ÿWPC Á¤6Æum$¥´À0Œ3À|)%—£s×úfK5,Nm§ùü6ÆumúûNG°A@ËÇI¦÷{îÕ(ÄÓž„§0ÃCàÖ) Á?;`_§ÿ­ßr^u ƒ¶ü9ªcB<¸þ˜ö¯B¬bŸHR’²¬;èøïŠ£ˆä°r[J=\•ï7æ™ÈZZbth¡:–b Ù©šgU®ôëÚ-ðc–œG)†™(xC–ÔÚ®,?6AЕ0 Õ4g`þm…l}&+‚³…NE #`ààžEwÌÂMúøRÏWQIô¼b8ÁðŒÉcË€‘¨Úa}™‡éé‡H<ˆ¤ ÐϺՙì5Zz;h®õÅÑr©BLÙ(ɳ¯qÝ\?Eù¤ëýf>*\àØæT:BÚ8JÊ5˜êœoΑUu| ‚ÖNo˜õJ½QÐN]öëÑüñã 7œ«0ÁÕ½®“r-Žäÿ»‚Y0ÀÆ Yý £ÕµR4šæ•,Áˆ¯%u6ãAÂ(“b99¡}Î`‚¯ʧ²áU–è?gì¡ gzU”=×Ù ø("B¹ O‹t0˜®{ ±ªZ`R»Oµ-Ìœ0gàD”k5{I‚À-´ÅþvU™?U>Ò %U:NPb R^nXn 0ØÆ#!ž^ ¿w Ë4Õé më,xÐðA`&UniversScalableX<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi- ù -#|x «,xÐðA`&UniversScalableXX~xÐðPö»7ûXP<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpieXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@(°«K$¡¡ÓÓÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€‰9XXdðdð8ÑÔ€X‰9XXXÔÔ€XXXX‰9Ô˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0Ï“v'cDAj'X”…ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ«K!ÝÓÓÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€‰9XXdðdÈ8ÑÔ€X‰9XXXÔÔ€XXXX‰9ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÑ€ÑÑ = Ñà@¸ ¸ ìàCOURT€OF€APPEALS€STANDING€COMMITTEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ô ô ìàòòON€RULES€OF€PRACTICE€AND€PROCEDUREóóˆÐ xÈ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà  àMinutes€of€a€meeting€of€the€Rules€Committee€held€in€RoomÏ1100A,€People's€Resource€Center,€Ô_ÔCrownsvilleÔ_Ô,€Maryland€on€ÌJanuary€8,€1999.ÌÓÓÌà  àMembers€present:ÌÌHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.,€ChairÌÌAlbert€D.€Ô_ÔBraultÔ_Ô,€Esq.à h àà À àà  à€€Anne€C.€Ô_ÔOgletreeÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð 0€  ÐÔ_ÔBayardÔ_Ô€Z.€Ô_ÔHochbergÔ_Ô,€Esq.à h àà À àà  à€€Del.€Joseph€F.€Ô_ÔVallarioÔ_Ô,€Jr.Ð øH  ÐHon.€G.€R.€Ô_ÔHoveyÔ_Ô€Johnsonà h àà À àà  à€€Hon.€James€N.€VaughanÐ À ÐHon.€Joseph€H.€H.€KaplanÌRobert€D.€Klein,€Esq.ÌÌà  àIn€attendance:ÌÌSandra€F.€Haines,€Esq.,€ReporterÌÔ_ÔSherieÔ_Ô€B.€Libber,€Esq.,€Assistant€ReporterÌMelvin€Ô_ÔHirshmanÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Bar€CounselÌDonald€Braden,€Esq.,€Attorney€Grievance€CommissionÌHolly€Ô_ÔCurrierÔ_Ô,€Rules€Committee€InternÌÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Chair€called€the€meeting€to€order.€€He€thanked€theÏmembers€present€for€attending€in€the€snowy€weather.€€He€said€thatÏthere€were€three€items€on€the€agenda€„„€approval€of€the€minutesÏof€the€November€meeting;€an€amendment€to€Rule€4„301,€Beginning€ofÏTrial€in€District€Court;€and€a€reconsideration€of€the€now„¼complete€Chapter€700€of€Title€16€in€light€of€the€Report€of€theÏAmerican€Bar€Association€(ABA).€€The€Chair€suggested€that€becauseÏthere€was€not€a€quorum€present€due€to€the€inclement€weather,€heÏwould€send€a€memorandum€to€all€of€the€Rules€Committee€membersÏallowing€any€member€the€opportunity€to€object€to€specific€rules,Ïas€well€as€specific€sections€and€subsections€of€rules€which€willÏbe€discussed€at€today's€meeting.€€If€anything€decided€todayÏÔ_ÔññÐ  .h)5=á ÐññbecomesÔ_Ô€controversial,€then€that€rule€or€part€of€a€rule€will€beÐ ¨/ø*7=¿ Ðdiscussed€at€the€next€Rules€Committee€meeting.€€If€there€is€noÏopposition,€silence€will€be€deemed€as€approval.€€The€memorandumÏto€the€Committee€is€included€as€Appendix€1.€€Once€the€package€ofÏAttorney€Discipline€Rules€is€agreed€upon,€it€will€be€printed€inÏthe€òòMaryland€Registeróó€and€then€sent€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€TheÐ € Ð  ÐChair€asked€if€the€suggested€procedure€for€the€meeting€wasÏacceptable,€and€the€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€that€it€wasÏacceptable.Ìà  àThe€Chair€asked€if€there€were€any€additions€or€correctionsÏto€the€minutes€of€the€November€20,€1998€meeting.€€There€beingÏnone,€Judge€Kaplan€moved€to€accept€the€minutes€as€presented,€theÏmotion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€unanimously.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€1.€€Consideration€of€proposed€amendments€to€Rule€Ì€€4„301€(Beginning€of€Trial€in€District€Court)Ì_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÓÓà  àJudge€Johnson€presented€Rule€4„301,€Beginning€of€Trial€inÏDistrict€Court,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@˜ ˜ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@ìàTITLE€4€„€CRIMINAL€CAUSESˆÌÌà@ô ô ìàCHAPTER€300€„€TRIAL€AND€SENTENCINGˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€4„301€to€specify€the€form€andÏtiming€of€a€pretrial€demand€in€the€DistrictÏCourt€for€a€jury€trial,€as€follows:ÌÌÌRule€4„301.€€BEGINNING€OF€TRIAL€IN€DISTRICTÏCOURTÌÌ€€(a)€€Initial€ProceduresÌÐ .h)5 ÐÔ_Ôà ¸ à€€Immediately€before€beginning€a€trialÏin€District€Court,€the€court€shall€(1)€makeÏcertain€the€defendant€has€been€furnished€aÏcopy€of€the€charging€document;€(2)€inform€theÏdefendant€of€each€offense€charged;€(3)€informÏthe€defendant,€when€applicable,€of€the€rightÏto€trial€by€jury;€(4)€comply€with€Rule€4„215,Ïif€necessary;€and€(5)€thereafter,€call€uponÏthe€defendant€to€plead€to€each€charge.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Demand€for€Jury€TrialÌÌ€€€€ò ò(1)€€Form€and€Time€of€Demandó óÌÌภ..¸ à€€€€ò òUnless€the€parties€agree€or€theÏcourt€orders€otherwise,€a€pretrial€demand€inÏthe€District€Court€for€a€jury€trial€shall€beÏin€writing€and€filed€no€later€than€15€daysÏbefore€the€scheduled€trial€date.€€Otherwise,Ïthe€demand€shall€be€made€by€the€defendant€inÏopen€court€on€the€trial€date.ó óÌÌ€€€€ò ò(2)€€Procedure€Following€Demandó óÌÌภ..¸ à€€€€Upon€a€demand€by€the€defendant€forÏjury€trial€that€deprives€the€District€CourtÏof€jurisdiction€pursuant€to€law,€the€clerkÏmay€serve€a€circuit€court€summons€on€theÏdefendant€requiring€an€appearance€in€theÏcircuit€court€at€a€specified€date€and€time.€ÏThe€clerk€shall€promptly€transmit€the€caseÏfile€to€the€clerk€of€the€circuit€court,€whoÏshall€then€file€the€charging€document€and,€ifÏthe€defendant€was€not€served€a€circuit€courtÏsummons€by€the€clerk€of€the€District€Court,Ïnotify€the€defendant€to€appear€before€theÏcircuit€court.€€The€circuit€court€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€Rule€4„213€(c)€asÏif€the€appearance€were€by€reason€of€executionÏof€a€warrant.€€Thereafter,€except€for€theÏrequirements€of€Code,€Article€27,€ðð591€andÏRule€4„271€(a),€or€unless€the€circuit€courtÏorders€otherwise,€pretrial€procedures€shallÏbe€governed€by€the€rules€in€this€TitleÏapplicable€in€the€District€Court.ÌÓÓÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€derived€as€follows:Ì€€òòSection€(a)óó€is€derived€from€former€M.D.R.Ï751.Ì€€òòSection€(b)óó€is€new.ÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òà..àRule€4„301€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓӇภ..¸ àAt€the€request€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,Ïthe€Criminal€Subcommittee€considered€theÏrules€issues€arising€out€of€òòSeann€P.€King€v.ÏClerk€of€the€District€Court€of€Maryland,€etÏal.óó,€No.€79,€September€Term,€1998,€a€caseÏthat€has€been€dismissed€as€moot€by€the€Court.ÌÌภ..¸ àIn€1989,€in€order€to€allow€a€sameÏday/next€day€jury€trial€procedure€to€beÏimplemented€in€Baltimore€City€and€severalÏother€jurisdictions,€Rule€4„301€(b)€wasÏamended€as€follows:ÌÌÌ€€(b)€€Demand€for€Jury€TrialÌÌภ..¸ à€€Upon€a€demand€by€the€defendant€forÏjury€trial€that€deprives€the€District€CourtÏof€jurisdiction€pursuant€to€law,€the€clerkÏòòmay€serve€a€circuit€court€summons€on€theÏdefendant€requiring€an€appearance€in€theÏcircuit€court€at€a€specified€date€and€time.€ÏThe€clerkóó€shall€promptly€transmit€the€caseÏfile€to€the€clerk€of€the€circuit€courtòò,óó€whoÏshall€then€file€the€charging€document€andòò,€ifÏthe€defendant€was€not€served€a€circuit€courtÏsummons€by€the€clerk€of€the€District€Court,óóÏnotify€the€defendant€to€appear€before€theÏcircuit€court.€€The€circuit€court€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€Rule€4„213€(c)€asÏif€the€appearance€were€by€reason€of€executionÏof€a€warrant.€€òòThereafter,€except€for€theÏrequirements€of€Code,€Article€27,€ðð591€andÏRule€4„271€(a),€or€unless€the€circuit€courtÏorders€otherwise,€pretrial€procedures€shallÏbe€governed€by€the€rules€in€this€TitleÏapplicable€in€the€District€Court.óóÌÌÌภ..¸ àAdditionally,€to€make€the€same€day/nextÏday€procedure€work,€the€Chief€Judge€of€theÏDistrict€Court€made€administrativeÏregulations€that€require€the€defendant€in€aÏsame€day/next€day€jurisdiction€who€wishes€toÏdemand€a€jury€trial€to€do€so€in€person€on€theÏtrial€date,€in€open€court,€with€counselÏpresent.€€Administrative€Regulations€XXI,ÏXXII,€XXIII,€XXIV,€and€XXV,€applicable€toÏBaltimore€City,€Montgomery€County,€BaltimoreÏCounty,€Harford€County,€and€Anne€ArundelÏCounty,€respectively,€are€identical€exceptÏfor€the€name€of€the€jurisdiction.€€Each€readsÏas€follows:ÌÌ€€€€€A€defendant€in€any€criminal€case€in€theÏDistrict€Court€for€[òòname€of€jurisdictionóó]€whoÏis€entitled€to€trial€by€jury€under€theÏprovisions€of€Courts€Article,€ðð4„302€of€theÏMaryland€Code€and€who€is€desirous€of€prayingÏa€trial€by€jury€must€enter€such€prayer€inÏperson€in€the€District€Court€at€the€time€andÏplace€in€which€the€case€is€scheduled€forÏtrial.€€Said€defendant€must€be€accompanied€byÏcounsel€of€record€when€entering€the€prayerÏfor€jury€trial€so€that€the€cause€may€beÏtransferred€forthwith€to€the€Circuit€CourtÏfor€[òòname€of€jurisdictionóó]€for€trial€by€jury.ÌÌÌภ..¸ àThe€County€Administrative€Judges€of€theÏcircuit€courts€for€Anne€Arundel€County,ÏBaltimore€City,€and€Baltimore€County€haveÏadvised€the€Subcommittee€that€they€believeÏthat€the€same€date/next€day€jury€trialÏprocedure€has€been€successful€in€theirÏjurisdictions€and€strongly€support€theÏadoption€of€rules€that€will€allow€the€systemÏto€continue.€€The€Honorable€Joseph€H.€H.ÏKaplan,€Administrative€Judge,€Circuit€CourtÏfor€Baltimore€City,€also€has€requested€thatÏthe€rules€be€drafted€to€accommodate€writtenÏjury€trial€prayers€in€advance€of€the€DistrictÏCourt€trial€date,€so€that€incarceratedÏdefendants€may€obtain€a€prompt€transmittal€ofÏtheir€cases€to€the€circuit€court.ÌÌภ..¸ àThe€Subcommittee€recommends€amendmentsÏto€Rule€4„301€(b)€to€establish€a€uniform,Ïstate„wide€procedure€for€jury€trial€prayersÏin€criminal€cases€in€the€District€Court.ÌÌภ..¸ àThe€proposed€amendments€reserve€toÏdefendants€who€have€a€constitutional€right€toÏa€jury€trial€the€right€to€make€a€jury€trialÏdemand€in€the€District€Court€as€late€as€theÏscheduled€trial€date.€€See€Code,€CourtsÏArticle,€ðð4„302€(e)(1).€€Under€the€amendedÏRule,€a€jury€trial€demand€on€the€DistrictÏCourt€trial€date€must€be€made€by€theÏdefendant€in€open€court.€€The€demand€triggersÏthe€same€subsequent€events€that€are€triggeredÏunder€the€current€rule,€which€may€include€aÏsame€day/next€day€jury€trial€in€the€circuitÏcourt.ÌÌภ..¸ àUnder€the€proposed€amendments,€aÏdefendant€who€wishes€to€make€a€pretrialÏdemand€in€the€District€Court€for€a€jury€trial€must€do€so€in€writing,€no€later€than€15€daysÏbefore€the€scheduled€trial€date,€unless€theÏparties€agree€or€the€Court€orders€otherwise.€ÏThis€amendment€allows€the€defendant€toÏexpedite€the€prompt€transmittal€of€the€caseÏto€the€circuit€court€for€a€jury€trial€byÏmaking€a€written€demand€early€in€theÏproceedings.€€The€"15„day"€provision€in€theÏamendment€is€intended€to€discourage€writtenÏjury€trial€demands€filed€shortly€before€theÏscheduled€trial€date€for€purposes€of€delayÏand€circumvention€of€the€same€day/next€dayÏjury€trial€procedure.€€The€"15„day"€provisionÏalso€allows€time€for€notification€ofÏwitnesses€and€for€administrative€proceduresÏpertaining€to€the€transfer€of€the€case€andÏscheduling€of€a€jury€trial.€€It€is€theÏSubcommittee's€understanding€that€inÏjurisdictions€without€same€day/next€day€juryÏtrials,€very€few€jury€trial€prayers€are€filedÏwithin€15€days€before€the€scheduled€trialÏdate.€€In€all€jurisdictions,€under€theÏproposed€amendment,€the€15„day€requirementÏmay€be€waived€by€order€of€court€orÏstipulation€of€the€parties.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ ° Òà..àJudge€Johnson€said€that€the€Honorable€William€O.€Carr,€ofÏthe€Circuit€Court€of€Harford€County,€had€sent€a€letter€aboutÏsame„day€jury€trials,€a€copy€of€which€letter€was€distributed€atÏtoday's€meeting.€€(See€Appendix€2).€€Judge€Johnson€told€theÏCommittee€that€a€problem€had€arisen€with€defendants€in€DistrictÏCourt€being€able€to€demand€a€jury€trial.€€Many€defendants€hadÏbeen€getting€continuance€after€continuance€for€a€variety€ofÏreasons,€and€if€the€District€Court€judge€refused€to€grant€anotherÏcontinuance,€the€defendant€would€pray€a€jury€trial.€€TheÏwitnesses€would€have€come€to€court€repeatedly€only€to€find€outÏthat€the€case€was€continued.€€Once€the€case€finally€got€toÏcircuit€court,€the€witnesses€would€no€longer€come€to€court,€andÏthe€defendant€would€be€able€to€walk€away,€without€the€case€everÏhaving€been€tried.€€There€have€been€many€attempts€to€correct€this€situation,€none€of€which€have€worked€well.€€Finally€the€idea€wasÏsuggested€that€if€the€defendant€comes€in€and€asks€for€a€juryÏtrial,€the€case€would€be€tried€the€same€day€in€circuit€court.€ÏThis€has€solved€some€of€the€problems.Ìà..àJudge€Johnson€explained€that€there€are€District€CourtÏadministrative€rules€of€which€he€was€initially€unaware,€whichÏforbid€a€defendant€in€the€District€Court€in€certain€jurisdictionsÏfrom€praying€a€jury€trial€in€writing.€€In€one€case,€a€defendantÏin€Montgomery€County€tried€to€pray€a€jury€trial€in€writing.€€ThisÏwas€refused,€and€the€defendant€sought€a€writ€of€mandamus€in€theÏcircuit€court.€€The€writ€was€denied€and€the€case€went€to€theÏCourt€of€Appeals.€€The€State€dismissed€the€underlying€criminalÏcase,€making€the€appellate€case€moot.€€The€Honorable€Robert€M.ÏBell,€Chief€Judge€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€sent€the€issue€ofÏsame„day€jury€trials€to€the€Rules€Committee€for€itsÏrecommendations.€€The€Criminal€Subcommittee€met€on€this,€and€theÏHonorable€Martha€F.€Rasin,€Chief€Judge€of€the€District€Court,€wasÏpresent€at€the€meeting.€€The€proposed€rule€change€is€before€theÏCommittee€today.€€The€amendment€to€Rule€4„301€permits€jury€trialÏprayers€within€15€days€of€trial,€a€time€period€suggested€by€theÏRules€Committee€Chair€to€be€consistent€with€other€time€periods€inÏthe€Rules€of€Procedure.€€Ìà..àMr.€Hochberg€inquired€as€to€how€many€jurisdictions€haveÏsame„day€jury€trials.€€Judge€Johnson€replied€that€fiveÏjurisdictions€have€them.€€Judge€Vaughan€commented€that€some€ofÏthe€five€jurisdictions€are€not€holding€the€same„day€jury€trials.€ÏThe€Reporter€pointed€out€that€Judge€Carr's€letter€indicates€that€Harford€County€does€not€have€same„day€jury€trials.€€However,€AnneÏArundel€County€is€adamant€that€same„day€jury€trials€shouldÏcontinue.€€Judge€Johnson€opined€that€if€an€incarcerated€defendantÏcannot€pray€a€jury€trial€in€writing,€this€is€unconstitutional.ÌJudge€Kaplan€remarked€that€Prince€George's€County,€which€is€notÏone€of€the€five€jurisdictions€providing€for€same„day€jury€trials,Ïallows€jury€trial€prayers€in€writing,€but€Baltimore€City,€whichÏis€one€of€the€five,€requires€that€the€defendant€be€taken€toÏDistrict€Court€to€pray€the€jury€trial.€€After€the€trip€toÏDistrict€Court,€the€defendant€goes€back€to€the€institution€andÏthen€goes€to€the€circuit€court.€€This€involves€problems€withÏtransportation,€security,€and€time.€€Judge€Kaplan€stated€that€heÏis€in€favor€of€the€changes€to€Rule€4„301.Ìà..àMr.€Brault€questioned€whether€lockup€defendants€will€be€toldÏof€the€change€allowing€jury€trial€prayers€in€writing.€€JudgeÏKaplan€responded€that€it€will€not€remain€secret€for€very€long.€ÏMr.€Brault€commented€that€the€same€problem€will€arise€forÏincarcerated€defendants€who€try€to€pray€a€jury€trial€less€than€15Ïdays€before€the€scheduled€trial€date€in€District€Court.€€JudgeÏKaplan€said€that€they€will€be€taken€to€the€courtroom€on€the€trialÏdate€to€pray€the€jury€trial.€€This€protects€the€defendantsÏlanguishing€in€prison.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€if€those€who€pray€theÏjury€trial€by€15€days€before€the€scheduled€trial€date€will€keepÏthe€same€trial€date.€€Judge€Kaplan€responded€that€the€jury€trialÏwill€be€scheduled€very€promptly.€€It€will€either€be€the€same€dateÏor€very€soon€after€that.€€Judge€Kaplan€noted€that€60€to€70%€ofÏthe€cases€are€nol€prossed€or€stetted.€€Ìà..àMr.€Hochberg€remarked€that€Judge€Carr€had€noted€that€theÏjury€trial€can€be€prayed€at€the€arraignment€or€re„arraignment.€ÏJudge€Johnson€commented€that€the€Rules€do€not€specificallyÏprovide€for€an€arraignment,€but€there€is€an€initial€appearance.€ÏMr.€Hochberg€asked€if€the€jury€trial€would€take€place€the€day€ofÏthe€initial€appearance,€and€Judge€Johnson€replied€that€it€wouldÏbe€then€or€the€next€day€in€the€jurisdictions€that€have€sameÏday/next€day€jury€trials.Ìà..àJudge€Kaplan€moved€to€approve€the€proposed€changes€to€RuleÏ4„301.€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.€€€ÏJudge€Kaplan€then€moved€that€the€Rule€be€handled€as€an€emergency.€ÏThe€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€2.€€Reconsideration€of€proposed€new€Title€16,€ChapterÌ€€700,€concerning€the€discipline€and€inactive€status€of€attorneysÌ_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà..àMr.€Brault€explained€that€Mr.€Howell,€who€had€drafted€mostÏof€the€revised€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€and€then€draftedÏproposed€Subcommittee€Comments€and€rules€changes€based€on€the€ABAÏReport,€òòMaryland€Report€on€the€Lawyer€Regulation€Systemóó,€was€notÏpresent€at€today's€meeting.€€The€Attorneys€Subcommittee€reviewedÏthe€ABA€Report€and€Mr.€Howell's€proposed€Subcommittee€CommentsÏand€rules€changes.€€There€are€also€one€or€two€changes€recommendedÏby€the€Style€Subcommittee€after€its€review€of€the€RulesÏCommittee's€approved€draft.€€Ìà..àMr.€Brault€said€that€he€would€clarify€the€statement€in€theÏSubcommittee€Comments€that€the€ABA€Discipline€System€AssistanceÏTeam€that€wrote€the€ABA€Report€had€not€interviewed€any€member€ofÏthe€Rules€Committee€before€the€Report€was€completed.€€What€had€happened€was€that€Melvin€Hirshman,€Esq.,€Bar€Counsel,€hadÏarranged€for€the€ABA€Team€to€meet€with€Mr.€Brault€when€the€TeamÏwas€in€town€working€on€the€Report.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€heÏarrived€ten€minutes€before€the€appointed€time.€€This€was,Ïhowever,€just€before€the€Team€was€scheduled€to€go€to€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€to€talk€about€the€revision.€€He€had€not€been€told€aboutÏthe€Team's€appointment€with€the€Court.€€The€Team€had€little€timeÏto€speak€with€Mr.€Brault€before€the€Court€of€Appeals€appointment.€ÏHe€began€to€tell€them€about€the€revision€of€the€AttorneyÏDiscipline€Rules.€€After€not€more€than€15€minutes,€they€cut€himÏoff€and€left€for€their€other€appointment.€€One€issue€they€didÏraise€concerned€immunity.€€After€the€meeting,€Mr.€BraultÏsubmitted€a€memorandum€to€the€Team,€explaining€the€immunity€forÏcomplainants€provided€for€in€Maryland.€€The€Team€did€not€respondÏto€the€memorandum.€€Mr.€Brault€expressed€the€view€that€theÏmembers€of€the€ABA€Team€were€not€as€courteous€as€they€should€haveÏbeen€and€they€should€have€allowed€for€more€time€with€him€if€theyÏhad€intended€to€have€a€meaningful€discussion€of€the€Rules.€€ItÏalso€would€have€been€appropriate€for€the€ABA€Team€to€hear€fromÏthe€Attorneys€Subcommittee€and€the€Rules€Committee.Ìà..àThe€Reporter€told€the€Rules€Committee€that€on€December€21,Ï1998,€she€called€Mary€Devlin,€Regulation€Counsel,€ABA€Center€forÏProfessional€Responsibility€and€a€member€of€the€ABA€Team€thatÏwrote€the€Report,€to€invite€the€ABA€to€attend€today's€meeting.€ÏMs.€Devlin€declined€the€invitation.€€The€Reporter€sent€to€the€ABAÏby€priority€mail€on€December€22,€1998€a€cover€letter,€togetherÏwith€the€Subcommittee€Comments,€the€entire€revised€Rules€package,€and€the€comments€of€the€Maryland€State€Bar€Association.€€A€copyÏof€the€Reporter's€letter€is€included€as€Appendix€3.€€The€letterÏasked€for€comments€on€the€proposed€Rules.€€There€was€no€responseÏby€the€January€5,€1999€deadline.Ìà..àJudge€Vaughan€asked€why€the€ABA€Team€did€not€attend€theÏRules€Committee€meeting.€€The€Reporter€answered€that€Ms.€DevlinÏfelt€that€the€ABA's€recommendations€were€comprehensively€set€outÏin€their€Report,€and€therefore€there€was€no€reason€for€them€toÏattend.€€Mr.€Brault€added€that€a€few€years€ago,€a€group€from€theÏABA€did€come€to€a€Rules€Committee€meeting.€€Mr.€Hirshman€statedÏthat€the€guests€included€John€Barry,€Esq.€from€Florida€and€BeckyÏStretch,€Esq.€from€the€ABA€in€Chicago.€€Mr.€Brault€commented€thatÏin€Florida,€the€view€was€that€all€of€the€attorney€disciplineÏproceedings€should€be€open€to€the€public.€€The€concept€is€that€ifÏthe€public€is€inundated€with€this€type€of€information,€the€publicÏtends€to€ignore€it.Ìà..àMr.€Brault€said€that€the€Subcommittee€Comments€drafted€byÏMr.€Howell€are€found€along€with€the€revised€Attorney€DisciplineÏRules€and€the€comments€of€the€MSBA€Ethics€2000€Committee€inÏAppendix€4.€€The€Subcommittee€Comments€respond€to€the€ABA€ReportÏand€suggest€a€few€changes€to€the€Rules.€€Some€of€the€ABA€commentsÏwere€already€addressed€in€the€proposed€Rules.€€Mr.€Hirshman€notedÏthat€the€ABA€Team€looked€at€the€current€Attorney€DisciplineÏRules,€and€they€were€given€a€copy€of€the€proposed€Rules€as€theyÏappeared€at€that€point€in€time.€€Chief€Judge€Bell€has€beenÏconcerned€that€the€attorney€discipline€system€is€too€slow.€€Mr.ÏHirshman€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€system€will€continue€to€be€slow€under€the€proposed€Rules.€€It€is€only€necessary€to€haveÏone€full€due€process€hearing.€€The€investigation€should€beÏreviewed€by€a€three„person€body,€including€a€public€member,€andÏthen€the€case€should€go€to€public€charges.€€Maryland€is€fallingÏbehind€the€other€states€as€to€which€parts€of€the€attorneyÏdiscipline€system€are€public.€€There€is€no€reason€that€theÏInquiry€Panel€proceedings€cannot€be€open.€In€the€District€ofÏColumbia,€the€Inquiry€Panel€proceedings€are€public,€and€no€oneÏattends€them.€€The€Chair€commented€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€canÏdecide€as€to€whether€the€proposed€Rules€put€Maryland€behind€orÏahead.Ìà..àMr.€Brault€expressed€the€view€that€the€argument€about€no€oneÏattending€is€disingenuous.€€The€Subcommittee€has€no€informationÏthat€making€attorney€discipline€proceedings€public€improves€theÏnature€of€the€proceedings.€€It€may€be€only€a€cosmetic€effect€toÏprovide€that€the€proceedings€are€open€to€the€public.€€The€ChairÏexpressed€his€agreement€with€Mr.€Brault.€€Mr.€Brault€remarkedÏthat€the€ABA€recommended€that€statewide€there€be€a€15„memberÏInquiry€Panel€which€would€be€assigned€to€all€cases.€€The€ideaÏthat€an€attorney€would€be€treated€so€casually€with€respect€to€theÏfiling€of€public€charges€struck€fear€in€the€Subcommittee.€Ìà..àThe€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€new€Rules€have€an€expressÏmechanism€to€stop€an€attorney's€dangerous€activities€by€obtainingÏan€injunction.€€This€is€a€quick€remedy€with€judicial€oversight.€ÏIt€is€a€substantial€improvement.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€the€ABAÏwas€unimpressed€with€the€effort€to€eliminate€the€function€of€theÏReview€Board€to€try€to€speed€up€the€process.€€Since€the€Review€Board€process€is€very€slow,€it€is€hoped€that€the€changes€embodiedÏin€the€revised€Rules€will€help€speed€up€the€attorney€disciplineÏprocess.Ìà..àThe€Chair€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€the€proposedÏreorganization€of€the€revised€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€asÏdesigned€by€Mr.€Sykes.€€(See€Appendix€5).€€He€said€that€theÏproposed€new€organization€is€similar€to€Mr.€Howell's,€but€it€isÏan€improvement.€€Mr.€Hirshman€also€expressed€the€view€that€theÏreorganization€is€appropriate.€€The€Reporter€observed€that€theÏRules€will€have€to€be€renumbered€whether€or€not€the€proposedÏreorganization€is€approved,€because€some€of€the€Rules€wereÏnumbered€after€the€initial€package€was€drafted,€such€as€Rule€16„¼712A.€€She€said€that€although€some€sections€of€various€rules€willÏhave€to€be€transferred€to€other€rules€and€the€Rules€CommitteeÏstaff€will€have€to€be€very€careful€that€everything€appears€in€theÏcorrect€order€and€that€internal€references€and€Reporter's€NotesÏare€correct,€the€reorganization€suggested€by€Mr.€Sykes€is€logicalÏand€is€worth€the€additional€time€and€effort€that€it€will€take€toÏmake€the€required€changes.€€The€Chair€asked€Cathy€Cox,€the€RulesÏCommittee€Secretary,€to€highlight€all€of€the€references€to€rulesÏwithin€the€body€of€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules.€€Ìà..àJudge€Vaughan€moved€to€adopt€Mr.€Sykes'€proposedÏreorganization,€the€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passedÏunanimously.€€The€Chair€stated€that€the€Rules€will€be€reorganizedÏconsistent€with€the€reorganization€drafted€by€Mr.€Sykes.Ìà..àThe€Chair€said€that€Mr.€Howell€had€called€the€RulesÏCommittee€office€earlier€today€regarding€the€Subcommittee€Comments.€€The€Assistant€Reporter€explained€that€when€Mr.€HowellÏwrote€the€Subcommittee€Comments,€he€was€using€a€prior€draft€ofÏthe€Attorney€Discipline€Rules,€and€the€page€numbers€of€the€RulesÏreferred€to€in€the€Subcommittee€Comments€are€not€correct.€€He€hadÏgiven€the€Assistant€Reporter€a€correct€list€of€the€page€numbers.€ÏThe€Reporter€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€page€132€of€theÏRules€package.€€She€noted€that€the€Style€Subcommittee€drafted€twoÏalternative€proposals€for€subsection€(f)(1)€of€Rule€16„736,ÏProceedings€in€Court€of€Appeals,€and€she€asked€the€Committee€toÏconsider€whether€one€or€the€other€alternative€should€be€chosen,Ïor€whether€both€alternatives€should€be€presented€to€the€Court€ofÏAppeals.Ìà..àThe€Chair€suggested€that€the€Committee€consider€each€page€ofÏthe€Rules€package€which€has€a€change€proposed€by€the€AttorneysÏSubcommittee€or€the€Style€Subcommittee.€€The€first€page€with€aÏproposed€change€is€page€16.€€Mr.€Brault€explained€that€theÏproposed€change€to€Rule€16„702,€Attorney€Grievance€Commission,Ïresulted€from€a€recommendation€of€the€ABA€that€members€of€theÏAttorney€Grievance€Commission€should€be€allowed€to€serve€moreÏthan€one€four„year€term.€€The€ABA€also€recommended€more€publicÏmembership.€€The€Subcommittee€has€changed€the€number€ofÏCommission€members€from€ten€to€12,€the€number€of€public€membersÏfrom€two€to€four,€and€the€number€of€terms€the€member€may€serveÏfrom€one€to€two.€€The€increase€in€the€number€of€members€requiresÏa€change€in€section€(f)€increasing€the€number€of€members€neededÏfor€a€quorum€from€six€to€seven.Ìà..àTurning€to€Rule€16„708,€Service€on€Attorney,€Mr.€Brault€pointed€out€that€in€section€(c),€there€is€a€cosmetic€change,Ïclarifying€that€the€service€to€which€the€section€refers€isÏservice€upon€an€attorney.€€In€Rule€16„711,€PreliminaryÏInvestigation,€language€has€been€added€to€section€(f)€providingÏthat€the€fact€that€a€warning€has€been€issued€may€be€disclosed€toÏthe€complainant.€€This€evolved€from€an€ABA€comment.€€Mr.€HirshmanÏremarked€that€this€is€current€procedure.€€Mr.€Hochberg€asked€ifÏthis€should€be€required€rather€than€discretionary.€€Mr.€HirshmanÏanswered€that€complainants€are€often€not€satisfied.€€Sometimes,Ïthe€attorney's€behavior€does€not€warrant€discipline,€but€it€isÏserious€enough€for€a€warning.€€Also,€at€least€several€times€aÏyear€a€complaint€is€dismissed,€but€the€attorney€is€warned€forÏfailure€to€respond€to€Bar€Counsel's€request€for€information,€asÏrequired€by€Rule€8.1€of€the€Maryland€Lawyers'€Rules€ofÏProfessional€Conduct.€€It€is€preferable€to€tell€the€complainantÏof€the€fact€of€the€warning,€rather€than€the€substance€of€theÏwarning.€€The€language€should€be€that€the€fact€that€a€warning€wasÏissued€"may"€be€disclosed€and€not€"shall"€be€disclosed.€€Ìà..àJudge€Vaughan€asked€if€the€complainant€is€told€not€toÏpublicize€the€fact€of€the€warning.€€Mr.€Hirshman€replied€that€theÏattorney€discipline€rules€are€not€binding€on€the€public.€€BarÏCounsel€staff€tells€complainants€that€the€Office€of€Bar€CounselÏis€bound€by€confidentiality.€€There€is€one€jurisdiction€whichÏapprises€complainants€that€if€they€publicize€the€informationÏabout€the€warning,€they€will€be€held€in€contempt.€€Ìà..àThe€Reporter€noted€that€Mr.€Sykes€had€suggested€that€theÏdefinition€of€"warning"€should€be€taken€out€of€each€of€the€places€it€occurs€in€the€Rules€and€placed€in€Rule€16„701,€Definitions.€ÏThe€Committee€agreed€with€this€suggestion€by€consensus.Ìà..àMr.€Brault€told€the€Committee€that€on€page€48,€language€hasÏbeen€added€to€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„712,€Investigative€Subpoena,Ïwhich€indicates€that€an€attorney€can€be€served€with€a€subpoena€byÏordinary€mail.€€In€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„713,€DisciplinaryÏProceedings,€language€has€been€added€to€clarify€that€aÏcomplainant€is€notified€of€the€fact€that€a€statement€of€chargesÏhas€been€filed.€€In€section€(d)€of€Rule€16„713€on€page€54€of€theÏRules,€language€has€been€added€to€clarify€that€the€attorney€shallÏfile€with€the€Commission€a€copy€of€the€written€response€to€theÏstatement€of€charges.€€The€last€sentence€of€section€(e)€has€beenÏdeleted€in€answer€to€the€request€of€the€MSBA€Special€Committee€onÏEthics€2000,€which€felt€that€allowing€amendments€to€the€statementÏof€charges€to€conform€to€proof€could€be€unfair€to€the€respondentÏattorney.€Ìà..àTurning€to€Rule€16„714,€Disposition€without€Hearing,€Mr.ÏBrault€pointed€out€that€language€was€added€to€subsection€(a)(2)Ïto€clarify€that€notice€of€dismissal€shall€be€filed€with€theÏCommission.€€The€same€change€was€made€to€subsection€(a)(3)€as€wasÏmade€to€Rule€16„711€(f),€providing€that€the€fact€that€a€warningÏwas€issued€may€be€disclosed€to€the€complainant.€€On€page€64€inÏRule€16„716,€Probation€Agreement,€a€grammatical€change€was€madeÏto€section€(d).€€In€section€(e),€language€was€added€to€provideÏfor€the€probation€agreement€to€include€prescribing€the€duties€ofÏthe€monitor.€€Ìà..àOn€page€70,€language€has€been€added€to€section€(e)€of€Rule€16„717,€Prehearing€Procedures,€to€clarify€that€the€Panel€shallÏdismiss€the€charges€in€accordance€with€section€(b)€of€Rule€16„¼719,€Panel€Decision.€€Section€(g)€of€Rule€16„722,€ReciprocalÏDiscipline€or€Inactive€Status,€has€been€amended€to€include€aÏfinal€adjudication€of€incapacity€in€another€jurisdiction€asÏconclusive€evidence€of€incapacity€in€Maryland.€€€This€wasÏinadvertently€left€out.€€A€cross€reference€to€Rule€16„741,ÏConservator€of€Client€Matters,€has€been€added€at€the€end€ofÏsubsection€(a)(1)€of€Rule€16„723,€Injunction;€ExpeditedÏDisciplinary€Action.€€The€Assistant€Reporter€noted€that€this€wasÏa€suggestion€of€the€MSBA€Ethics€2000€Committee.€€Mr.€BraultÏcommented€that€two€procedures€are€included€in€the€Rules€to€allowÏBar€Counsel€to€seek€rapid€court€intervention€to€protect€clientsÏfrom€harmful€attorneys.€€One€is€an€injunction,€and€the€other€is€aÏconservatorship.€€Mr.€Hirshman€said€that€his€office€has€alreadyÏset€up€many€conservatorships.€€Mr.€Brault€remarked€that€theÏconservator€under€the€revised€Rules€would€not€be€Bar€Counsel,€butÏwould€be€an€attorney€approved€by€Bar€Counsel.Ìà..àSection€(a)€of€Rule€16„731,€Petition€for€DisciplinaryÏAction,€has€been€amended€to€include€the€filing€of€a€petition€toÏplace€an€attorney€on€inactive€status,€because€this€provision€wasÏinadvertently€omitted.€€Rule€16„735,€Judicial€Hearing,€has€twoÏamendments.€€The€first,€in€section€(a),€provides€for€a€victimÏimpact€statement.€€In€section€(c),€language€has€been€added€toÏclarify€that€the€hearing€judge€should€not€make€recommendations€asÏto€sanctions.€€Although€the€ABA€suggested€that€the€hearing€judgeÏshould€be€able€to€make€recommendations,€the€Subcommittee€rejected€the€idea€because€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€made€it€clear€that€itÏdoes€not€want€recommendations€as€to€sanctions.€€Mr.€HochbergÏinquired€if€this€is€prohibited€in€the€current€Rules,€and€Mr.ÏHirshman€answered€that€the€Rules€are€silent.€€The€ChairÏreiterated€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€stated€that€it€does€notÏwant€the€trial€judge€to€make€recommendations€as€to€sanctions.€€Ìà..àMr.€Brault€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€page€132.€€InÏsubsection€(f)(1)€of€Rule€16„736,€Proceedings€in€the€Court€ofÏAppeals,€the€Style€Subcommittee€has€suggested€two€alternativesÏfor€explaining€how€the€Court€of€Appeals€reviews€the€factualÏfindings€of€the€hearing€judge.€€The€Chair€noted€that€the€firstÏalternative€is€an€independent€review€and€the€second€alternativeÏis€a€review€for€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€Reporter€saidÏthat€the€previous€language€of€subsection€(f)(1)€is€in€theÏReporter's€note€to€Rule€16„736€found€on€page€134€of€the€RulesÏpackage.€€The€Style€Subcommittee€had€wrestled€with€this€issue.€ÏMr.€Brault€added€that€the€Attorneys€Subcommittee€had€looked€atÏmany€cases€on€this€subject,€and€each€case€held€somethingÏdifferent.€€The€Reporter€noted€that€Mr.€Howell€had€gone€throughÏall€of€the€pertinent€cases€in€drafting€the€original€provision.€ÏThe€Style€Subcommittee€had€tried€to€improve€section€(f).€€TheÏissue€is€analogous€to€a€judge's€review€of€the€two€levels€of€fact„¼finding€by€a€master€in€a€domestic€relations€case.€€Mr.€BraultÏpointed€out€that€in€the€case€of€òòWenger€v.€Wengeróó,€42€Md.€App.€596Ï(1979),€Judge€Moylan€explained€the€two€levels€of€facts.€€He€saidÏthat€first„level€facts€include€the€amount€a€party€earns€annuallyÏas€a€salary,€the€amount€of€rent€paid,€and€the€amount€of€money€in€a€designated€bank€account.€€On€the€other€hand,€second„level€factsÏwould€be€conclusory,€such€as€a€wife's€ultimate€financial€need€orÏa€husband's€ultimate€ability€to€pay.€€Ìà..àThe€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€present€bothÏalternatives€of€subsection€(f)(1)€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€so€theÏCourt€can€choose€whichever€alternative€it€wishes.Ìà..àTurning€to€page€139,€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€subsection€(c)(5)Ïof€Rule€16„737,€Order€Imposing€Discipline€or€Inactive€Status,€hasÏa€minor€change€providing€that€the€respondent€is€to€notify€allÏattorneys€with€whom€the€respondent€is€associated€in€the€practiceÏof€law€that€the€respondent€has€been€disbarred€or€suspended.€€TheÏAssistant€Reporter€observed€that€the€ABA€had€suggested€thisÏchange.€€The€Chair€noted€that€this€would€be€helpful€in€huge€lawÏfirms.€€Mr.€Hirshman€commented€that€there€had€been€a€case€inÏwhich€someone€in€the€Office€of€the€Attorney€General€did€not€knowÏabout€the€disbarment€of€another€Assistant€Attorney€General.€€Ìà..àMr.€Brault€told€the€Committee€that€new€sections€(d)€and€(e)Ïhave€been€added€to€Rule€16„738,€Reinstatement.€€The€AssistantÏReporter€added€that€the€language€came€directly€from€the€ABAÏreport.€€Mr.€Hirshman€commented€that€providing€this€informationÏto€Bar€Counsel€at€the€time€the€petition€for€reinstatement€isÏfiled€will€cut€down€on€the€time€needed€for€investigation.€€HeÏremarked€that€the€ABA€had€recommended€that€reinstatementÏproceedings€could€be€initiated€by€a€disbarred€attorney€after€aÏperiod€of€eight€years.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€the€AttorneysÏSubcommittee€did€not€want€a€specific€time€period€to€be€set.€€TheÏChair€agreed,€saying€that€a€set€time€period€turns€a€disbarment€into€a€suspension.€€Ìà..àThe€Reporter€noted€a€typographical€error€in€the€first€lineÏon€page€164€„„€the€word€"institute"€should€be€"institution."€ÏTurning€to€subsection€(h)(5)€of€Rule€16„738,€which€provides€thatÏa€criterion€for€reinstatement€is€that€the€petitioner€has€notÏengaged€in€any€other€professional€misconduct€since€the€impositionÏof€discipline,€Mr.€Brault€pointed€out€that€this€is€a€newÏprovision€resulting€from€an€ABA€recommendation.€€Language€hasÏbeen€added€to€section€(o)€of€Rule€16„738,€which€includes€non„¼compliance€by€petitioner€with€any€condition€of€reinstatementÏpursuant€to€Rule€16„737€(h)€as€one€of€the€categories€allowing€BarÏCounsel€to€file€a€motion€to€vacate€reinstatement.€Ìà..àThe€Chair€thanked€Mr.€Brault€for€his€presentation€and€theÏSubcommittee€and€Mr.€Howell€for€doing€such€a€magnificent€job€onÏthe€Attorney€Discipline€Rules.Ìà..àMr.€Hirshman€pointed€out€to€the€Committee€that€subsectionÏ(e)(9)€of€Rule€16„709,€Confidentiality€and€Disclosure€ofÏInformation,€is€not€logical.€€It€provides€that€in€the€reportsÏpublished€by€the€Commission€and€Bar€Counsel,€the€identity€ofÏattorneys,€complainants,€and€witnesses€may€not€be€revealed,€yetÏmany€attorney€discipline€proceedings€are€public.€€The€ChairÏcommented€that€it€is€not€necessary€to€put€in€the€report€the€nameÏof€attorneys€who€have€a€case€pending.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€notÏall€disciplinary€proceedings€are€public€after€a€petition€forÏdisciplinary€action€is€filed.€€Mr.€Hirshman€observed€that€theÏterm€"disciplinary€proceedings"€is€not€defined.€€The€Chair€saidÏthat€it€is€appropriate€to€place€limitations€on€Bar€Counsel.€€The€summaries€should€not€identify€the€attorneys.€€The€danger€is€thatÏsomeone€reading€the€summary€may€see€the€name€of€an€attorney€whoÏwas€disciplined€for€a€very€minor€matter.€€€Ìà..àJudge€Kaplan€remarked€that€he€receives€a€list€of€all€theÏattorneys€who€are€disciplined€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€and€theÏaction€that€the€Court€took.€€Mr.€Hirshman€commented€thatÏeverything€in€the€disciplinary€proceeding€is€confidential€untilÏit€reaches€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€Mr.€Brault€agreed€thatÏsubsection€(e)(9)€should€be€changed.€€He€suggested€that€languageÏcould€be€added€which€would€refer€to€those€cases€subject€toÏconfidentiality.€€Judge€Vaughan€suggested€that€after€the€wordÏ"provided"€and€before€the€words€"the€identity,"€the€followingÏlanguage€should€be€added:€€"that€in€those€cases€that€have€notÏbecome€public."€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€that€subsection€(e)(9)€readÏas€follows:€€"The€Commission€and€Bar€Counsel€may€publish€reportsÏand€summaries€of€investigations,€charges,€and€disciplinaryÏproceedings€in€order€to€improve€the€administration€of€justiceÏprovided€that€in€proceedings€that€are€not€public€the€identity€ofÏattorneys,€complainants,€and€witnesses€is€not€revealed."€€TheÏCommittee€agreed€by€consensus€to€this€suggestion.Ìà..àJudge€Vaughan€moved€to€approve€the€Rules,€and€the€motion€wasÏseconded.€€The€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€motion€should€alsoÏprovide€that€the€acceptance€is€subject€to€the€reorganization€andÏincludes€the€changes€made€today.€€Judge€Vaughan€accepted€theÏamendment€to€his€motion,€as€did€Judge€Kaplan€who€had€seconded€it,Ïand€the€motion€carried€unanimously.€€€€Ìà..àThe€Reporter€next€told€the€Committee€about€the€results€of€the€Court€Conference€on€the€141st€Report€which€the€CourtÏconsidered€on€January€7,€1999.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€he€had€aÏreport€on€the€status€of€Rule€4.2€of€the€Maryland€Lawyers'€RulesÏof€Professional€Conduct.€€There€is€a€major€controversy€nationallyÏconcerning€ex€parte€discussions€with€employees€and€formerÏemployees€of€adverse€parties.€€In€the€case€òòCamden€v.€Marylandóó,Ï910€F.€Supp.€1115€(D.€Md.€1996),€one€of€the€lawyers€interviewed€aÏformer€employee€of€the€human€resources€department€of€Bowie€StateÏUniversity,€which€had€been€accused€of€employment€discrimination.€ÏThe€Bowie€State€attorneys€filed€a€motion€for€sanctions.€€TheÏhearing€judge,€the€Honorable€Peter€Messitte,€was€very€upset€byÏthe€lawyer's€actions€and€granted€the€motion,€disqualifying€theÏlaw€firm€which€had€interviewed€the€former€employee.€€The€judgeÏadopted€as€the€standard€the€draft€of€òòThe€Restatement€of€LawÏAffecting€Lawyersóó;€however,€former€employees€are€not€included€inÏthis.€€Other€federal€opinions€have€been€critical€of€òòCamdenóó.€€TheÏAttorneys€Subcommittee€had€written€a€draft€of€amendments€to€RuleÏ4.2,€but€the€Rules€Committee€sent€it€back€to€the€Subcommittee.€ÏMr.€Brault€contacted€several€sources,€including€M.€Peter€Moser,ÏEsq.,€who€chairs€the€ABA€Ethics€Committee;€representatives€of€theÏMSBA€Ethics€2000€Committee;€the€òòRestatement€of€Law€AffectingÏLawyersóó;€the€Department€of€Justice;€and€the€Conference€of€ChiefÏJustices.€€The€Department€of€Justice€is€trying€to€get€theÏauthority€for€United€States€Attorneys€to€be€able€to€interviewÏanyone€connected€with€organizations,€pre„€or€post„indictment.€ÏThe€Attorneys€Subcommittee€is€trying€to€collect€information€aboutÏRule€4.2.€€Mr.€Brault€wrote€to€the€Chief€Judge€of€the€District€of€Columbia€and€the€head€of€their€Rules€Committee,€although€he€hasÏnot€heard€from€either.€€Chief€Judge€Bell,€who€is€a€member€of€theÏConference€of€Chief€Justices,€asked€the€Subcommittee€to€withholdÏaction€until€the€Conference€makes€a€recommendation€as€to€RuleÏ4.2.€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€to€Judge€Bell€that€the€Rules€CommitteeÏwould€like€to€write€a€model€rule€in€Maryland€on€this€issue.€ÏJudge€Bell€thinks€that€this€is€possible.€Ìà..àJudge€Kaplan€commented€that€this€is€a€constant€problem.€€HeÏhad€a€case€the€previous€week€in€which€the€plaintiff€interviewedÏthe€former€employee€of€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€moved€toÏdisqualify€plaintiff's€counsel,€but€fortunately€the€case€settled.€ÏThe€Chair€added€that€it€is€a€nationwide€problem.€€Mr.€Brault€saidÏthat€Judge€Messitte€recognized€the€depth€of€the€problem.€€He€hadÏhoped€the€case€would€be€appealed,€but€it€eventually€settled€andÏthe€issue€became€moot.€€Other€cases€from€the€Northern€DivisionÏhave€reached€different€conclusions.€€It€will€be€important€toÏagree€on€a€rule€which€will€solve€the€problems.Ìà..àThe€Chair€thanked€the€members€for€their€attendance€in€theÏinclement€weather.€€The€meeting€was€adjourned.€Ì