ÿWPC  îÿµóGÑ—Â|Ó—ËýÈfbŠyÚCl5?³j½¤èÂ3¾ÃDKáÓ¥†BFä£òÙÉf0ï.ËùÈK7Ðњ޳̿A–Ó€@vè¸Ú×?Bù9a¶øME»ÄÍ ;ó­vùkëgÛO?9Å ½^˜=c4¥œ]²jä^á|“FŸÆ©qi{{·aàè— ÐçØH¼ÎÏrÆ[=M¦ÿdKkÇB4²c33e]2 ¨4xA”‚º½u4L©zµpµX×׬ ,§>6'Ê_:Ä,ó i¯‡„ÎËÎZ"éyý "`‚0?5J?Ú/ÍU;>RRÉ|Y^ ÁqsŽÕc7*G Úùà!r¼ˆ,wþM¿2Êu¼üPÚ³;åì#YrøœŽ§ï>,¤OqHQ7•ü® ÷Nñ©kžP$âYÀNi³®Ëçlf¶>+:‰®ˆààT…“…5œŠ-Ga#}Ç¥QÝ€•m8…’÷ "OZ“ñ¡ŒS¦sYúHx4;òöÑ+yÏ]›,ºˆ2±«¢â8JT ÍV3uA’]Tuómyëy˵ÛU>Ò %U:NPb R^nXn 0ØÆ#!ž^ ¿wË4Ûï mñ,xÐðA`&UniversScalableX<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi- ù -#|x «,xÐðA`&UniversScalableXX~xÐðPö»7ûXP<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpieXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@(°@ó$¡¡ÓÓÓ  ÓÑ°°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€ùmXXdðdð8ÑÔ€XùmXXXÔÔ€X WXXXùmÔ˜Acrobat PDFWriter,ü,,,,,ü06Žv'cDDAj'Asô„KÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ@ó!ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÑ°°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€\ÏXXdîdð8ÑÔ€X\ÏXXXÔÔ€XœñXXX\ÏÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÑ€ÑÑ = Ñà@3 3 ìàCOURT€OF€APPEALS€STANDING€COMMITTEEˆÐ ° Ðà@k k ìàòòON€RULES€OF€PRACTICE€AND€PROCEDUREóóˆÐ ’â ÐÌÌÌÓÓà  àMinutes€of€a€meeting€of€the€Rules€Committee€held€in€Room€1100A,ÏPeople's€Resource€Center,€Ô_ÔCrownsvilleÔ_Ô,€Maryland€on€ÌJanuary€9,€1998.ÌÓÓÌà  àMembers€present:ÌÌHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.,€ChairÌLinda€M.€Ô_ÔSchuettÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Vice€ChairÌÌLowell€R.€Bowen,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àHon.€Mary€Ellen€T.€Ô_ÔRinehardtÔ_ÔÐ ² ÐAlbert€D.€Ô_ÔBraultÔ_Ô,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àLarry€W.€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€Clerk€€€€€Ð ”ä ÐRobert€L.€Dean,€Esq.à  àà h àà À àMelvin€J.€Sykes,€Esq.€Ð vÆ ÐÔ_ÔBayardÔ_Ô€Z.€Ô_ÔHochbergÔ_Ô,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àRoger€W.€Titus,€Esq.€Ð X¨ ÐHon.€G.€R.€Ô_ÔHoveyÔ_Ô€Johnsonà h àà À àà  àDel.€Joseph€F.€Ô_ÔVallarioÔ_Ô,€Jr.Ð :Š ÐHon.€Joseph€H.€H.€Kaplanà h àà À àà  àHon.€James€N.€Vaughan€€€€€€€Ð l ÐJoyce€H.€Knox,€Esq.à  àà h àà À àà  àRobert€A.€Ô_ÔZarnochÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð þN ÐÌà  àIn€attendance:ÌÌSandra€F.€Haines,€Esq.,€ReporterÌÔ_ÔSherieÔ_Ô€B.€Libber,€Esq.,€Assistant€ReporterÌAlvin€I.€Frederick,€Esq.ÌDavid€Ô_ÔDownesÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Attorney€Grievance€CommissionÌMelvin€Ô_ÔHirshmanÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Bar€CounselÌGlenn€Grossman,€Esq.,€Attorney€Grievance€CommissionÌKate€Ô_ÔShatszunÔ_Ô,€The€Baltimore€SunÌMary€R.€Craig,€Esq.ÌJames€N.€Ô_ÔVaseleckÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔJISÔ_ÔÌNatalie€Ô_ÔBoehmÔ_Ô,€Lets€Co.ÌLt.€Col.€David€Ô_ÔCzorapinskiÔ_Ô,€Maryland€State€PoliceÌLt.€Stewart€W.€Russell,€Maryland€State€PoliceÌAndrea€Leahy„Ô_ÔFucheckÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Governor's€OfficeÌDel€Ô_ÔWilberÔ_Ô,€The€Baltimore€SunÌBetty€S.€Ô_ÔSconionÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Maryland€State€Police€HeadquartersÌMartha€F.€Ô_ÔRasinÔ_Ô,€Chief€Judge,€District€Court€of€MarylandÌÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Chair€convened€the€meeting.€€He€asked€if€there€were€anyÏadditions€or€corrections€to€the€minutes€of€the€Rules€CommitteeÏmeeting€held€on€November€21,€1997.€€There€were€no€additions€orÐ ò/B+1= Ðcorrections.€€Judge€Kaplan€moved€to€approve€the€minutes,€the€ññÐ  ˆ,Ø'3=á ÐññmotionÏwas€seconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.ÌÓÓAgenda€Item€1.€€Continued€consideration€of€proposed€new€Title€16,Ì€€Chapter€700,€concerning€the€discipline€and€inactive€status€ofÌ€€attorneys.Ì_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Reporter€told€the€Committee€that€the€rules€being€consideredÏtoday€were€in€the€revised€package€of€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules,Ïwhich€was€distributed€prior€to€the€November€meeting.€€The€packageÏbegins€with€Rule€16„721.€€Ìà  àMr.€Ô_ÔBraultÔ_Ô€presented€Rule€16„722,€Reciprocal€Discipline€orÏInactive€Status,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌRule€16„722.€€RECIPROCAL€DISCIPLINE€OR€INACTIVEÏSTATUSÌÌÌ€€(a)€€Duty€of€AttorneyÌÌà ¸ à€€Upon€being€disbarred,€suspended,€orÏotherwise€disciplined,€or€placed€on€disabilityÏinactive€status€in€another€jurisdiction,€anÏattorney€shall€promptly€inform€Bar€Counsel€ofÏthe€discipline€or€inactive€status.ÌÌCommittee€note:€€This€Rule€is€new.€€It€enforcesÏreciprocal€discipline€in€the€several€states.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Duty€of€Bar€CounselÌÌà ¸ à€€Upon€receipt€of€information€from€anyÏsource€that€an€attorney€has€been€disciplined€orÏplaced€on€disability€inactive€status€in€anotherÏjurisdiction,€Bar€Counsel€shall€obtain€aÏcertified€copy€of€the€disciplinary€order€andÏfile€it€with€a€petition€for€disciplinary€actionÏin€the€Court€of€Appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€16„¼731,€with€service€of€copies€of€the€petition€andÏorder€upon€the€attorney€in€accordance€withÐ ..~)/ Ðsection€(b)€of€Rule€16„708.ÌÌ€€(c)€€Show€Cause€OrderÌÌññÐ  8ˆ Ðññà ¸ à€€Upon€the€filing€of€a€petition€andÏcertified€copy€of€a€disciplinary€order€underÏsection€(b)€of€this€Rule,€the€Court€of€AppealsÏshall€enter€an€order€requiring€Bar€Counsel€andÏthe€attorney€to€show€cause€within€15€days€fromÏthe€date€of€the€order,€based€upon€grounds€setÏforth€in€section€(e)€of€this€Rule,€why€theÏidentical€discipline€or€inactive€status€shouldÏnot€be€imposed.€€An€answer€to€the€order€to€showÏcause€shall€be€served€upon€the€adverse€partyÏand€supported€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.ÌÌ€€(d)€€Temporary€Suspension€of€AttorneyÌÌà ¸ à€€When€the€petition€and€disciplinary€orderÏdemonstrate€that€an€attorney€has€been€disbarredÏor€is€presently€suspended€from€practice€byÏfinal€order€of€a€court€in€another€jurisdiction,Ïthe€Court€of€Appeals€may€enter€an€order,Ïeffective€immediately,€suspending€the€attorneyÏfrom€the€practice€of€law,€until€the€furtherÏorder€of€that€Court.€€The€provisions€of€RuleÏ16„737€apply€to€an€order€suspending€an€attorneyÏunder€this€section.ÌÌ€€(e)€€Exceptional€CircumstancesÌÌà ¸ à€€Reciprocal€discipline€shall€not€beÏordered€if€Bar€Counsel€or€the€attorneyÏdemonstrates€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏthatÌÌ€€€€(1)€€the€procedure€was€so€lacking€in€noticeÏor€opportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€constitute€aÏdeprivation€of€due€process;ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€there€was€such€infirmity€of€proofÏestablishing€the€misconduct€as€to€give€rise€toÏthe€clear€conviction€that€the€Court€could€not,Ïconsistent€with€its€duty,€accept€as€final€theÏconclusion€on€that€subject;ÌÌ€€€€(3)€€the€imposition€of€the€same€disciplineÏby€the€Court€would€result€in€grave€injustice;Ð ..~)/ Ї€€€€(4)€€the€misconduct€established€warrantsÏsubstantially€different€discipline€in€thisÏState;€orÌÌ€€€€(5)€€the€reason€for€ò òññó óò òññó óinactive€status€noÐ 8ˆ Ðlonger€exists.ÌÌ€€(f)€€Action€by€Court€of€AppealsÌÌà ¸ à€€Upon€consideration€of€the€petition€andÏany€answer€to€the€order€to€show€cause,€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€may€enter€an€order€imposingÏthe€identical€discipline€or€the€inactiveÏstatus,€effective€immediately,€ò òññó óò òññó óor€any€otherÐ *z  Ðorder€as€may€be€appropriate,€including€an€orderÏthat€assigns€the€petition€to€any€court€pursuantÏto€Rule€16„732€for€a€hearing€in€accordance€withÏRule€16„735.€€The€provisions€of€Rule€16„737Ïapply€to€an€order€under€this€section€thatÏdisbars€or€suspends€an€attorney€or€that€placesÏthe€attorney€on€inactive€status.€€€€ÌÌ€€(g)€€Conclusive€Effect€of€AdjudicationÌÌà ¸ à€€Except€as€provided€in€subsections€(e)(1)Ïand€(e)(2)€of€this€Rule€a€final€adjudication€inÏa€disciplinary€proceeding€by€another€court,Ïagency,€or€tribunal€that€an€attorney€has€beenÏguilty€of€professional€misconduct€is€conclusiveÏevidence€of€the€misconduct€in€any€proceedingÏunder€this€Chapter.€€The€introduction€of€suchÏevidence€does€not€preclude€the€Commission€orÏBar€Counsel€from€introducing€additionalÏevidence€nor€does€it€preclude€the€attorney€fromÏintroducing€evidence€or€otherwise€showing€causeÏwhy€no€discipline€or€lesser€discipline€shouldÏbe€imposed.ÌÌ€€(h)€€Effect€of€Stay€in€Other€JurisdictionÌÌà ¸ à€€In€the€event€that€the€discipline€orÏinactive€status€imposed€in€the€otherÏjurisdiction€has€been€stayed€there,€anyÏproceedings€under€this€Rule€shall€be€deferredÏuntil€the€stay€expires€and€the€discipline€orÏinactive€status€becomes€effective.ÌññÓÝ ÓññÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€in€part€derived€fromÐ ..~)/ Ðformer€Rule€16„710€(e)€(BV10€e)€and€in€partÏnew.ÌÌÌÔ_ÔÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€16„722€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€ÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àSection€(a)€is€new.€€The€duty€of€self„¼reporting€is€patterned€on€the€first€sentence€ofÏA.B.A.€Model€Rule€22.A.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(b)€is€new.€€It€is€derived€fromÏthe€second€sentence€of€A.B.A.€Model€Rule€22.A.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(c)€is€new.€€It€is€derived€in€partÏfrom€A.B.A.€Model€Rule€22.B,€but€requires€causeÏto€be€shown€within€15€days€rather€than€30€days.€ÏIt€is€assumed€that€collateral€attacks€onÏforeign€disciplinary€orders€will€rarely€proveÏsuccessful.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(d)€is€new.€€While€not€part€of€theÏModel€Rules,€it€is€a€feature€of€ðð11(d)€of€RuleÏXI€of€the€District€of€Columbia€Bar.€€TheÏspectacle€of€a€lawyer€being€disbarred€orÏsuspended€in€another€jurisdiction,€whileÏpermitted€to€practice€in€Maryland,€exposes€theÏprofession€to€justifiable€criticism€and€isÏpresumptively€detrimental€to€the€administrationÏof€justice.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(e)€is€new.€€It€requiresÏreciprocal€discipline€to€be€imposed€unless€BarÏCounsel€or€the€attorney€demonstrates€by€clearÏand€convincing€evidence€the€existence€of€one€orÏmore€exceptions€to€the€rule€of€reciprocity.€ÏThe€five€grounds€are€taken€verbatim€from€A.B.A.ÏModel€Rule€22.D.€€By€comparison,€ðð11(c)€of€RuleÏXI€of€the€District€of€Columbia€Bar€omitsÏsubsection€(e)(5)€and€substitutes:€€"TheÏmisconduct€elsewhere€does€not€constituteÏmisconduct€in€the€District€of€Columbia."€€TheÏlatter€provision€is€inconsistent€with€the€ideaÏof€reciprocity€but€would€seem€to€be€covered€byÏsubsection€(e)(3)€in€any€event.€€Section€(e)Ïrepresents€a€major€policy€shift.€€In€the€past,ÏMaryland€has€not€automatically€imposed€the€sameÐ ..~)/ Ðsanction€as€its€sister€states€in€all€cases€ofÏreciprocal€discipline.€€òòAGCññóóòòññ€v.€Willcheróó,€340Ð ’â ÐMd.€217,€222€(1995);€òòAGC€v.€Saulóó,€337€Md.€258,Ð tÄ Ð267€(1995).€€The€Court€of€Appeals€recognizes€noÏrequirement€in€reciprocal€discipline€cases€thatÏit€must€impose€a€sanction€of€equal€severity€toÏthat€imposed€by€a€sister€state.€€òòAGC€v.Ð ü L ÐGittensóó,€346€Md.€316,€325„26€(1997).€€"When€theÐ Þ . ÐCourt€considers€the€appropriate€sanction€in€aÏcase€of€reciprocal€discipline,€we€look€not€onlyÏto€the€sanction€imposed€by€the€otherÏjurisdiction€but€to€our€own€cases€as€well.€€TheÏsanction€will€depend€on€the€unique€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€each€case,€but€with€a€viewÏtoward€consistent€dispositions€for€similarÏmisconduct."€€òòAGC€v.€Parsonsóó,€310€Md.€132,€142Ð î>  Ð(1987).€€òòSeeóó€òòAGC€v.€Gittensóó,€346€Md.€at€326;Ð Ð  ÐòòAGC€v.€Willcheróó,€340€Md.€at€222;€òòAGC€v.€Saulóó,Ð ² Ð337€Md.€at€270€("we€will€give€deference€to€theÏdetermination€of€the€Virginia€Board".)€ÏNevertheless,€the€Court's€existing€practiceÏ"does€not€preclude€giving€deference€to€theÏaction€taken€by€the€jurisdiction€where€theÏmisconduct€occurred."€€òòAGC€v.€Gittensóó,€346€Md.Ð þN Ðat€326.€€Section€(c)€mandates€deference€unlessÏthere€is€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏsupporting€an€exception.€€Ìà ¸ àSection€(f)€is€new.€€It€is€derived€in€partÏfrom€language€in€A.B.A.€Model€Rule€22.D€and€isÏcomparable€with€ðð11(f)€of€Rule€XI€of€theÏDistrict€of€Columbia€Bar.€€However,€instead€ofÏmandating€identical€discipline€in€all€cases,Ïsection€(f)€authorizes€hearing€andÏrecommendation€by€a€lower€court€when€factualÏissues€are€presented.€€An€order€imposingÏreciprocal€discipline€may€conditionÏreinstatement€upon€compliance€with€any€termsÏand€conditions€imposed€in€another€jurisdiction,ÏòòAGC€v.€Gittensóó,€346€Md.€316,€327€(1997),Ð <&Œ!& Ðincluding€reinstatement€to€the€practice€of€lawÏin€the€other€jurisdiction,€e.g.,€òòAGC€v.Ð (P#( ÐChisholmóó,€345€Md.€347€(1997).Ð â(2$) ÐÌà ¸ àSection€(g)€is€derived€from€language€inÏformer€Rule€BV10€e,€with€style€changes.€€òòSeeóóÐ ˆ+Ø&, ÐòòAGC€v.€Gittensóó,€346€Md.€at€325€(finalÐ j,º'- Ðadjudication€in€a€disciplinary€proceedingÏconclusively€establishes€the€misconductÐ ..~)/ Ðcharged).€€It€recognizes,€however,€that€aÏdisciplinary€adjudication€should€not€be€treatedÏas€conclusive€if€the€proof€or€procedure€was€soÏdeficient€as€to€deny€due€process.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(h)€is€new.€€It€is€patterned€onÏA.B.A.€Model€Rule€22.C.ÌÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àMr.€Brault€explained€that€reciprocal€discipline€is€evident€inÏcounties€such€as€Prince€George's€and€Montgomery€because€of€theirÏproximity€to€the€District€of€Columbia€(D.C.).€€Many€attorneys€areÏmembers€of€both€the€Maryland€and€D.C.€bars,€and€some€are€also€membersÏof€the€Virginia€bar.€€The€equivalent€D.C.€rule€calls€for€automaticÏreciprocal€discipline.€€If€Bar€Counsel€reports€to€D.C.€that€anÏattorney€has€been€disciplined€in€Maryland,€that€attorney€isÏautomatically€disciplined€in€D.C.€€Mr.€Hirshman,€who€is€Bar€CounselÏin€Maryland,€said€that€Rule€16„721,€which€requires€an€attorney€toÏreport€to€Bar€Counsel€that€he€or€she€has€been€charged€with€orÏconvicted€of€a€crime,€is€very€helpful.€€He€also€noted€that€Rule€16„¼709€(e)€requires€Bar€Counsel€to€notify€the€National€Discipline€DataÏBank€of€the€American€Bar€Association€(ABA)€and€the€disciplinaryÏauthority€of€every€other€jurisdiction€in€which€an€attorney€isÏadmitted€to€practice€of€the€attorney's€conviction€of€a€serious€crimeÏand€of€the€attorney's€disbarment,€suspension,€reinstatement,Ïresignation,€or€transfer€to€inactive€status€by€order€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals.€€By€matching€the€names€of€attorneys€with€those€in€theÏNational€Discipline€Data€Bank,€several€states€have€discovered€thatÐ L-œ(. Ðmembers€of€their€bar€had€been€disciplined€in€other€jurisdictions.€€InÏthe€Martindale€Hubbell€listings,€each€attorney€listed€has€a€numberÏassigned€to€him€or€her.€€The€number€system€is€set€up€by€the€ABA€at€noÏcharge,€and€this€is€how€the€attorneys€who€have€been€disciplined€areÏidentified.Ìà  àThe€Chair€inquired€as€to€the€meaning€of€the€language€"otherwiseÏdisciplined"€in€section€(a)€of€Rule€16„722.€€He€asked€if€this€wouldÏhave€a€different€meaning€in€a€different€jurisdiction.€€Mr.€HirshmanÏnoted€that€in€Florida€and€Virginia,€attorneys€are€permitted€to€resignÏbefore€being€disciplined,€and€another€jurisdiction€would€have€to€goÏto€court€to€get€a€waiver€to€find€out€for€what€charge€the€attorney€isÏbeing€investigated.€€Mr.€Brault€commented€that€the€definition€of€theÏterm€"discipline"€in€Maryland€may€be€different€than€the€definition€inÏanother€jurisdiction.€€It€is€better€to€be€overly€broad.€€Bar€CounselÏcan€decide€whether€to€discipline€the€attorney€based€on€the€action€inÏthe€other€jurisdiction.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€suggested€that€a€cross€reference€or€a€Committee€noteÏcould€be€added€to€section€(a)€to€indicate€that€the€attorney€has€toÏinform€Bar€Counsel€of€a€disciplinary€action€in€another€jurisdictionÏwhich€would€be€a€disciplinary€action€in€Maryland€as€well.€€The€ViceÏChair€remarked€that€in€Maryland,€warnings€and€resignation€are€notÏdiscipline.€€An€attorney€would€have€to€report€discipline€within€theÏMaryland€Rules.€€Mr.€Hirshman€said€that€the€term€"discipline"€shouldÏbe€defined€as€including€resignation€while€a€disciplinaryÐ L-œ(. Ðinvestigation€is€pending€in€another€jurisdiction.€€The€Vice€ChairÏobserved€that€in€another€state,€a€warning€may€constitute€discipline,Ïand€it€would€have€to€be€reported€in€Maryland.€€Mr.€Hirshman€commentedÏthat€Maryland€may€decide€to€discipline€the€attorney€just€as€the€otherÏstate€did.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€said€that€the€following€language€could€be€addedÏto€section€(a):€€"pursuant€to€the€meaning€of€`discipline'€in€thisÏState€or€any€other."€€She€asked€if€it€would€be€considered€to€beÏdiscipline€if€an€attorney€resigns€in€Florida.€€Mr.€Brault€repliedÏthat€in€Florida,€attorneys€resign€to€avoid€discipline.€€Mr.€HochbergÏsuggested€that€the€language€"resignation€in€another€jurisdiction"Ïcould€be€added€to€section€(a).€€The€Vice€Chair€remarked€that€if€sheÏresigned€from€the€D.C.€bar,€she€would€not€think€to€report€this€factÏto€Bar€Counsel€in€Maryland.€€This€could€be€a€trap€for€innocentÏresignees.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€suggested€that€the€following€language€could€be€addedÏto€section€(a):€"and€placed€on€inactive€status€while€disciplinaryÏproceedings€are€pending."€€Mr.€Hirshman€clarified€that€being€onÏinactive€status€means€that€the€attorney€would€simply€pay€dues€to€goÏback€on€active€status,€but€resignation€means€that€to€go€back€onÏactive€status,€an€attorney€would€have€to€take€the€bar€examinationÏagain.€€In€D.C.,€if€an€attorney€does€not€pay€dues,€he€or€she€is€onÏinactive€status€and€cannot€practice€law.€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€thatÏthe€language€"otherwise€disciplined"€should€remain€in€the€Rule,€sinceÐ L-œ(. Ðit€is€not€feasible€to€cover€the€various€disciplinary€proceedings€inÏevery€state.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€suggested€that€the€language€"upon€resigning€or"€beÏadded€into€the€list€in€section€(a).€€The€Chair€reiterated€that€whatÏis€important€is€that€the€action€taken€in€the€other€jurisdictionÏconstitute€discipline€in€Maryland.€€Judge€Rinehardt€inquired€as€toÏwhat€the€harm€would€be€in€adding€in€resignation€in€section€(a).€€Mr.ÏBrault€pointed€out€that€some€attorneys€resign€for€legitimate€reasons.€ÏMr.€Hirshman€responded€that€in€that€situation,€his€office€would€notÏtake€any€action.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€what€the€result€would€be€if€theÏattorney€did€not€report€the€resignation.€€The€Vice€Chair€answeredÏthat€this€would€be€a€disciplinary€violation.€€She€pointed€out€thatÏthe€Reporter's€note€provides€that€section€(a)€is€patterned€on€theÏfirst€sentence€of€ABA€Model€Rule€22€A,€and€she€asked€if€the€languageÏin€section€(a)€is€the€same€as€the€language€of€the€Model€Rule.€€JudgeÏRinehardt€responded€that€the€Reporter's€Note€provides€that€sectionÏ(a)€is€òòpatternedóó€after€the€Model€Rule,€but€section€(b)€is€òòderivedóóÐ ð @  Ðfrom€it.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€moved€that€the€Committee€note€after€section€(a)Ïshould€be€removed.€€The€information€in€the€note€is€more€appropriateÏfor€a€Reporter's€note€or€a€source€note.€€€The€motion€was€seconded,Ïand€it€passed€unanimously.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€said€that€section€(b)€describes€the€obligations€ofÏBar€Counsel.€€Section€(c)€describes€the€prevailing€practice.€€When€anÐ L-œ(. Ðattorney€has€been€disciplined€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€secondÏjurisdiction€usually€issues€the€same€discipline€without€a€separateÏinvestigation€and€hearing.€€The€Chair€noted€that€the€last€sentence€ofÏsection€(c)€requires€that€the€answer€to€the€order€be€supported€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€This€may€be€difficult€to€do,€and€itÏmay€be€difficult€to€look€at€the€answer€and€tell€that€there€is€clearÏand€convincing€evidence.€€The€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€thisÏprovision€ties€into€section€(e)€which€requires€the€attorney€or€BarÏCounsel€to€demonstrate€certain€items€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.€€Mr.€Hirshman€commented€that€New€York€uses€a€standard€ofÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€issue€is€if€there€can€beÏreciprocal€discipline€based€on€New€York€discipline€since€that€stateÏuses€a€different€standard€of€proof€than€Maryland€does.€€The€ViceÏChair€responded€that€the€concept€is€similar€to€the€full€faith€andÏcredit€given€to€judgments€in€other€states.€€Mr.€Hirshman€said€that€inÏthe€current€rule,€discipline€in€other€states€is€conclusive€proof€ofÏdiscipline€in€Maryland,€subject€to€the€attorney€raising€the€issue€ofÏexceptional€circumstances.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€noted€that€subsection€(e)(2)€requires€that€theÏentire€case€be€argued,€and€this€seems€to€cause€trouble.€€Mr.€HirshmanÏsaid€that€the€current€rule€is€the€same.€€The€Reporter€added€that€theÏnumber€of€the€current€rule€is€Rule€16„710€(e).€€The€Vice€ChairÏexpressed€the€view€that€the€case€should€not€have€to€be€relitigated.€ÏThe€Chair€pointed€out€that€section€(g)€provides€that€a€finalÐ L-œ(. Ðadjudication€in€a€disciplinary€proceeding€by€another€court€that€anÏattorney€has€been€guilty€of€professional€misconduct€is€conclusiveÏevidence€of€the€misconduct€in€any€proceeding€in€Maryland.€€TheÏtestimony€of€the€transcript€of€the€earlier€proceeding€is€insufficientÏevidence.€€Under€subsection€(e)(2),€the€attorney€should€be€able€toÏargue€for€use€of€the€transcript.€€Discipline€should€not€be€imposedÏbased€on€a€videotape€of€the€prior€proceedings,€because€the€impressionÏfrom€viewing€the€videotape€may€be€that€the€attorney€is€a€liar.€€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€referred€to€a€Court€of€Appeals€case€involving€theÏenforcement€of€a€libel€judgment€in€England.€€The€conduct€that€formedÏthe€basis€for€the€libel€judgment€may€not€be€wrong€in€Maryland,€but€itÏmay€be€in€another€jurisdiction.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€he€would€argueÏthat€it€is€violative€of€Maryland€public€policy€to€enforce€the€orderÏfrom€the€English€case.€€There€is€a€major€difference€amongÏjurisdictions€regarding€attorney€conduct.€€The€Vice€Chair€reiteratedÏthat€it€does€not€matter€if€the€offending€behavior€of€the€attorney€inÏanother€jurisdiction€would€be€permissible€behavior€in€Maryland.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€pointed€out€that€another€aspect€of€the€Rule€is€theÏextent€to€which€the€attorney€can€relitigate€the€earlier€case.€€TheÏVice€Chair€suggested€that€subsections€(e)(2)€and€(3)€be€deleted.€€ÏThe€Chair€expressed€the€view€that€subsection€(e)(2)€should€beÏdeleted,€but€subsection€(e)(3)€should€not€be.€€The€Vice€ChairÏcommented€that€the€language€in€subsection€(e)(3)€which€reads€"resultÏin€grave€injustice"€is€ambiguous.€€The€Chair€responded€that€thisÐ L-œ(. Ðlanguage€gives€the€attorney€the€opportunity€to€argue€to€the€court,Ïand€it€could€include€the€concept€in€subsection€(e)(2).€€Mr.€BraultÏnoted€that€the€grounds€listed€in€subsection€(e)€are€taken€verbatimÏfrom€the€ABA€Model€Rule.€€D.C.€struck€its€equivalent€of€subsectionÏ(e)(3).€€There€is€even€a€stronger€reason€for€D.C.€to€keep€thatÏprovision.€€Their€rules€have€been€amended€with€respect€to€certainÏtypes€of€solicitations€in€personal€injury€cases€which€practices€areÏnot€allowed€in€Maryland.€€It€is€also€improper€in€Maryland€toÏinterview€the€employees€of€an€opposing€corporation,€but€this€isÏpermissible€in€D.C.€€The€Chair€said€that€the€Rules€need€to€cover€theÏsituation€where€an€attorney€is€disciplined€in€another€jurisdictionÏfor€an€action€which€is€not€an€ethical€violation€in€Maryland.Ìà  àAl€Frederick,€Esq.,€a€consultant€to€the€Attorneys€Subcom„¼mittee,€observed€that€there€is€a€problem€with€the€standard€of€proof.€ÏThe€problem€is€not€with€the€earlier€proceeding,€but€with€theÏproceeding€in€Maryland€which€uses€a€different€standard€of€proof.€ÏThis€is€a€policy€decision,€especially€where€the€attorney€isÏsanctioned€in€Maryland€for€an€action€which€is€not€an€ethicalÏviolation€in€Maryland.€€Mr.€Brault€remarked€that€in€Maryland,€òòproóó€òòhacóóÐ x$È$ Ðòòviceóó€attorneys€are€common.€€Maryland€attorneys€who€try€casesÐ <&Œ!& Ðelsewhere€need€to€be€careful.€€It€is€entirely€possible€that€anÏethical€Maryland€attorney€is€unaware€of€rules€in€a€differentÏjurisdiction.€€The€Chair€noted€that€reciprocal€discipline€should€notÏbe€ordered€for€conduct€in€another€jurisdiction€which€does€not€giveÐ L-œ(. Ðrise€to€discipline€in€Maryland.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€he€was€notÏsure€that€he€agreed,€commenting€that€it€may€have€been€that€theÏattorney€was€warned€about€his€or€her€conduct€in€the€otherÏjurisdiction€and€neglected€the€warning.€à p àÐ ü L Ðà  àThe€Chair€asked€if€there€should€be€any€changes€to€section€(e).€ÏThe€Reporter€suggested€that€subsection€(e)(4)€could€be€changed€toÏread€as€follows:€€"the€misconduct€established€warrants€substantiallyÏdifferent€discipline€in€this€State€or€does€not€constitute€misconductÏin€this€State."€€The€Vice€Chair€moved€to€delete€subsection€(e)(2)Ïfrom€the€Rule.€€The€motion€was€seconded.€à p àMr.€Brault€inquired€ifÐ ”ä Ðthere€are€any€jurisdictions€which€are€so€unsophisticated€in€theirÏfact„finding€proceedings€that€a€Maryland€attorney€could€get€intoÏtrouble.€€Mr.€Hirshman€answered€that€all€jurisdictions€have€organizedÏrules,€and€most€are€members€of€the€same€organization€of€whichÏMaryland€is€a€member.€€Most€states€have€proceedings€similar€to€theÏInquiry€Panel.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€commented€that€subsection€(e)(2)€is€awkward.€€TheÏVice€Chair€remarked€that€the€"grave€injustice"€language€in€subsectionÏ(e)(3)€is€broad€enough€to€include€subsection€(e)(2).€€Mr.€Brault€saidÏthat€the€Rule€should€not€leave€the€impression€that€someone€tried€inÏabsentia€in€another€state€could€not€raise€this€issue€in€Maryland.€ÏMr.€Bowen€stated€that€he€was€against€deleting€subsection€(e)(2).€€TheÏentire€section€(e)€gives€the€Court€wide€discretion€to€make€fairÏdecisions.€€All€of€this€language€is€in€the€ABA€Model€Rule,€and€itÐ L-œ(. Ðshould€remain€here.Ìà  àThe€Chair€called€the€question€on€the€motion€to€deleteÏsubsection€(e)(2),€and€it€did€not€pass,€with€only€three€votes€inÏfavor.Ìà  àThe€Reporter€asked€if€the€language€"or€does€not€constituteÏmisconduct€in€this€State"€is€to€be€added€to€subsection€(e)(4).€€TheÏChair€answered€that€it€should€be€added,€and€the€Committee€agreed€byÏconsensus€with€him.€€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€suggested€that€the€last€part€of€section€(c)€whichÏreads€"and€supported€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence"€should€beÏdeleted€because€it€already€appears€in€section€(e).€€The€CommitteeÏagreed€with€this€suggestion€by€consensus.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(f).€€TheÏVice€Chair€noted€that€the€Rule€provides€that€"the€Court€of€AppealsÏmay€enter€an€order,"€but€actually€the€Court€has€to€enter€an€order€ofÏsome€sort.€€She€suggested€that€the€word€"may"€be€changed€to€the€wordÏ"shall."€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€this€change.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(g).€€TheÏVice€Chair€asked€the€meaning€of€the€language€"[e]xcept€as€otherwiseÏprovided,"€and€Mr.€Bowen€replied€that€subsections€(e)(1)€and€(e)(2)Ïrefer€to€jurisdictional€authority.€€The€Chair€commented€that€theÏsecond€sentence€is€inconsistent.€€The€Vice€Chair€added€that€it€isÏvery€broad.€€The€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€theory€is€that€in€anÏaggravated€offense,€Bar€Counsel€may€want€to€put€in€additionalÐ L-œ(. Ðdetails.€€For€example,€if€the€discovery€shows€that€the€attorney€hasÏbeen€disciplined€for€theft,€Bar€Counsel€may€wish€to€add€that€theÏtheft€was€three€million€dollars€from€a€widow,€not€putting€a€slug€in€aÏparking€meter.€€Mr.€Sykes€observed€that€this€also€helps€the€attorney.€ÏIf€only€the€first€sentence€were€left€in,€the€attorney€might€not€beÏable€to€argue€infirmity€of€proof.€€The€Chair€said€that€theÏintroductory€clause€takes€care€of€that.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(h).€€HeÏnoted€that€this€section€pertains€to€the€procedure€in€Maryland€whenÏthere€is€a€stay€in€another€jurisdiction.€€The€Chair€questionedÏwhether€this€provision€should€be€mandatory.€€He€hypothesized€aÏsituation€where€an€attorney€committed€a€serious€crime€in€anotherÏstate,€yet€the€attorney€can€continue€to€practice€in€Maryland€becauseÏthe€matter€in€the€other€state€was€stayed.€€Mr.€Hirshman€answered€thatÏif€his€office€has€evidence€of€the€prior€crime€by€the€attorney,€theyÏcan€take€action€under€other€rules.€€This€Rule€refers€only€toÏreciprocal€discipline.€€The€Chair€observed€that€it€is€easier€toÏprosecute€someone€under€Rule€16„722.€€Mr.€Hirshman€commented€thatÏmaking€section€(h)€discretionary€would€be€better€for€Bar€Counsel.€ÏThe€Vice€Chair€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€provision€should€remainÏmandatory.€€à ¸ àMr.€Sykes€asked€what€an€adjudication€is€and€what€isÐ (P#( Ðits€effect.€€The€Chair€said€that€the€distinction€is€between€factÏfinding€and€the€imposition€of€discipline.€€Mr.€Bowen€added€that€thisÏaffects€the€decision€of€guilt,€not€the€decision€to€stay.€€€The€ChairÐ L-œ(. Ðremarked€that€a€judge€in€one€county€may€find€someone€guilty€and€grantÏa€motion€for€a€stay€pending€an€appeal,€but€another€judge€may€feelÏdifferently€and€hold€that€the€stay€in€the€prior€proceeding€pendingÏappeal€does€not€mean€that€this€has€no€operative€effect€for€otherÏthings.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€Maryland€gives€full€faith€and€creditÏto€orders€in€other€states.€€Judge€Vaughan€commented€that€Maryland€hasÏthe€right€to€start€its€own€proceeding€against€an€attorney.€€The€ChairÏresponded€that€this€would€be€very€time„consuming.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€said€that€the€rule€in€D.C.€is€the€same€as€forÏMaryland.€€Discipline€is€administered€by€the€highest€court€of€D.C.,Ïand€there€is€no€other€appeal.€€D.C.€may€stay€its€own€order,€evenÏthough€this€is€not€due€to€an€appeal,€for€other€reasons,€such€asÏallowing€the€attorney€to€wind€up€his€or€her€practice.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€Reporter's€note€to€sectionÏ(g)€recognizes€"that€a€disciplinary€adjudication€should€not€beÏtreated€as€conclusive€if€the€proof€or€procedure€was€so€deficient€asÏto€deny€due€process."€€She€suggested€that€the€note€refer€specificallyÏto€the€exception€for€lack€of€due€process€and€infirmity€of€proof€asÏprovided€for€in€subsections€(e)(1)€and€(e)(2).€€The€Committee€agreedÏby€consensus€to€this€revision.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€presented€Rule€16„723,€Injunction;€ExpeditedÏDisciplinary€Action,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌññÓffecÓññRule€16„723.€€INJUNCTION;€EXPEDITEDÏDISCIPLINARY€ACTIONÌÐ ..~)/ Ї€€(a)€€Injunction€to€Prevent€Serious€HarmÌÌ€€€€(1)€€Authority€of€CommissionÌÌà ¸ à€€€€Upon€receipt€of€evidence€that€anÏattorney€is€engaging€in€professional€misconductÏand€poses€an€immediate€threat€of€causing€deathÏor€substantial€bodily€harm€to€another,€or€ofÏsubstantial€injury€to€the€financial€interest€orÏproperty€of€another,€or€of€substantial€harm€toÏthe€administration€of€justice,€and€withÏapproval€of€the€Commission,€Bar€Counsel€mayÏapply€for€an€injunction€in€accordance€with€theÏprovisions€of€Chapter€500€(Injunctions)€ofÏTitle€15€against€the€attorney€as€may€beÏappropriate,€including€restricting€the€practiceÏof€law€and€limiting€or€prohibiting€withdrawalsÏfrom€any€trust€or€commercial€account.ÌòòññÓffecÓññÌCommittee€note:€€Except€as€otherwise€providedÏin€this€Rule,€Rules€15„501€through€15„505,€theÏrules€relating€to€injunctions,€apply.€ÏAppealability€of€injunctions€under€this€Rule€isÏgoverned€by€Code,€Courts€Article,€ðð12„303.óóÐ þN ÐÌ€€€€(2)€€PartiesÌÌà ¸ à€€€€The€action€for€injunction€shall€beÏbrought€in€the€name€of€the€Commission€againstÏthe€attorney€whose€conduct€is€alleged€to€beÏcausing€or€threatening€the€harm,€and€any€otherÏperson€alleged€to€be€assisting€or€acting€inÏconcert€with€the€attorney.€€The€court€shallÏdispense€with€the€requirement€of€a€bond.ÌÌ€€€€(3)€€Effect€of€Disciplinary€InvestigationÏor€ProceedingÌÌà ¸ à€€€€A€court€shall€not€delay€or€refuse€toÏissue€an€injunction€against€an€attorney€on€theÏground€that€misconduct€is€or€may€become€theÏsubject€of€an€investigation€under€Rule€16„711Ïor€disciplinary€proceedings€under€Rule€16„713.ÌÌ€€€€(4)€€Order€Granting€Injunction€„€ContentsÌÌà ¸ à€€€€An€order€granting€a€preliminary€orÏpermanent€injunction€against€an€attorneyÐ ..~)/ Ðpursuant€to€this€section,€in€addition€toÏmeeting€the€requirements€of€Rule€15„502€(e)Ïshall€include€specific€findings€as€to€whetherÏor€not€the€attorney€so€enjoined€has€engaged€inÏthe€professional€misconduct€alleged€in€theÏcomplaint€and€whether€the€misconduct,€if€any,Ïis€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏor€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÌ€€€€(5)€€Service€of€Injunction€on€Financial€ÌInstitutionÌÌà ¸ à€€€€When€served€upon€an€approved€financialÏinstitution€defined€in€Rule€16„602€(a),€anÏorder€granting€an€injunction€against€anÏattorney€under€this€section€shall€prohibit€theÏinstitution€from€making€any€payment€or€allowingÏthe€withdrawal€of€any€funds€from€any€trustÏaccount€the€attorney€is€required€to€maintainÏunder€Rule€16-603€òòor€any€commercial€accountóó,Ð vÆ Ðexcept€as€specifically€provided€in€the€order.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Expedited€Disciplinary€ActionÌÌ€€€€(1)€€Petition€for€Disciplinary€ActionÌÌà ¸ à€€€€When€an€order€granting€an€injunctionÏin€accordance€with€subsection€(a)(4)€of€thisÏRule€includes€a€specific€finding€that€theÏattorney€so€enjoined€has€engaged€in€theÏprofessional€misconduct€alleged€in€theÏcomplaint,€and€regardless€of€the€pendency€of€anÏappeal€from€the€order€or€any€motion€to€modifyÏor€dissolve€the€order,€Bar€Counsel€shallÏimmediately€commence€a€disciplinary€actionÏagainst€the€attorney€by€filing€in€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€a€petition€for€disciplinary€actionÏpursuant€to€Rule€16„731.€€A€certified€copy€ofÏthe€order€granting€the€injunction€and€includingÏthe€finding€shall€be€attached€to€the€petition.€Ïò òó óÌÌ€€€€ò ò[ó ó(2)€€Show€Cause€Order;€TemporaryÐ Ä)%* ÐSuspensionÌÌà ¸ à€€€€Upon€filing€the€petition€and€orderÏgranting€the€injunction,€if€the€order€containsÏa€specific€finding€of€misconduct€established€byÐ ..~)/ Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€shall€issue€an€order€requiring€theÏattorney€within€15€days€from€the€date€of€theÏorder€to€show€cause€why€the€attorney€should€notÏbe€suspended€immediately€from€the€practice€ofÏlaw€until€the€further€order€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals.€€Upon€consideration€of€the€petitionÏand€the€answer€to€the€order€to€show€cause,€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€may€enter€an€order,€effectiveÏimmediately,€suspending€the€attorney€from€theÏpractice€of€law€pending€final€disposition€ofÏthe€disciplinary€action,€subject€to€the€furtherÏorder€of€that€Court.€€The€provisions€of€RuleÏ16„737€apply€to€an€order€suspending€an€attorneyÏunder€this€subsection.ò ò]ó óÐ  \  ÐÌ€€€€ò ò[ó ó(3)ò ò]ó ó€òò(2)óó€€Further€Proceedings€on€PetitionÐ Ð  ÐÌà ¸ à€€€€Except€as€provided€in€this€subsection,Ïa€disciplinary€action€commenced€under€thisÏsection€shall€proceed€in€accordance€with€RulesÏ16„731€through€16„737.€€If€the€Court€of€AppealsÏassigns€the€petition€for€hearing€ò ò[ó ópursuant€toÐ l ÐRule€16„732ò ò]ó ó,€the€order€assigning€the€petitionÐ þN Ðmay€designate€the€court€or€judge€that€grantedÏthe€injunction.€€If€the€order€granting€theÏinjunction€contains€a€specific€finding€ofÏmisconduct€established€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence,€that€finding€shall€govern€a€hearingÏòòconductedóó€pursuant€to€Rule€16„735€and€the€judgeÐ Jš Ðmay€receive€additional€evidence€of€misconductÏor€may€restrict€the€scope€of€the€hearing€toÏevidence€relevant€to€the€appropriateÏdisciplinary€sanction€to€be€imposed€upon€theÏattorney.ÌññÓ€VicÓññÌCommittee€note:€€This€is€a€new€Rule€allowingÏthe€circuit€court€the€authority€to€issue€anÏinjunction€followed€by€an€immediateÏdisciplinary€action€in€the€Court€of€Appeals.ÌÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€new.ÌññÓ€VicÓññÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€16„723€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€ÌÌNote.ÌÐ ..~)/ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThis€Rule€is€new€in€its€entirety.€€ThereÏis€no€corresponding€provision€in€the€former€BVÏRules€or€in€the€A.B.A.€Model€Rules.ÌÌò òà ¸ àó óAs€noted€in€the€commentary€to€A.B.A.€ModelÐ 8ˆ ÐRule€20,€certain€misconduct€poses€such€anÏimmediate€threat€to€the€public€and€theÏadministration€of€justice€that€the€attorneyÏshould€be€suspended€immediately€pending€a€finalÏdetermination€of€the€ultimate€discipline€to€beÏimposed.€€Emergency€suspension€is€alsoÏappropriate€when€the€attorney's€conduct€isÏcausing€or€is€likely€to€cause€serious€injury€toÏa€client€or€the€public€as,€for€example,€whenÏthe€attorney€is€engaged€in€an€ongoingÏconversion€of€trust€funds.€€The€suspension€isÏsaid€to€resemble€a€temporary€restraining€order,Ïbut€does€not€expire€automatically€and€requiresÏa€motion€to€vacate€or€modify.€€Since€theÏsuspension€may€be€imposed€Ô  ÔññÔ € Ôññòòex€parteóó€followingÐ vÆ Ðreasonable€efforts€to€notify€the€attorney,ÏA.B.A.€Model€Rule€20€contemplates€that€theÏlawyer€must€be€afforded€some€opportunity€toÏhave€the€suspension€order€vacated€or€modifiedÏon€an€expedited€basis.€ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€injunctive€relief€would€appear€toÏbe€a€more€logical€remedy€and€may€be€preferableÏto€suspending€an€attorney€(even€temporarily)Ïwithout€notice€or€hearing.€€A€temporaryÏsuspension€contemplated€by€A.B.A.€Model€RuleÏ20,€as€adopted€in€part€in€the€District€ofÏColumbia,€New€Jersey,€and€elsewhere,€wouldÏrequire€the€Court€of€Appeals€to€make€òònisióó€òòpriusóóÐ Ò!"! Ðrulings€in€an€emergency,€without€lower€courtÏfindings€of€any€kind€and€perhaps€on€an€òòexóó€òòparteóóÐ –#æ# Ðbasis€and€an€incomplete€record.€€Because€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€will€ultimately€reviewÏfindings€and€conclusions€based€upon€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence,€it€should€not€be€put€in€aÏposition€to€prejudge€the€case€at€the€veryÏoutset.ÌÌà ¸ àTo€alleviate€some€of€these€concerns,€thisÏRule€contemplates€the€more€familiar€remedy€of€aÏlower„court€injunction,€reviewable€as€such€byÏordinary€avenues€of€appeal.€€Indeed,€A.B.A.ÏModel€Rule€20€analogizes€temporary€suspensionÐ ..~)/ Ðto€a€temporary€restraining€order,€indefinite€inÏduration.€€However,€a€lower€court€is€in€a€muchÏbetter€position€than€the€Court€of€Appeals€toÏhear€evidence,€make€findings,€and€tailorÏspecific€relief€to€the€needs€of€the€case.€€ThisÏRule€does€give€explicit€authority€(now€lacking)Ïfor€the€Commission€to€seek€injunctive€reliefÏand€the€standing€to€request€such€relief€in€itsÏown€name.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(a)€authorizes€an€injunction€toÏprevent€serious€harm,€including€a€temporaryÏrestraining€order€(Rule€15„504),€as€well€as€aÏpreliminary€and€a€permanent€injunction€underÏRules€15„501€to€15„505.€€Subsection€(a)(1)Ïemploys€substantially€the€same€standard€asÏModel€Rule€20,€but€instead€authorizes€theÏCommission€to€seek€an€injunction€rather€thanÏtemporary€suspension.€€Subsection€(a)(2)€makesÏclear€that€any€person€assisting€or€acting€inÏconcert€with€an€offending€attorney€may€beÏjoined€as€a€defendant.€€Because€the€injunctionÏis€being€sought€by€the€Commission€for€a€publicÏpurpose,€bond€should€not€be€required.€€CompareÏRule€15-503€(b).€€Subsection€(a)(3)€is€includedÏto€preclude€an€attorney€from€opposing€anÏinjunction€or€seeking€delay€on€the€ground€thatÏan€investigation€or€disciplinary€proceeding€isÏpending.€€Subsection€(a)(4)€requires€the€lowerÏcourt€to€make€specific€findings€whether€theÏattorney€so€enjoined€has€engaged€in€theÏprofessional€misconduct€alleged€in€theÏcomplaint€and,€if€so,€whether€the€misconduct€isÏestablished€by€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÏor,€alternatively,€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.€€If€the€lower€court€makes€a€positiveÏfinding€based€upon€such€evidence,€theÏCommission€through€Bar€Counsel€has€everyÏjustification€for€filing€a€disciplinary€actionÏunder€Rule€16„731€without€need€for€InquiryÏCommittee€proceedings€under€Rule€16„715.€ÏSubsection€(a)(5),€which€permits€service€of€anÏinjunction€upon€a€financial€institution€inÏappropriate€cases,€is€derived€in€part€fromÏðððð3(C)€of€XI€of€the€District€of€Columbia€BarÏrules.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(b)€is€designed€to€allow€aÐ ..~)/ Ðdisciplinary€action€to€be€commenced€in€theÏCourt€of€Appeals,€regardless€of€an€appeal€orÏfurther€proceedings€in€regard€to€theÏinjunction,€if€the€specific€finding€is€made€byÏthe€lower€court.€€Subsection€(b)(1)€authorizesÏBar€Counsel€to€file€a€petition€for€disciplinaryÏaction€pursuant€to€Rule€16„731€whenever€theÏorder€enjoining€an€attorney€contains€a€specificÏfinding€that€the€attorney€has€engaged€inÏprofessional€misconduct.€€In€that€situation,Ïthe€judicial€finding€obviates€the€need€forÏInquiry€Committee€proceedings.€€If€the€attorneyÏremains€under€injunction,€enforcement€byÏcontempt€may€be€effective€to€restrain€theÏattorney€from€further€misconduct.€€SubsectionÏ(b)(2)€declares€that€a€disciplinary€actionÏcommenced€under€this€section€is€governed€by€theÏrules€applicable€to€disciplinary€actions€inÏgeneral.€€This€is€particularly€true€of€actionsÏbased€upon€a€finding€of€misconduct€supportedÏonly€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€ÏHowever,€if€the€injunction€order€contains€aÏfinding€of€misconduct€established€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence,€that€finding€shall€governÏthe€hearing€and€the€hearing€judge€may€eitherÏreceive€additional€evidence€of€misconduct€orÏdispense€with€such€evidence€and€restrict€theÏscope€of€the€hearing€to€evidence€that€isÏrelevant€to€the€appropriate€disciplinaryÏsanction€to€be€imposed€on€the€attorney.€€InÏaddition,€this€subsection€makes€it€clear€thatÏthe€same€judge€who€presided€over€the€injunctionÏproceedings€may€be€designated€to€conduct€theÏhearing€and€make€additional€findings€under€RuleÏ16„735.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€primary€justification€for€drasticÏemergency€action€lies€in€cases€ofÏmisappropriation€and€other€dishonest€conduct.€ÏThe€Court€of€Appeals€has€"consistently€foundÏmisappropriation€by€an€attorney€of€entrustedÏfunds,€be€it€intentional,€knowing,€orÏnegligent,€to€be€of€great€concern,€representingÏserious€professional€misconduct."€€òòAGC€v.Ð ¦*ö%+ ÐGlennóó,€341€Md.€448,€489€(1996).€€òòSeeóó€òòAGC€v.Ð ˆ+Ø&, ÐDrewóó,€341€Md.€139,€150€(1996);€òòBar€AssociationÐ j,º'- Ðv.€Marshallóó,€269€Md.€510,€519€(1973).€Ð L-œ(. Ð"Misappropriation€of€funds€by€an€attorneyÐ ..~)/ Ðinvolves€moral€turpitude;€it€is€an€act€infectedÏwith€deceit€and€dishonesty€and€will€result€inÏdisbarment€in€the€absence€of€compellingÏextenuating€circumstances€justifying€a€lesserÏsanction."€€òòAGC€v.€Ezrinóó,€312€Md.€603,€608„09Ð 8ˆ Ð(1988).€€òòSeeóó€òòAGC€v.€Glennóó,€341€Md.€at€490.€€IfÐ  j ÐBar€Counsel€can€prove€misappropriation€by€clearÏand€convincing€evidence,€the€public€interestÏrequires€enjoining€and/or€suspending€theÏculpable€attorney€before€further€harm€isÏinflicted.€€ÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àMr.€Brault€explained€that€the€Subcommittee€worked€on€this€RuleÏwith€Mr.€Hirshman.€€The€Rule€clarifies€that€there€is€authority€in€theÏcircuit€courts€to€enjoin€an€attorney€from€practicing€law.€€Mr.ÏHirshman's€concern€was€that€there€would€be€a€challenge€to€theÏissuance€of€an€injunction€without€a€rule€providing€for€it.€€The€ideaÏis€that€in€certain€cases,€such€as€where€an€attorney€is€stealing€moneyÏfrom€clients,€his€or€her€activities€can€be€stopped.€€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€referred€to€the€language€at€the€end€of€subsectionÏ(a)(1)€which€reads€"any€trust€or€commercial€account,"€pointing€outÏthat€this€would€not€include€a€savings€account.€€He€suggested€that€theÏlanguage€in€the€Rule€should€be€either€"any€bank€account"€or€"anyÏaccount€in€a€financial€institution."€€Mr.€Brault€stated€that€theÏlanguage€would€be€"any€bank€account,"€but€Mr.€Bowen€noted€that€thereÏis€some€argument€as€to€whether€thrift€institutions€are€considered€toÏbe€banks.€€He€suggested€that€the€wording€be€"from€any€account€in€anyÏfinancial€institution."€€The€Committee€agreed€to€this€change€byÏconsensus.€€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€commented€that€this€is€a€very€important€rule.€€TheÐ ..~)/ ÐChair€asked€if€the€words€"death€or"€could€be€deleted€from€subsectionÏ(a)(1).€€He€questioned€whether€by€retaining€this€language,€the€RuleÏindicates€that€some€offense€which€is€less€than€substantial€bodilyÏharm€committed€by€the€attorney€would€not€entitle€Bar€Counsel€to€getÏan€injunction.€€Mr.€Bowen€suggested€that€the€word€"substantial"€beÏremoved.€€The€Chair€expressed€the€view€that€the€words€"death€or"Ïshould€also€come€out.Ìà  àMr.€Hirshman€suggested€that€the€following€language€should€beÏadded€to€the€end€of€subsection€(a)(1)€"or€transfers€of€funds€ofÏproperty€from€or€to€any€source."€€Judge€Kaplan€inquired€if€the€wordÏ"property"€refers€to€real€property.€€The€Chair€said€that€the€termÏ"property"€includes€both€real€and€personal€property.€€He€questionedÏwhether€the€term€"property"€also€includes€intangible€property.€€Mr.ÏBowen€answered€that€it€did.€€Ìà  àTurning€to€subsection€(a)(2),€Mr.€Brault€pointed€out€that€theÏsecond€sentence€is€not€in€the€right€place€in€the€Rule.€€Judge€VaughanÏremarked€that€Bar€Counsel€brings€the€action€on€behalf€of€a€stateÏagency,€so€the€second€sentence€is€not€necessary.€€The€Chair€said€thatÏif€someone€persuades€the€court€that€an€attorney€is€about€to€doÏsubstantial€harm€to€a€complainant,€but€the€attorney€argues€that€theÏcomplainant€is€a€spiteful€individual€and€the€injunction€would€harmÏthe€attorney,€to€be€fair,€the€attorney€is€entitled€to€the€protectionÏof€a€bond.€€The€Rule€provides€that€the€court€òòshallóó€dispense€with€theÐ ˆ+Ø&, Ðbond„„there€is€no€discretion.€€Mr.€Bowen€expressed€the€view€that€theÐ L-œ(. Ðsecond€sentence€of€subsection€(a)(2)€should€be€at€the€end€ofÏsubsection€(e)(4).€€€Mr.€Brault€agreed€with€this€suggestion.€€He€saidÏthat€the€sentence€should€not€be€mandatory,€but€it€should€provide€thatÏthe€court€may€waive€the€requirement€of€a€bond;€however,€it€must€waiveÏif€the€law€so€requires.€€The€Chair€noted€that€in€most€cases,€a€bondÏis€not€necessary.€€It€should€be€up€to€the€court€to€decide.€€WhyÏshould€the€Rule€provide€that€the€court€may€never€consider€a€bond?€ÏMr.€Bowen€suggested€that€the€Rule€provide€that€the€court€may€dispenseÏwith€the€requirement€of€a€bond€unless€exceptional€circumstancesÏrequire€one.€€Bar€Counsel€should€not€have€to€argue€about€a€bond€inÏevery€case.€€Mr.€Bowen€also€suggested€that€this€provision€be€moved€toÏthe€end€of€subsection€(e)(4).€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€toÏboth€of€Mr.€Bowen's€suggestions.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€Committee€note€toÏsubsection€(a)(1)€provides€that€the€rules€relating€to€injunctionsÏapply.€€However,€the€change€as€to€the€requirement€of€a€bond€is€not€inÏaccordance€with€Title€15.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€Title€15€allowsÏthe€court€to€waive€the€bond€requirement.€€The€Vice€Chair€disagreedÏwith€this€statement.€€She€noted€that€Rule€15„503€(b)€provides€thatÏthe€court€may€dispense€with€the€requirement€of€a€bond€and€shall€do€soÏwhen€required€by€law.€€Mr.€Sykes€pointed€out€that€subsection€(b)(4)Ïof€Rule€16„723€requires€that€the€order€granting€the€injunctionÏcontain€specific€findings€that€the€attorney€engaged€in€theÏprofessional€misconduct€alleged€in€the€complaint,€but€it€does€notÐ L-œ(. Ðrequire€findings€of€a€threat€of€bodily€harm€as€subsection€(a)(1)Ïdoes.€€He€expressed€the€view€that€subsection€(a)(4)€should€alsoÏcontain€the€requirement€that€the€order€include€findings€of€threat€ofÏbodily€harm.€€The€Chair€questioned€whether€this€is€required€by€RuleÏ15„502€(e).€€Mr.€Bowen€said€that€he€agreed€with€Mr.€Sykes€aboutÏadding€in€the€reference€to€a€finding€of€a€threat€of€bodily€harm€soÏthat€subsection€(a)(4)€is€consistent€with€subsection€(a)(1).€€Mr.ÏBrault€pointed€out€that€Rule€15„502€(e)€does€not€address€the€issue€ofÏpresenting€a€finding€of€threat€of€bodily€harm.€€This€is€found€in€caseÏlaw.€€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€reiterated€that€it€is€necessary€in€subsection€(a)(4)Ïto€add€in€the€parallel€language€to€subsection€(a)(1).€€Mr.€BraultÏsuggested€that€the€language€could€be€"and€poses€the€threat€alleged"Ïso€that€subsection€(a)(4)€would€read€as€follows:€€"An€order€grantingÏa€preliminary€or€permanent€injunction€against€an€attorney€pursuant€toÏthis€section,€in€addition€to€meeting€the€requirements€of€Rule€15„502Ï(e),€shall€include€specific€findings€as€to€whether€or€not€theÏattorney€so€enjoined€has€engaged€in€the€professional€misconductÏalleged€and€poses€the€threat€alleged€in€the€complaint...".€€€TheÏCommittee€agreed€by€consensus€with€Mr.€Brault's€suggested€change.€€Ìà  àThe€Reporter€asked€about€the€remainder€of€subsection€(a)(4),Ïwhich€provides€for€establishing€the€misconduct€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence.€€Mr.€Sykes€expressed€his€agreement€with€thisÏstandard,€since€the€court€order€is€taking€away€the€attorney's€rightÐ L-œ(. Ðto€practice.€€The€Vice€Chair€inquired€as€to€why€the€judge€would€stateÏin€the€order€granting€the€injunction€whether€the€misconduct€isÏestablished€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€or€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence.€€Mr.€Hirshman€explained€that€the€Rule€is€designed€toÏprovide€for€a€standard€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€asked€if€the€judge€could€issue€a€temporaryÏrestraining€order€(TRO)€for€a€period€of€time.€€Mr.€Brault€repliedÏthat€a€TRO€is€only€good€for€ten€days.€€The€Vice€Chair€said€that€theÏRule€could€be€modified€to€provide€for€a€TRO.€€Mr.€Brault€respondedÏthat€a€TRO€should€only€be€used€for€extraordinary€circumstances.€€AnÏinjunction€affords€greater€due€process.€€Mr.€Sykes€commented€that€heÏhad€no€problem€with€an€injunction€being€issued,€because€it€allows€theÏdefense€more€time€to€prepare.€€The€Chair€questioned€as€to€why€theÏjudge€cannot€issue€the€injunction€using€a€standard€of€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence.€€Mr.€Sykes€answered€that€the€standard€in€aÏdisciplinary€proceeding€is€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€If€theÏjudge€uses€that€standard,€and€the€disciplinary€proceeding€isÏbypassed,€the€requisite€standard€of€proof€is€met.€€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€commented€that€the€trial€may€be€lengthy€withÏextensive€findings.€€Since€there€is€a€right€to€appeal,€theÏdisciplinary€proceedings€could€be€bypassed.€€Ex€parte€injunctionsÏshould€be€added€to€the€list€of€injunctions€in€Rule€16„723.€€The€RuleÏonly€provides€for€preliminary€and€permanent€injunctions.€€Frequently,Ïthe€trial€judge€will€ask€if€all€the€parties€agree€to€wait€until€theÐ L-œ(. Ðhearing.€€The€judge€will€say€that€the€entire€matter€will€be€handled,Ïincluding€a€preliminary€and€permanent€injunction,€the€fact„finding,Ïand€the€order.€€The€judge€ought€to€be€in€a€position€to€determineÏclear€and€convincing€evidence,€so€the€decision€is€binding€on€aÏsubsequent€disciplinary€proceeding.€€à p àThe€Chair€commented€thatÐ À  Ðthe€injunction€is€an€extraordinary€remedy,€and€it€should€be€limited.€Ïò òó óMr.€Brault€said€that€this€does€not€bind€a€subsequent€Panel€finding.€Ð H˜  ÐWhat€discipline€is€to€follow€has€not€been€decided,€only€the€issuanceÏof€an€injunction.€€The€Chair€pointed€out€that€a€finding€of€misconductÏestablished€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€controls€the€course€ofÏsubsequent€proceedings.€€Mr.€Brault€countered€that€it€only€controlsÏthe€fact„finding€of€the€fact€that€produces€the€injunction.€€TheÏdiscipline€is€subject€to€the€trial.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€expressed€the€concern€that€if€a€TRO€is€enteredÏfor€10€days€and€then€for€another€10€days,€and€there€is€a€full„blownÏhearing€on€the€preliminary€injunction€within€the€20€days,€how€can€theÏattorney€present€a€decent€defense€on€the€merits?€€Mr.€BraultÏresponded€that€if€there€is€a€doubt,€the€court€has€to€continue€theÏhearing.€€The€Vice€Chair€remarked€that€the€judge€may€be€convincedÏfrom€affidavits€to€temporarily€stop€the€attorney€from€practicing.€ÏMr.€Brault€said€that€at€this€point€live€testimony€comes€in.€€If€theÏattorney€is€being€railroaded,€the€judge€can€pick€up€this€information.€ÏThe€Chair€commented€that€with€the€injunction€in€place,€the€status€quoÏis€protected.€€If€the€judge€makes€a€finding€that€Bar€Counsel€isÐ L-œ(. Ðentitled€to€a€preliminary€injunction,€the€next€step€can€beÏdisciplinary€proceedings.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€Bar€CounselÏshould€not€get€the€injunction€and€then€hold€up€the€proceedings€forÏtwo€years.Ìà  àThe€Chair€noted€that€once€the€injunction€has€been€issued,€thoseÏinvolved€can€be€given€time€to€prepare€for€the€hearing.€€There€is€noÏneed€to€rush€through€the€proceedings.€€The€Vice€Chair€remarked€thatÏthe€Rule€allows€for€a€preliminary€injunction€which€has€an€effect€ofÏres€judicata,€but€it€is€not€even€a€judgment.€€Mr.€Brault€commentedÏthat€he€was€not€sure€about€that.€€Ìà  àMr.€Sykes€suggested€that€the€last€clause€of€subsection€(a)(4)Ïwhich€reads,€"and€whether€the€misconduct,€if€any,€is€established€byÏclear€and€convincing€evidence€or€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence"Ïshould€be€stricken.€€The€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€subsection€usesÏthe€same€language€in€the€second€sentence€which€begins,€"[i]f€theÏorder€granting€the€injunction€contains€a€specific€finding€ofÏmisconduct€established€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence...".€€Mr.ÏSykes€said€that€that€would€be€consistent€with€subsection€(a)(4),€evenÏif€the€language€in€his€motion€were€deleted.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€thatÏRule€15„502€requires€specific€findings.€€He€asked€if€Rule€16„723Ïmeans€for€someone€to€guess€about€which€standard€to€use.€€He€suggestedÏthat€the€Rule€either€require€only€the€standard€of€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€or€provide€that€the€standard€has€to€be€announced.€€Mr.ÏSykes€agreed€with€the€suggestion€of€including€the€standard€ofÐ L-œ(. Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Even€if€there€is€a€49%€doubt,€theÏinjunction€is€limited€in€time,€and€the€attorney€will€be€able€to€haveÏa€full„scale€hearing.€€The€clear€and€convincing€evidence€standardÏshould€be€taken€out€of€the€Rule.Ìà  àThe€Chair€commented€that€if€a€judge€considers€the€request€forÏan€injunction€and€is€persuaded€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€thatÏthe€injunction€is€necessary€because€of€a€danger€that€the€attorneyÏviolated€some€code€of€professional€conduct,€Bar€Counsel€can€go€to€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€who€assigns€the€case€to€the€circuit€court,€bypassingÏthe€Inquiry€Panel.€€€The€Chair€inquired€if€this€could€be€done€on€theÏbasis€of€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Mr.€Brault€replied€that€itÏcould.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€asked€the€Committee€about€Mr.€Sykes's€suggestion€toÏstrike€the€final€language€of€subsection€(a)(4).€€The€Committee€agreedÏby€consensus€with€this€change.€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€that€theÏlanguage€referring€to€preponderance€of€the€evidence€should€be€addedÏto€subsection€(a)(4).€€Without€it,€the€judge€may€use€the€clear€andÏconvincing€standard.€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€with€thisÏsuggestion.€€Subsection€(a)(4)€will€now€read€as€follows:€€"An€orderÏgranting€a€preliminary€or€permanent€injunction€against€an€attorneyÏpursuant€to€this€section,€in€addition€to€meeting€the€requirements€ofÏRule€15„502€(e),€shall€include€specific€findings€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€as€to€whether€or€not€the€attorney€so€enjoined€hasÏengaged€in€the€professional€misconduct€alleged€and€poses€the€threatÐ L-œ(. Ðalleged€in€the€complaint.€€Except€in€exceptional€circumstances,€theÏcourt€shall€dispense€with€the€requirement€of€a€bond."Ìà  àMr.€Brault€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€subsection€(a)(5).€ÏMr.€Sykes€asked€whether€the€accounts€to€which€the€subsection€refersÏinclude€savings€accounts.€€Mr.€Bowen€suggested€that€the€subsectionÏshould€be€modified€to€be€consistent€with€the€changes€to€subsectionÏ(a)(1).€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€with€Mr.€Bowen'sÏsuggestion.€€The€Vice€Chair€suggested€that€the€reference€to€Rule€16„¼602€(a)€should€be€deleted.€€The€subsection€should€include€any€accountÏin€any€financial€institution.€€The€institution€should€be€prohibitedÏfrom€making€any€transfers€as€well€as€payments.€€The€Committee€agreedÏby€consensus€to€these€changes€to€subsection€(a)(5).Ìà  àThe€Chair€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(b).€€Mr.ÏBrault€asked€if€ex€parte€injunctions€should€be€mentioned€inÏsubsection€(b)(1).€€Judge€Vaughan€responded€that€in€reality€there€areÏno€more€ex€parte€injunctions.€€The€Vice€Chair€said€that€the€term€isÏTRO's.€€She€pointed€out€that€the€Committee€note€to€subsection€(a)(1)Ïallows€TRO's.€€If€it€is€not€clear€in€subsection€(b)(1),€a€CommitteeÏnote€could€be€added€which€would€provide€that€TRO's€are€included.€€TheÏChair€commented€that€Bar€Counsel€may€apply€for€appropriate€relief€inÏaccordance€with€the€provisions€of€Chapter€500.€€He€added€that€aÏCommittee€note€could€provide€that€the€Rule€includes€TRO's.€€Mr.€SykesÏpointed€out€that€the€term€"injunctive€relief"€covers€all€types€ofÏinjunctions,€including€TRO's.€€The€Chair€asked€if€a€petition€forÐ L-œ(. Ðdisciplinary€action€can€be€filed€if€a€TRO€is€granted.€€Mr.€SykesÏreplied€that€the€petition€can€be€filed€only€after€a€preliminary€orÏpermanent€injunction,€not€a€TRO.€€Mr.€Brault€added€that€there€is€noÏevidentiary€hearing€before€a€TRO€is€issued.€€The€Chair€remarked€thatÏno€change€to€subsection€(b)(1)€is€necessary.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€phrase€in€subsection€(b)(1)Ïwhich€reads€"includes€a€specific€finding€that€the€attorney€soÏenjoined€has€engaged€in€the€professional€misconduct€alleged€in€theÏcomplaint.."€is€meaningless€and€should€be€deleted.€€The€CommitteeÏagreed€with€this€suggestion€by€consensus.€€The€Chair€stated€thatÏsubsection€(b)(1)€would€begin€as€follows:€€"When€an€injunction€hasÏissued€in€accordance€with€subsection€(a)(4)€of€this€RuleÏregardless...".€€Ìà  àThe€Reporter€inquired€if€the€Subcommittee€had€discussedÏincluding€in€Rule€16„723€a€reference€to€the€disability€of€theÏattorney€which€is€included€in€the€ABA€rule.€€The€Vice€Chair€said€thatÏthe€whole€injunction€procedure€does€not€apply€to€the€disability€of€anÏattorney.€€Mr.€Grossman€remarked€that€it€could.€€The€Chair€noted€thatÏeven€if€the€attorney€had€a€disability,€he€or€she€would€have€to€engageÏin€misconduct€before€an€injunction€would€be€sought.€€The€Vice€ChairÏcommented€that€she€thought€that€misconduct€does€not€includeÏdisability.€€Mr.€Brault€reiterated€that€even€if€the€attorney€has€aÏdisability,€there€would€still€have€to€be€misconduct.Ìà  àThe€Chair€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€subsection€(b)(2).€Ð L-œ(. ÐThe€Vice€Chair€suggested€that€the€third€sentence€be€deleted€to€beÏconsistent€with€other€changes€made€to€the€Rule.€€The€Committee€agreedÏwith€this€suggestion€by€consensus.€€The€Vice€Chair€questioned€whetherÏthe€subsection€should€be€entitled€"Expedited€Proceedings€onÏPetition."€€The€Chair€inquired€if€the€judge€who€issued€the€injunctionÏshould€be€the€judge€assigned€to€hear€the€case.€€Mr.€Zarnoch€answeredÏthat€that€would€depend€on€the€facts€of€the€case.€€Judge€VaughanÏcommented€that€having€the€same€judge€hear€the€later€proceeding€mightÏspeed€up€the€process.€€The€Chair€asked€if€language€should€be€addedÏwhich€would€provide€that€the€same€judge€shall€not€preside€at€theÏlater€hearing€unless€the€parties€agree.€€The€Vice€Chair€observed€thatÏthe€judge€who€grants€a€TRO€in€a€civil€case€is€not€disqualified€fromÏhearing€the€case€on€the€merits.€€Judge€Kaplan€remarked€that€theÏattorney€can€move€to€recuse€the€judge€from€presiding€at€the€hearing,Ïbut€there€does€not€have€to€be€automatic€recusal.€€Judge€Johnson€addedÏthat€this€is€done€now.€€The€Chair€commented€that€occasionally€thereÏmay€be€a€credibility€issue.€€He€expressed€the€view€that€it€is€a€goodÏrule€which€contributes€greatly€to€the€process.€€If€the€parties€agreeÏto€the€same€judge€considering€the€injunction€and€then€hearing€theÏcase,€that€is€appropriate.€€If€not,€another€judge€can€hear€the€case.Ìà  àJudge€Kaplan€observed€that€in€the€injunction€cases,€Bar€CounselÏseeks€an€injunction€for€a€serious€matter,€and€the€injunction€isÏseldom€contested.€€Usually€the€attorney€has€been€caught€redhandedÏcommitting€a€crime,€and€there€is€documentary€proof.€€It€would€be€aÐ L-œ(. Ðwaste€of€judicial€power€to€preclude€the€judge€who€already€wentÏthrough€the€documentary€evidence€and€granted€an€injunction€fromÏhearing€the€case.€€The€Chair€commented€that€there€may€be€preclusiveÏeffect€to€the€injunction.€€The€Vice€Chair€said€that€she€thought€theÏRule€implied€that€a€different€judge€than€the€one€who€granted€theÏinjunction€would€hear€the€case.€€Mr.€Sykes€remarked€that€this€can€beÏhandled€by€the€judge.Ìà  àThe€Chair€stated€that€the€final€sentence€of€subsection€(b)(2)Ïwould€be€deleted.€€The€Vice€Chair€suggested€that€the€Committee€noteÏalso€be€deleted,€and€the€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€thisÏdeletion.Ìà  àMr.€Sykes€inquired€about€the€issue€of€disability€which€wasÏraised€previously€in€the€discussion.€€Mr.€Brault€stated€that€if€theÏattorney€is€incapacitated€and€as€a€consequence€mishandles€money,€thisÏis€misconduct.€€The€Chair€pointed€out€that€Rule€16„724€permits€BarÏCounsel€to€put€the€attorney€on€inactive€status.€€He€asked€Mr.€BraultÏabout€the€relationship€between€willful,€deliberate€behavior€andÏdisability.€€Mr.€Brault€replied€that€the€remedy€of€an€injunction€isÏnot€available€for€disability€alone.€€It€may€be€a€defense€as€to€theÏmisconduct.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€said€that€an€attorney€may€not€have€committed€an€actÏof€misconduct€yet,€but€due€to€a€mental€disability€is€planning€to€doÏso.€€An€example€would€be€an€attorney€who€is€in€the€hospital€and€isÏplanning€to€give€away€a€client's€trust€account€as€soon€as€theÐ L-œ(. Ðattorney€is€out€of€the€hospital.€€Injunctive€relief€may€be€necessary,Ïso€that€the€attorney€is€prevented€from€having€access€to€clientÏaccounts.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€another€area€of€proof€would€beÏopened€up€for€cases€due€to€disability.€€There€are€no€cases€suggestingÏthat€type€of€case.€€Mr.€Sykes€said€that€he€was€convinced€thatÏdisability€need€not€be€mentioned€in€Rule€16„723.Ìà  àThe€Chair€told€the€Committee€that€in€light€of€previousÏdiscussions€about€the€effect€of€a€warning€by€Bar€Counsel€and€theÏInquiry€Panel,€Mr.€Frederick€was€at€the€meeting€to€present€an€issueÏregarding€questions€on€attorney€malpractice€insurance€applicationsÏabout€attorneys€being€subject€to€disciplinary€actions.€€Mr.€FrederickÏhas€handed€out€two€sample€questions€from€application€forms.€€(SeeÏAppendix€1).€€Mr.€Frederick€explained€that€the€two€questions€on€theÏsheet€he€distributed€are€from€two€separate€malpractice€insuranceÏapplication€forms.€€The€first€question€is€from€the€form€of€theÏleading€legal€malpractice€carrier;€the€second€is€from€the€form€of€theÏleast€predominant€carrier.€€Other€carriers'€forms€are€basically€theÏsame.€€Carriers€provide€discounts€to€attorneys€who€have€been€freeÏfrom€discipline€for€certain€periods€of€time.€€The€discounts€rangeÏfrom€five€to€fifteen€percent.€€If€an€attorney€answers€affirmativelyÏthe€question€which€is€the€same€as€or€similar€to€the€ones€on€the€sheetÏdistributed€today,€the€attorney€is€disqualified€from€receiving€theÏdiscount.€€At€the€previous€Attorneys€Subcommittee€meeting,€concernÏabout€this€situation€was€voiced.€€If€a€warning€is€not€discipline,Ð L-œ(. Ðthen€the€answer€to€the€question€is€"no."€€However,€a€prior€PanelÏwarning€may€be€considered€to€be€discipline.€€Judge€McAuliffe€hadÏraised€the€issue€that€considering€a€warning€as€discipline€may€violateÏdue€process€if€there€is€no€right€to€appeal€or€complain€about€theÏissuance€of€the€warning.€€The€ultimate€effect€is€that€attorneys€mayÏbe€penalized€in€attempting€to€get€malpractice€insurance€and€toÏqualify€for€discounts.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€questioned€whether€an€attorney€receiving€aÏwarning€has€to€answer€"yes"€to€the€first€question€10€on€the€handoutÏpage€which€asks€if€the€attorneys€have€been€"subject€to"€anyÏdisciplinary€proceedings.€€Mr.€Frederick€responded€that€if€the€OfficeÏof€Bar€Counsel€sends€out€a€letter€to€an€attorney,€it€is€not€worthÏanswering€a€question€such€as€question€10€affirmatively.€€Mr.€BraultÏnoted€that€if€an€attorney€has€been€before€the€Inquiry€Panel,€it€mayÏrequire€an€affirmative€answer€on€the€malpractice€insuranceÏapplication€form.€€Mr.€Frederick€observed€that€if€the€Panel€dismissesÏthe€case,€or€dismisses€with€a€warning,€this€may€mean€that€theÏattorney€was€not€subject€to€proceedings.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€compared€the€question€on€the€handout€to€a€question€onÏthe€insurance€application€form€which€asked€if€the€attorney€had€everÏbeen€subject€to€criminal€charges.€€In€the€latter€case,€if€someone€wasÏinvestigated€by€the€Grand€Jury,€but€was€not€indicted,€the€answer€toÏthe€question€of€being€subject€to€criminal€charges€would€be€"no."€ÏHowever,€if€someone€was€indicted,€tried,€and€then€acquitted,€theÐ L-œ(. Ðanswer€would€be€"yes."€€Mr.€Brault€commented€that€the€danger€with€theÏinsurance€company€not€agreeing€with€the€attorney's€answer€is€that€theÏcompany€may€deny€coverage€because€it€considers€the€attorney€to€haveÏlied€on€the€application.Ìà  àThe€Chair€asked€how€this€problem€can€be€handled.€€It€mayÏrequire€some€research€to€see€how€the€courts€have€interpreted€casesÏinvolving€this€question.€€The€Vice€Chair€said€that€a€warning€is€notÏdiscipline.€€This€concept€can€be€expanded€upon,€so€it€is€clear€thatÏit€is€not€necessary€to€report€a€warning€on€the€insurance€applicationÏform.€€Mr.€Brault€remarked€that€if€the€insurers€get€wind€of€this,Ïthey€could€change€the€question€on€the€form€to€"has€a€complaint€everÏbeen€filed€against€you?"€€€The€Vice€Chair€said€that€language€could€beÏset€forth€which€would€indicate€that€this€would€be€as€if€the€complaintÏhad€never€occurred.€€The€Chair€added€that€it€could€be€similar€to€aÏProbation€Before€Judgment.€€Judge€Vaughan€observed€that€applicationsÏfor€judicial€vacancies€have€similar€issues.€€The€Chair€inquired€ifÏBar€Counsel€answers€affirmatively€to€questions€about€letters€ofÏcomplaint€written€about€attorneys€which€result€in€no€action€taken.€ÏMr.€Hirshman€replied€that€he€does€not€answer€affirmatively€toÏquestions€about€these€letters.€Ìà  àAfter€the€lunch€break,€the€Chair€announced€that€since€AgendaÏItem€2€was€scheduled€for€1:30€p.m.,€the€next€item€for€considerationÏwould€be€Agenda€Item€3.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€3.€€Consideration€of€proposed€amendments€to€certainÐ ..~)/ Ѐ€rules€pertaining€to€jurors'€notes:€€Rule€2„521€(Jury€„„ReviewÌ€€of€Evidence€„„€Communications),€Rule€4„326€(Jury€„„€Review€ofÌ€€Evidence€„„€Communications),€and€Rule€5„606€(Competency€ofÌ€€Juror€as€Witness)Ì________________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àMr.€Titus€presented€Rule€2„521,€Jury€„„€Review€of€Evidence„„¼Communications),€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@§ § ìàTITLE€2€„€CIVIL€PROCEDURE€„„€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌÌà@»»!ìàCHAPTER€500€„€TRIALˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€2„521€to€add€certain€provisionsÏconcerning€juror€notes€and€notepads,€asÏfollows:ÌÌÌññÓÓÓ€Mr.ÓññRule€2„521.€JURY€„€REVIEW€OF€EVIDENCE€„ÏCOMMUNICATIONSÌÌÌ€(a)à ¸ àItems€Taken€to€Jury€RoomÐ †Ö ÐÌà ¸ àò òThe€court€may,€and€upon€request€of€anyÐ Jš Ðparty€shall,€provide€notepads€for€use€by€theÏjurors€during€trial.ó ó€€Jurors€may€take€notes€ò òonÐ  ^ Ðthe€notepadsó ó€regarding€the€evidence€and€ò òtheÐ ð @  Ðnotepads€shall€be€collected€during€recesses€inÏthe€trial.€€The€jurorsó ó€may€keep€the€ò ònotesó óÐ ´"" Ðò ònotepadsó ó€with€them€when€they€retire€for€theirÐ –#æ# Ðdeliberation.€ò òThe€notepads€shall€be€collectedÐ x$È$ Ðat€the€end€of€the€trial€and€destroyed€promptly.€ÏThe€notepads€may€not€be€reviewed€by€any€person,Ïnor€may€the€notes€be€relied€upon€by€any€personÏfor€any€purpose.€€The€court€may,€and€uponÏrequest€of€any€party€shall,€instruct€the€jurorsÏthat€no€juror€may€use€or€share€with€any€otherÏjuror€any€notes€made€by€a€juror€outside€theÏcourtroom.€€If€a€juror€is€unable€to€use€aÏnotepad€due€to€a€disability,€the€court€shallÏprovide€reasonable€accommodations.ó ó€€Unless€theÐ L-œ(. Ðcourt€for€good€cause€orders€otherwise,€the€juryÐ ..~)/ Ðmay€also€take€exhibits€that€have€been€admittedÏin€evidence,€except€that€a€deposition€may€notÏbe€taken€into€the€jury€room€without€theÏagreement€of€all€parties€and€consent€of€theÏcourt.€€Written€or€electronically€recordedÏinstructions€may€be€taken€into€the€jury€roomÏonly€with€the€permission€of€the€court.ÌÌCross€reference:€€See€Rule€5„802.1€(e).ÌÌ€€(b)€€Jury€Request€to€Review€EvidenceÌà ¸ à€€The€court,€after€notice€to€the€parties,Ïmay€make€available€to€the€jury€testimony€orÏother€evidence€requested€by€it.€€In€order€thatÏundue€prominence€not€be€given€to€the€evidenceÏrequested,€the€court€may€also€make€availableÏadditional€evidence€relating€to€the€sameÏfactual€issue.ÌÌ€€(c)€€Communications€With€JuryÌÌà ¸ à€€The€court€shall€notify€the€parties€ofÏthe€receipt€of€any€communication€from€the€juryÏpertaining€to€the€action€before€responding€toÏthe€communication.€€All€such€communicationsÏbetween€the€court€and€the€jury€shall€be€on€theÏrecord€in€open€court€or€shall€be€in€writing€andÏfiled€in€the€action.ÌññÓ€Mr.ÓññÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€derived€as€follows:ÌÌ€€Section€(a)€is€derived€ò òin€partòòóóó ó€from€formerÐ  ^ ÐRules€558€a,€b€and€d€and€758€b€ò òand€is€in€partÐ ð @  Ðnewó ó.Ð Ò!"! ÐÐ  ´"" Ѐ€Section€(b)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€758Ïc.Ì€€Section€(c)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€758Ïd.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€2„521€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àAt€the€request€of€Chief€Judge€Bell,€theÏEvidence€Subcommittee€considered€the€matter€ofÏcontrol€of€jurors'€notes,€in€light€of€òòAron€v.Ð „ Ô  ÐBrockóó,€___€Md.€App.€___€(No.€1545,€SeptemberÐ f¶  ÐTerm,€1996,€filed€May€29,€1997),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,Ð H˜  Ð346€Md.€629€(1997).ÌÌà ¸ àProposed€amendments€to€Rules€2„521€and€4„¼326€provide€for€notepads€to€be€distributed€byÏthe€court€to€jurors€for€notetaking€during€theÏtrial€and€use€during€deliberation,€upon€theÏrequest€of€any€party€or€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€by€theÐ vÆ Ðcourt.€€The€court€maintains€control€of€theÏnotepads€by€collecting€them€during€recesses€inÏthe€trial€and€promptly€destroying€them€afterÏthe€trial.€€As€to€notes€made€by€a€juror€outsideÏthe€courtroom,€the€proposed€amendments€requireÏthe€court€upon€request€of€a€party,€and€allowÏthe€court€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó,€to€instruct€the€jury€thatÐ ¤ô Ðnotes€made€outside€the€courtroom€may€not€beÏused€or€shared€with€other€jurors.€€TheÏamendments€also€require€the€court€to€provide€aÏreasonable€accommodation€under€the€AmericansÏwith€Disabilities€Act,€42€U.S.C.€ðð12101,€òòet.óóÐ  ^ Ðòòseq.óó,€for€any€juror€who€is€unable€to€use€aÐ ð @  Ðnotepad€due€to€disability.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@hhìàTITLE€4€„€CRIMINAL€CAUSESˆÌÌà@k k ìàCHAPTER€300€„€TRIAL€AND€SENTENCINGˆÌÌÐ ..~)/ Ðà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€4„326€to€add€certain€provisionsÏconcerning€the€use€of€juror€notes€and€notepads,Ïas€follows:ÌÌÌRule€4„326.€JURY€„€REVIEW€OF€EVIDENCE€„ÏCOMMUNICATIONSÌÌÌ€(a)à ¸ àItems€Taken€to€Jury€RoomÐ ¢ ò  ÐÌà ¸ àò òThe€court€may,€and€upon€request€of€anyÐ f¶  Ðparty€shall,€provide€notepads€for€use€by€theÏjurors€during€trial.ó ó€€Jurors€may€take€notes€ò òonÐ *z  Ðthe€notepadsó ó€regarding€the€evidence€and€ò òtheyó óÐ  \  Ðò òthe€notepads€shall€be€collected€during€recessesÐ î>  Ðas€in€the€trial.€€The€jurorsó ó€may€keep€the€ò ònotesó óÐ Ð  Ðò ònotepadsó ó€with€them€when€they€retire€for€theirÐ ² Ðdeliberations.€ò òThe€notepads€shall€be€collectedÐ ”ä Ðat€the€end€of€the€trial€and€destroyed€promptly.€ÏThe€notepads€may€not€be€reviewed€by€any€person,Ïnor€may€the€notes€be€relied€upon€by€any€personÏfor€any€purpose.€€The€court€may,€and€uponÏrequest€of€any€party€shall,€instruct€the€jurorsÏthat€no€juror€may€use€or€share€with€any€otherÏjuror€any€notes€made€by€a€juror€outside€theÏcourtroom.€€If€a€juror€is€unable€to€use€aÏnotepad€due€to€a€disability,€the€court€shallÏprovide€reasonable€accommodations.ó ó€€Unless€theÐ h¸ Ðcourt€for€good€cause€orders€otherwise,€the€juryÏmay€also€take€the€charging€document€andÏexhibits€which€have€been€admitted€in€evidence,Ïexcept€that€a€deposition€may€not€be€taken€intoÏthe€jury€room€without€the€agreement€of€allÏparties€and€the€consent€of€the€court.€ÏElectronically€recorded€instructions€or€oralÏinstructions€reduced€to€writing€may€be€takenÏinto€the€jury€room€only€with€the€permission€ofÏthe€court.€€On€request€of€a€party€or€on€theÏcourt's€own€initiative,€the€charging€documentsÏshall€reflect€only€those€charges€on€which€theÏjury€is€to€deliberate.€€The€court€may€imposeÏsafeguards€for€the€preservation€of€the€exhibitsÏand€the€safety€of€the€jurors.ÌÌCross€reference:€€See€Rule€5„802.1€(e).ÌÌ€€(b)€€Jury€Request€to€Review€EvidenceÐ ..~)/ Їà ¸ à€€The€court,€after€notice€to€the€parties,Ïmay€make€available€to€the€jury€testimony€orÏother€evidence€requested€by€it.€€In€order€thatÏundue€prominence€not€be€given€to€the€evidenceÏrequested,€the€court€may€also€make€availableÏadditional€evidence€relating€to€the€sameÏfactual€issue.ÌÌ€€(c)€€Communications€With€JuryÌÌà ¸ à€€The€court€shall€notify€the€defendant€andÏthe€State's€Attorney€of€the€receipt€of€anyÏcommunication€from€the€jury€pertaining€to€theÏaction€before€responding€to€the€communication.€ÏAll€such€communications€between€the€court€andÏthe€jury€shall€be€on€the€record€in€open€courtÏor€shall€be€in€writing€and€filed€in€the€action.ÌññÓ€Mr.ÓññÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€derived€as€follows:ÌÌ€€Section€(a)€is€derived€ò òin€partó ó€from€formerÐ X¨ ÐRules€758€a€and€b€and€757€eò ò,€and€is€in€partÐ :Š Ðnewó ó.Ð l Ѐ€Section€(b)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€758Ïc.Ì€€Section€(c)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€758Ïd.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€4„326€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒññÓ€Mr.Óññòòóóà ¸ àSee€the€Reporter's€Note€to€the€proposedÐ  ^ Ðamendment€to€Rule€2„521.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@óó!ìàTITLE€5€„€EVIDENCEˆÌÌà@ÙÙìàCHAPTER€600€„€WITNESSESˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€5„606€to€prohibit€impeachmentÏof€a€verdict€by€a€juror's€notes€or€otherÐ ..~)/ Ðwritings,€as€follows:ÌÌÌRule€5„606.€€COMPETENCY€OF€JUROR€AS€WITNESSÌÌÌ€€(a)€€At€the€TrialÌÌà ¸ àA€member€of€a€jury€may€not€testify€as€aÏwitness€before€the€jury€in€the€trial€of€theÏcase€in€which€the€juror€is€sitting.€€If€theÏjuror€is€called€to€testify,€the€opposing€partyÏshall€be€afforded€an€opportunity€to€object€outÏof€the€presence€of€the€jury.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Inquiry€Into€Validity€of€VerdictÌÌ€€€€(1)€€In€any€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€aÏverdict,€a€juror€may€not€testify€as€to€(A)€anyÏmatter€or€statement€occurring€during€the€courseÏof€the€jury's€deliberations,€(B)€the€effect€ofÏanything€upon€that€or€any€other€juror's€mind€orÏemotions€as€influencing€the€juror€to€assent€orÏdissent€from€the€verdict,€or€(C)€the€juror'sÏmental€processes€in€connection€with€theÏverdict.ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€A€juror's€affidavit€or€evidence€of€anyÏstatement€by€the€juror€concerning€a€matterÏabout€which€the€juror€would€be€precluded€fromÏtestifying€may€not€be€received€for€theseÏpurposes.ÌÌ€€€€ò ò(3)€€A€juror's€notes€or€other€writings€mayÐ Ò!"! Ðnot€be€used€to€impeach€a€verdict.ó óÐ ´"" ÐññÓe€AgÓññÌ€€(c)€€"Verdict"€DefinedÌÌà ¸ à€€For€purposes€of€this€Rule,€"verdict"Ïmeans€(1)€a€verdict€returned€by€a€petit€jury€orÏ(2)€a€sentence€returned€by€a€jury€in€aÏsentencing€proceeding€conducted€pursuant€toÏCode,€Article€27,€ðð413.ÌññÓe€AgÓññÌCommittee€note:€€This€Rule€does€not€address€orÏaffect€the€secrecy€of€grand€jury€proceedings.ÌÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€derived€in€part€fromÐ ..~)/ ÐF.R.Ev.€606.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€5„606€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThe€proposed€amendment€to€Rule€5„606Ïprohibits€impeachment€of€a€verdict€by€the€useÏof€a€juror's€notes€or€other€writings.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àMr.€Titus€explained€that€this€proposed€Rule€change€came€aboutÏas€a€result€of€the€case€of€òòAron€v.€Brockóó,€___€Md.€App.€___€(No.€1545,Ð H˜  ÐSeptember€Term,€1996,€filed€May€29,€1997),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€346€Md.€629Ð  \  Ð(1997).€€The€Rule€would€make€it€mandatory,€if€any€party€so€requests,Ïthat€the€court€allow€jurors€to€take€notes€of€the€proceedings€onÏnotepads€provided€by€the€court.€€The€jurors€would€be€permitted€to€useÏthe€notes€in€their€deliberations.€€The€notes€would€only€be€allowed€toÏbe€used€for€specific€purposes,€and€accommodations€as€to€the€notesÏwould€be€made€for€any€juror€who€is€disabled.€€Ìà  àJudge€Johnson€expressed€concern€about€the€provision€forÏdisabled€persons€which€could€lead€to€other€people€being€allowed€inÏthe€jury€room.€€The€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€Rule€provides€forÏòòreasonableóó€accommodation.€€The€Chair€gave€the€example€of€a€case€whereÐ ´"" Ða€juror€was€blind€and€was€allowed€to€have€a€transcript€of€the€caseÏmade€on€a€braille€machine€and€then€bring€the€transcript€in€with€her.€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€asked€if€in€the€second€sentence€of€section€(a),€theÏlanguage€"the€notepads€shall€be€collected€during€recesses€in€theÏtrial"€means€that€the€pads€would€be€given€back€to€the€jurors.€€Mr.ÏTitus€answered€that€the€pads€would€be€given€back.€€Mr.€Bowen€inquiredÐ L-œ(. Ðabout€the€fifth€sentence€which€reads,€"The€notepads€may€not€beÏreviewed€by€any€person...".€€The€Chair€said€that€the€word€"other"Ïshould€be€added€in€before€the€word€"person."€€The€Vice€Chair€pointedÏout€that€one€juror€could€review€another€juror's€notepad.€€The€ChairÏstated€that€any€notes€taken€by€a€juror€would€be€for€that€juror's€ownÏuse€during€the€deliberations.€€Mr.€Sykes€commented€that€the€way€theÏlanguage€is€written€is€very€broad.€€An€affirmative€statement€shouldÏbe€made€about€the€use€of€the€notes€in€the€jury€room,€and€then€aÏstatement€should€be€made€that€no€other€use€can€be€made€of€the€notes.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€observed€that€if€too€many€restrictions€are€imposed,Ïthere€will€be€juror€misconduct€impeachment.€€He€asked€what€theÏmeaning€of€a€notepad€is.€€Judge€Johnson€pointed€out€that€"notepad"€isÏalso€a€term€for€a€laptop€computer.€€Mr.€Hochberg€said€that€what€isÏmeant€in€the€Rule€is€paper€notepads.€€The€Chair€commented€that€amongÏthe€federal€courts,€the€circuits€do€things€differently.€€The€RuleÏcould€provide€that€the€court€may,€and€upon€request,€shall€permitÏjurors€to€take€notes€during€trial€and€include€the€accommodationÏlanguage.€€Mr.€Titus€reiterated€that€the€court€issues€the€notepads.€ÏMr.€Brault€inquired€if€a€juror€can€use€his€or€her€own€notepad,€andÏMr.€Titus€answered€that€this€is€not€permitted.€€The€Vice€Chair€askedÏwhat€the€sanction€is€for€not€following€this.€€Mr.€Titus€respondedÏthat€this€is€a€policy€question.€€There€could€be€problems€with€post„¼judgment€inquiries€concerning€jurors'€notes.€€The€integrity€ofÏjudgments€could€be€questioned.€€Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àMr.€Dean€asked€about€the€fifth€sentence€in€section€(a)€whichÏreads€"The€notepads€may€not€be€reviewed€by€any€person,€nor€may€theÏnotes€be€relied€upon€by€any€person€for€any€purpose."€€Mr.€Titus€saidÏthat€this€means€that€the€notes€may€not€be€reviewed€except€by€theÏjurors€during€the€deliberations.€€Judge€Johnson€remarked€that€inÏPrince€George's€County,€notepads€are€used€routinely.€€At€every€trialÏevery€juror€gets€one,€and€the€jurors€leave€the€pads€and€pencils,Ïkeeping€the€notes.€€There€are€no€problems€with€this.€€€The€ChairÏpointed€out€that€the€òòAronóó€case€indicates€that€there€has€been€aÐ Ð  Ðproblem.€€One€of€the€jurors€took€his€notes€home€with€him€and€usedÏthem€to€create€a€transcript€on€his€computer.€€At€the€end€of€the€trialÏafter€the€verdict,€the€juror€showed€the€attorneys€a€notebook€full€ofÏthe€notes.€€The€attorneys€tried€to€get€it€from€him.€€The€presidingÏjudge€looked€at€the€notebook€and€decided€that€it€was€not€useful€andÏshould€not€be€part€of€the€record.€€It€was€kept€among€the€exhibits,Ïand€when€the€case€went€up€on€appeal,€the€notebook€was€lost.€€OnceÏthere€was€an€attack€on€the€verdict€based€on€outside€influence,€theÏnotebook€was€needed.€€€Ìà  àJudge€Johnson€said€that€the€procedure€should€be€that€once€theÏjurors€leave€the€courtroom€for€a€recess,€the€notepads€are€leftÏbehind.€€The€Chair€responded€that€not€every€judge€requires€this.€ÏCertain€basic€procedures€need€to€be€followed.€€Should€the€court€beÏrequired€to€furnish€pads,€or€should€this€be€left€permissive?€€Mr.ÏTitus€replied€that€the€Subcommittee€strongly€favors€the€view€that€ifÐ L-œ(. Ðthe€judge€is€asked€to€provide€notepads,€the€judge€must€do€so.€€TheseÏwould€be€collected€at€any€recess.€There€should€not€be€variance€amongÏthe€circuits.€Ìà  àJudge€Vaughan€questioned€when€technology€will€produce€immediateÏtranscripts€of€the€case€for€the€jurors€to€review€during€theirÏdeliberations.€€The€Chair€answered€that€immediate€transcripts€are€notÏfar€off€in€the€future.€€Many€judges€are€giving€juries€written€juryÏinstructions,€and€this€is€lengthening€deliberations.€€Mr.€HochbergÏsuggested€that€at€the€end€of€the€sixth€sentence€of€section€(a)€whichÏprovides€that€jurors€may€not€share€notes€outside€the€courtroom,€theÏfollowing€language€should€be€added,€"and€the€jury€shall€be€soÏinstructed."€€The€Chair€suggested€that€the€Rule€begin€as€follows:€Ï"The€court€may,€and€upon€request€of€any€party€shall,€permit€theÏjurors€to€take€notes€during€trial.€€Juror€notes€shall€be€collectedÏduring€recesses€in€the€trial.€€Jurors€may€use€the€notes€duringÏdeliberations,€but€the€notes€will€be€collected€at€the€end€of€theÏtrial€and€destroyed€promptly.€€The€notepads€may€not€be€reviewed€byÏany€person,€nor€may€the€notes€be€relied€upon€by€any€person€other€thanÏjurors€for€any€purpose.€€€The€court€shall€instruct€the€jurors€that€noÏjuror€may€use€or€share€with€any€other€juror€any€notes€made€by€a€jurorÏoutside€the€courtroom."€€Mr.€Titus€asked€why€the€Rule€cannot€haveÏlanguage€which€states€that€the€court€shall€provide€the€notepads.€€Mr.ÏSykes€suggested€that€the€Rule€distinguish€from€computer€notepads.€ÏThe€Chair€suggested€that€the€following€sentence€could€be€added€toÐ L-œ(. Ðsection€(a):€€"The€court€may,€and€upon€request€of€any€party€shall,Ïprovide€paper€notepads."€€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€questioned€whether€the€beginning€of€the€secondÏsentence€which€reads€"Jurors€may€take€notes€on€the€notepads€regardingÏthe€evidence€and"€should€be€deleted.€€The€Chair€replied€that€theÏsecond€sentence€would€read€as€follows:€"The€notepads€shall€beÏcollected€during€recesses€in€the€trial."€€€The€Vice€Chair€suggestedÏthat€in€the€first€sentence€the€following€language€should€be€addedÏafter€the€word€"use"€and€before€the€word€"during":€€"for€the€jurorsÏto€take€notes."€€The€Chair€clarified€that€the€Rule€should€provideÏthat€the€notepad€shall€be€collected€during€recesses€in€the€trial€andÏshall€be€destroyed€at€the€end€of€the€trial.€€Mr.€Bowen€pointed€outÏthat€the€notes,€not€the€notepads,€should€be€destroyed.€€Mr.€TitusÏsuggested€that€the€Rule€clarify€that€it€is€the€notes€that€are€to€beÏdestroyed.€€Mr.€Sykes€added€that€the€Rule€must€make€clear€that€theÏjurors€review€the€notes,€not€the€notepads.€€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€thatÏthe€sentence€providing€for€no€review€by€any€person€begin€as€follows:€Ï"Except€by€the€jurors€during€deliberations,€the€notes€may€not€beÏreviewed...".€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€the€proposedÏchanges.Ìà  àMr.€Sykes€commented€that€the€sentence€which€provides€that€theÏcourt€shall€instruct€the€jurors€not€to€use€the€notes€outside€theÏcourtroom€does€not€cover€impeachment€of€the€verdict.€€More€languageÏmay€need€to€be€added.€€The€Reporter€pointed€out€that€Rule€5„606Ð L-œ(. Ðcovers€impeachment€of€the€verdict.€€Mr.€Titus€remarked€that€Rule€2„¼521€does€not€overrule€Rule€5„606.€€Mr.€Sykes€observed€that€the€jurorÏnotes€may€reveal€impropriety,€prejudice,€and€improper€motives.€€Mr.ÏTitus€said€that€this€is€a€policy€question.€€Mr.€Sykes€noted€that€theÏRule€does€not€provide€that€the€jurors'€notes€cannot€be€used€for€anyÏother€purpose.€€Judge€Johnson€commented€that€the€Rule€provides€thatÏthe€notes€are€to€be€destroyed.€€The€Chair€asked€if€a€sentence€shouldÏbe€added€which€would€provide€that€the€court€instructs€the€jurors€thatÏthe€basis€of€their€verdict€should€be€the€evidence€presented€in€theÏcourtroom.€€The€Vice€Chair€expressed€the€view€that€she€did€notÏdisagree€with€the€substance€of€the€proposed€changes€to€Rule€Ì2„521,€but€she€had€a€problem€with€the€placement€of€certain€provisionsÏdealing€with€what€can€go€into€the€jury€room.€€Mr.€Sykes€pointed€outÏthat€it€was€the€time€for€Agenda€Item€2€to€be€considered.€€ÌÓÓÌÐ  Jš ÐAgenda€Item€2.€€Consideration€of€proposed€amendments€to€certainÌ€€rules€pertaining€to€arrest€warrants€and€charging€documents:€Ì€€Rule€4„212€(Issuance,€Service,€and€Execution€of€Summons€orÌ€€Warrant)€and€Rule€4„201€(Charging€Document€„„€Use)Ì________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Chair€welcomed€the€guests€present€for€the€discussion€ofÏAgenda€Item€2.€€Judge€Johnson€presented€Rules€4„212€and€4„201€for€theÏCommittee's€consideration.€€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@hhìàTITLE€4€„€CRIMINAL€CAUSESˆÌÌà@¤ ¤ ìàCHAPTER€200€„€PRETRIAL€PROCEDURESˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€4„212€to€add€certain€provisionsÏconcerning€the€inspection€of€certain€files€andÏrecords€of€the€court€pertaining€to€warrants€andÏcharging€documents,€as€follows:ÌññÓing€ÓññÌÌRule€4„212.€€ISSUANCE,€SERVICE,€AND€EXECUTIONÏOF€SUMMONS€OR€WARRANTÌÌÌ€€(a)€€GeneralÌÌà ¸ à€€When€a€charging€document€is€filed€orÏwhen€a€stetted€case€is€rescheduled€pursuant€toÏRule€4„248,€a€summons€or€warrant€shall€beÏissued€in€accordance€with€this€Rule.€€Title€5Ïof€these€rules€does€not€apply€to€the€issuanceÏof€a€summons€or€warrant.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Summons€„„€IssuanceÌÌà ¸ à€€Unless€a€warrant€has€been€issued,€or€theÏdefendant€is€in€custody,€or€the€chargingÏdocument€is€a€citation,€a€summons€shall€beÏissued€to€the€defendant€(1)€in€the€DistrictÏCourt,€by€a€judicial€officer€or€the€clerk,€andÏ(2)€in€the€circuit€court,€by€the€clerk.€€TheÐ ..~)/ Ðsummons€shall€advise€the€defendant€to€appear€inÏperson€at€the€time€and€place€specified€or,€inÏthe€circuit€court,€to€appear€or€have€counselÏenter€an€appearance€in€writing€at€or€beforeÏthat€time.€€A€copy€of€the€charging€documentÏshall€be€attached€to€the€summons.€€A€court€mayÏorder€the€reissuance€of€a€summons.ÌÌ€€(c)€€Summons€„„€ServiceÌÌà ¸ à€€The€summons€and€charging€document€shallÏbe€served€on€the€defendant€by€mail€or€byÏpersonal€service€by€a€sheriff€or€other€peaceÏofficer,€as€directed€(1)€by€a€judicial€officerÏin€the€District€Court,€or€(2)€by€the€State'sÏAttorney€in€the€circuit€court.ÌÌ€€(d)€€Warrant€„„€Issuance€ò òand€Inspectionó óÐ ² ÐÌ€€€€(1)€€In€the€District€CourtÌà ¸ à€€€€A€judicial€officer€may,€and€uponÏrequest€of€the€State's€Attorney€shall,€issue€aÏwarrant€for€the€arrest€of€the€defendant,€otherÏthan€a€corporation,€upon€a€finding€that€thereÏis€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€defendantÏcommitted€the€offense€charged€in€the€chargingÏdocument€and€that€(A)€the€defendant€hasÏpreviously€failed€to€respond€to€a€summons€thatÏhas€been€personally€served€or€a€citation,€orÏ(B)€there€is€a€substantial€likelihood€that€theÏdefendant€will€not€respond€to€a€summons,€or€(C)Ïthe€whereabouts€of€the€defendant€are€unknownÏand€the€issuance€of€a€warrant€is€necessary€toÏsubject€the€defendant€to€the€jurisdiction€ofÏthe€court,€or€(D)€the€defendant€is€in€custodyÏfor€another€offense.€€A€copy€of€the€chargingÏdocument€shall€be€attached€to€the€warrant.ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€In€the€Circuit€CourtÌÌà ¸ à€€€€Upon€the€request€of€the€State'sÏAttorney,€a€warrant€shall€issue€for€the€arrestÏof€a€defendant,€other€than€a€corporation,€if€anÏinformation€has€been€filed€against€theÏdefendant€and€the€circuit€court€or€the€DistrictÏCourt€has€made€a€finding€that€there€is€probableÏcause€to€believe€that€the€defendant€committedÏthe€offense€charged€in€the€charging€document€orÐ ..~)/ Ðif€an€indictment€has€been€filed€against€theÏdefendant;€and€(A)€the€defendant€has€not€beenÏprocessed€and€released€pursuant€to€Rule€4„216,Ïor€(B)€the€court€finds€there€is€a€substantialÏlikelihood€that€the€defendant€will€not€respondÏto€a€summons.€€A€copy€of€the€charging€documentÏshall€be€attached€to€the€warrant.€€ò òó óWhen€theÐ ü L Ðdefendant€has€been€processed€and€releasedÏpursuant€to€Rule€4„216,€the€issuance€of€aÏwarrant€for€violation€of€conditions€of€releaseÏis€governed€by€Rule€4„217.ÌÌ€€€€ò ò(3)€€Inspectionó óÐ H˜  ÐÌà ¸ à€€€€ò òIf€the€judicial€officer€decides€toÐ  \  Ðissue€a€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€the€defendantÏrather€than€a€summons,€until€the€warrant€hasÏbeen€served€and€a€return€of€service€has€beenÏfiled€in€compliance€with€section€(g)€of€thisÏRule,€files€and€records€of€the€court€pertainingÏto€the€warrant€and€charging€document€shall€notÏbe€open€to€inspection€except€by€order€of€theÏcourt.€€After€the€return€of€service€is€filed,Ïthe€files€and€records€shall€be€open€toÏinspection.ó óÐ à0 ÐññÓing€Óññò òÌCommittee€note:€€This€subsection€does€notÏpreclude€the€release€of€statistical€informationÏconcerning€unserved€arrest€warrants€nor€does€itÏprohibit€a€State's€Attorney€or€peace€officerÏfrom€releasing€information€pertaining€to€anÏunserved€arrest€warrant€and€charging€document.ó óÐ  ^ ÐÌò òCross€reference:€€See€Rule€4„201€concerningÐ Ò!"! Ðcharging€documents.ó óÐ ´"" ÐÌ€€(e)€€Execution€of€Warrant€„„€Defendant€Not€inÏCustodyÌÌà ¸ à€€Unless€the€defendant€is€in€custody,€aÏwarrant€shall€be€executed€by€the€arrest€of€theÏdefendant.€€Unless€the€warrant€and€chargingÏdocument€are€served€at€the€time€of€the€arrest,Ïthe€officer€shall€inform€the€defendant€of€theÏnature€of€the€offense€charged€and€of€the€factÏthat€a€warrant€has€been€issued.€€A€copy€of€theÏwarrant€and€charging€document€shall€be€servedÏon€the€defendant€promptly€after€the€arrest.€Ð ..~)/ ÐThe€defendant€shall€be€taken€before€a€judicialÏofficer€of€the€District€Court€withoutÏunnecessary€delay€and€in€no€event€later€than€24Ïhours€after€arrest€or,€if€the€warrant€soÏspecifies,€before€a€judicial€officer€of€theÏcircuit€court€without€unnecessary€delay€and€inÏno€event€later€than€the€next€session€of€courtÏafter€the€date€of€arrest.€€The€Court€shallÏprocess€the€defendant€pursuant€to€Rule€4„216Ïand€may€make€provision€for€the€appearance€orÏwaiver€of€counsel€pursuant€to€Rule€4„215.ÌññÓing€ÓññÌCommittee€note:€€The€amendments€made€in€thisÏsection€are€not€intended€to€supersede€Code,ÏCourts€Article,€ðð10„912.ÌÌ€€(f)€€Procedure€„„€When€Defendant€in€CustodyÌÌ€€€€(1)€€Same€OffenseÌÌà ¸ à€€€€When€a€defendant€is€arrested€without€aÏwarrant,€the€defendant€shall€be€taken€before€aÏjudicial€officer€of€the€District€Court€withoutÏunnecessary€delay€and€in€no€event€later€than€24Ïhours€after€arrest.€€When€a€charging€documentÏis€filed€in€the€District€Court€for€the€offenseÏfor€which€the€defendant€is€already€in€custody€aÏwarrant€or€summons€need€not€issue.€€A€copy€ofÏthe€charging€document€shall€be€served€on€theÏdefendant€promptly€after€it€is€filed,€and€aÏreturn€shall€be€made€as€for€a€warrant.€€When€aÏcharging€document€is€filed€in€the€circuit€courtÏfor€an€offense€for€which€the€defendant€isÏalready€in€custody,€a€warrant€issued€pursuantÏto€ò òsubó ósection€(d)(2)€of€this€Rule€may€be€lodgedÐ ´"" Ðas€a€detained€for€the€continued€detention€ofÏthe€defendant€under€the€jurisdiction€of€theÏcourt€in€which€the€charging€document€is€filed.€ÏUnless€otherwise€ordered€pursuant€to€Rule€4„¼216,€the€defendant€remains€subject€toÏconditions€of€pretrial€release€imposed€by€theÏDistrict€Court.ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€Other€OffenseÌÌà ¸ à€€€€A€warrant€issued€pursuant€to€sectionÏ(d)€of€this€Rule€for€the€arrest€of€a€defendantÏin€custody€for€another€offense€may€be€lodged€asÐ ..~)/ Ða€detainer€for€the€continued€detention€of€theÏdefendant€for€the€offense€charged€in€theÏcharging€document.€€When€the€defendant€isÏserved€with€a€copy€of€the€charging€document€andÏwarrant,€the€defendant€shall€be€taken€before€aÏjudicial€officer€of€the€District€Court,€or€ofÏthe€circuit€court€if€the€warrant€so€specifies,Ïwithout€unnecessary€delay.€€In€the€DistrictÏCourt€the€defendant's€appearance€shall€be€noÏlater€than€24€hours€after€service€of€theÏwarrant,€and€in€the€circuit€court€it€shall€beÏno€later€than€the€next€session€of€court€afterÏthe€date€of€service€of€the€warrant.ÌÌ€€(g)€€Return€of€ServiceÌÌà ¸ à€€The€officer€who€served€the€defendantÏwith€the€summons€or€warrant€and€the€chargingÏdocument€shall€make€a€prompt€return€of€serviceÏto€the€court€that€shows€the€date,€time,€andÏplace€of€service.ÌÌ€€(h)€€Citation€„„€ServiceÌÌà ¸ à€€The€person€issuing€a€citation,€otherÏthan€for€a€parking€violation,€shall€serve€itÏupon€the€defendant€at€the€time€of€its€issuance.ÌññÓy€a€ÓññÌÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€derived€as€follows:Ì€€Section€(a)€is€in€part€derived€from€formerÏRule€720€a€and€M.D.R.€720€c€and€in€part€new.Ì€€Section€(b)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€720€aÏand€M.D.R.€720€c.Ì€€Section€(c)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€720€bÏand€M.D.R.€720€d.Ì€€Section€(d)€is€ò òin€partó ó€derived€from€formerÐ x$È$ ÐRule€720€c€and€M.D.R.€720€e€ò òand€is€in€part€newó ó.Ð Z%ª % Ѐ€Section€(e)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€720€dÏand€e,€M.D.R.€720€f,€and€M.D.R.€723€a.Ì€€Section€(f)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€720€fÏand€M.D.R.€720€h.Ì€€Section€(g)€is€derived€from€former€M.D.R.€720Ïg.Ì€€Section€(h)€is€derived€from€former€M.D.R.€720Ïi.ÌÌÐ ..~)/ ÐòòóóÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€4„212€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.Ð ° ÐÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThe€amendments€to€Rules€4„212€and€4„201Ïare€proposed€in€response€to€public€safetyÏconcerns€raised€by€Colonel€David€Mitchell,ÏSuperintendent€of€the€Maryland€State€Police,Ïand€others€involved€in€law€enforcement.€ÏCurrently,€unless€a€charging€document€is€sealedÏbefore€an€arrest€warrant€is€served,€court€filesÏand€records€pertaining€to€the€warrant€andÏcharging€document€are€open€to€publicÏinspection.€€Criminal€defendants€are€becomingÏaware€of€the€existence€of€arrest€warrantsÏbefore€the€warrants€can€be€served.€€ThisÏincreases€the€risk€that€defendants€will€flee€orÏendanger€officers€attempting€to€execute€theÏwarrants.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€Criminal€Subcommittee€recommends€thatÏRule€4„212€be€amended€to€provide€that€whenÏcircumstances€compel€issuance€of€a€warrantÏ(rather€than€a€summons),€the€court€files€andÏrecords€pertaining€to€the€warrant€and€chargingÏdocument€not€be€open€to€inspection€(except€byÏorder€of€the€court)€until€the€warrant€has€beenÏserved€and€a€return€of€service€filed€inÏcompliance€with€section€(g)€of€the€Rule.€ÏProposed€Committee€Notes€following€Rules€4„212Ï(d)(3)€and€4„201€(d)€make€clear€thatÏstatistical€information€concerning€unservedÏwarrants€may€be€released€and€that,€unless€aÏcourt€has€directed€that€a€charging€document€beÏkept€secret€pursuant€to€Rule€4„201€(d),€theÏwarrant€and€charging€document€are€not€sealedÏand€a€law€enforcement€official€who€wishes€toÏdisseminate€information€known€by€the€officialÏconcerning€the€warrant€and€charging€documentÏ(e.g.,€to€encourage€a€defendant€to€surrender,Ïto€compile€a€"most€wanted"€list,€etc.)€is€notÏprohibited€by€the€Rule€from€doing€so.ÌÌÌÌÌññÓy€a€ÓññÌÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÐ ..~)/ Їà@hhìàTITLE€4€„€CRIMINAL€CAUSESˆÌÌà@¤ ¤ ìàCHAPTER€200€„€PRETRIAL€PROCEDURESˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€4„201€to€add€a€Committee€NoteÏfollowing€section€(d),€as€follows:ÌññÓy€a€ÓññÌÌRule€4„201.€€CHARGING€DOCUMENT„„USEÌÌÌ€€(a)€€RequirementÌÌà ¸ à€€An€offense€shall€be€tried€only€on€aÏcharging€document.ÌÌ€€(b)€€In€the€District€CourtÌÌà ¸ à€€In€the€District€Court,€an€offense€may€beÏtried€(1)€on€an€information,€(2)€on€a€statementÏof€charges€filed€pursuant€to€section€(b)€ofÏRule€4„211,€or€(3)€on€a€citation€in€the€case€ofÏa€petty€offense€or€when€authorized€by€statute.ÌÌ€€(c)€€In€the€Circuit€CourtÌÌà ¸ à€€In€the€circuit€court,€an€offense€may€beÏtriedÌÌ€€€€(1)€€on€an€indictment,€orÌÌ€€€€(2)€€on€an€information€if€the€offense€isÏ(A)€a€misdemeanor,€or€(B)€a€felony€within€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€District€Court,€or€(C)€anyÏother€felony€and€lesser€included€offense€if€theÏdefendant€requests€or€consents€in€writing€to€beÏcharged€by€information,€or€if€the€defendant€hasÏbeen€charged€with€the€felony€and€a€preliminaryÏhearing€pursuant€to€Rule€4„221€has€resulted€inÏa€finding€of€probable€cause,€or€if€theÏdefendant€has€been€charged€with€the€felony€asÏto€which€a€preliminary€hearing€has€been€waived,ÏorÌÌ€€€€(3)€€on€a€charging€document€filed€in€theÏDistrict€Court€for€an€offense€within€itsÏjurisdiction€if€the€defendant€is€entitled€toÐ ..~)/ Ðand€demands€a€jury€trial€or€appeals€from€theÏjudgment€of€the€District€Court.ÌÌ€€(d)€€Sealing€a€Charging€DocumentÌÌà ¸ à€€When€ò òó óa€court€directs€that€a€chargingÐ  j Ðdocument€be€kept€secret€until€the€defendant€hasÏbeen€arrested€or€served,€the€clerk€shall€sealÏthe€charging€document€until€arrest€or€service.€ÏWhile€the€charging€document€is€sealed€no€personÏshall€disclose€the€fact€that€it€has€been€filedÏor€its€contents,€except€as€necessary€for€theÏissuance€and€execution€of€a€summons€or€warrant.ÌññÓy€a€Óññò òññó óò òññCommittee€note:€€When€a€warrant€for€the€arrestÐ *z  Ðof€the€defendant€has€been€issued€and€theÏcharging€document€has€not€been€sealed€pursuantÏto€this€Rule,€the€right€to€inspect€the€chargingÏdocument€is€governed€by€Rule€4„212€(d)(3).ó óÐ ² ÐÌ€€(e)€€Docket€in€Place€of€CitationÌÌà ¸ à€€A€court€may€conduct€a€trial€of€anÏoffense€charged€by€citation€without€having€aÏcopy€of€the€citation€before€it€if€the€court€hasÏa€docket€containing€all€pertinent€detailsÏextracted€from€the€citation.€€The€docket€shallÏbe€prima€facie€proof€of€the€contents€of€theÏcitation.€€If€any€material€entry€on€the€docketÏis€contested€by€any€party,€the€court€shallÏobtain€a€copy€of€the€citation€before€proceedingÏwith€the€trial.ÌññÓy€a€ÓññÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€derived€as€follows:Ì€€Section€(a)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€710€aÏand€M.D.R.€710€a.Ì€€Section€(b)€is€derived€from€former€M.D.R.€710Ïb,€c€and€d.Ì€€Section€(c)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€710Ïb,€c€and€d.Ì€€Section€(d)€is€derived€from€former€Rule€710€eÏand€M.D.R.€710€e.Ì€€Section€(e)€is€new.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€4„201€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àSee€the€Reporter's€Note€to€the€proposedÐ ..~)/ Ðamendment€to€Rule€4„212.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àJudge€Johnson€explained€that€currently€when€a€charging€documentÏis€filed€and€an€arrest€warrant€is€issued,€the€information€pertainingÏto€this€goes€into€a€computer€system.€€A€file€identifies€outstandingÏwarrants,€and€the€file€is€accessible€by€computer€modem€to€anyone€withÏa€computer.€€Over€time,€the€files€have€been€accessed,€andÏsolicitation€letters€have€developed.€€The€letters€offer€the€servicesÏof€the€attorney€who€sends€them€and€are€sent€out€to€persons€who€haveÏnot€yet€been€served€with€a€warrant.€€There€has€been€publicity€aboutÏthis€process€in€the€last€month€or€two.€€Concern€has€been€expressedÏabout€the€police€being€endangered€and€evidence€being€destroyed,Ïbecause€violent€people€know€they€are€about€to€be€arrested.€€GovernorÏParris€Glendening€wrote€to€the€Rules€Committee€asking€if€theÏCommittee€could€handle€this€matter€by€rule.€€If€not,€the€GovernorÏwill€recommend€legislation€in€the€General€Assembly.€€The€CriminalÏSubcommittee€met,€and€it€decided€to€recommend€modification€of€RulesÏ4„212€and€4„201.Ìà  àJudge€Johnson€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€subsectionÏ(d)(3)€of€Rule€4„212€which€contains€the€changes€proposed€by€theÏSubcommittee.€€The€Committee€note€provides€that€subsection€(d)(3)Ïwould€not€preclude€the€release€of€information€concerning€unservedÏarrest€warrants€by€law€enforcement€agencies.€€The€proposed€crossÏreference€refers€to€Rule€4„201.€€A€Committee€note€is€proposed€to€beÏadded€to€section€(d)€of€Rule€4„201.€€The€Vice€Chair€inquired€if€anyÐ ..~)/ Ðconsideration€had€been€given€to€asking€the€Attorneys€Subcommittee€toÏdiscuss€a€possible€prohibition€against€solicitation€by€attorneys.€ÏJudge€Johnson€replied€that€Judge€McAuliffe€had€been€present€at€theÏCriminal€Subcommittee€meeting.€€Judge€McAuliffe€had€said€that€whenÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€modified€the€Attorney€Discipline€RulesÏpertaining€to€advertising,€he€had€dissented,€because€he€has€beenÏpersuaded€that€according€to€several€U.S.€Supreme€Court€cases,€directÏcontact€between€attorneys€and€potential€clients€can€be€prohibited.€ÏHe€would€like€the€Rules€Committee€to€take€a€look€at€this€issue.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€commented€that€she€had€not€reviewed€all€the€caseÏlaw€on€the€issue€of€solicitation.€€Solicitation€by€mail€cannot€beÏprohibited€across€the€board.€€The€situation€being€discussed€today€isÏthat€the€solicitation€is€directed€to€a€class€of€people€who€couldÏcause€harm€to€the€administration€of€justice.€€The€Chair€noted€thatÏthe€solicitation€issue€is€in€many€ways€both€a€criminal€and€a€civilÏmatter.€€In€the€criminal€case,€the€only€situation€which€should€beÏconsidered€is€where€an€òòarrest€warrantóó€has€been€issued,€but€not€yetÐ ð @  Ðserved.€€Once€the€defendant€has€been€arrested€and€processed,€no€oneÏis€prohibited€from€contacting€him€or€her.€€When€a€òòsummonsóó€has€beenÐ x$È$ Ðissued,€no€one€is€prohibited€from€contacting€the€defendant,€even€ifÏthe€summons€has€not€been€served.€€The€Chair€told€the€Committee€thatÏthe€Honorable€Martha€Rasin,€Chief€Judge€of€the€District€Court,€hadÏattended€the€Subcommittee€meeting€and€was€present€today.Ìà  àChief€Judge€Rasin€said€that€she€had€received€a€letter€from€Mr.Ð L-œ(. ÐRoland€Knapp,€Director€of€the€Division€of€Parole€and€Probation,€whoÏhad€heard€about€the€proposed€rule€and€was€concerned€about€limitedÏaccess€to€the€computer€system€by€public€safety€officials,€some€ofÏwhom€work€in€pretrial€services,€local€detention€centers,€and€theÏDivision€of€Parole€and€Probation.€€These€individuals€may€need€accessÏto€information€about€arrest€warrants.€€James€Vaseleck,€Director€ofÏJudicial€Information€Systems€(JIS),€explained€that€MILES,€a€computerÏsystem,€handles€the€arrest€warrants.€€The€system€allows€access€to€theÏDistrict€Court,€and€the€Department€of€Public€Safety.€€A€statewideÏwarrant€system€is€being€planned€for€early€summer,€and€this€wouldÏallow€access€by€law€enforcement€agencies€and€agencies€such€as€theÏDivision€of€Parole€and€Probation€and€the€Department€of€Correction.€ÏJudge€Rasin€inquired€as€to€who€enters€the€information€into€the€MILESÏsystem.€€Mr.€Vaseleck€replied€that€the€designated€service€agency,Ïwhich€arranges€for€the€warrant€to€be€issued€by€the€court,€enters€itÏinto€the€system.€€Judge€Rasin€asked€if€anyone€has€to€find€out€aboutÏit€from€the€court.€€Mr.€Vaseleck€replied€that€no€one€has€to€find€outÏabout€it€from€the€court.€€The€Vice€Chair€questioned€whether€the€pressÏhas€access€to€MILES.€€Mr.€Vaseleck€answered€that€he€did€not€know.Ìà  àThe€Chair€said€that€Andrea€Leahy„Fucheck,€Esq.,€Counsel€toÏGovernor€Glendening,€who€was€present€at€the€meeting€today,€hadÏdiscussed€the€problem€with€officials€of€the€Maryland€State€Police.€€ÏMs.€Leahy„Fucheck€introduced€two€of€the€State€Police€officials,€Lt.ÏCol.€David€Czorapinski€and€Lt.€Stewart€Russell.€€Lt.€Col.€CzorapinskiÐ L-œ(. Ðtold€the€Committee€that€he€was€Chief€of€Administrative€Services€forÏthe€Maryland€State€Police.€€He€explained€that€his€agency€controls€theÏMILES€system€which€has€a€certified€access€code€with€restrictedÏdissemination€of€information.€€Only€law€enforcement€agencies,€not€theÏpress,€can€access€the€system.€€The€Vice€Chair€questioned€whetherÏallowing€the€press€access€to€the€MILES€system€would€cause€problems,Ïand€Lt.€Col.€Czorapinski€replied€that€it€would.€€The€Reporter€askedÏwhether€agencies€such€as€Pretrial€Services€and€Division€of€Parole€andÏProbation€have€access€to€the€MILES€system,€and€Lt.€Col.€CzorapinskiÏreplied€that€those€agencies€have€terminals€which€access€the€system.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€referred€to€the€letter€from€Mary€R.€Craig,€Esq.,€whoÏrepresents€òòññóóòòóóòòññTheóó€òòBaltimore€Sunññóóòòññóó.€€The€letter€had€been€distributed€atÐ l Ðtoday's€meeting.€€(See€Appendix€2).€€Mr.€Titus€noted€that€his€lawÏfirm€also€does€legal€work€for€òòññóóòòññTheóó€òòBaltimoreóó€òòSunóó.€€He€remarked€thatÐ ¤ô Ðthe€mechanism€which€the€Subcommittee€has€chosen€to€correct€the€evilÏshuts€off€access€to€the€information€on€warrants€totally.€€He€inquiredÏwhether€a€less€severe€mechanism€could€address€the€evil.€€Could€theÏRule€provide€that€when€a€return€has€not€been€issued,€thirty€daysÏafter€the€issuance€of€the€warrant,€access€to€the€information€isÏavailable?€€This€would€be€instead€of€perpetually€leaving€unservedÏwarrants€in€non„access€status.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€expressed€her€concern€about€closing€records€toÏthe€press€across€the€board.€€She€inquired€if€the€press€has€generatedÏany€problems€by€its€use€of€this€information.€€The€Chair€stated€thatÐ L-œ(. Ðin€the€overwhelming€percentage€of€cases,€the€press€has€neverÏinterfered€with€law€enforcement€officials€serving€arrest€warrants.€€ÏThe€problem€is€not€directed€to€depriving€the€press€of€access€toÏinformation.€€He€asked€what€else€can€be€done€to€solve€the€problem.€€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€remarked€that€there€had€been€a€recent€federal€caseÏwhich€attempted€to€block€the€solicitation€of€clients€by€letters€fromÏattorneys€which€were€sent€within€30€days€of€an€accident€or€criminalÏarrest.€€€Mr.€Zarnoch€said€that€the€criminal€aspect€of€the€case€lostÏon€appeal€to€the€Fourth€Circuit,€but€the€civil€aspect€was€decided€inÏfavor€of€not€allowing€solicitation€letters€to€be€sent€for€30€daysÏfollowing€an€accident€or€disaster.€€He€pointed€out€that€Rule€4„212Ïdoes€not€run€afoul€of€the€federal€case.Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€questioned€whether€the€suggestion€to€prevent€accessÏto€the€warrant€information€for€30€days€would€be€appropriate.€€Lt.ÏCol.€Czorapinski€answered€that€30€days€would€be€an€inappropriate€timeÏperiod.€€The€paperwork€to€process€warrants€from€one€jurisdiction€toÏanother€can€take€longer€than€30€days.€€In€a€high€profile€or€veryÏserious€case,€the€police€may€not€know€where€the€suspect€is,€and€itÏmay€take€time€to€locate€him€or€her.€€There€is€the€potential€for€theseÏtype€of€suspects€to€be€difficult.€€Betty€Sconion,€Esq.,€an€AssistantÏAttorney€General€for€the€Maryland€State€Police,€pointed€out€thatÏnotifying€someone€that€he€or€she€is€going€to€be€arrested€gives€theÏsuspect€the€opportunity€to€clean€house€before€the€police€arrive,Ïpossibly€getting€rid€of€incriminating€evidence.€€Rule€4„601,€SearchÐ L-œ(. ÐWarrants,€does€not€set€a€time€after€which€unexecuted€search€warrantsÏare€open€to€inspection.€€The€same€interests€are€served€as€with€arrestÏwarrants.€€It€is€not€uncommon€to€find€a€suspect€with€evidence€of€theÏcrime€for€which€he€or€she€is€charged.€€No€time€limits€should€be€setÏfor€arrest€warrants.Ìà  àThe€Chair€commented€that€search€warrants€are€good€for€15€days,Ïand€then€they€are€returned€to€the€judge.€€If€the€court€recordsÏconcerning€arrest€warrants€are€not€open€to€the€public€for€a€period€ofÏtime,€and€thereafter€are€opened,€this€would€solve€Mr.€Knapp'sÏproblem.€€The€probation€officer€would€know€if€someone€has€beenÏarrested.€€When€the€judge€signs€a€search€warrant,€nothing€happensÏuntil€the€warrant€is€executed.€€It€does€not€become€a€public€record.€ÏMr.€Sykes€observed€that€it€may€make€sense€to€solve€the€problem€with€aÏbalanced€rule€which€distinguishes€between€serious€and€minor€charges.€ÏA€person€charged€with€a€minor€crime€is€not€likely€to€flee.€€Access€toÏthat€person's€records€could€be€allowed€after€30€days.€€Where€there€isÏa€serious€charge€with€a€danger€of€flight,€the€Subcommittee's€versionÏof€the€Rule€would€be€appropriate.€€Judge€Vaughan€noted€that€aÏdetermination€as€to€seriousness€of€the€charge€could€vary€fromÏjurisdiction€to€jurisdiction.€€He€asked€how€bench€warrants€figureÏinto€this€equation€and€if€they€are€sealed.€€The€Chair€answered€thatÏthey€are€not€sealed€and€are€issued€on€the€record€in€open€court.€€Mr.ÏBrault€added€that€when€a€bench€warrant€is€issued,€the€defendant€hasÏalready€been€charged€and€has€not€appeared.Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àThe€Chair€stated€that€this€Rule€does€not€change€procedures€forÏservice€of€a€warrant€by€law€enforcement€officers.€€It€pertains€onlyÏto€access€to€the€court€records€and€files.€€Mr.€Dean€expressed€theÏopinion€that€Mr.€Sykes'€suggestion€about€differ„€entiating€betweenÏserious€and€minor€crimes€was€a€good€idea.€€The€Chair€responded€thatÏthis€may€cause€problems€for€the€District€Court€Commissioner€to€parcelÏout€the€crimes.€€Which€crimes€are€included€may€lead€to€a€debate.€ÏThis€is€more€situational€to€the€defendant€than€to€the€offense.€€AnÏaggressive€person€committing€an€assault€may€be€more€dangerous€thatÏsomeone€who€solicits€to€commit€murder.€€Judge€Rasin€said€that€theÏCommissioner€uses€certain€criteria,€one€of€which€is€whether€theÏperson€is€likely€to€appear€in€court.€€A€different€factor€isÏdangerousness.€€Warrants€can€be€issued€in€trespass€cases,€not€becauseÏthe€person€is€inherently€dangerous,€but€because€the€person€failed€toÏappear€previously.€€There€are€assault€cases€where€the€person€isÏserved€by€a€summons.€€The€assault€may€be€that€the€person€pushedÏsomeone€else's€hand€off€of€the€television.€€It€is€difficult€toÏcatalogue€charges.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€inquired€whether€statistics€are€kept€as€to€theÏaverage€length€of€time€for€service€of€the€arrest€warrants.€€Lt.€Col.ÏCzorapinski€responded€that€statistics€are€not€kept€„„there€areÏthousands€of€active€warrants.€€The€Vice€Chair€asked€Lt.€Col.ÏCzorapinski€what€time€period€he€felt€was€necessary€to€have€anÏadequate€opportunity€to€serve€the€warrants.€€He€replied€that€he€wouldÐ L-œ(. Ðhave€to€think€about€it€before€he€could€answer.€€The€Vice€Chair€askedÏabout€a€60„day€time€period,€and€Lt.€Col.€Czorapinski€answered€that€60Ïdays€would€not€be€sufficient.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€suggested€that€subsection€(d)(3)€be€modified€toÏprovide€that€the€files€and€records€of€the€court€pertaining€to€theÏwarrant€and€charging€document€shall€be€open€to€inspection€on€theÏfirst€to€occur€of€___€days€after€the€warrant€has€been€issued€or€untilÏthe€warrant€has€been€served€and€a€return€of€service€filed.€€The€blankÏwould€contain€the€appropriate€number€of€days,€whether€it€be€60€or€90Ïor€some€other€number.€€Mr.€Vaseleck€noted€that€he€would€have€to€checkÏthe€data€bases€in€the€computer€system€to€make€sure€that€the€date€ofÏissuance€of€the€warrant€is€recorded.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€asked€the€law€enforcement€officials€who€were€presentÏat€the€meeting€if€the€length€of€time€it€takes€to€serve€the€warrant€isÏan€inverse€factor€in€that€the€longer€it€takes,€the€more€likely€it€isÏthat€the€suspect€will€flee.€€He€asked€what€happens€if€an€attorneyÏwrites€a€letter€to€a€suspect€who€has€not€yet€been€served€with€aÏwarrant,€and€someone€else€gets€the€letter.€€Lt.€Col.€CzorapinskiÏreplied€that€often€the€recipient€of€the€letter,€who€is€generally€aÏfriend€or€relative€of€the€suspect,€tips€the€suspect€off€about€theÏimpending€arrest€warrant.€€The€suspect€then€changes€locations.€€Mr.ÏBrault€inquired€as€to€how€fast€the€attorney€letters€are€reachingÏsomeone.€€Lt.€Col.€Czorapinski€answered€that€generally€the€lettersÏget€to€the€location€within€14€days.€€Mr.€Titus€commented€that€with€aÐ L-œ(. Ð60„day€delay€in€sending€the€letter€by€the€attorney,€there€would€beÏless€risk€of€flight.€€€This€also€protects€the€public.€€The€ChairÏcommented€that€Mr.€Titus'€suggested€change€that€the€record€is€open€toÏthe€public€when€the€warrant€is€served€and€returned€or€on€a€dateÏcertain€takes€care€of€the€problems€with€the€current€Rule,€and€it€doesÏnot€pose€problems€for€court€computers.€€Mr.€Dean€added€that€Rule€4„¼201€is€not€affected€by€Mr.€Titus'€suggested€language.€€Any€chargingÏdocument€can€be€sealed.€Ìà  àThe€Chair€said€that€Ms.€Craig€had€argued€at€the€SubcommitteeÏmeeting€that€the€mechanism€for€public€access€is€being€cut€off.€ÏPublic€access€provides€a€mechanism€to€test€the€sufficiency€of€theÏcourt€system.€€Ms.€Natalie€Boehm,€whose€LETS€Company€sends€outÏletters€notifying€attorneys€of€people€who€are€about€to€be€served€withÏarrest€warrants,€explained€that€in€one€of€the€cases€in€which€she€wasÏinvolved,€the€letter€to€the€defendant€was€mailed€on€November€21,€andÏthe€warrant€was€served€on€November€25.€€The€defendant€turned€himselfÏin.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€if€the€defendant€hired€the€attorney€who€hadÏwritten€the€letter.€€Ms.€Boehm€replied€that€the€defendant€called€theÏattorney€who€advised€him€about€the€process,€the€warrant,€extradition,Ïand€representation€by€the€Public€Defender.€€The€attorney€was€notÏhired,€and€the€defendant€received€all€the€benefits€of€the€letter.€ÏThe€Chair€stated€that€law€enforcement€is€entitled€to€serve€warrantsÏwithout€competing€with€attorneys€trying€to€be€hired.€€Warrants€areÏnot€issued€unless€there€is€a€serious€reason.€€He€questioned€whetherÐ L-œ(. Ðthere€is€a€problem€disclosing€the€existence€of€unserved€warrants€60Ïdays€after€the€warrant€is€issued.Ìà  àMs.€Leahy„Fucheck€thanked€the€Rules€Committee€and€the€Chair€forÏtheir€attention€to€the€matter€of€the€arrest€warrants.€€She€noted€thatÏa€version€of€a€legislative€bill€to€solve€this€problem€was€handed€outÏat€the€meeting.€€The€bill's€language€is€incomplete,€but€it€wouldÏattempt€to€mirror€any€language€developed€by€the€Rules€Committee.€€TheÏreason€that€the€Governor€asked€the€Rules€Committee€to€get€involved€isÏthat€law€enforcement€officials€are€very€concerned.€€Ms.€Leahy„FucheckÏexpressed€the€view€that€if€the€Rules€Committee€recommends€a€60„dayÏdelay€in€opening€up€the€court€files€and€records,€law€enforcementÏofficials€are€going€to€be€opposed.€€Her€suggestion€was€that€theÏCommittee€distribute€the€proposed€amendment€to€the€Rule€to€get€anÏopinion€from€law€enforcement.€€The€Vice€Chair€commented€that€sheÏsupported€the€idea€of€the€proposal.€€If€60€days€is€not€long€enough,Ïwhat€would€be€a€fair€number€based€on€statistics?€€Mr.€Titus€addedÏthat€law€enforcement€officials€could€decide€on€the€number.Ìà  àThe€Chair€asked€Lt.€Col.€Czorapinski€what€number€of€days€afterÏthe€warrant€has€been€issued€would€be€adequate€to€open€up€the€courtÏfiles€and€records.€€Lt.€Col.€Czorapinski€responded€that€the€numberÏdiffers€from€jurisdiction€to€jurisdiction€depending€on€the€efficiencyÏof€service.€€It€would€be€less€in€rural€areas,€and€higher€inÏmetropolitan€areas.€€He€said€that€he€would€like€to€ask€theÏSuperintendent€and€Chiefs€of€Police€for€a€consensus.€€Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àJudge€Johnson€pointed€out€that€problem€cases€can€be€sealed€byÏthe€court.€€Mr.€Titus€remarked€that€language€could€be€added€toÏsubsection€(d)(3)€which€provides€that€in€an€individual€case,€theÏcourt€may€extend€the€time€that€the€record€is€not€open€to€the€public.€ÏThe€Chair€observed€that€once€the€time€frame€has€been€established,€lawÏenforcement€officials€can€go€to€the€State's€Attorney€towards€the€endÏof€that€period,€and€the€State's€Attorney€can€decide€if€the€records€inÏthat€particular€case€should€continue€to€be€closed.€€The€provision€onÏthe€right€to€seal€cases€in€Rule€4„201€can€be€cross€referenced.€€OnceÏthe€time€frame€is€chosen€by€the€Committee,€the€Rule€will€be€publishedÏfor€comment,€and€law€enforcement€officials€or€anyone€else€can€informÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€what€an€appropriate€time€frame€would€be.€€Ìà  àJudge€Kaplan€suggested€that€there€be€a€90„day€time€frameÏincluded€in€the€Rule.€€Within€10€days€of€the€expiration€date,€theÏState's€Attorney€would€be€able€to€apply€to€seal€the€warrant.€€TheÏChair€pointed€out€that€Rule€4„201€already€contains€a€sealingÏprovision.€€Judge€Kaplan€expressed€the€opinion€that€this€provisionÏshould€also€be€in€Rule€4„212€for€clarity.€€The€Chair€stated€thatÏthere€would€be€two€triggering€events€in€the€Rule€„„one€is€if€anÏarrest€warrant€is€served€and€returned,€and€the€other€is€if€a€certainÏperiod€of€time€has€elapsed,€and€there€is€no€reason€to€require€thatÏthe€court€records€should€continue€to€be€shielded€from€the€public.€€HeÏasked€Judge€Rasin€if€this€would€pose€any€problems€in€the€DistrictÏCourt.€€She€replied€that€it€would€not€pose€any€problems€as€long€as€itÐ L-œ(. Ðdoes€not€pose€problems€for€JIS.€€Ms.€Craig€inquired€if€this€wouldÏinclude€bench€warrants,€and€the€Chair€answered€that€it€would€not€„„Ïit€would€only€be€traditional€arrest€warrants.Ìà  àMs.€Boehm€told€the€Committee€that€closing€files€to€the€publicÏpresupposes€that€the€government€is€doing€what€it€is€supposed€to€beÏdoing.€€She€had€told€the€Subcommittee€at€the€last€meeting€that€thereÏare€many€abuses€in€the€system.€€Her€perusal€of€the€files€had€turnedÏup€several€cases€in€which€warrants€were€issued€for€relatively€minorÏoffenses,€or€in€which€both€members€of€a€married€couple€were€chargedÏwith€assaulting€each€other,€but€the€wife€was€issued€a€warrant€whileÏthe€husband€was€issued€a€summons.ÌThe€Chair€told€Ms.€Boehm€to€give€the€information€she€had€to€him,€soÏthat€it€could€become€part€of€the€record€of€the€meeting.€€(SeeÏAppendix€3).€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€commented€that€the€focus€of€the€discussion€at€today'sÏmeeting€should€be€the€narrow€issue€of€whether€the€public€has€theÏright€to€know€whether€an€arrest€warrant€has€been€issued€for€aÏdefendant.€€Ms.€Boehm€pointed€out€that€Rule€4„216€(f)€lists€theÏfactors€which€the€District€Court€Commissioner€may€consider€whenÏdetermining€whether€a€defendant€should€be€released€pretrial.€€If€theÏdefendant€is€not€allowed€to€receive€letters€offering€legalÏrepresentation,€the€defendant€may€not€be€prepared€in€his€or€herÏappearance€before€the€Commissioner.€€The€Chair€remarked€that€this€isÏnot€a€common€problem.Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àMr.€Bowen€moved€to€adopt€the€Rule€with€the€modification€thatÏafter€the€warrant€has€been€served€or€after€a€period€of€90€days,Ïwhichever€is€earlier,€the€files€and€records€would€become€open€to€theÏpublic.€€The€motion€was€seconded.€€Mr.€Bowen€noted€that€it€isÏimportant€to€agree€upon€a€rule,€so€that€it€can€be€published€forÏcomment€and€decided€upon€by€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€The€legislatureÏcan€also€act€on€this.€€Del.€Vallario€commented€that€in€the€lastÏsession,€the€legislation€which€prevented€criminal€attorneys€fromÏcontacting€clients€for€30€days€after€arrest€had€been€approved€by€theÏAttorney€General,€but€it€was€overturned€by€the€Fourth€Circuit.€€TheÏissue€considered€today€is€a€different€problem€and€concerns€a€safetyÏissue.€€He€had€asked€counsel€to€the€House€Judiciary€Committee€toÏdraft€language€for€a€bill€to€remedy€the€situation,€and€he€read€someÏof€the€bill€to€the€Committee.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€observed€that€there€may€be€some€ethical€issues€forÏthe€Attorneys€Subcommittee€to€discuss.€€One€concerns€the€receipt€by€aÏdefendant€of€a€computer„generated€letter€which€is€from€an€attorneyÏbut€is€not€signed.Ìà  àThe€Chair€called€the€question€on€Mr.€Bowen's€motion€to€approveÏRule€4„212€with€his€suggested€modifications,€and€the€motion€carriedÏunanimously.Ìà  àThere€being€no€further€discussion€of€Rule€4„201,€the€Rule€wasÏapproved€as€presented.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€3.€€Consideration€of€proposed€amendments€to€certainÐ ..~)/ Ѐ€rules€pertaining€to€jurors'€notes:€€Rule€2„521€(Jury€„„ReviewÌ€€of€Evidence€„„€Communications),€Rule€4„326€(Jury€„„€Review€ofÌ€€Evidence€„„€Communications),€and€Rule€5„606€(Competency€ofÌ€€Juror€as€Witness)€(Continued)Ì_______________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Chair€stated€that€the€discussion€of€Rule€2„521€wouldÏcontinue.€€The€Reporter€listed€the€changes€already€made€to€the€RuleÏin€the€discussion€earlier€in€the€meeting.€€Mr.€Sykes€pointed€out€thatÏthe€Rule€now€provides€that€the€jurors€may€use€their€notes€only€duringÏdeliberations.€€The€Chair€said€that€he€did€not€like€the€language€inÏthe€first€sentence€which€reads€"in€taking€notes."€€He€suggested€thatÏthe€first€sentence€read€as€follows:€"The€court€may,€and€upon€requestÏof€any€party€shall,€provide€notepads€for€use€during€trial€andÏdeliberations."€€Mr.€Sykes€suggested€that€the€words€"by€jurors"€beÏadded€in€after€the€word€"use"€and€before€the€word€"during."€€TheÏChair€suggested€that€the€second€sentence€read€as€follows:€€"TheÏnotepads€shall€be€collected€during€recesses,€and€the€notes€shall€beÏcollected€at€the€end€of€the€trial€and€destroyed€promptly."€€Mr.€BowenÏsuggested€that€in€the€third€sentence,€the€word€"notepads"€should€beÏ"notes."€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€these€suggestions.Ìà  àThe€Chair€suggested€that€a€sentence€be€added€which€providesÏthat€after€the€deliberations€are€over,€the€notes€cannot€be€used€forÏany€other€purpose.€€Delegate€Vallario€inquired€whether€this€wouldÏmean€that€in€a€case€like€òòAronóó,€the€judge€could€not€review€the€juror'sÐ Ä)%* Ðnotebook€later.€€The€Chair€replied€that€the€judge€could€not€laterÏreview€the€notebook.€€Mr.€Brault€said€he€had€argued€the€òòAronóó€case.€Ð L-œ(. ÐHe€suggested€that€the€Rule€provide€how€the€notepads€are€distributed,Ïcollected,€and€protected.€€However,€the€juror€impeachment€rule€shouldÏnot€be€expanded.€€The€problem€in€the€case€was€the€failure€of€theÏcourt€to€take€control€of€the€notes.€€If€the€notes€were€allowed€to€beÏdistributed€after€a€notorious€trial,€such€as€the€O.J.€Simpson€trial,Ïmagazines€would€buy€them.€€Mr.€Titus€remarked€that€some€clerks'Ïoffices€may€not€destroy€the€notes,€but€simply€throw€them€away.€€TheÏChair€responded€that€the€Rule€will€provide€that€the€notes€are€to€beÏcollected€and€destroyed.€€The€use€of€the€notes€is€covered€by€theÏjuror€impeachment€rule.€€One€other€important€part€of€this€is€that€aÏjuror€who€decides€to€make€notes€about€the€trial€at€some€time€otherÏthan€during€the€trial€cannot€bring€those€notes€to€court.Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€commented€that€it€should€be€clear€that€if€someoneÏgets€possession€of€the€jurors'€notes,€the€trial€cannot€be€reopened.€ÏMr.€Titus€observed€that€if€a€trash€collector€finds€the€notes,€thereÏcould€be€impeachment€of€the€verdict.€€The€Chair€reiterated€that€notesÏtaken€by€the€jurors€during€the€trial€cannot€be€used€to€impeach€theÏverdict.€€Mr.€Hochberg€pointed€out€that€another€loophole€is€thatÏjurors€may€bring€in€other€written€materials.€€Mr.€Brault€explainedÏthat€this€situation€is€covered€by€the€case€of€òòGMC€v.€Wernsingóó,€54€Md.Ð <&Œ!& ÐApp.€19€(1983),€aff'd,€298€Md.€406€(1984.)Ìà  àJudge€Johnson€asked€about€the€meaning€of€destruction€of€theÏnotes.€€He€said€that€not€all€courts€have€a€shredder.€€Mr.€BraultÏresponded€that€the€notes€can€be€ripped€up.€€Delegate€VallarioÐ L-œ(. Ðremarked€that€the€Rule€provides€that€only€a€party€can€request€thatÏthe€jurors€take€notes.€€He€asked€if€a€juror€can€request€a€notepad€forÏjurors€to€take€notes.€€Mr.€Titus€reiterated€that€only€a€party€canÏrequest€that€jurors€take€notes,€and€the€jurors€themselves€cannot€makeÏthis€request.€€He€stated€that€this€will€be€reflected€in€the€minutesÏof€the€meeting.Ìà  àThe€Chair€suggested€that€a€sentence€be€added€which€willÏinstruct€jurors€that€any€notes€made€outside€the€courtroom€cannot€beÏbrought€in.€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€this€suggestion.€ÏJudge€Johnson€pointed€out€that€the€tagline€to€section€(a)€should€beÏchanged.€€The€Chair€said€that€the€first€part€of€section€(a)€refers€toÏjurors'€notes€and€should€be€captioned€that€way,€and€the€latter€partÏof€the€Rule€which€begins€with€the€sentence€pertaining€to€exhibitsÏwould€have€a€separate€section.€€Mr.€Titus€commented€that€the€StyleÏSubcommittee€could€rename€the€Rule.€€Mr.€Brault€expressed€the€viewÏthat€the€changes€made€today€concerning€jurors'€notes€shoudl€be€put€inÏa€separate€section€of€the€Rule.€€The€Chair€noted€that€the€sameÏchanges€will€be€made€to€Rule€4„326.€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€theÏamendment€to€Rule€5„606€(b)€read€as€follows:€€"(3)€A€juror's€notesÏmade€in€accordance€with€Rule€2„521€(a)€or€Rule€4„326€(a)€may€not€beÏused€to€impeach€a€verdict."€€The€Committee€agreed€with€theseÏsuggestions,€and€Rules€2„521,€4„326,€and€5„606€were€approved€asÏamended.Ìà  àThe€Chair€adjourned€the€meeting.Ð L-œ(. Ð