia and moved to Richmond, Virginia with his parents when he was three years old. After graduating from George Mason University with a degree in Legal Studies, Mr. Glazunov worked as an immigration paralegal at Sumner Immigration Law for two years. Like his parents, Mr. Glazunov wanted to lay down his roots in a new community and to build his own connections. In the summer of 2018, he left Virginia and headed to Maryland, where he interned at the Maryland Attorney General’s Office within the Consumer Protection Division before starting law school at the University of Maryland Francis Carey School of Law. While at the University of Maryland, Mr. Glazunov joined the BLSA Trial Team during his first year. As a 2L, he went on to join the National Trial Team. Through his extensive work and participation on the National Trial Team, he received the prestigious Litigation and Advocacy Award. Mr. Glazunov also served as a Rule 19 Student Attorney on UMD’s Consumer Bankruptcy Clinic for a semester. As part of this role, he counseled clients regarding available options, duties, and rights in Chapter 7 Bankruptcies. He also had the opportunity to represent a pro se debtor at a Chapter 7 reaffirmation hearing before the United States Bankruptcy Court. In addition to honing his advocacy skills on trial team and through the Consumer Bankruptcy Clinic, Mr. Glazunov also polished his writing skills while on the Journal of Healthcare Law and Policy. His writing skills were also refined while serving as a judicial intern to the Honorable Alexander Wright, Jr. on the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland where he edited and drafted reported and unreported opinions for judicial review. Throughout law school, Mr. Glazunov also took advantage of several other opportunities within the Maryland legal community. He worked as a law clerk at Waranch and Brown, LLC, where he collaborated with attorneys on various medical malpractice defense issues. He also was a law clerk at Kiernan Trebach, LLP in Washington, D.C., where worked in the areas of premises liability, product liability, and insurance defense. When asked what he is most looking forward to about his judicial clerkship, Mr. Glazunov advised that he is excited to “learn, network, and to become comfortable in the courtroom,” because he is an aspiring litigator.

Pavel Glazunov outside of the legal world. He is fluent in Russian and has recently gotten into playing chess. Mr. Glazunov has a passion for soccer. He has been playing since the age of four and currently plays in different social leagues. In college, he was captain of George Mason’s club soccer team. He also played in a competitive Maryland Majors league and was on the team called Columbia F.C. – Erika C. Surock

Don’t forget to update your information on our website! Click here to access or go to www.bcba.org

Although Mr. Glazunov is off to an impressive start in his legal career, he is also extremely well-rounded September 2021

The Advocate

Recent Decisions LGBTQ+ Foster Parents Before The Supreme Court:

Philadelphia’s Non-Discrimination Policy Comes Into Conflict With Free Exercise On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a muchanticipated opinion in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The Court took votes on two freedom of religion issues: the immediate status of Catholic Social Services’ contracts with the city and the current standard for evaluating Free Exercise claims. A unanimous Court determined that the City of Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause when it terminated contracts with Catholic Social Services over noncompliance with the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. The Court voted 6-3 against reconsidering the use of the Employment Division v. Smith test, refraining from adopting a new standard for Free Exercise claims. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett wrote a concurring opinion affirming the outcome and the inapplicability of Smith, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and, in part, by Justice Breyer. Concurring opinions from Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas focused on the use of Smith, urging reconsideration of the precedent. The case was closely watched by religious freedom activists and LGBTQ+ advocates alike for the potential fallout for LGBTQ+ families.

applicability and thus not subject to challenges based on Free Exercise claims. Invoking the Employment Division v. Smith precedent, the city asserted that all contract agencies were subject to compliance with the law regardless of religious identity. After the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit ruled against CSS, the agency petitioned to the Supreme Court. With oral arguments scheduled for November 4th, 2020, religious liberty advocates and LGBTQ+ groups were keen to find out how a new conservative majority would handle such a dramatic clash. The decision was ultimately narrow, turning on the specific character of foster care agencies. In finding that the agencies were not providing public accommodations in certifying foster parents, the Court determined that Smith was not applicable to the facts. Instead, the Court applied strict scrutiny to evaluate the CSS’s Free Exercise claim. Because a system of exemptions was available for placement objections based on other non-religious reasons, the Court ruled that the refusal

The conflict at the center of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia arose between the city and Catholic Social Services over the reach of the city’s nondiscrimination policy. Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (“CSS”), operated by the local Roman Catholic authority, has operated a foster care agency in Philadelphia for decades. Contracts for foster care referral services established the agency’s relationship with the city. After same-sex partners applied for foster care placements and learned that select agencies operating under contracts with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services routinely refused to work with LGBTQ+ couples seeking to foster, the story was widely publicized across the city. In 2018, the city offered a new contract to CSS with express terms requiring compliance with the Fair Practices Ordinance, which would have prohibited outright refusal to place children based on the sexual orientation of foster parent applicants. CSS and select foster parents, among them the named plaintiff Sharonell Fulton, sued, alleging that this contract term would require CSS to violate the organization’s sincere religious beliefs. The city responded that the Fair Practices Ordinance was a neutral law of general

The Advocate

September 2021

to permit an exemption motivated by religious beliefs unconstitutionally limited CSS’s Free Exercise of religion. In the broader context, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia raises questions about the rights of LGBTQ+ families. Religious liberty organizations declared the outcome a victory, granting limited autonomy to agencies who help render public services in accordance with those agencies’ religious beliefs. Justice Roberts appeared to acquiesce to arguments that faith-based organizations had been rendering public services by contract in accordance with their religious beliefs throughout America’s history and that the breadth of public services was protected in this manner by granting exemptions like those requested here: “...Including CSS in the program seems likely to increase, not reduce, the number of available foster parents.” Echoing the concerns expressed by the city at oral arguments, organizations such as the ACLU of Pennsylvania warn that this outcome sets a dangerous precedent for religious exemptions to take the place of earlier statutory bans on

September 2021

LGBTQ+ parents fostering and adopting. While such bans have been repealed in many states, LGBTQ+ couples face persistent discrimination in building their families. Even for those families looking to offer their homes for at-risk children, LGBTQ+ couples face increased cost, time, confusion, and outright denial of services where discrimination is tolerated by express policy or ingrained practice. The implications of non-discrimination policies and exemptions on at-risk youth themselves are absent from much of this course. Consideration of the best interests of these children should consider their identities as well. Agencies that render public services by contract and expressly object to working with LGBTQ+ couples may also handle placement of LGBTQ+ youth; the implication that these identities are opposed to building healthy families further isolates these children in a process which should ultimately affirm them, comfort them, and keep them safe.

The Advocate

– Shannon Kreiner

Recent Decisions Automatic Expungement: What it Could Mean for Your Clients For over ten years, advocates for the poor have been struggling in Annapolis to enact the automatic expungement of criminal records. The past few legislative sessions have seen substantial improvement to Maryland’s expungement laws, allowing for the removal of nearly all non-conviction cases and many convictions. But automatic expungement has been somewhat of a holy grail among those who advocate on behalf of the working class, the disadvantaged, and the formerly incarcerated. This year, the measure finally passed, and many are celebrating the law that will go into effect on October 1, 2021. What the law will mean for your clients is a rather simple matter. In fact, essentially nothing will happen with the new law until 2024. That’s because certain criminal cases occurring after October 1, 2021 will be automatically expunged after three years from the disposition date. Anything that occurred before October 1 will not be subject to automatic expungement.

Removal from Case Search is a benefit to those who would like their criminal record minimized, but expungement practitioners should advise clients that complete removal of the case record still requires an expungement filing. Automatic expungement of cases that did not result in a conviction is an important step toward justice for all. Maryland continues to expand access to expungement, following a nation-wide trend in the wake of conversations about criminal justice reform. Precisely how the courts implement these procedures will be of interest to many lawyers and other advocates come 2024. The impact on those with criminal records will be substantial. Though lawyers in this field will mostly proceed with business as usual for the next three years, the long-term effect of automatic expungement will likely mean fewer people seeking the service and a streamlined court system not overwhelmed with petitions.

The types of cases that will be automatically expunged will be familiar to anyone who has filed an expungement in the past. Any case where all charges resulted in a nolle prosequi, an acquittal, or a dismissal are subject to the new law. One small exception is nolle prosequi with the requirement of drug or alcohol treatment, which must be expunged in accordance with the old statute (i.e., via petition) after treatment is completed. The courts must notify the defendant of the date on which automatic expungement will occur, and send a copy of the charges and their dispositions. In a case where the defendant receives one of the three above-mentioned dispositions on every charge, the courts must also notify the defendant of his/her right to expunge the case. The law will be enacted under the Criminal Procedure Article §§ 10-105.1 and 10-105.2. The measure was introduced under Senate Bill 201 during the 2021 legislative session.

– Christopher Sweeney Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service

Since criminal cases occurring before October 1 will not be subject to this new law, there remains plenty of work for lawyers representing expungement clients. The process for expunging any eligible case remains the same, and will stay that way after October 1. However, expungement practitioners may have noticed that certain cases no longer appear on Maryland Judiciary Case Search (“Case Search”). This is due to a new law that hides charges resulting in nolle prosequi, acquittal, or dismissal (the same three dispositions discussed above). It is important to note that these cases are not expunged, but simply removed from the Case Search. They still appear on fingerprint reports, records requests, and other background checks. 18

The Advocate

September 2021

Ask The Trial Doctor Lay a Foundation for Success: Photographs A flustered lawyer writes in… “Dear Trial Doctor, In a recent trial, I tried to introduce a series of photographs to show my client’s injuries following her automobile accident. But every time I tried to introduce them, the judge sustained the objection. I kept trying different questions but couldn’t satisfy what the judge wanted to hear. What do I have to do to get these doggone photos into evidence?” Foundationally Frustrated Dear Frustrated, You are not alone. A surprising number of lawyers seem to have trouble laying this type of foundation. Fortunately, the admission of a photo, drawing or map requires the easiest of all evidentiary foundations to establish. Just like this… • Make sure that the witness is personally familiar with the subject of the photo. • Ask that the photo be marked as the next exhibit, e.g., Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 for identification. • Ask the judge for permission to approach the witness with the photo, now marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. • Show the witness the photo and ask “Do you recognize Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1? What is it a picture of ?” Witness’ Answer – “It is a picture of my left arm just after the accident.” And

here

are

the

magic

words…

Ask “Does this photograph – Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 – fairly and accurately depict what your left arm looked like just after the accident?” Answer – “Yes, it does.” “Your Honor, I offer Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 into evidence.” The Court admitted and

“Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 is may be shown to the jury.”

Keep in mind that, for purposes of admissibility, it makes absolutely no difference who took the photo or when it was taken, so long as the witness is familiar with the subject of the relevant image or scene and can say that the photo fairly and accurately depicts that image or scene. This even includes a hand drawing or a stick figure if the foundation is properly laid. And because this testimony is foundational, most judges will permit a lawyer to lead the witness on this issue. [See Md. Rule 5-611(c) “Ordinarily, leading questions should not be permitted on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’ testimony.”] So, lay the photos and

right foundation for be frustrated no

your more.

– The Trial Doctor September 2021

The Advocate

Civil Law Update

Ceecee Paizs A review of the Amicus Curiarum for June, July, and August 2021 revealed the following civil cases of interest: THE COURT OF APPEALS: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas McCarthy Jr., Misc. Docket AG No. 72, September Term 2019, filed May 27, 2021. Opinion by Watts, Shirley M., Judge

(I am focusing on the factors related to McCarthy’s contention that the discovery was not properly served and Bar Counsel failed to file a Motion to Compel prior to a Motion for Sanctions) The Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Thomas McCarthy Jr., charging him with violating Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. After a hearing judge was appointed, Bar Counsel served discovery through a process server. The discovery requests consisted of interrogatories, a request for production of documents, and a request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents. Bar Counsel provided the discovery requests via a thumb drive served on McCarthy on August 1, 2020. Bar Counsel emailed McCarthy on September 4, 2020, stating that the responses to discovery were not received and asking when McCarthy would provide them. McCarthy did not respond. In a letter dated September 22, 2020, Bar Counsel advised McCarty that unless he responded to the discovery requests by September 30, 2020, Bar Counsel would seek sanctions. On September 30, 2020, McCarthy emailed Bar Counsel stating that he would have the responses completed within a few days. On October 1, 2020, Bar Counsel emailed McCarthy stating that Bar Counsel would move for sanctions but would consider withdrawing the motion

for sanctions if and when McCarthy provided responses to the discovery requests. On October 5, 2020, McCarthy provided a response to the interrogatories and request for production, but not to the admissions. For each response, McCarthy indicated that he was providing his responses without waiving his objection to the service of such discovery. He alleged that service of discovery request via an “external media drive” failed to comply with Maryland Rule 1-321(a). On October 22, 2020. Bar Counsel emailed McCarthy concerning some information contained in the responses to the Interrogatories and request for production, noting that McCarthy still had not provided a response to the request for admissions and stated that Bar Counsel would move for sanctions and move to shorten time to respond unless McCarthy responded by October 26, 2020. On November 4, 2020, Bar Counsel filed the motion for sanction and motion to shorten time to five days or, in the alternative, if the hearing judge declined to impose sanctions that the hearing judge issue an order compelling McCarty to provide the requested discovery materials within five days of the order and that the hearing judge order that the facts and genuineness of the documents referred to in the request for admissions be deemed admitted pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-424. On November 6, 2020, McCarthy provided Bar Counsel with a response to the request for Admissions. On November 24, 2020, the hearing judge issued a memorandum opinion finding that service via thumb drive was proper and that McCarthy failed to timely or properly respond to discovery requests. McCarthy was precluded from presenting any evidence, although he was allowed to testify only about mitigation and presenting witnesses as to mitigation only. The Court of Appeals concluded McCarthy’s contention that the hearing judge erred in granting the motion for sanctions in the absence of Bar Counsel having first filed a motion to compel did not warrant a new evidentiary hearing because McCarthy by his actions waived or forfeited the contention. Further, the Court determined that McCarthy was properly served with the request for discovery when he received the thumb drive with the request on it. The fact that McCarthy was unwilling to plug the thumb drive into his computer did not result in his inability to view and respond to the discovery requests. Further, his subsequent responses to discovery, albeit late, demonstrated that he was able to access the requests on the thumb drive and had the ability to provide timely responses to the discovery requests. Together with all of the circumstances and evidence provided by Bar Counsel, the Court determined that disbarment was an appropriate sanction.

The Advocate

September 2021

Civil Law Update THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS: Donna Frazelle-Foster v. Preston H. Foster, No. 2716, September Term, 2018, filed March 31, 2021. Opinion by Leahy, Andrea M., Judge In 2017, after over 25 years of marriage, Wife filed a complaint for absolute divorce or, in the alternative, a limited divorce against Husband on the grounds of cruelty of treatment and constructive desertion. A hearing was held on January 25, 2018, during which Wife provided testimony of severe psychological, verbal, and financial abuse. Husband disputed some, but not all, of Wife’s allegations. After the hearing, the trial court concluded that the testimony provided by Wife did not meet the burden of proof for establishing cruelty of treatment as she did not offer sufficient evidence of a continuing pattern of behavior. The trial court denied her complaint. The Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded the matter. The COSA concluded that the trial court failed to consider more recent and inclusive standards required to prove cruelty of treatment as a ground for divorce. The Court held that “cruelty of treatment” as a ground for limited or absolute divorce does not request physical violence or the threat of physical violence and may be based upon verbal and psychological abuse which “is calculated to seriously impair the health or permanently destroy the happiness of the other.” Das v. Das, 133 Md. App. 1, 33 (2000) (quoting Scheinin v. Scheinin, 200 Md 282, 289 (1952). The Court concluded that, taken together, Wife’s testimony and the evidence in support thereof may be sufficient, if believed, to establish conduct by Husband which is calculated to seriously impair Wife’s health or permanently destroy her happiness. Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P., No. 2125, September Term 2019, filed April 29, 2021. Opinion by Leahy, Andrea M., Judge In 2015, the parents entered into an agreement related to In Vitro Fertilization after Wife was diagnosed with primary infertility and the couple was unable to have children by other means. Through IVF, three pre-embryos were produced. One was lost due to miscarriage, one was successfully implanted, resulting in the birth of a child, and the third was kept frozen at the fertility center. In 2017, the parties separated and were able to resolve all of their marriage issues, including custody of their child and property disposition, other than what to do with the remaining cryopreserved

September 2021

pre-embryo. Wife wanted to preserve the pre-embryo for future implantation, and Husband wanted the pre-embryo destroyed or donated. The trial court, after consideration of the three leading approaches for resolving disputes over preembryos (the contractual approach, the contemporaneous mutual consent approach, and the balancing test) the court concluded that the frozen embryo should be awarded jointly to the couple to maintain the status quo, with the parties sharing the expenses associated with the storage until mutual consent was reached. Neither parent could destroy or donate the pre-embryo without the other’s agreement, nor could either parent use the pre-embryo, such as for implantation, without the agreement of both. The Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded. The Court concluded that the frozen pre-embryo cannot be classified simply as an interest in property because it concerns interests far broader in dimension. The COSA held that courts should recognize the special respect due to cryopreserved pre-embryos in light of their potential for human life as well as the fundamental and coextensive rights of their progenitors to decide “whether to bear or beget a child.” Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 US 438, 453 (1972). Further, when utilizing a blended contractual/ balancing-of-interest approach, the court must first look to the preference of the progenitors in any prior agreement expressing their intent. (See Davis v. Davis, 842 S,W,2d 588 (1992) and In re Marriage of Rooks, 429 P.3d 579 (2018). In the absence of an express agreement, the courts should seek to balance the competing interest under the following factors: (1) the intended use of the frozen pre-embryos by the party seeking to preserve them; (2) the reasonable ability of a party seeking implantation to have children through other means; (3) the parties’ original reasons for undergoing IVF, which may favor preservation over disposition; (4) the potential burden on the party seeking to avoid becoming a genetic parent; (5) either party’s bad faith and attempt to use the frozen pre-embryo as leverage in a divorce proceeding; and (6) other considerations relevant to the parties’ unique situation. In adopting this approach, the Court rejected the contemporaneous mutual consent approach employed by a minority of states, and upon which the trial court here based its decision. Finally, the Court held that the IVF contract did not indicate the parties’ (continued on page 22)

The Advocate

Civil Law Update preferences in the event of divorce and concluded that the court erred in implying contract terms that do not exist. Shelton Alexander v. Tamara Alexander, No. 1320, September Term 2020, filed July 28, 2021. Opinion by Salmon, Judge Father and Mother were divorced on July 28, 2014. The parties continued to litigate the issues related to custody and visitation issues related to their son. In September 2019, the trial court filed a final custody order granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of the son. Father was granted access every other weekend from after school on Friday until Monday morning plus every Wednesday evening from 6:30 p.m. until 8:15 p.m. so that the son could attend a church youth group. Father was the youth group pastor in charge of that group. Father appealed, but while the appeal was still pending, Mother, on March 18, 2020, advised Father that due to COVID-19 and the fact that the son suffered from Type 1 Diabetes, she planned to keep him at her home until the CDC guidelines were lifted and schools were back in session. Father objected and the parties were unable to resolve the matter. Father filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce Court’s order Regarding Access During COVID-19 Pandemic. After Governor Hogan announced that he was relaxing the shelter in place order on May 18, 2020, Mother informed Father that she would allow visitation to resume and that since he had missed 18 days of access, she would allow him to have 18 straight days of visitation. Father rejected the offer and made no counteroffer. The trial judge ruled that it was not in the son’s best interest to make an award of make-up time, even though Mother was willing to acquiesce to that time before. Further, the Court found that Mother had not violated Father’s visitation rights by bringing the son to the youth group meetings when they started at 7:00 p.m. rather than 6:30 p.m. as the purpose of the provision was for the son to attend the meetings, not for extra time with Father. Both parties’ requests for attorneys’ fees were denied. The trial court indicated that both parties had a long history of litigiousness caused by a failure to communicate and that Father had acted unreasonably when he turned down Mother’s offer of 18 make-up days without making a counteroffer.

TOUCHDOWN!

RAVENS TAILGATE C vs. Los Angeles hargers

Sunday, October 17, 2021 10a.m. Lot H

Join us for our Annual BCBA Ravens Tailgate! Drinks, Soda, & Food!

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that under the plain wording of Family Law Article, §9105, the trial court has discretion as to whether to grant make-up time. Such a grant may only be made if it is in the best interests of the child. Further, it was well within the discretion of the trial court to grant or deny either or both parties their attorney’s fees request.

Best Dish Competition: All are welcome to participate. Prize awarded to winner! You do not need tickets to attend but feel free to bring friends and food to share!