Ethics and Professionalism Update...issue’s focus on Professionalism and Ethics is well timed, as...

B A R R I S T E R

1BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTSP U B L I S H E D Q U A R T E R LY B Y T H E B A R A S S O C I AT I O N O F B A LT I M O R E C I T Y

BALTIMORE

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 VOL 8 | NO 1

Ethics and Professionalism Update

B A R R I S T E R

2TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

� e Baltimore Barrister is a quarterly publication of � e Bar Association of Baltimore City provided to its members at no cost as part of annual dues. Non-members subscriptions are available for $50 per year. � e Bar Association of Baltimore City (“BABC”) presents the information contained in the Baltimore Barrister, as a service to our members, including members of the general public. While the information is about legal issues, it is not intended as legal advice or as a substitute for your own legal research and investigation or the particularized advice of your own counsel. Further, any practice tips or summaries of cases contained herein cannot be relied upon as being controlling authority. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors, and are not those of BABC. Finally, the articles contained herein are copyrighted, all rights, reserved by the respective authors and/or their law � rms, companies or organizations. People seeking speci� c legal advice or assistance should contact an attorney, either by contacting the BABC Lawyer Referral Service or another source. BABC does not guarantee the accuracy of any of the information or forms presented herein. Similarly, we provide links to other sites that we believe may be useful or informative. � ese links to third party sites or information are not intended as, and should not be interpreted by you as constituting or implying our endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the third party information, products or services found there. We do not maintain or control those sites and, accordingly, make no guarantee concerning the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information found there. Further, the contents of advertisements are the responsibility of advertisers and do not represent any recommendation or endorse-ment by BABC. BABC may deny publishing any submission or advertisement, in its sole and absolute discretion. For information on submissions or advertising, call or email the editorial o� ces at

410-539-5936/[email protected]. Copyright 2018 by � e Bar Association of Baltimore City.

The Baltimore BarristerEditorial O� ces

� e Bar Association of Baltimore City111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627

Baltimore, Maryland 21202410.539.5936

[email protected]

Evelyn L. CussonJessica Butkera

Lauren LakeSisi Liu

Sara Lucas

Michael John March, Jr.

Meaghan McDermott

Amy Petkovsek

Levi S. Zaslow

Kelly Hughes Iverson, President� e Honorable Dana M. Middleton, President-Elect

Darren L. Kadish, Vice PresidentAnthony F. Vittoria, TreasurerMichelle K. Wilson, Secretary

Divya Potdar, Chair, YLDJoseph A. Pulver, Chair-Elect, YLD

Young Lawyers’ DivisionRobert D. Anbinder� omas H. Barnard

Catherine A. BledsoeCharles M. Blomquist

Joshua L. CaplanScarlett M. CorsoEvelyn L. CussonJanet A. Forero

� e Honorable Karen FriedmanAlicia J. Gipe

Je� rey J. HinesLauren Lake

� e Honorable Lynn Stewart MaysDavid J. McManus

Myshala E. MiddletonErin C. Miller

James W. MotsayM. Natalie McSherry

� e Honorable Christopher L. PanosMarshall B. PaulSamuel R. Pulver

Kerri L. Smith� e Honorable Michael Studdard

Meghan H. Yanacek

The Bar Association of Baltimore CityO� cers and Executive Council

2018-2019

Communications and News Journal Committee

B A R R I S T E R

3

Table of ContentsDecember 2018 Barrister

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT4

YOUNG LAWYERS’ DIVISION REPORT5

TIPS FOR RESPONDING TO BAR COUNSEL6

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS DO’S AND DON’TS9

RECENT ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OPINIONS10

SHOULD I POST THIS?: LAW CLERKS ON SOCIAL MEDIA8

YLD MEET & MINGLE WITH YLD COMMITTEE CHAIRS18

YLD PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECT AT BELIEVE IN TOMORROW CHILDREN’S HOUSE19

12TH ANNUAL END OF SUMMER MEMBER’S RECEPTION19

BABC’S ANNUAL CRAB FEAST20

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMISTICE23

MENTOR/MENTEE NETWORKING EVENT23

NATIONAL ADOPTION DAY CELEBRATION24

PRACTICE TIPS ON TAP WITH HON. KEVIN M. WILSON21

CABARET & CABERNET21

WELCOME NEW BABC MEMBERS!28

CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES29

AROUND THE OFFICES31

SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR ANNUAL LAW FIRM SPONSORS32

24TH ANNUAL PAST PRESIDENT’S LUNCH25

YOUNG LAWYERS VOLUNTEER AT OUR DAILY BREAD25

B A R R I S T E R

4BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Message from the PresidentBy Kelly Hughes Iverson

In the last several years, I have seen many social media friends adopt No-vember as a “thankfulness” month, extending the hol-iday of Thanksgiving for a full month and challeng-ing themselves and their friends each day to identify something for which they are grateful. The practice, while lighthearted and so-cial in nature, invites us to take stock of our lives and

recognize what is truly important. The November/December issue’s focus on Professionalism and Ethics is well timed, as it too invites us as lawyers and judge to take stock and identify what makes the practice of law more than a business, or in other words, what makes us a profession.

There is no time more important to do so, and perhaps no time more difficult to do so, than now. We inhabit a world that is becoming, as it was for Alice in Wonderland, “curiouser and cu-riouser.” Our 24/7 news cycle bombards us with dizzying speed, as newsmakers compete to stay on our screens. We see so many outrageous comments and behaviors in our national news every day that we become numb to outrage. Truth is relative; facts are alternative; and science is an optional belief system. The world self-divides into “us” and “them,” and winning at any cost begins to take priority over our collective best interests. This national incivility seeps incipiently into local and individual spheres as we retreat into our “bubbles” and individuals begin to deper-sonalize others in their communities. Taken to the extreme, the ongoing depersonalization of “the other” leads to atrocities such as those seen in the last few weeks, including the cold-blood-ed murder of two kind, loving grandparents because they were black, and the massacre of 11 upstanding community members because they were Jews.

We as lawyers have long inhabited an adversarial system. By

its nature and design, our system of justice has “winners” and “losers.” Unchecked, such a system could readily descend into the divisive “us/them” mentality that currently infects our na-tional conversation. We all recognize a duty to zealously rep-resent our clients, and in our current climate, we may face in-creasing pressure from clients and others to depersonalize the opponent, and to win at any cost.

Fortunately, our legal system is not unchecked. Centuries of living with an adversarial system, kept in perspective, have pro-duced a set of principles and mores that guide our interactions with each other, with our courts, and with our clients. Certain of these have been codified into professional rules of ethics; oth-ers are more ingrained as unwritten guides to “doing the right thing.” These unwritten guidelines may be more difficult to dis-cern than one might imagine, because as the articles in this issue illustrate, many situations create shades of gray for which there is no easy answer. Many lessons in professionalism and ethics can be learned only through experience, which includes watch-ing others with more experience navigate the inevitable bumps along the road.

This is where the Bar Association plays an important role. With the number of young lawyers striking out on their own soon after law school, the opportunities to learn at the feet of more experienced lawyers can be more limited. The Bar Asso-ciation offers that opportunity, both through a formal mentor-ship program and through informal contacts and discussions. And on a broader scale for lawyers with all levels of experience, the Bar Association serves an important purpose in develop-ing professionalism. It is more difficult to depersonalize, cast as “the other,” and employ scorched earth or “gotcha” tactics against someone whom we see often at social events or with whom we serve on professional committees. The Bar Associa-tion reminds us that, regardless of the identity of our clients, we have much more in common than we have differences. The rest of society could learn something about professionalism from us, and from our collective centuries of experience. We have been and continue to be first and foremost a profession. And for that, I am thankful.

B A R R I S T E R


� e Young Lawyers’ Division has had an extremely busy fall. � anks to a very ener-getic group of council members who plan weekly and monthly events, the YLD has seen an increase in membership this year.

� e YLD Council got together for a “sci-ence fair” style Meet & Mingle event to start the bar year. � is kick-o� event was not only a happy hour, but also served as a way for

members and non-members alike to learn about all our committees. Many attendees signed up to be on committees as the Chairs of all the YLD Committees showcased their respective committees and discussed their upcoming projects.

� e YLD Membership Committee has helped organize three monthly happy hours, each of which had over 70 attendees of all ages and practice areas. � e YLD CLE Committee organized it’s � rst-ever ‘Practice Tips on Tap’ educational event. � is CLE is similar to the ever-popular ‘Breakfast with the Bench,’ but held at the end of the work-day in a more casual and relaxed environment. On a healthier note, � e Health & Wellness Committee organized a � rst-ever, free, active, work-out event featuring a local physical therapist, gym, and personal trainer. ‘From Circuit Court to Circuit Training’ welcomed lawyers of all ages and � tness levels to de-stress with a 45 minute work-out and 15 minute stretching session. � e Committee is work-ing on another � tness event for December with the same therapist and trainer.

� e YLD Public Service Committee has helped three di� erent charity organizations in their monthly volunteer sessions so far. � e Committee cooked for and served dinner at Johns Hopkins Believe in Tomorrow Children’s House in September and served dinner at Our Daily Bread in November. In October, the Committee assisted with the mock trial of People vs. Jack and the Beanstalk which was organized by � e Harambe Center (formerly Kids Safe Zone) and held at the Wabash District Courthouse.

Speaking of mock trials, the YLD Public Education Committee has been hard at work this fall preparing students from Highland-town Middle School and Francis Scott Key Middle School for the Mock Trial of People v. Clevenger. Volunteers have been going into

the two schools every week to help the 11-12 year old students pre-pare both the prosecution and defense cases. Students have been practicing against their classmates with the help of 3-6 volunteer lawyers and judges in each session. � e Big Finale Mock Trial Com-petition was between both schools and will be held at the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Circuit Court Judge, and President-Elect of BABC, Dana Middleton, presided over the � nal Mock Trial Com-petition on December 11th. Volunteer classmates from both schools who did not sign up for the program were asked to serve as jurors. Circuit Court Judge Christopher Panos and former states’ attorney Letam Duson spoke to the students during lunch.

� e Mentoring Program has successfully matched up over thir-ty-� ve pairs of mentors and mentees. � e YLD Mentoring Program matches new attorneys with less than seven years of experience with attorneys who have been barred for more than seven years. Partici-pants are encouraged to meet twice in a year and attend at least one BABC event during the bar year.

� e YLD CLE Committee has coordinated three lecture sessions featuring local judges thus far. In October the Committee had Dis-trict Court Judge Kevin Wilson provide practice tips for litigators and U.S Magistrate Judge Copperthite spoke about the importance of mediations and settlement conferences. In November, Circuit Court Judge Lynn Stewart Mays conducted a round-table discussion about various vital trial practice topics that are not taught in law school.

� e YLD Events Committee called local businesses and drove around town collecting donations for the silent auction featured at the BABC Holiday Party, which was held on December 6th. Proceeds of the silent auction items bene� t the YLD Holiday Party for Chil-dren Living in Shelters, which was held on December 11th. � is is an annual event in which the YLD brings children and families living in Baltimore City homeless shelters to the Maryland Science Center for an evening of entertainment. � e attendees received a hot meal, a visit with Santa, and holiday gi� s. � e children enjoyed entertain-ment provided by the Oriole Bird, a magician, face painters, a stilt walker and juggler, a therapy dog, and hands-on exhibits at the Sci-ence Center. � e children also enjoyed making arts and cra� s and playing with balloon animals. � e YLD appreciates all those who volunteered their time and money for this wonderful holiday event.

Report from the YLDBy Divya Potdar, Chair, Young Lawyers’ Division

B A R R I S T E R


There are a little over 40,000 attorneys licensed to practice law in Maryland. Every year, the Attorney Grievance Commis-sion receives about 2,000 complaints. The statistics show that, if you represent individuals in family law matters, litigation, crimi-nal defense or immigration matters in Baltimore City or County, at some point during your career, you will likely be called upon to respond to an inquiry from Bar Counsel.1

The Court of Appeals has stated: “The practice of law carries with it special responsibilities of self-regulation, and attor-ney cooperation with disciplinary authorities is of the utmost importance to the success of the process and the integrity of the profession.”2 To that end, the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC), Rule 8.1 imposes upon mem-

1 See Annual Report of the Attorney Grievance Commission available at: https://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/annualreport.

2 Attorney Grievance Commission v. Butler, 441 Md. 352, 360 (2015) (citing Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234, 255 (2000)).

bers of the bar the obligation to respond to inquiries from Bar Counsel truthfully, completely, and timely. Treat your response not only as a fulfillment of your obligation under the MARPC but also as a chance to complete (or correct) the record, to clear up misunderstandings, and, when warranted, to accept responsi-bility for your acts or omissions that have violated the standards of our profession.

With those guiding principles in mind, the following tips are provided:

Do not panic. Although almost every complaint received by my office is sent to the subject attorney for a response, we are well aware that a complaint is just one side of the story. Once we receive a response, and possibly additional comments from the complainant, 80-90% of complaints are closed with a determina-tion that an insufficient basis exists to demonstrate misconduct or that the overall circumstances do not warrant an investiga-tion.3

3 Maryland Rule 19-711.

Tips for Responding to Bar CounselBy Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel

Mediation • Arbitration • Special Master888-343-0922 • www.McCammonGroup.com • [email protected]

John H. Lewin, Jr., Esq. Hon. Gale E. Rasin (Ret.) Kenneth L. Thompson, Esq. Hon. Martin P. Welch (Ret.)Hon. John M. Glynn (Ret.)

The McCammon Group’sBaltimore Area Neutrals

B A R R I S T E R


Open the envelope and read the complaint. The Court of Appeals has routinely rejected attorneys’ contentions that they failed to respond, or respond timely, to Bar Counsel’s inquiries because they hoped the complaint would simply “go away” or they buried their head in the sand because of an “irrational fear of Bar Counsel.”4 I can assure you that the complaint, if ignored, will not go away.

Check your malpractice insurance. A number of carriers write policies that provide representation with no deductible, up to a limit, for responding to Bar Counsel. If you don’t have malpractice insurance, now may be a good time to get some.

Choose your attorney wisely. If you retain counsel, she should be able to give you objective advice. She should understand the nuances of the disciplinary process and the importance of cooperating with Bar Counsel.

Tips for the self-represented. For those who choose to represent themselves, the following may be instructive.

4 Butler, 441 Md. 361.

First, wait at least one day before doing anything. Resist the urge to fire off a response immediately; it is neither required nor advisable. Ordinarily, an attorney is given fifteen days to respond to an initial inquiry. If you need additional time, extensions for good cause are routinely granted. Second, before you draft your response, review your entire file and all relevant documentation. Do not rely on your memory. Misrepresentations or misstatements will, at best, under-mine your credibility, and at worst, provide the basis for a violation of Rule 8.1(a) which prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in con-nection with a disciplinary matter. Remember that an at-torney’s response will ordinarily be sent to the complainant and if inaccuracies or misstatements are contained therein, Bar Counsel is generally notified in short order.

Third, write a draft response and have it fully vetted by another attorney who is not involved and who can give you an objective critique. Make sure that your response is responsive to the allegations raised in the complaint and includes copies of any relevant documents. Next, proofread. Then proofread again, and finally, proofread. A response to a client complaint alleging lack of diligence that is filled with typos and errors will do nothing to further your con-tention that you represented the client within the mandates of the MARPC.

Do Not Blame or Attack Others. Finally, do not attack the complainant or Bar Counsel and do not blame others for your acts or omissions. “[A]ttorneys are required to act with common courtesy and civility at all times in their dealings with those concerned with the legal process” including Bar Counsel, complaining clients and others. “[W]holly un-warranted character assassination violates the very core of professionalism and is condemned.”5 Besides the general admonition from the Court of Appeals that such conduct reflects adversely on the profession, the strategy, whether developed by you or your attorney, will do nothing to fur-ther your cause.

The importance of an attorney’s response to an inquiry from Bar Counsel cannot be overstated. The initial re-sponse will often determine whether the complaint should be closed or docketed for further investigation. For the vast majority of practitioners, a complete, accurate and pro-fessional response will enable us to close the file. In cases involving serious misconduct or where additional investiga-tion is needed, an attorney’s response is critical in evaluat-ing not only what Rules of Professional Conduct may have been violated but the severity of the sanction, ultimately, to be imposed.

5 Attor ney Grievance Commission v. Payer, 425 Md. 78, 98 (2012).

B A R R I S T E R


In late September 2017, about one month into my second judicial clerkship, a collection of law clerks for the district judges and magistrate judges of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland gathered in a conference room in the Clerk’s Office for a live-streamed training by a federal district court judge in another district. The topic: What Every Law Clerk Needs to Know about Ethics When Starting a Clerkship.

The presentation covered several ethical topics before winding its way to some points about social media. The presenter informed us that we could not post anything disparaging about the court or remarks that would detract from the court’s dignity. We nodded in agreement. Sure, that made sense. We were also told not to post anything about any pending cases or anything that would suggest that we engaged in favoritism or otherwise could influence a case. More nods from the clerks. Of course, we would also have access to confidential information in chambers that we could not broadcast.

But then the presenter commented on how law clerks should refrain from associating with or commenting on any political or social issues that may be litigated by the court and she started listing a few current issues, including President Trump’s immigration and transgender military personnel bans and the white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Concerned expressions flashed across several law clerks’ faces as they racked their brains about their recent social media posts. One law clerk posed a question about her posts from before she started clerking. In response, she was told that if there was anything on her social media feed that could call her impartiality as an employee of her judge and the court into question or possibly be challenged before the Court, she needed to make it private or delete it and refrain from commenting in the future until after her clerkship.

I would bet that this was not the only law clerk in the room to suddenly realize that he or she had posted some inappropriate content on social media given his or her employment with the court. Instead, this was just one law clerk’s moment of realization when she recognized that her use of social media undercut some of the aims and policies of the court, including the need to maintain the appearance of neutrality and impartiality within the judiciary. It can be difficult in today’s media age to not engage when a young attorney hears about something he or

she feels is right or wrong. As advocates, many attorneys feel an obligation to voice their opinions about legal issues, to inform and offer opinions to their non-legal peers on the current issues.

There is a time and place for that. That does not mean that current or future law clerks cannot express their views. Instead, they just should not do so on social media where other people can see and possibly misinterpret their viewpoints and attribute them to the court or judge for which the law clerk works. As difficult as it might be for any attorney to refrain from posting, liking, or engaging with certain content on social media, law clerks, with their close working relationship to judges, need to ensure that their use of social media adheres to the judiciar y’s need to remain neutral and impartial.

Bernadette T MillsR N , M S N , C L N C

[email protected] 410-563-5321

Save time and money in preparing medical-related cases when you work with a dependable legal nurse consultant on your side. I offer expert advice to attorneys working on cases related to medical malpractice and personal injury.

I assist you with unfolding facts that can make or break your case. I have diversely expanded my knowledge base in various medical fields as I’ve spent more than 40 years of experience in:

• Pediatrics• Home Health• Clinical Research

Give me a call or send me a message for an initial consultation. I serve clients in the entire state of Maryland.

Mills Legal NurseConsulting Services LLC

Should I Post This?: Law Clerks on Social MediaBy Lauren E. Lake, Esq.

B A R R I S T E R


1. Be mindful when using social media. Never post client or case speci� c information on Facebook, In-stagram, Snapchat, or any other social media services. Sel� es of you and your clients in court are probably not a great idea. More-over, only post professional, well written articles on Linkedin or other professional social media services. Keep in mind, profes-sional networking services are a tool, that when used e� ectively, can greatly increase your exposure to the legal community and provide a source of referrals and access to new clients. Make it easy for people to connect with you. Post articles that you are passionate about, but keep in mind, if your information is public, anyone can read your posts, and your opinions may change over time.

2. Always be prepared. � ere is no substitute for putting in the time to obtain the facts, research the law, undergo a thorough analysis, and adequately prepare. Alternatively, not being prepared almost always re� ects poorly on your reputation and disadvantages your client. Every-one is busy in the legal community. � e long hours required to be prepared will be worth it in the end.

3. Be professional, kind, and courteous to opposing counsel. Sometimes the opposing counsel can be stubborn, unresponsive, and unkind. Always take the high road, and remember you get more bees with honey than vinegar. Plus, it is highly likely you will encounter the same attorney in the future. It is called “Small-timore” for a reason.

4. Ask questions. Leverage your resources. In today’s constantly changing legal environment it is impossi-ble to know everything. Utilize the resources around you. Start with an old fashioned google search. Move on to Westlaw, Lexus Nexus, or other professional research platforms. Finally, don’t be afraid to ask your old law school classmates or other attorneys. Most likely, if you have a question, someone else has encountered the same issue and had the same questions.

5. Respond to clients within 24 hours, if possible, and in the medium in which they prefer to communicate. Timely communication with your clients is essential. Never leave your client’s wondering about the status of their case. Even if it is just to check in and tell them you are still working towards a resolution. Obtaining your client’s trust starts with good com-munication. Moreover, your client will communicate with you in the means in which they prefer. Some clients enjoy email, some want to hear your voice on the phone, others will request face to face meetings. It is important to help your client feel as comfort-able as possible, remember this is most likely a stressful time in their life.

6. Attend as many continuing legal education (“CLE”) events, seminars, and networking opportunities as possible. Find a mentor. Your education should not stop when you graduate law school. Countless free CLE’s are o� ered by national, state, and local bar organizations. CLEs are a great way to learn about the areas of law in which you practice. � ey are also a great way to learn about other areas of the law. At its best, CLEs can help you ef-fectively represent your clients, stay up on recent trends in the law, and understand questions the legal community is facing. At its worst, you have new conversational topics to discuss at happy hour.

7. Never comingle client funds and personal funds. Keep detailed records of your escrow account(s). We have all heard the horror stories about attorneys getting disbarred for misappropriation of client escrow accounts. My advice is to keep it simple. If the funds are not yours, do not touch them, unless you have an absolute right to them. Keep detailed records of your accounts including who has access to them. Moreover, when transferring funds, keep a detailed log of the contracts or documents associated with the cause of the fund movement. Maintain one business account and one escrow account and never transfer funds electronically or comingle cli-ent and personal funds. If you ever have questions, or feel that you have made a mistake, reach out to the ethics hotline im-mediately. It happens, and there are people who can help. It is always advantageous to proactively resolve an issue rather than wait to see if it becomes a problem in the future.

8. Always be on time, dress professionally, and be mind-ful of your behavior. Plan to arrive at least 20 minutes before your intended meeting or your court appearance. � is allows time for unforeseen ob-stacles that may present themselves. Being on time is o� en tak-en for granted. However, being late rarely goes unnoticed as it can frustrate clients, opposing attorneys, and the judge. � ere is no second chance at a � rst impression. Further, dressing profes-sionally is essential to gaining client con� dence and the respect of the court, especially for younger attorneys. Finally, always be mindful of your behavior as you never know who is watching. Your next client, employer, or mentor could be watching to see how you handle yourself under pressurized situations. Remem-ber, pressure creates diamonds, but it also bursts pipes.

9. Have fun. At a minimum, you spent four years obtaining an undergradu-ate degree, three years in law school, and countless hours pre-paring for the bar exam. � e amount of time, e� ort, and hard work it took to get here should be displayed as a badge of honor, so have fun with your p ractice and enjoy it.

Professional Ethics Do’s and Don’tsBy Michael March, Esq.

B A R R I S T E R

1 0BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Recent Attorney Grievance Commission Opinions from the Maryland Court of AppealsBy Sisi Liu and Sara Lucas

The following are summaries of Attorney Grievance Commission (“AGC”) opinions from the beginning of this year handed down by the Maryland Court of Appeals:

“Criminal Activity/Offenses”In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ogilvie, Bar

Counsel petitioned for the Court of Appeals to take disciplinary action against attorney Ogilvie, pursuant to “MARPC” Rule 19–738.1 In 2014, Ogilvie was indicted in the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia with one count of felony breaking and entering while armed with a deadly weapon, one count of felony malicious wounding, and one count of felony abduction.2 After submitting an Alford plea, the judge sentenced Ogilvie to fifty years of incarceration, with forty-six years suspended and supervised probation for an indefinite period of time, with additional conditions of probation.3 As a result, the court concluded that Ogilvie’s criminal conviction demonstrated a violation of MARPC Rule 19–308.4 (Misconduct) (b), (c), and (d).4 The Court determined that the felonious nature of Ogilvie’s conduct, her criminal conviction and sentence, her failure to report her charges and conviction to Bar Counsel, and the absence of any extenuating circumstances, warranted disbarment.5

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Blair, attorney Blair was convicted of fourteen criminal charges in federal court.6 Blair was immediately suspended from the practice

1 181 A.3d 218, 221 (Md. 2018). MARPC 19–738(i) states “a fi nal judgment of any court of record convicting an attorney of a crime, whether the conviction resulted from acceptance by the court of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a verdict after trial, is conclusive evidence of the attorney’s guilt of that crime.”2 Id. at 219.3 Id.4 Id. at 692-93. It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: (b) commit a criminal act that refl ects adversely on the attorney’s hones-ty, trustworthiness or fi tness as an attorney in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Md. Rule 19–308.4. 5 Id. at 223.6 188 A.3d 1009, 1016 (Md. 2018). The criminal charges included nine counts of money laundering; one count each of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and making a false statement; and two counts of willful failure to fi le federal income tax returns. Id. See also The Associated Press, Lawyer Disbarred by Maryland High Court For

of law, pending a request for reconsideration if the Fourth Circuit ruled in his favor on appeal.7 The Fourth Circuit affirmed thirteen of the fourteen counts, and Blair was sentenced to ninety-seven months in prison.8 When Blair was released from custody in late 2017, he filed for reinstatement.9 In response, the court permanently disbarred Blair.10

In disbarring Blair, the court concluded that Blair violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d) because each of the thirteen convictions reflected dishonest and fraudulent conduct, prejudicial to the administration of justice.11 In considering mitigation, the court found that an evidentiary hearing on mitigating factors was unnecessary because Blair had already “unequivocally admitted” to all of his convictions.12 Furthermore, the court articulated that “in light of the dishonest and criminal nature of Blair’s misconduct, the number of instances of misconduct, and the egregiousness of the conduct, compelling extenuating circumstances would be necessary to preclude disbarment.”13 The court also emphasized that standing alone, “any one of the eleven felonies that Blair committed . . . would heavily weigh in favor of disbarment.”14 Ultimately, the court found no extenuating circumstances existed, thus mandating disbarment.15

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Paul, Bar Counsel charged attorney Paul with violating multiple rules of professional conduct stemming from his convictions of traffic offenses and his involvement in contentious

Money Laundering, WTOP (July 14, 2018, 4:38 PM) https://wtop.com/maryland/2018/07/lawyer-disbarred-by-maryland-high-court-for-money-laundering/.

7 Blair, 188 A.3d at 1012. 8 Id.9 Id.10 Id. at 1027. 11 Id. at 1026. 12 Id. at 1020. 13 Id. at 1023. 14 Id. at 1026. 15 Id. at 1023–26. Writing separately, Judge Harrell disagreed with the majority and would have given Blair an opportunity to present an evidentiary hearing “limited to the accepted factors of sanction mitigation . . . .” Id. at 1027 (Harell, J., dissenting).

B A R R I S T E R


litigation.16 Regarding his traffic offenses, Paul was arrested and given traffic citations charging negligent driving, failure to stop after accident involving damages to attended vehicle/property, unsafe lane change, and failure to return to/remain at scene of accident involving attended vehicle/property damage.17 Paul ultimately pled guilty to two charges of failing to return/remain at the scene of an accident involving damage to attended vehicle/property and negligent driving.18 Regarding contentious litigation in which Paul was representing a client, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County concluded that Paul brought claims in bad faith and without substantial justification.19

The court found that clear and convincing evidence supported the conclusion that Paul violated MLRPC 8.4(a), (b), and (d).20 Specifically, Paul violated MLRPC 8.4(a) and (b) when he plead guilty to negligent driving.21 Furthermore, Paul violated 8.4(d) when he engaged in road rage, which served as the basis for his guilty plea to negligent driving.22 Thus, the court suspended Paul from practicing law for 30 days and imposed costs notwithstanding Bar Counsel’s failure to prove all charges.23

“Unauthorized Practice of Law”In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ndi, a New York

State attorney, Ndi, who was not licensed to practice in Maryland, was disbarred for multiple MLPRC and MARPC violations,24 specifically, Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, 7.1, 7.5, 8.1, and 8.4 as well as Maryland Rule 19–308.1 and Maryland Rule 19–308.4 during his representation of two clients.25 Ndi engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he was not licensed in the state of Maryland, yet he held himself out as an attorney licensed to practice in the state.26 In addition to lacking prerequisites to practice law in Maryland, the court found that Ndi also failed to meet basic standards of client representation when he failed to re-file client’s asylum application, to provide

16 187 A.3d 625, 628 (Md. 2018). 17 Id. at 534. 18 Id. at 535. 19 Id. at 538. 20 Id. at 634–41.21 Id. at 634. 22 Id. at 637–38. 23 Id. at 641 (applying the holding from Sperling).24 184 A.3d 25, 27 (Md. 2018). 25 Id. at 33-37.26 Id. at 35. In holding himself out to be a licensed attorney in Maryland, NDI also violated Rule 7.1 when he made false and misleading communications about his services to his client. Rule 7.5 was broken when Respondent advertised, by way of a website, that he was able to practice in Maryland, and not just limited to federal immigration matters. Id. at 36.

supporting evidence in appealing a removal order, to file a timely motion to reconsider that decision, and the untimely motion he ended up filing did not state any appropriate rationale.27 In another client’s case, Ndi violated the standards of competence and diligence by failing to pay client’s medical bill, as he had promised.28 Upon ending representation, Ndi failed to communicate with client and issue the rest of client’s settlement proceeds.29 In reaching the decision to disbar the respondent, the trial court found several aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.30

In affirming the trial court’s findings of fact, the court reasoned that the case for disbarment is heightened when an attorney, who is not even authorized to practice in Maryland, violates basic standards of legal practice, misleads the regulatory authority, refuses to participate in Bar Counsel proceedings and therefore fails to offer mitigating evidence in his favor.31

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hecht, the court indefinitely suspended Hecht with the right to petition for reinstatement in 12 months.32 Specifically, Hecht violated MLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(a) and (d), 3.2, 3.3, 3.4(d), 4.1, 5.5(a) and (b), 8.1 and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). Respondent failed to communicate to his client that he was suspended, made misrepresentations to the client about his suspension, continued to render legal assistance on behalf of the client, and made misrepresentations to Bar Counsel during the investigation.33 Additionally, Respondent showed a lack of competence and diligence by repeatedly failing to comply with discovery deadlines and delaying his client’s trial unnecessarily and ultimately caused the case to be dismissed.34

Generally, although this type of conduct resulted in disbarment, the court found there was sufficient mitigating evidence.35 Such evidence included Hecht admitting that he made mistakes in the way he handled client’s case, expressing remorse for such mistakes, not profiting from the clients’ case, paying the clients $30,000 of his own money as restitution after his client’s case was dismissed, and making numerous unsuccessful efforts to get new

27 Id. at 32.28 Id.29 Id. at 33. The court found in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Logan, 888 A.2d 359 (Md. 2005), that an attorney violates Rule 1.16 (d) when he abandons representation of a client, refuses to return records, and refuses to engage in further communications. 30 Id. at 38. 31 Id.32 184 A.3d 429, 432 (Md. 2018).33 Id. at 431–32.34 Id. at 438.

35 Id. at 444.

B A R R I S T E R


counsel to represent his clients.36 Based on the totality of mitigating factors, the court indefinitely suspended Hecht, with the right to petition for reinstatement after twelve months from the date of opinion.37 In contrast, the dissenting judges found the lack of compelling extenuating circumstances, intentionally dishonest conduct, his numerous other violations of the MLRPC, aggravating factors, history of prior attorney discipline, and recognizing that the misconduct in this case occurred while Hecht was already indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland, warranted disbarment.38

“Pattern of Misconduct”In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Jacobs, the

court disbarred solo practitioner, Jacobs, when he repeatedly harmed the same client by failing basic duties of representation in addition to other violations, including MARPC Rules 19–301.1 (Competence), 19–301.3 (Diligence), 19–301.4 (Communication), 19–301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19–308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct).39 Jacobs failed to serve notice on the two motorists who allegedly struck his client’s vehicle on two separate occasions and then failed to tell his client, even after both claims had been dismissed.40 The court found several aggravating factors in addition to Jacob’s prior reprimand for failing to serve a defendant and failing to communicate with his client. 41 Specifically, Jacobs engaged in a pattern of misconduct including, a bad faith obstruction of disciplinary proceedings, refusing to respond to Bar Counsel’s repeated requests for information regarding the client, making false statements to Bar Counsel and was likely to repeat misconduct in the future.42

The court considered Jacob’s prior Bar Counsel reprimand and a lack of mitigating factors in reaching disbarment as the appropriate sanction.43 Additionally, Jacob’s incompetence, lack of diligence in handling his client’s matters, failure to communicate with his client, failure to properly terminate representation, knowingly misrepresenting material facts to Bar Counsel and his

36 Id. 37 Id.38 Id. at 447. (Greene, J., dissenting).39 185 A.3d 132, 135 (Md. 2018). 40 Id. 134-37.41 Id. at 142.42 Id. at 143.43 Id. at 145-46. The court found in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 105 A.3d 467, 478 (Md. 2014), that an attorney who also intentionally misrepresented facts to client and Bar Counsel deserved a sentence less than disbarment because there were no previous disciplinary matters, unlike the facts of the present case.

client, and failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries also contributed to the sanction of disbarment.44

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sacks, the court disbarred attorney, Sacks, who engaged in numerous forms of serious misconduct that involved multiple clients and included misappropriating funds, fabricating documents, and making misrepresentations to courts, clients, and opposing counsel.45 The Court found it significant that Sacks violated MLRPC 8.4(c) on thirteen occasions, in addition to other violations;46 specifically, MLRPC 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), (c), (d), and (e), 1.16(d), 3.1, 3.4(c) and (d), 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and (b).47 The above rule violations were triggered upon termination of Sack’s representation, and his continued work on former clients’ cases without their permission, and also Sack’s failure to refund client’s fees.48 Additionally, Sacks harmed his clients when he failed to file and amend his client’s petitions in a timely manner49 and deprived his clients of their funds and files by charging unreasonable fees.50 The hearing judge also found that Sacks committed a crime when he trespassed on client property.51 Sacks also harmed courts, parties and opposing counsel by initiating eight frivolous actions or appeals, his assertion of frivolous issues, and his failure to obey the discovery rules. 52

Although the hearing judge did not mention any aggravating factors, the court found multiple, including a pattern of misconduct, likelihood of repetition, indifference to restitution and a selfish motive, multiple MLRPC violations, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, the vulnerability of clients to misconduct, Sacks’ substantial experience in the law and Sacks engaging in illegal conduct, such as trespassing and harassing and threatening witnesses and lawyers.53 These aggravating factors in addition to copious instances of rule violations in representing seven clients, all warranted disbarment.54

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Powell, Bar Counsel alleged that attorney Powell violated multiple ethics rules in connection with his conduct during

44 Id. at 144-45.45 A.3d 86, 89 (Md. 2018).46 Id. at 116-18.47 “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (b) commit a criminal act that refl ects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fi tness as a lawyer in other respects.” MLRPC 8.4(b). 48 Id. at 105. Here, the Respondent was found to have violated MLRPC 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer). 49 Id. at 118. 50 Id. 51 Id. at 115.52 Id. 53 Id. at 118-19.54 Id. at 119.

B A R R I S T E R


the administration of an estate and mishandling of his attorney trust accounts.55 While representing the personal representative of an estate, Powell failed to comply with orders of the Orphans’ Court, which resulted in his client’s removal as personal representative of the estate.56 Additionally, Powell took possession of financial assets of the estate and deposited the funds into his personal account.57 Bar Counsel charged Powell with violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4, 8.1, and 8.4 in the course of representing a personal representative in the administration of an estate.58 Regarding his attorney trust account, Bar Counsel charged Powell with violating Md. Rule 16-603, 16-606.1, 16-607, and 16-609.59

Powell’s actions ultimately resulted in disbarment for several reasons.60 First, the court emphasized that Powell had numerous previous ethical violations, signaling that this could not be considered “an isolated incident.”61 Previously, Powell had received two reprimands, one for wrongful disbursement of funds from an escrow account and the second for giving himself a substantial gift from his client who was not represented by independent counsel during the transaction.62 Moreover, Powell did not cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigation into his attorney trust account, and refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.63 Accordingly, the court agreed with Bar Counsel that Powell was likely to engage in misconduct in the future, rendering any other sanction insufficient.64

“Procedural Issues in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings”

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sperling, Bar Counsel charged brothers and law partners Samuel and Jonathan Sperling with violating a plethora of rules of professional conduct following an investigation triggered from notice that their firm’s trust account was overdrawn.65 Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Samuel violated MLRPC 1.15(a) and (d), 5.3(a)–(d), 5.4(a) and (d), 5.5(a), 8.1(a) and (b), and 8.4(a)–(d) and Jonathan violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)–(b) 1.5(a)–(b), 1.16(d),

55 192 A.3d 633, 639 (Md. 2018). 56 Id. at 206–09.57 Id. at 212. 58 Id. at 639.59 Id.60 Id. at 228. 61 Id. at 227. 62 Id. 63 Id. at 228. 64 Id.65 185 A.3d 76, 85 (Md. 2018).

5.3(d)(3), 8.1(a)–(b), and 8.4(a)–(d).66 The court found that the brothers violated some, but not all, of the rules in which Bar Counsel charged.67

In response to the court’s conclusion that Bar Counsel did not prove all violations, both parties attempted to impute costs on the other party.68 Prior to this case, the court had “yet to define ‘prevailing party’ as it is used in Md. Rule 19-709.69 Here, the court seized the opportunity to define “prevailing party,” and found “the determination of who is a prevailing party will depend on the Court’s ‘determination in terms of an assessment,’ on a case-by-case basis.”70 Although far from a definitive standard, the court also specified that “Bar Counsel need not prove all, or even a majority, of the allegations levied against an attorney to be considered a ‘prevailing party.’”71 Finally, in assessing reduced costs against the brothers, the court asserted it will “not just rubberstamp every cost that Bar Counsel claims.”72 Ultimately, Samuel was suspended for 90 days and Jonathan was suspended indefinitely.73

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Clevenger, a Texas-barred attorney, Clevenger, requested that the Maryland AGC investigate the professional misconduct of three Maryland-barred attorneys in the course of their representation of the former Secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the Commission declined.74 Following the AGC’s refusal to investigate, Clevenger filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, and sought to compel Bar Counsel to investigate.75 The circuit court indicated that it would order Bar Counsel to investigate.76 The AGC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Court of Appeals retained original and complete jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters.77

The Court of Appeals granted cert, and held that the

66 Id.67 Id. at 123. The court found that Samuel violated MLRPC 1.15(a), 5.3(b) and (d)(2)(F), 5.4(d)(1), and 8.4(a) and Jonathan violated MLRPC 5.3(d)(3), 8.1(a), 8.4(a), (c), and (d), and Md. Rule 16-609(b). Id. at 130. 68 Id. at 12869 Id. 70 Id. at 129 (quoting Minutes, Standing Comm. on Rules of Prac-tice & Procedure 48 (Nov. 21, 2014))71 Id. 72 Id. 73 Id. at 130. 74 187 A.3d 81, 82 (Md. 2018). 75 Id. at 83. Clevenger argued that under Md. Rule 19-711, Bar Counsel was required to “investigate every complaint that was not facially frivolous or unfounded.” Id. 76 Id. 77 Id.

B A R R I S T E R


circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant the mandamus petition to order Bar Counsel to investigate Clevenger’s allegations.78 The court reasoned that whether or not Bar Counsel decides to investigate a complaint is within the scope of an “attorney disciplinary proceeding,” and only the Court of Appeals has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings.79

“Gross Misconduct Resulting in Indefinite Suspension”

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lang, Bar Counsel alleged respondent law partners, Lang and Falusi, violated an abundance of professional conduct rules in the course of representing multiple clients and in response to Bar Counsel’s investigation.80 Bar Counsel charged Lang with violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (c), 1.16(d), 3.3, 505(a), 7.1(a), 7.5(a), 8.1(a) and (b), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) as well as Md. Rule 16-303, 16-604, and 16-606.1.81 Bar Counsel charged Falusi with violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (c), 1.16(d), 3.3, 5.5(a) and (b), 7.1(a), 8.1(a) and (b), and 8.4(a)–(d).82 Furthermore, Bar Counsel alleged that Falusi violated 10-601 of the Business Occupations & Professions article of the Maryland Code in connection with his Maryland bar application.83

Of particular import is Judge Watts dissent, in which she parted company with the majority, which suspended Lang and Falusi indefinitely.84 In her dissent, Judge Watts agreed that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.85 Judge Watts highlighted that the majority was correct in determining that Lang and Falusi engaged in “voluminous instances of misconduct, including acts that involved dishonesty, the unauthorized practice of law, and . . . criminal activity.”86 Furthermore, she agreed that Lang’s and Falusi’s misconduct was “aggravated by many factors, including a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of their misconduct.”87 However, Judge Watts believed that previous precedent has required disbarment in such circumstances as those in this case absent extenuating circumstances, of which there were none.88 Finally, Judge

78 Id. at 82.79 Id. at 88. 80 191 A.3d 474, 480 (Md. 2018). 81 Id. 82 Id.83 Id. 84 Id. at 519, 520. 85 Id. at 520 (Watts, J., dissenting). 86 Id. 87 Id.88 Id. at 522–23.

Watts argued that by granting an indefinite suspension, the court established “the precedent that an indefinite suspension is the equivalent of disbarment in terms of protecting the public,” of which she disagrees.89

“Mishandling of Funds and Intentional Dishonesty”

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ghatt, a solo practitioner facilitated a money laundering scheme through inducing investors to advance funds in exchange for the full return of the advanced fees and a future construction loan under the cloak of an escrow agreement.90 To do this, Ghatt’s firm served as an escrow agent, transforming her attorney trust account into a repository for the money laundering scheme.91 These actions served as the basis for Bar Counsel’s Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, charging Ghatt with violating MLRPC 1.15, 3.3, 8.1, and 8.4(a)–(d), Md. Rules 16-607 and 16-609, and 10-306 and 10-606 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code.92

Ultimately, Ghatt’s actions resulted in her disbarment.93 In disbarring Ghatt, the court reasoned that Ghatt “engaged in intentional dishonest conduct and that she misused trust money.”94 The court explained that prior precedent required disbarment as the sanction for violations such as these unless compelling extenuating circumstances exist.95 The court found no compelling extenuating circumstances, and also concluded that no mitigating factors existed except for lack of a disciplinary record.96

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Aita, Bar Counsel alleged that a solo practitioner, Aita, while representing two individuals on immigration matters, failed to represent these clients competently and diligently, and failed to communicate with them regarding the status of their cases.97 By failing to update clients of the status of their cases and failing to appear in court on client’s behalf, one of Aita’s clients did not learn of his absentia removal order until he filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission.98 Additionally, Bar Counsel alleged that Aita failed to safeguard client funds, charged the clients an unreasonable fee, failed to refund unused immigration

89 Id. at 524. 90 192 A.3d 656, 659 (Md. 2018). 91 Id. 92 Id.93 Id. at 684. 94 Id. 95 Id. at 685. 96 Id. at 686. 97 181 A.3d 774, 777–78 (Md. 2018).98 Id. at 780.

B A R R I S T E R


filing fees to the client, and misrepresented material facts to an immigration judge.99 The hearing judge also found nine additional aggravating factors including, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple violations of the MLRPC, submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding, a refusal to acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature, the victim’s vulnerability, substantial experience in the practice of law, indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences, and likelihood of repetition of the misconduct.100

The court affirmed the lower court’s findings of fact and held that Aita had violated several MLRPC rules, including 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(a), (c), and (d), 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).101 Additionally, the court concluded that Aita violated former Maryland Rules 16–604 (Trust Account–Required Deposits) and 16–606.1 (Attorney Trust Account Record–Keeping), when she failed to deposit client’s funds in an attorney trust account or keep any records of the funds received in her client’s matters.102 However, the court found two mitigating factors, which were the absence of prior attorney discipline and positive character or reputation, in favor of Aita.103 In reaching its decision, the Court took the opportunity to weigh in on Aita’s character witness exception regarding her honesty and credibility.104 Affirming the trial court’s decision to overrule the exception, the court reasoned that the substantiated evidence supporting the seriousness of misconduct outweighed Respondent’s testimony of her character.105 In reaching its decision of disbarment, the court referenced a similar case, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas,106 which the court noted that “[d]isbarment is warranted in cases involving flagrant neglect of client affairs,” and particularly considered the vulnerable nature of an immigration client’s status.107

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith, Bar Counsel filed two petitions for disciplinary or remedial action against

99 Id. at 777-78.100 Id. at 787.101 Id. at 777.102 Id. at 786-87.103 Id. at 795.104 Id. 788.105 Id. at 789.106 103 A.3d 629, 649 (Md. 2014).107 Id. at 796. In Thomas, the Court determined disbarment was the appropriate remedy when the attorney failed to respond in a client’s matter, and failed to appear at an immigration hearing, resulting in the client’s removal from the United States. Id. at 634. Especially when clients, with a poor grasp of the English language rely on their lawyer’s expertise and assurances that the lawyer is working in their best interest. Id. at 649.

Smith arising out of his representation of three clients’ post-conviction proceedings.108 Bar Counsel alleged that Smith had violated numerous Maryland Attorney’s Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment.109 The rules violated include Maryland Attorney’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rules (“MARPC”) 19–301.1 (Competence), 19–301.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney), 19–301.3 (Diligence), 19–301.4 (Communication), 19–301.5 (Fees), 19–301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19–301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19–305.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Non–Attorney Assistants), 19–308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 19–308.4 (Misconduct), 19–404 (Trust Account—Required Deposits), 19–407 (Attorney Trust Account Record–Keeping), 19–408 (Commingling of Funds) and 19–410 (Prohibited Transactions).110 Smith failed to communicate with his clients, failed to keep client funds in his trust account before they were earned, failed to create and maintain records of received and disbursed client funds, failed to properly terminate representation, commingled funds, used his trust account in an improper manner, and made misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and his clients.111 The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Smith’s actions violated all rules charged.112

Bar Counsel recommended disbarment, however Smith, on the other hand suggested a 30-day suspension along with a class on handling of client funds.113 Here, the court found that Smith’s intentional dishonesty, negligent misappropriation, voluminous rule violations and several aggravating factors warranted disbarment.114 The aggravating factors considered in fashioning the appropriate sanction of disbarment included, prior disciplinary action, respondent operated with a selfish motive in spending his clients’ money before earning it or producing a useful work product, a pattern of mismanaging trust accounts and comingling of funds, knowingly submitting false timesheets, making false statements to bar counsel, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing.115 Ultimately, the court recommended disbarment as the appropriate sanction based on a combination of MARPC violations and multiple aggravating factors.

108 177 A.3d 640, 645 (Md. 2018).109 Id. at 677. 110 Id. at 645. Bar Counsel charged these violations in 2016, before the recent rule changes. Id.111 Id. at 650-61.112 Id. at 649.113 Id. at 677.

114 Id. at 680.115 Id. at 678.

B A R R I S T E R


Providing excellence and value in insurance and benefi ts services, selected and endorsed by your Bar Associations - for you, for your family, and for your practice.

Through TriBridge Partners, LLC, the Bar Associations Insurance Agency analyzes and endorses insurance policies and benefi t programs to ensure Bar members access to high quality insurance products they can purchase with confi dence at competitive rates.

• Individual and Group Life Insurance• Individual and Group Disability Income Insurance*• Individual & employer-sponsored long-term care insurance*• Business overhead expense insurance• Group long-term & short-term disability insurance• Group and individual dental plans• Lawyers professional liability insurance• General business owners insurance• Homeowners, Auto & Umbrella *Discounted rates available to Bar Association Members

TriBridge Partners, LLC: Coordinating Broker

Baltimore | Bethesda | Frederick

Hagerstown | Washington, DC

240.422.8799 (local) | 855.333.6399 (toll-free)

[email protected] (email)

www.mdbarinsurance.com (website)

FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR A LIFETIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE.

Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.

BCC3156c 915 CRN201709-195795

Securities, investment advisory and fi nancial planning services are offered through qualifi ed registered representatives of MML Investors Services, LLC. Member SIPC. Supervisory offi ce: 11350 McCormick Rd., Executive Plaza IV, Ste 200, Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Phone: 410.785.7654. TriBridge Partners, LLC is not an affi liate or subsidiary of MML Investors Services, LLC or its affi liated companies.

B A R R I S T E R


Providing excellence and value in insurance and benefi ts services, selected and endorsed by your Bar Associations - for you, for your family, and for your practice.

Through TriBridge Partners, LLC, the Bar Associations Insurance Agency analyzes and endorses insurance policies and benefi t programs to ensure Bar members access to high quality insurance products they can purchase with confi dence at competitive rates.

• Individual and Group Life Insurance• Individual and Group Disability Income Insurance*• Individual & employer-sponsored long-term care insurance*• Business overhead expense insurance• Group long-term & short-term disability insurance• Group and individual dental plans• Lawyers professional liability insurance• General business owners insurance• Homeowners, Auto & Umbrella *Discounted rates available to Bar Association Members

TriBridge Partners, LLC: Coordinating Broker

Baltimore | Bethesda | Frederick

Hagerstown | Washington, DC

240.422.8799 (local) | 855.333.6399 (toll-free)

[email protected] (email)

www.mdbarinsurance.com (website)

FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR A LIFETIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE.

Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.

BCC3156c 915 CRN201709-195795

Securities, investment advisory and fi nancial planning services are offered through qualifi ed registered representatives of MML Investors Services, LLC. Member SIPC. Supervisory offi ce: 11350 McCormick Rd., Executive Plaza IV, Ste 200, Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Phone: 410.785.7654. TriBridge Partners, LLC is not an affi liate or subsidiary of MML Investors Services, LLC or its affi liated companies.

Avocado & Toast. Beaches & Volleyball. Gore Brothers & Veritext.

Better Together.

With EVEN MORE enhanced offerings and technologies!

• 50+ Brick and Mortar Offices

• State-of-the-art Deposition Suites

• Video Synchronization

• Native Evidence Capture

• Paperless Depositions

• World Class Data Security

• Remote Depositions

• Online and Mobile Scheduling

• Document Repositories

Schedule your next deposition: (410) 837-3027 | [email protected]

Gore Brothers and Veritext Legal Solutions have united, bringing together unsurpassed service, advanced technology, nationwide presence and superior court reporters.

Same Great People. Same Great Service.

is now

B A R R I S T E R


YLD Meet & Mingle with YLD Committee ChairsA great turnout at the Young Lawyers’ Division kickoff event at Poet’s Library in Hotel Indigo on Thursday, September 6 where YLD committee chairs were on hand to discuss activities planned for the upcoming year. It was a great opportunity for young lawyers to learn about and sign up for YLD Committees, network, and have a great time with their friends at the BABC! Special thanks to the

Meet & Mingle sponsor CRC Salomon.

September 6, 2018

Meet & Mingle sponsor CRC Salomon.

B A R R I S T E R


YLD Public Service Project at Believe in Tomorrow Children’s House

� e YLD Public Service Committee cooked and served a fabulous spread on Sunday, September 16 at the Johns Hopkins Believe in Tomor-row Children’s Center. � e non-pro� t houses approximately 15 families whose children are seeking treatment at Hopkins for various illnesses.

September 16, 2018

12th Annual End of Summer Members’ Reception12th Annual End of Summer Members’ Reception. A great evening with members of the bench and bar.

September 26, 2018

B A R R I S T E R


BABC’s Annual Crab FeastA great time was had by all at the BABC’s Annual Crab Feast at Bo Brooks on Tuesday, October 2. A beautiful night on the

waterfront with members and friends of the BABC!

Ocotber 2, 2018

B A R R I S T E R


Practice Tips on Tap with the Hon. Kevin M. WilsonWe had a packed house on � ursday, October 11 for ‘Practice Tips on Tap’ with Judge Kevin Wilson. Continuing your legal education doesn’t always have to be boring. Come out to our many CLE Committee events which provide a free & fun way to network with the bench and bar.

October 11, 2018

Cabaret & CabernetSenior Legal Services 3rd Annual Cabaret & Cabernet, held on � ursday, October 18, was an amazing evening thanks to all the super talented members and friends of the bar who performed! Special thanks to all of our sponsors and congrats to our Senior Legal Services Volunteers of

the Year, Elva Tillman, Esq. and Ricky Adams, Esq. Proceeds from the Cabaret will support our 2019 Law Day for Seniors.

October 18, 2018

B A R R I S T E R


B A R R I S T E R


100th Anniversary of ArmisticeA wonderful event was held on November 1 to celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the World War I Armistice. � e event was hosted

by the BABC’s Past Presidents Committee and the MSBA Veterans’ A� airs and Military Law Section.

November 1, 2018by the BABC’s Past Presidents Committee and the MSBA Veterans’ A� airs and Military Law Section.

Mentor/Mentee Networking Event� e YLD’s “Meet Your Mentor/Mentee Networking Event” was a tremendous success! � ank you to IWP � e Patient Advocate Pharmacy and

� e Yost Legal Group for co-sponsoring the event, and to the Mentoring & Membership Committees for organizing.

November 15, 2018

B A R R I S T E R


National Adoption Day Celebration � e Bar Association of Baltimore City and Circuit Court for Baltimore City National Adoption Day Celebration was held on Saturday, November 17 in Ceremonial Courtroom 400. � e 26 children who were adopted now have “Forever Families!” � ank you to all of our

volunteers (our members, sta� , law students, law clerks, family, friends, and members of the ABWA) who helped make this a special day for the families! A special thanks to our Adoption Day Chair, Erika Slater!!

November 17, 2018

B A R R I S T E R


24th Annual Past Presidents LunchOver 200 members and guests attended the BABC’s 24th Annual Past Presidents Luncheon to celebrate the recipients of the Presidential

Awards, Marshall Paul and Alan Dunklow, the recipient of the Margaret Brent-Juanita Jackson Mitchell Award, � e Honorable Yvette Bryant, and the recipient of the Paul A. Dorf Memorial ADR Award, Je� Trueman. We also take this opportunity to recognize those Judges who

were appointed to the Bench, and retired from the Bench, over the past year. � is event is always a great lead into the � anksgiving Holiday. Congratulations to our award recipients!!

November 20, 2018

Young Lawyers Volunteer at Our Daily Bread� ank you to the members of our Young Lawyers’ Division for their continued dedication to public service. On November 26, the YLD held

a service day at Our Daily Bread. � anks to all who volunteered that day!!

November 26, 2018a service day at Our Daily Bread. � anks to all who volunteered that day!!

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

B A R R I S T E R


WhoReads the Record?

Wilhelm H. Joseph, Jr.

He’s Successful.He’s Influential.He’s Informed.

And, He Reads...

“I read The Daily Record every day because

it’s a source of information for developments

in the law, business of the law, and business in

general. As the Executive Director for Maryland

Legal Aid, I rely on news about these important,

interconnected topics to be effective in my

role. The Daily Record’s content is always

informative, and occasionally entertaining.

Executive Director, Maryland Legal Aid

For your own edition or digital access, visit https://subscribe.thedailyrecord.com/H5ZWRTR.

”

B A R R I S T E R


Enrolling now for Spring. Apply online at

law.ubalt.edu/familylawcert

This fast-paced, practice-based program blends theory and real-world applications to prepare both new and experienced attorneys wishing to add family law expertise to their practice.

Grow Your Legal Career With a Post-J.D. Certificate

in Family Law

• knowledge and skills you can put to use now

• real-world insights that help you hit the ground running

• 16-credit curriculum can be completed in one year

• taught by leading family law attorneys and judges

• tailored to the needs of working lawyers

B A R R I S T E R


Roxana Aquino-Segarra , Esq. Regular MemberAlpha Mohamed Bah , Esq. Regular Member

Bradley Ross Beard Law StudentAlexa Elena Bertinelli , Esq. Regular Member

Yvonne Brooks , Esq. Regular MemberTorron Coleman Law Student

Elizabeth Copeland Law StudentSam Cowin , Esq. Regular Member

Joshua J. Crockett Law StudentChristopher C. Dahl , Esq. Regular Member

Timothy Bennett Darby , Esq. Regular MemberSudipta Das Law Student

Lindsey Davis Law StudentStephanie DeLang Law Student

Patricia Marie DeMaio , Esq. Regular MemberMegan E. Easter , Esq. Regular Member

Colleen Renee Egan , Esq. Regular MemberLauren Fleming Law Student

Domonique Flowers , Esq. Regular MemberSidney Joseph Francois , Esq. Regular Member

Nell Fultz Law StudentAlana Glover Law Student

Chaitra Gowda , Esq. Regular MemberKatie Haladay Law Student

Andrew Hickey Law StudentJessica Marie Horton, Esq. Regular Member

Chanaye D Jackson Law StudentRachel Johnson , Esq. Regular Member

Pillar G. Klemans , Esq. Regular MemberJoseph Leonard Kroart , Esq. Regular Member

Matthew Eugene LaFontaine , Esq. Regular MemberScott Daniel Lavin, Esq. Regular Member

Alyssa E. Leonhardt , Esq. Regular MemberJeffrey Marc Lichtstein , Esq. Regular Member

Sara Lucas Law StudentDaniel Mayer , Esq. Regular Member

Brittani McKnight , Esq. Regular MemberBernadette Mills Business Affiliate Member

Matthew B. Morris Law StudentMichael P. O’Day, Esq. Regular MemberRobert Owings, Esq. Regular Member

Lauren Petrin Law StudentMary Pezzulla , Esq. Regular Member

Mark Edward Rollison , Esq. Regular MemberIlan Roth , Esq. Regular Member

Mary Scott Law Student

Meryl Seidel Law StudentMolly Shaffer Law Student

Alyssa M. Smith Law StudentDon Song Law Student

Reema Sood Law StudentMeredith Anne Storm Law Student

Jessica L. Swadow , Esq. Regular MemberKathleen Swanson Law Student

Anais M. Taboas , Esq. Regular MemberGillian R. Tonkin Law Student

Jacqueline C. Truax , Esq. Regular MemberEbony Nzinga Vincent Law Student

Hanna Vohrn Law StudentAshley Jachin Ward , Esq. Regular Member

Jacob Lee White, Esq. Regular MemberMark Anthony Yost Jr., Esq. Regular Member

Bryce Ziskind , Esq. Regular Member

Welcome New BABC Members!Joined March - June 2018 - October 2018

B A R R I S T E R


Circuit Court for Baltimore City Assignment of Judges

C O N T I N U E D O N N E X T PA G E

*** Indicates temporary courtroom/chambers assignment.

Court Assignment Judge CR / Chambers TelephoneAdmin Judge At Large Judge W. Michel Pierson, AJ 234E/208E 396-4916 & 4917Part 1 Civil Judge Jeannie J. Hong 236M/234M 396-5140 & 5141Part 2 Criminal Judge Melissa K. Copeland 464M/462M 396-5076 & 5077Part 3 At Large Judge W. Michel Pierson 234E/208E 396-4916 & 4917Part 4 Juvenile Judge Emanuel Brown, JICJ A3401 (C-2) 443-263-2796Part 5 Criminal Judge Yvette M. Bryant 230E/252E 396-5102 & 5103Part 6 Civil Judge Gregory Sampson *** 417M/407M 396-5070 & 5071Part 7 Civil Judge Pamela J. White 428M/426M 396-5056 & 5057Part 8 Domestic Judge Dana M. Middleton F-1/122E 396-5090 & 5091Part 9 Criminal Judge Wanda K. Heard, CJ 600M/642M 396-4918 & 4919Part 10 Civil Judge Je� rey Geller 330E/330E 396-5008 & 5009Part 11 Criminal Judge Lynn Stewart Mays 228E/214E 396-5052 & 5053Part 12 Criminal Judge Charles J. Peters 404E/406E 396-5080 & 5081Part 13 Civil Judge Michael DiPietro 420M/424M 396-5060 & 5061Part 14 Civil Judge Althea M. Handy 523E/529E 396-5054 & 5055Part 15 Criminal Judge Christopher L. Panos 329E/329E 396-5062 & 5063Part 16 Criminal Judge Timothy Doory 400M/466M 396-5112 & 5113Part 17 Civil Judge Philip S. Jackson 636M/636M 396-5066 & 5067Part 18 Juvenile Judge Cynthia H. Jones A3401 (C3) 396-5082 & 5083Part 19 Civil Judge Julie R. Rubin 509E/505E 396-5132 & 5133Part 20 Criminal Judge Marcus Z. Shar 203M/245M 396-5100 & 5101Part 21 Criminal Judge Yolanda Tanner 438M/436M 396-5074 & 5075Part 22 Criminal Judge Robert K. Taylor, Jr. *** 406M/408M 396-4020 & 4021Part 23 Civil Judge Audrey J. S. Carrion 225E/209E 396-5130 & 5131Part 24 Domestic Judge Kendra Y. Ausby, JICFD F-2E/120E 396-4627 & 4631Part 25 Juvenile Judge Robert B. Kershaw A3401(C1) 443-263-2793Part 26 Civil Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill, JICC 113M/103M 396-6826 & 6843Part 27 Criminal Judge Sylvester Cox 231M/217M 545-3766 & 3767Part 28 Criminal Judge Melissa M. Phinn, JICCr 540E/550E 545-6235 & 6236Part 29 Criminal Judge Karen C. Friedman *** 430E/432E 396-3836 & 3837Part 30 Civil Judge Shannon E. Avery 226M/228M 545-0115 & 0116Part 31 Domestic Judge Barry G. Williams F-4/126E 545-3516 & 3517Part 32 Criminal Judge Jennifer B. Schi� er *** 434M/432M 545-0887 & 0888Part 33 Civil Judge Videtta A. Brown 201E/205E 410-361-9311 &9312Part 34 Criminal Judge Charles H. Dorsey *** 227E/241E 396-1118 & 1115Part 35 Domestic Judge John S. Nugent F-3/124E 396-1180 & 1190Part 99 Visiting Judges Judge Paul E. Alpert 255E 396-8057 & 1119Part 98 Visiting Judges Judge Pamela North 450M 396-5857

B A R R I S T E R


*** Indicates temporary courtroom/chambers assignment.

OUR SERVICES

Let us Make itHappen for you!

COURT REPORTING INTERPRETATION TRIAL SERVICES

ONLINE EXHIBITSVIDEOGRAPHY VIDEOCONFERENCING

We Make it Happen for our clients anywhere, regardless of time, location or need.

888-433-3767 | scheduling@planetdepos .com | w w w.planetdepos .com

Part 97 Visiting Judges Judge Martin P. Welch 317M 6-8352Part 96 Visiting Judges Judge Dennis McHugh/Judge L. Daniels JJC / Criminal/Civil 396-8057Part 95 Visiting Judges Judge John M. Glynn 237E 6-8057Part 94 Visiting Judges Judge Carol E. Smith/Judge Edward Hargadon 237E 6-8057Part 93 Visiting Judges Judge John Carroll Byrnes 237E 6-8057Part 92 Visiting Judges Judge John Addison Howard 253E 6-8057Part 91 Visiting Judges Judge M. Brooke Murdock 509M 6-8343Part 90 Visiting Judges Judge Ellen M. Heller 237E 6-8057Part 89 Visiting Judges Judge � omas J. S. Waxter 247E 5-3490Part 88 Visiting Judges Judge Louis Becker 237E 6-8057Part 87 Visiting Judges Judge Gale Rasin 134M 6-8057Part 86 Visiting Judges Judge Teaette Price/Judge Marcella Holland JJC / 255E 6-8057/5-6090Part 85 Visiting Judges Judge Paul Smith 264E 6-8057Part 84 Visiting Judges Judge David Young 317M 6-8350Part 83 Visiting Judges Judge Evelyn Omega Cannon 237E 6-8057Part 82 Visiting Judges Judge Cli� onJ. Gordy/Judge Stephen Sfekas 237E / 247E 6-8057Part 81 Visiting Judges Judge Dennis Sweeney 237E 6-8057Part 80 Visiting Judges Judge John Miller 237E 6-8057

Court Assignment Judge CR / Chambers Telephone

B A R R I S T E R


Around the Offi ces

K ramon & Graham � rm principal M. Natalie McSherry has been select-ed by the Maryland Daily

Record as a 2018 Icon Honors recip-ient. She will receive the honor at an awards ceremony on December 17, 2018 at � e Center Club. � e Icon Honors recognize Maryland’s vener-able business leaders for their notable success and strong leadership. Honor-ees are selected for their long-standing commitment to the Maryland business community, signi� cant professional accomplishments, and demonstrated commitment to community service.

S aul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP recently announced that Toyja E. Kelley, Partner in the Firm’s Litigation Practice, has

been installed as the new President of the Defense Research Institute (DRI) – Voice of the Defense Bar. He will be the youngest in the organization’s history to serve as President and will serve a one-year term.

M iles & Stockbridge is pleased to announce that Kelly A. Powers, a principal at the law

� rm, was recently chosen by the Balti-more Business Journal for its 2018 “40 Under 40” List, which honors young professionals in the Greater Baltimore area who are making a di� erence in both their workplaces and their com-munities. Powers, a family law lawyer who works in both the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. o� ces of Miles & Stockbridge, is a co-leader of its Com-mercial and Business Litigation Prac-tice Group

F ranklin & Prokopik is proud to announce that six new attorneys joined the firm in the fall – four

associates and one counsel in the Baltimore office and one associate in the Richmond office. Simone Williams joins the Richmond of-fice and will concentrate her prac-tice in liability defense and trucking and transportation. Prior to F&P, Simone worked at a personal inju-ry firm, handling wrongful death claims, automobile and trucking ac-cidents and excessive force claims. A former F&P employee, Natalie Johnson, has rejoined the firm as an associate concentrating in work-ers’ compensation and employers’ liability. She previously worked in the Baltimore office as a paralegal for five years before attending law school. Adam Shareef is adding to the firm’s liability defense and trucking and transportation team. Adam previously served as a judi-cial clerk for the Maryland Court of Appeals and has experience work-ing on cases involving toxic torts, asbestosis defense and personal injury. Ali Manzoor comes to the firm as an associate attorney from McCabe, Weisberg & Conway. He concentrates his practice in liability defense and trucking and transpor-tation. He has also served as corpo-rate counsel for the Allegis Group. Marni Sperling also joins the F&P liability team concentrating on li-ability defense and trucking and transportation. Prior to F&P, Marni served as a judicial law clerk in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Timothy Coffman is counsel at F&P and brings 28 years of legal experi-

ence, concentrating his practice in workers’ compensation and employ-ers’ liability. Before joining F&P, Tim was the senior associate at the Law Offices of Henry Holzman and Associates. He has additional expe-rience in personal injury, social se-curity and family law.

G oodell DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, is pleased to announce the ascen-sion of associate Erin C.

Miller to the role of Vice President of the District of Columbia Defense Lawyers' Association for 2018-2019. Ms. Miller concentrates her practice on medical malpractice, medical institutions law and insurance subrogation. Ms. Miller has been an active member of the District of Columbia Defense Lawyers› Association since 2011 and, prior to her election as Vice President, she served as Treasurer from 2016-2018.

A delberg Rudow is pleased to announce that An-drew Radding has been reappointed by Gover-

nor Hogan to the Board of Trust-ees of the Office of the Maryland Public Defender for a term of three years. He has served on the board since 2016. The Board of Trustees of the Office of the Public Defender oversees programs, issues and fund-ing for the Office of the Public De-fender. Andrew Radding, a former Federal Prosecutor, is a member of Adelberg Rudow’s litigation and white collar defense groups.

B A R R I S T E R


C E R T I F I E D P U B L I C A C C O U N T A N T S A N D B U S I N E S S C O N S U L T A N T S

410-727-5735 ETNET.COM BALTIMORE • WASHINGTON • FREDERICK • BELCAMP

We have a long and successful record as advisors to the law firm

community, serving clients from start-ups, to large, regional firms.

Find out how we can bring greater profitability to your firm.

Legal matters can be complex.

So can managing a law firm.

Special Thanks to our Annual Law Firm SponsorsThe Bar Association of Baltimore City Appreciates the Generous Support

of its Annual Sponsors

Law O� ces of Peter T. Nicholl

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Cald-well & Berkowitz, PC

Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, LLP

Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP

Gordon Feinblatt LLC

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Pessin Katz Law, P.A.

Saul Ewing Armstein & Lehr LLP

Semmes, Bowen & Semmes

Silverman, � ompson, Slutkin & White, LLC

Wright, Constable & Skeen, L.L.P.

Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones, P.A.

Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC

Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP

� e Law O� ces of Frank F. Daily, P.A.

Fedder & Garten, P.A.

Ferguson, Schetelich, & Ballew, P.A.

Gorman & Williams

Kramon & Graham, P.A.

Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.

Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A,.

Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP

Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, P.A.

Shawe & Rosenthal LLP

Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P.

Womble Bond Dickinson US LLP

Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC

Bar Associations’ Insurance Agency, Inc.

� e Daily Record

Gore Brothers, A Veritext Group

� e McCammon Group

Planet Depos

Byte Right Support

Ellin & Tucker, Chartered

Multi-Specialty Health Care

Ethics and Professionalism Update...issue’s focus on Professionalism and Ethics is well timed, as...

Documents

Transcript of Ethics and Professionalism Update...issue’s focus on Professionalism and Ethics is well timed, as...