ÿWPC s5Qêøz\¥ÿ5çÆóßBÆÓ7ŸJö .…šzPc°c'uãÿÂì'ð2bÇU•à¦"s8¡¾àd-Õ•müÞñÙ>­R´¬ºÏ ÙNq^÷øu;÷™Þùi ýÑÇ÷Ð ùf£éÊ‚¡Z^‡ÇUÃÞRÖ,ï!ô6ßßs¯B³Y.÷f? þUX`~5„¶=ø¥P„(Ê¥CMÐ2¿8ÙéæÜŽWކ–Š,È·{ǻ䉟35N„ XZC”@+c«f:s#zàúUåÖ[)°ýÀ(Ã÷'2:q9í0V‘Ç1¨DKîBÒVP<XºfÈ‘ÌÁtŸo]U_dÒó,hŸu ³{3ŒBM³xdíÆEݰšn3Û¸I¹:ÅÃ…0TU˜ñÐ'1xútÄžûÒ×l­§.º("Ãý»ÙòâƒQ vàcCƒñ¦pli7áŸ[)Iê¨ÌÖ}«ÓŸ,¨¢!”_cFw±vMCËÄ|ëR!­æ6¼Ò %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@(°§$¡¡ÓÓÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€ !XXdðdð8ÑÔ€X !XXXÔÔ€X`?XXX !Ô˜Acrobat PDFWriter,ü,,,,,ü0l“v'cD Aj'½Ž‚¸o‡1ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ§!ÝÓÓÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€\ÏXXdîdð8ÑÔ€X\ÏXXXÔÔ€XœõXXX\ÏÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÑ8€œõXXdâXXdî8ÑÑ€ÑÑ = Ñà@ú ú ìà€COURT€OF€APPEALS€STANDING€COMMITTEEˆÐ ° Ðòòà@k k ìàON€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€ÌOctober€16,€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.€John€F.€Ô_ÔMcAuliffeÔ_ÔÐ ² ÐAlbert€D.€Ô_ÔBraultÔ_Ô,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àHon.€Mary€Ellen€T.€Ô_ÔRinehardtÔ_ÔÐ ”ä ÐRobert€L.€Dean,€Esq.à  àà h àà À àSen.€Norman€R.€Stone,€Jr.Ð vÆ ÐH.€Thomas€Howell,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àRoger€W.€Titus,€Esq.Ð X¨ ÐHon.€G.€R.€Ô_ÔHoveyÔ_Ô€Johnsonà h àà À àà  àHon.€James€N.€VaughanÐ :Š ÐHon.€Joseph€H.€H.€Kaplanà h àà À àà  àRobert€A.€Ô_ÔZarnochÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð l ÐRobert€D.€Klein,€Esq.ÌÌà  àIn€attendance:ÌÌSandra€F.€Haines,€Esq.,€ReporterÌÔ_ÔSherieÔ_Ô€B.€Libber,€Esq.,€Assistant€ReporterÌElizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔVeronisÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌD.€Robert€Ô_ÔEntenÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Maryland€Banker's€Assoc.ÌJohn€Brennan,€Esq.ÌRichard€J.€Ham,€Esq.ÌRobert€J.€Ô_ÔRhudyÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌPaul€V.€Carlin,€Esq.ÌJohn€Michael€Ô_ÔConroyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Esq.ÌSeymour€B.€Stern,€Esq.ÌAlexander€Ô_ÔRuygrokÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌCharles€M.€Preston,€Esq.ÌJohn€J.€Ô_ÔDwyerÔ_Ô,€Esq.ÌAlbert€Winchester,€Esq.ÌGlenn€Grossman,€Esq.,€Deputy€Bar€CounselÌDavid€Katz,€Rules€Committee€InternÌHeidi€Connolly,€Rules€Committee€InternÌÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Chair€convened€the€meeting€and€welcomed€the€guests€inÏattendance.€€He€asked€if€there€were€any€additions€or€corrections€toÐ /`*0= Ðthe€minutes€of€the€September€11,€1998€Rules€Committee€meeting.€Mr.ÏKlein€suggested€that€on€page€104€in€the€first€sentence€of€theññ€Ð  P- (4=  Ðññññ€Ô_ÔññfirstÔ_ÔÏfull€paragraph,€the€word€"plaintiff"€should€be€changed€to€the€wordÏ"party."€€The€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€this€change.€€TheÏReporter€suggested€that€on€page€61,€two€changes€should€be€made.€€InÏthe€eighth€line€at€the€end€of€the€sentence€after€the€language€"inÏsubsection€(d)(5)",€the€following€language€should€be€added:€",€whichÏhas€been€revised€and€Ô_ÔreletteredÔ_Ô€as€subsection€(f)(5)€effectiveÏOctober€1,€1998."€€In€the€twentieth€line€at€the€end€of€the€sentenceÏafter€the€language€"Article€27,€ðð616€Ô_Ô1/2Ô_Ô",€the€following€languageÏshould€be€added:€€",€following€section€(f)€of€the€revised€Rule."€€ÏThe€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€these€changes.Ìà  àJudge€Kaplan€moved€that€the€minutes€be€accepted€as€amended.€ÏThe€motion€was€seconded€and€passed€unanimously.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€said€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€approved€theÏAlternative€Dispute€Resolution€Rules.€€There€was€some€last„minuteÏdrafting€by€the€Court€at€the€hearing€on€the€Rules.€€Judge€KaplanÏremarked€that€his€basic€problems€with€the€Rules€had€been€solved.€€TheÏChair€commented€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€had€added€an€"opt„out"Ïprovision€and€a€provision€that€mediators€need€not€necessarily€beÏattorneys.€€A€person€conducting€an€alternative€dispute€resolutionÏproceeding€other€that€mediation€must€either€be€a€member€of€theÏMaryland€Bar€or€qualify€by€having€equivalent€or€specialized€knowledgeÏin€dealing€with€the€issues€in€dispute.€Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àThe€Chair€told€the€Committee€that€at€the€November€meeting,€theÏJuvenile€Rules€will€be€presented.€€The€Juvenile€Subcommittee€met€theÏday€before€today's€Rules€Committee€meeting.€€The€Chair€credited€HarryÏJohnson,€Esq.,€the€Subcommittee€Chair,€and€the€Subcommittee€forÏworking€through€most€of€the€problems€with€the€Ô_ÔJuvenile€Rules.€€TheÏChair€announced€that€several€law€school€interns€were€working€in€theÏRules€Committee€office€for€the€next€few€months.€€The€AssistantÏReporter€introduced€two€of€the€interns,€Heidi€Connolly€and€DavidÏKatz,€who€are€both€students€at€the€University€of€Baltimore€School€ofÏLaw.€€The€Chair€thanked€Professor€Byron€Warnken€for€providing€theÏinterns.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€1.€€Consideration€of€a€proposed€amendment€to€Rule€Ì€€16„602€(Definitions)Ì________________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àMr.€Brault€presented€Rule€16„602,€Definitions,€for€theÏCommittee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@  ìàTITLE€16€„€COURTS,€JUDGES,€AND€ATTORNEYSˆÌÌà@  ìàCHAPTER€600€„€ATTORNEY€TRUST€ACCOUNTSˆÌÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€16„602€to€add€a€Committee€noteÏto€section€(c),€as€follows:ÌññÓÝ ÓññÌÌRule€16„602.€€Definitions.ÌÌÌà ¸ àIn€these€rules,€the€following€definitionsÐ ..~)/ Ðapply,€except€as€expressly€otherwise€providedÏor€as€necessary€implication€requires:ÌÌ€€a.€€Approved€Financial€Institution.ÌÌ€€"Approved€financial€institution"€means€aÏfinancial€institution€approved€by€theÏCommission€in€accordance€with€these€Rules.ÌÌ€€b.€€Attorney.ÌÌ€€"Attorney"€means€any€person€admitted€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€to€practice€law.ÌÌÐ   \  Ѐ€c.€€Attorney€Trust€Account.ÌÌ€€"Attorney€trust€account"€means€an€account,Ïincluding€an€escrow€account,€maintained€in€aÏfinancial€institution€for€the€deposit€of€fundsÏreceived€or€held€by€an€attorney€or€law€firm€onÏbehalf€of€a€client€or€third€person.ÌññÓÝ Óññò òÌCommittee€note:€€"Funds€received€or€held€by€anÏattorney€or€law€firm€on€behalf€of€a€client"Ïinclude€funds€received€or€held€by€an€attorneyÏwho€operates€a€title€company.ó óÐ f¶  ÐÌ€€€.€.€.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€16„602€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThere€has€been€some€controversy€over€theÏissue€of€whether€attorneys€operating€titleÏcompanies€are€required€to€hold€their€clients'Ïtrust€funds€in€an€escrow€account.€€The€MarylandÏState€Bar€Association€Ethics€Committee€hasÏconsistently€held€that€attorneys€who€engage€inÏlaw„related€business,€such€as€real€estate€andÏtitle€companies,€cannot€avoid€the€requirementÏthat€clients'€trust€funds€must€be€held€in€anÏescrow€account.€€An€inquiry€panel€of€theÏAttorney€Grievance€Commission€reached€theÏopposite€conclusion€in€1992.€€The€AttorneysÏSubcommittee€is€asking€for€a€decision€on€thisÏissue€by€the€Rules€Committee.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àMr.€Brault€explained€that€there€has€been€a€problem€with€someÏprivate€law€practitioners€who€are€doing€real€estate€title€work€andÏretaining€the€interest€on€the€clients'€trust€funds,€but€not€puttingÏthem€into€an€IOLTA€(Interest€on€Lawyers'€Trust€Accounts)€account.€ÏThe€result€is€a€drain€on€the€IOLTA€money€earned€from€such€escrowÏaccounts.€€Herbert€Garten,€Esq.,€Chair€of€the€American€BarÐ L-œ(. ÐAssociation€Committee€on€IOLTA€and€Robert€J.€Rhudy,€Esq.,€Director€ofÏthe€Maryland€Legal€Services€Corporation,€had€spoken€to€the€AttorneysÏSubcommittee€about€this€issue.€€Mr.€Garten€had€provided€a€history€ofÏthe€IOLTA€program.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€said€that€there€is€another€statute€which€came€out€ofÏlegislative€committee€work.€€This€is€known€as€the€IOTA€(Interest€onÏTrust€Accounts)€law,€Code,€Insurance€Article,€ðð22„103.€€This€providesÏthat€certain€monies€held€for€the€benefit€of€a€party€to€a€real€estateÏtransaction€are€to€be€placed€in€an€escrow€account€with€the€interestÏgoing€to€the€Maryland€Affordable€Housing€Trust€(MAHT),€and€it€isÏapplicable€to€non„attorneys.€€Attorneys€who€are€not€operating€titleÏcompanies€are€at€a€competitive€disadvantage€because€their€interest€onÏescrow€accounts€is€going€to€IOLTA.€€The€ethical€question€is€whetherÏan€attorney€can€escape€IOLTA€obligations€by€operating€a€titleÏcompany.€€The€Maryland€State€Bar€Association€(MSBA)€had€issued€anÏethics€opinion€stating€that€the€avoidance€of€IOLTA€obligations€isÏunethical.€€Previously,€there€had€been€a€decision€from€an€AttorneyÏGrievance€Inquiry€Panel€that€this€avoidance€of€IOLTA€obligations€byÏan€attorney€operating€a€title€company€was€not€unethical.€€Although€anÏinquiry€panel€decision€has€no€binding€authority€except€in€the€caseÏbeing€acted€upon,€this€particular€case€encouraged€attorneys€toÏoperate€title€companies€with€no€payments€of€interest€to€IOLTA.€€Ìà  àThe€Attorneys€Subcommittee€considered€this€issue€and€concludedÏthat€it€is€unethical€for€an€attorney€who€operates€a€title€company€toÐ L-œ(. Ðevade€IOLTA.€€The€suggestion€is€to€put€in€a€Committee€note€to€RuleÏ16„602€to€clarify€this.€€A€person€who€"operates"€a€title€company€isÏnot€a€mere€stockholder€who€buys€stock€in€the€title€company.€€The€RuleÏshould€reach€an€attorney€who€is€actively€involved€in€the€titleÏcompany.€€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€pointed€out€that€the€proposed€amendment€may€not€reachÏthe€problem€it€is€trying€to€cure.€€The€Rule€itself€should€be€amended.€ÏMr.€Brault€responded€that€he€would€have€no€problem€€with€that.€€Mr.ÏBowen€suggested€that€the€amended€language€could€be€"funds€received€orÏheld€by€a€title€company€which€is€operated€by€an€attorney."€€The€ViceÏChair€asked€whether€a€Rule€can€be€amended€to€control€title€companies.€ÏMr.€Titus€questioned€the€meaning€of€the€language€"operated€by."€€HeÏposited€a€situation€where€the€title€company€owner€gives€his€or€herÏspouse€the€money€from€the€title€company€to€control.€€Mr.€Bowen€notedÏthat€in€that€scenario,€the€spouse€is€not€operating€the€title€company.€ÏÌà  àThe€Vice€Chair€suggested€that€the€language€in€the€CommitteeÏnote€could€be€moved€to€the€body€of€the€Rule,€and€a€differentÏCommittee€note€could€be€added€which€would€provide€that€the€attorneyÏis€not€allowed€to€say€that€the€money€at€issue€belongs€to€the€titleÏcompany.€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€the€word€"operate"€should€beÏdefined€to€avoid€the€ruse€to€which€he€had€just€referred€concerningÏgiving€the€money€to€a€family€member.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€the€guestsÏfrom€the€MSBA€could€be€consulted€about€this€issue.€€On€a€daily€basis,Ð L-œ(. Ðthe€actions€of€a€law€firm€and€of€a€title€company€may€not€be€thatÏdifferent.€€The€word€added€to€the€Rule€should€be€"operate"€and€notÏ"own,"€or€else€the€attorney€could€put€the€company€in€someone€else'sÏname.€€The€Chair€commented€that€if€the€attorney€has€control€over€theÏfunds€and€has€the€authority€to€put€them€in€place€somewhere,€then€theÏattorney€cannot€escape€his€or€her€IOLTA€obligation.€€Mr.€BraultÏremarked€that€he€agreed€with€the€Vice€Chair€that€the€amendment€shouldÏbe€made€to€the€body€of€Rule€16„602€c.€and€a€Committee€note€addedÏwhich€has€an€explanation.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€asked€if€anyone€was€opposed€to€the€suggestedÏamendment.€€Robert€Enten,€Esq.,€responded€that€he€was€at€the€meetingÏrepresenting€the€Maryland€Bankers€Association.€€He€told€the€CommitteeÏthat€he€is€involved€in€IOLTA€and€IOTA€issues€and€had€appeared€beforeÏthe€Maryland€General€Assembly€several€years€ago€when€these€issuesÏwere€discussed.€€The€banking€industry€is€very€interested€in€this.€ÏMr.€Enten€said€that€he€had€been€at€the€Attorneys€SubcommitteeÏmeeting,€and€he€did€not€remember€a€unanimous€recommendation€in€favorÏof€the€proposed€amendment.€€This€issue€is€a€slippery€slope.€€Some€ofÏthe€employees€of€title€companies€are€shareholders,€some€areÏattorneys,€some€are€not.€€Because€an€attorney€is€an€employee€of€aÏtitle€company€does€not€mean€that€he€or€she€controls€the€funds.€€IfÏthis€amendment€is€made,€title€companies€will€not€hire€attorneysÏbecause€title€insurance€companies€are€under€different€rules€if€noneÏof€the€employees€are€attorneys.€€Title€insurance€agencies€areÐ L-œ(. Ðregulated€by€the€Insurance€Article€of€the€Annotated€Code.€€They€areÏlicensed€and€bonded,€and€they€are€under€the€control€of€the€MarylandÏInsurance€Commissioner.€€Under€the€proposed€amendment€to€Rule€16„602,Ïthe€Rules€of€Procedure€would€be€regulating€title€insurance€agencies.Ìà  àMr.€Enten€observed€that€the€real€issue€being€discussed€isÏwhether€operating€a€title€insurance€agency€constitutes€the€practiceÏof€law.€€A€business€entity€receives€funds€which€are€put€into€escrow.€ÏA€real€estate€company€receives€funds€which€are€subject€to€IOLTA.€ÏWhere€does€one€draw€the€line€as€far€as€the€conduct€goes?€€JudgeÏMcAuliffe€commented€that€Mr.€Enten€seems€to€be€making€a€distinctionÏbetween€title€companies€which€search€title€and€title€insuranceÏagencies.€€Mr.€Enten€responded€that€title€insurance€agencies€bothÏsearch€the€title€and€issue€policies.€€How€could€the€proposedÏamendment€to€the€Rule€be€administered?€€The€fact€that€this€matterÏinvolves€corporations€is€being€ignored.€€The€proposed€amendment€mayÏbe€"piercing€the€corporate€veil"€by€reaching€the€employees€ofÏcorporations.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€employee€of€the€corporationÏmay€be€an€attorney€who€is€operating€the€title€company.€€She€expressedÏthe€view€that€if€an€attorney€works€for€Chicago€Title€Company,€he€orÏshe€is€not€necessarily€operating€the€company.€€However,€if€anÏattorney€has€an€office€for€the€practice€of€law,€which€also€is€taggedÏas€"ABC€Title€Company"€at€which€office€the€attorney€conducts€realÏestate€closings,€this€may€fall€under€the€category€of€an€attorneyÐ L-œ(. Ð"operating"€a€title€company.€€Mr.€Enten€reiterated€that€it€isÏdifficult€to€draw€the€line.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€stated€that€if€the€attorney€has€the€power€to€directÏthe€money€from€the€company€and€is€able€to€set€up€an€IOLTA€account€butÏdoes€not,€then€the€attorney€may€be€in€violation€of€the€law.€€It€doesÏnot€matter€if€the€attorney€puts€forward€the€fiction€that€he€or€sheÏdoes€not€have€to€put€the€money€into€IOLTA€because€the€company€is€aÏcorporation.€€What€does€matter€is€whether€the€individual€has€theÏpower€to€set€up€the€IOLTA€account.€€Mr.€Enten€inquired€as€to€whoÏwould€determine€if€someone€has€this€power.€€Under€Code,€InsuranceÏArticle,€ðð10„121,€Title€Insurance€Agents€or€Brokers,€the€attorney€mayÏnot€be€able€to€set€up€the€IOLTA€account.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€questioned€whether€every€title€company€is€a€titleÏinsurance€agency.€€Mr.€Enten€answered€that€the€law€refers€to€"agentsÏor€brokers;"€the€General€Assembly€intended€a€distinction€between€theÏtwo.€€Judge€McAuliffe€remarked€that€the€agents€are€writing€theÏpolicies.€€They€have€the€authority€to€write€a€binder€for€a€separateÏcompany.€€The€attorneys€have€the€money€in€hand€and€are€conductingÏreal€estate€settlements.€€The€Subcommittee€proposal€does€not€impact€aÏtitle€insurance€agent.€€It€affects€those€persons€conducting€theÏsettlement€and€disbursing€the€funds.€€Mr.€Enten€remarked€that€it€mayÏnot€be€the€attorney€who€is€disbursing€the€funds.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€noted€that€there€is€a€confluence€of€problems€withÏthis€issue.€€The€October€14,€1998€letter€written€by€J.€MichaelÐ L-œ(. ÐConroy,€Jr.,€Esq.,€a€copy€of€which€was€handed€out€today,€refers€toÏthe€problem€of€title€company€practitioners€arguing€that€settlementsÏare€not€included€within€the€parameters€of€the€practice€of€law.€€(SeeÏAppendix€1).€€This€varies€from€county€to€county.€€Another€problem€isÏthe€historic€failure€of€the€legislature€to€fund€legal€services.€€ThisÏresulted€in€the€creation€of€the€IOLTA€system,€which€was€not€a€happyÏbirth.€€A€third€problem€is€the€competitive€advantage€of€a€non„¼attorney€as€opposed€to€an€attorney.€€The€consequences€of€practicingÏlaw€may€be€the€attorney€discipline€system,€trust€accounts,€and€IOLTA.€ÏThe€issue€is€what€constitutes€the€practice€of€law.€€The€name€isÏirrelevant.€€An€attorney€can€get€around€the€need€to€pay€IOLTA.€€JudgeÏMcAuliffe€pointed€out€that€an€attorney€who€is€conducting€business,Ïeven€if€not€practicing€law,€is€still€subject€to€the€disciplinaryÏrules.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€noted€that€the€law€requires€that€in€a€transfer€ofÏreal€estate,€there€has€to€be€a€certification€that€an€attorneyÏprepared€the€deed.€€A€rule€could€tie€the€escrowing€of€funds€to€thisÏrequirement.€€A€rule€or€statute€could€provide€that€the€attorney€whoÏprepares€the€deed€is€responsible€for€placing€any€funds€escrowed€inÏconnection€with€the€transaction€in€an€IOLTA€account.€€Ìà  àMr.€Conroy€said€that€Mr.€Brault€had€told€the€Committee€earlierÏabout€the€IOTA€statute.€€A€problem€is€the€theory€which€is€that€theÏIOTA€law€controls€title€companies,€and€the€Attorney€GrievanceÏCommission€has€no€jurisdiction€over€a€title€company.€€A€biggerÐ L-œ(. Ðproblem€is€that€some€of€the€people€operating€title€companies€are€notÏputting€the€interest€into€either€IOTA€or€IOLTA€accounts,€but€areÏretaining€the€interest€for€themselves.€€Some€attorneys€are€puttingÏthe€money€into€their€pockets,€and€the€Attorney€Grievance€CommissionÏhas€not€reached€them.€€The€money€is€not€going€to€the€clients,€toÏlegal€services,€or€to€the€MAHT,€but€going€into€the€attorneys'Ïpockets.€€Attorneys€who€conduct€real€estate€settlements€should€not€beÏearning€interest€on€the€escrowed€funds.€€Mr.€Conroy€cited€the€case€ofÏòòAttorney€Grievance€Commission€v.€Lazerowóó,€320€Md.€507€(1990),€whichÐ Ð  Ðinvolved€an€attorney€who€misused€funds€that€should€have€been€inÏescrow€accounts,€and€he€eventually€lost€his€license€to€practice€law.Ìà  àThe€Chair€questioned€if€any€research€has€been€done€as€toÏwhether€any€states€have€a€rule€which€could€serve€as€a€potential€modelÏfor€Maryland.€€Mr.€Conroy€answered€that€he€did€not€know€of€any€stateÏrule€on€this.€€Maryland€is€on€the€leading€edge.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€Mr.ÏRhudy€if€he€knew€of€any€other€state€with€a€rule€pertaining€to€titleÏcompanies.€€Mr.€Rhudy€replied€that€the€law€of€Washington€State€is€theÏclosest.€€The€Supreme€Court€of€Washington€said€that€whoever€operatesÏa€title€company€is€practicing€law.€€The€regulation€by€state€insuranceÏdepartments€varies€among€the€states.€€Throughout€the€insurance€codes,Ïthere€is€a€flat€prohibition€against€keeping€clients'€interest.€€Ìà  àThe€next€speaker€was€John€Dwyer,€Esq.,€an€attorney€and€partÏowner€of€a€title€company.€€He€told€the€Committee€that€his€companyÏdoes€not€have€any€accounts€which€draw€interest€that€is€kept€by€any€ofÐ L-œ(. Ðthe€company€owners.€€The€interest€on€the€accounts€in€his€name€goes€toÏIOLTA,€some€of€the€interest€on€other€company€accounts€goes€to€theÏMAHT,€and€one€account€does€not€earn€interest.€€If€Rule€16„602€isÏamended€to€include€title€companies€operated€by€attorneys,€Mr.€DwyerÏquestioned€whether€the€Rule€would€apply€to€him.€€He€has€a€one„thirdÏinterest€in€his€title€company.€€In€response€to€Judge€McAuliffe'sÏearlier€question€about€the€difference€between€title€companies€andÏtitle€insurance€agencies,€they€are€one€and€the€same.€€Ìà  àMr.€Dwyer€said€that€he€wished€to€point€out€that€there€had€beenÏassurance€to€the€title€companies€that€the€IOLTA€and€MAHT€programsÏwould€not€affect€the€relationship€the€attorneys€and€title€companiesÏhad€with€the€banks.€€This€has€not€proved€to€be€accurate.€€HisÏcompany,€Beltway€Title€Company,€had€a€problem.€€Certain€expenses€areÏnot€allowed€to€be€paid€out€of€an€IOLTA€account.€€His€company€hasÏextensive€service€charges€with€the€bank.€€A€multi„office€company€suchÏas€Beltway€Title€must€be€able€to€wire€money,€stop€checks,€and€seeÏonline€if€a€check€has€cleared.€€These€services€come€at€a€high€price.€ÏBeltway€Title€Company€has€nine€offices,€and€last€month€the€serviceÏcharges€were€about€$6,000.€€The€vast€majority€of€lenders€wire€moneyÏto€accounts€„„€this€is€a€necessary€online€service.€€If€serviceÏcharges€are€not€allowed€to€be€paid€out€of€the€interest€on€money€inÏescrow€accounts,€this€will€be€burdensome€for€title€companies,€whichÏdisburse€99%€of€the€dollars€in€their€accounts€within€two€or€threeÏdays.€Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àThe€Chair€asked€if€the€legislature€had€ever€discussed€thisÏissue.€€Mr.€Dwyer€responded€that€he€suspected€that€the€legislatureÏhad€never€discussed€this.€€The€money€is€used€to€generate€credit€forÏservice€charges.€€Judge€McAuliffe€inquired€as€to€the€differenceÏbetween€keeping€the€interest€on€the€float€and€using€it€to€pay€theÏcompany's€service€charges.€€The€Vice€Chair€questioned€as€to€where€anyÏoverage€would€go.€€Mr.€Dwyer€replied€that€it€would€go€to€the€titleÏcompany.€€When€the€company€maintains€this€size€escrow€account,€it€isÏa€business€of€its€own.€€His€company€employs€two€people€whose€job€isÏto€reconcile€the€account.€€Keeping€the€overage€is€not€a€windfall.€ÏWithout€it,€title€fees€will€go€up€and€consumers€will€be€hurt.Ìà  àSeymour€Stern,€Esq.,€spoke€to€the€Committee.€€He€said€that€heÏwas€a€past€president€of€the€MSBA.€€Many€attorneys€had€disagreed€withÏthe€concept€of€IOLTA€and€fought€it.€€The€legislature€was€not€tooÏsympathetic€to€the€attorneys€who€lobbied€against€IOLTA.€€TheÏlegislation€was€amended€to€provide€that€part€of€the€interest€from€theÏescrow€of€money€on€real€estate€closings€would€go€to€the€HousingÏAuthority.€€The€concept€was€that€title€companies€that€are€notÏcontrolled€by€attorneys€would€not€gain€the€benefit€of€the€interest€onÏthe€float,€which€is€very€substantial.€€The€money€would€be€used€toÏbenefit€society.€€Some€of€the€title€company€people€are€structuringÏthe€accounts€to€stay€within€the€law€which€provides€that€the€companiesÏdo€not€have€to€report€the€interest€on€accounts€which€do€not€earn€moreÏthan€$50.Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àMr.€Stern€continued€that€he€had€attended€today's€RulesÏCommittee€meeting€to€observe€how€this€problem€will€be€handled.€€HeÏexpressed€the€opinion€that€the€Rules€Committee€may€not€be€able€toÏhandle€the€entire€problem,€and€he€said€that€he€hoped€that€theÏlegislature€will€eventually€come€up€with€a€solution.€€His€practiceÏemploys€four€persons,€and€they€do€real€estate€settlement€work€andÏother€types€of€legal€work.€€He€inquired€whether€an€incorporated€titleÏcompany€can€conduct€settlements€and€then€maintain€that€because€theÏsettlement€work€is€through€the€title€company,€the€escrowed€funds€areÏnot€subject€to€IOLTA,€nor€are€they€subject€to€IOTA€since€the€interestÏis€less€than€$50.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€commented€that€the€issue€applies€most€directly€toÏtitle€companies,€but€it€could€apply€to€criminal€defense€work.€€HeÏposed€the€hypothetical€of€the€ABC€Private€Investigating€Company€whichÏis€operated€by€an€attorney€and€puts€money€in€escrow.€€This€could€leadÏto€the€same€issue€as€to€whether€the€interest€belongs€to€IOLTA.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€remarked€that€no€one€at€the€Subcommittee€meetingÏrepresented€the€title€companies.€€He€said€that€he€appreciated€Mr.ÏDwyer's€comments.€€He€asked€Mr.€Dwyer€if€the€other€two€owners€of€hisÏcompany€are€attorneys,€and€Mr.€Dwyer€answered€that€they€are€not.€ÏThere€are€nine€different€offices,€and€closings€are€held€at€all€nine.€ÏAttorneys€and€non„attorneys€conduct€settlements€„„€they€are€licensedÏand€bonded.€€There€has€been€a€new€wave€of€controlled€businessÏarrangements€which€have€been€renamed€"affiliated€businessÐ L-œ(. Ðarrangements."€€Title€companies€can€form€affiliations€which€meet€theÏcriteria€of€the€federal€Real€Estate€Settlement€Procedures€ActÏ(RESPA),€12€U.S.C.,€ðððð2601€„€2617.€€They€are€subject€to€requirementsÏpertaining€to€title€insurers.€€à  àÐ ü L Ðà  àMr.€Howell€noted€that€the€reason€this€issue€arose€was€becauseÏof€a€1992€Inquiry€Panel€decision,€which€was€not€reported.€€TheÏproblem€is€the€subterfuge€of€title€companies€which€allow€attorneys€toÏevade€their€obligations.€€Rather€than€amending€the€Rule,€theÏSubcommittee€opted€for€a€Committee€note.€€Mr.€Bowen€commented€thatÏthe€problem€with€the€Committee€note€is€that€it€does€not€solve€theÏproblem€of€money€escrowed€by€a€title€company€where€the€interest€isÏneither€IOLTA€nor€IOTA.€€The€issue€should€be€left€to€the€legislatureÏto€handle.€€He€moved€to€leave€the€Rule€unchanged.€€The€motion€wasÏseconded.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€expressed€the€view€that€the€Subcommittee'sÏamended€language€is€broad€enough.€€The€Chair€asked€if€this€same€issueÏwas€considered€when€the€statute€was€enacted.€€Senator€Stone€repliedÏthat€it€was€considered.€€Mr.€Titus€remarked€that€there€is€noÏguarantee€that€the€legislature€definitely€will€take€action.€€At€theÏleast,€the€Committee€should€express€its€concern€to€the€legislatureÏabout€the€inequities€of€the€situation.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€doesÏhave€authority€over€the€practice€of€law.€€He€reiterated€hisÏsuggestion€that€Rule€16„604€could€provide€that€an€attorney€may€notÏprepare€a€deed€unless€funds€escrowed€in€connection€with€the€realÐ L-œ(. Ðestate€transaction€are€place€in€an€IOLTA€account.€€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€told€the€Committee€that€he€frequently€defendsÏattorneys€in€front€of€the€Attorney€Grievance€Commission.€€HeÏexpressed€the€concern€that€many€attorneys€interpret€the€AttorneyÏTrust€Account€Rules€as€not€applying€to€them€if€they€are€running€aÏtitle€company.€€The€Rules€may€need€to€be€more€explicit.€€A€defenseÏargument€could€be€made€that€the€Rules€do€not€govern€title€companies.€ÏHis€preference€is€that€the€Rules€should€not€remain€as€they€are€now.€ÏOne€possibility€is€to€send€Rule€16„602€back€to€the€AttorneysÏSubcommittee€to€draft€a€better€rule.€€The€Chair€commented€that€theÏRule€could€be€tabled€until€the€legislative€session,€or€it€could€beÏsent€to€Subcommittee€to€monitor€the€legislation€coming€out€of€theÏ1999€session.€€Senator€Stone€agreed€with€the€idea€of€the€RulesÏCommittee€presenting€the€issue€to€the€legislature.€€Mr.€Brault€saidÏthat€he€had€another€concern€about€going€before€the€legislature€„„Ïwould€that€create€a€risk€of€the€IOLTA€and€IOTA€statutes€being€amendedÏor€repealed?€€Senator€Stone€answered€that€that€will€not€happen.€€Mr.ÏEnten€pointed€out€that€the€legislature€enhanced€the€Maryland€LegalÏServices€Fund€by€providing€for€an€increase€in€court€filing€fees€toÏenhance€the€Fund's€revenues.€€This€had€passed€overwhelmingly.€€¼à  àÌà  àMr.€Titus€moved€to€amend€the€motion€on€the€floor€to€haveÏrepresentatives€of€the€Rules€Committee€go€before€the€legislature€toÏrequest€a€statutory€amendment€which€would€clarify€that€attorneysÐ L-œ(. Ðoperating€title€companies€have€to€pay€IOLTA.€€The€Subcommittee€wouldÏmonitor€the€legislative€activities.€€Mr.€Bowen,€who€made€the€originalÏmotion,€and€the€Vice€Chair,€who€had€seconded€it,€accepted€theÏamendment.€€Ìà  àMr.€Conroy€said€that€he€had€a€final€comment.€€Last€spring,€itÏcame€to€light€that€the€Legal€Services€Corporation€is€in€dire€need€ofÏfunds.€€If€an€attorney€goes€from€a€law€practice€to€a€title€company,Ïless€money€will€go€to€IOLTA.€€This€may€happen€more€and€more.€€WhatÏwould€be€the€point€of€staying€in€a€practice,€when€one€could€haveÏcarte€blanche€in€retaining€interest€by€operating€a€title€company?€ÏThe€position€of€the€Attorney€Grievance€Commission€panel€is€directlyÏcontrary€to€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€the€òòLazerowóó€caseÐ l Ðand€others.€€Many€attorneys€are€trying€to€do€the€right€thing.€€TheÏ1992€panel€decision€should€be€disregarded.Ìà  àThe€Chair€called€the€question€on€the€amended€motion€to€presentÏthe€problem€to€the€legislature€at€its€1999€session.€€The€motionÏpassed€unanimously.€€The€Chair€thanked€the€guests€who€attended€theÏmeeting€to€discuss€Agenda€Item€1.à  àà p àÐ ´"" ÐÓÓÌAgenda€Item€5.€€Consideration€of€a€policy€issue€concerningÌ€€service€of€process€on€governmental€entities€other€than€theÌ€€State€of€Maryland€€(See€Appendix€2.)Ì________________________________________________________________ÌÌà  àÓÓThe€Chair€stated€that€the€next€agenda€item€would€be€Item€5,Ïbecause€Mr.€Titus€has€to€leave€the€meeting€early.€€Mr.€TitusÏexplained€that€no€service€rule€deals€adequately€with€service€ofÐ L-œ(. Ðprocess€on€officers€or€agencies€of€the€State€of€Maryland.€€It€isÏclear€from€the€Rules€of€Procedure€how€to€serve€individuals.€€Mr.ÏTitus€had€a€client,€the€Montgomery€County€Board€of€Education,€whichÏnearly€was€found€in€contempt€because€a€clerk€of€the€Board€hadÏreceived€a€notice€of€garnishment€and€had€thrown€it€away.€€The€serviceÏproblem€needs€to€be€addressed.€€Mr.€Titus'€suggestion€was€that€localÏentities€should€designate€a€resident€agent€under€a€procedure€setÏforth€in€the€Maryland€Rules€or€under€a€procedure€of€the€StateÏDepartment€of€Assessments€and€Taxation€(SDAT).€€If€no€such€person€hasÏbeen€designated,€then€service€would€be€upon€the€Chief€ExecutiveÏOfficer€or€upon€the€highest€ranking€elected€official.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€moved€that€the€General€Court€AdministrationÏSubcommittee€work€with€representatives€of€the€General€Assembly€toÏprepare€appropriate€legislation€which€would€authorize€or€require€theÏdesignation€of€a€resident€agent.€€A€parallel€rule€could€be€draftedÏwhich€would€contain€the€hierarchy€of€service.€€The€motion€wasÏseconded.€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€questioned€whether€it€is€necessary€to€go€to€theÏlegislature€to€accomplish€this.€€Mr.€Titus€replied€that€theÏmemorandum€in€the€meeting€materials€from€George€B.€Riggin,€Jr.,€theÏState€Court€Administrator,€indicates€that€the€Administrative€OfficeÏof€the€Courts€would€prefer€that€this€matter€be€handled€by€the€SDAT,Ïand€the€people€there€are€willing€to€do€it.€€If€the€legislature€takesÏno€action,€Mr.€Titus€said€that€he€would€then€suggest€a€rule€on€theÐ L-œ(. Ðsubject.Ìà  àThe€Chair€called€the€question€on€Mr.€Titus'€motion,€and€theÏmotion€carried€unanimously.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€2.€€Consideration€of€a€proposed€amendment€toÌ€€Appendix:€€The€Maryland€Lawyers'€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct,Ì€€Rule€1.5€(Fees)Ì_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àMr.€Brault€presented€Rule€1.5,€Fees,€for€the€Committee'sÏconsideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌÐ  ² Ðà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@à à ìàAPPENDIX€„€THE€MARYLAND€LAWYERS'€RULES€OFˆÌÌà@‚‚ ìàPROFESSIONAL€CONDUCTˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€1.5€to€add€a€Committee€note,€asÏfollows:ÌÌÌRule€1.5.€€Fees.ÌÌÌññÓointÓññ€€(a)€€A€lawyer's€fee€shall€be€reasonable.€€TheÏfactors€to€be€considered€in€determining€theÏreasonableness€of€a€fee€include€the€following:ÌÌ€€€€(1)€€the€time€and€labor€required,€theÏnovelty€and€difficulty€of€the€questionsÏinvolved,€and€the€skill€requisite€to€performÏthe€legal€service€properly;ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€the€likelihood,€if€apparent€to€theÏclient,€that€the€acceptance€of€the€particularÏemployment€will€preclude€other€employment€byÏthe€lawyer;ÌÌ€€€€(3)€€the€fee€customarily€charged€in€theÏlocality€for€similar€legal€services;ÌÌ€€€€(4)€€the€amount€involved€and€the€resultsÏobtained;Ì€€€€(5)€€the€time€limitations€imposed€by€theÏclient€or€by€the€circumstances;ÌÌ€€€€(6)€€the€nature€and€length€of€theÏprofessional€relationship€with€the€client;ÌÌ€€€€(7)€€the€experience,€reputation,€andÏability€of€the€lawyer€or€lawyers€performing€theÏservices;€andÌÌ€€€€(8)€€whether€the€fee€is€fixed€orÏcontingent.ÌÌ€€(b)€€When€the€lawyer€has€not€regularlyÏrepresented€the€client,€the€basis€or€rate€ofÐ ..~)/ Ðthe€fee€shall€be€communicated€to€the€client,Ïpreferably€in€writing,€before€or€within€aÏreasonable€time€after€commencing€theÏrepresentation.ÌÌÐ   j Ѐ€(c)€€A€fee€may€be€contingent€on€the€outcomeÏof€the€matter€for€which€the€service€isÏrendered,€except€in€a€matter€in€which€aÏcontingent€fee€agreement€shall€by€paragraph€(d)Ïor€other€law.€€The€terms€of€a€contingent€feeÏagreement€shall€be€communicated€to€the€clientÏin€writing.€€The€communication€shall€state€theÏmethod€by€which€the€fee€is€to€be€determined,Ïincluding€the€percentage€or€percentages€thatÏshall€accrue€to€the€lawyer€in€the€event€ofÏsettlement,€trial€or€appeal,€litigation€andÏother€expenses€to€be€deducted€from€theÏrecovery,€and€whether€such€expenses€are€to€beÏdeducted€before€or€after€the€contingent€fee€isÏcalculated.€€Upon€conclusion€of€a€contingentÏfee€matter,€the€lawyer€shall€provide€the€clientÏwith€a€written€statement€stating€the€outcome€ofÏthe€matter,€and,€if€there€is€a€recovery,Ïshowing€the€remittance€to€the€client€and€theÏmethod€of€its€determination.ÌÌ€€(d)€€A€lawyer€shall€not€enter€into€anÏarrangement€for,€charge,€or€collect:ÌÌ€€€€(1)€€any€fee€in€a€domestic€relationsÏmatter,€the€payment€or€amount€of€which€isÏcontingent€upon€the€securing€of€a€divorce€orÏcustody€of€a€child€or€upon€the€amount€ofÏalimony€or€support€or€property€settlement,€orÏupon€the€amount€of€an€award€pursuant€toÏSections€8„201€through€213€of€Family€LawÏArticle,€Annotated€Code€of€Maryland;€orÌÌ€€€€(2)€€a€contingent€fee€for€representing€aÏdefendant€in€a€criminal€matter.ÌÌ€€(e)€€A€division€of€fee€between€lawyers€whoÏare€not€in€the€same€firm€may€be€made€only€if:ÌÌ€€€€(1)€€the€division€is€in€proportion€to€theÏservices€performed€by€each€lawyer€or,€byÏwritten€agreement€with€the€client,€each€lawyerÏassumes€joint€responsibility€for€theÏrepresentation;ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€the€client€is€advised€of€and€does€notÏobject€to€the€participation€of€all€the€lawyersÏinvolved;€andÐ ..~)/ Ї€€€€(3)€€the€total€fee€is€reasonable.ÌññÓointÓññò òÌCommittee€note:€€Although€the€PreambleÏindicates€that€these€Rules€do€not€establish€aÏcause€of€action,€they€nevertheless€evidenceÏpublic€policy€and,€to€that€extent,€may€beÏrelevant€as€to€whether€a€contract€violatesÏpublic€policy.€€See€òòPost€v.€Bregmanóó,€349€Md.Ð Þ . Ð142,€707€A2d€806€(1998)€and€òòSon€v.€Margoliusóó,Ð À  Ð349€Md.€441,€709€A2d€112€(1998).ó óÐ ¢ ò  ÐÌ€€€.€.€.ÌÌÌññÓointÓññÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€1.5€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThe€recent€Court€of€Appeals€cases€of€òòPostÐ Ð  Ðv.€Bregmanóó,€349€Md.€142,€707€A2d€806€(1998)€andÐ ² ÐòòSon€v.€Margoliusóó€349€Md.€441,€709€A2d€112Ð ”ä Ð(1998),€both€pertaining€to€the€issue€of€fee„¼splitting€by€attorneys,€seem€to€be€somewhatÏinconsistent€with€the€Preamble€to€the€MarylandÏRules€of€Professional€Conduct€which€providesÏthat€"[v]iolation€of€a€Rule€should€not€giveÏrise€to€a€cause€of€action€nor€should€it€createÏany€presumption€that€a€legal€duty€has€beenÏbreached.€€The€Rules€are€designed€to€provideÏguidance€to€lawyers€and€to€provide€a€structureÏfor€regulating€conduct€through€disciplinaryÏagencies.€€They€are€not€designed€to€be€a€basisÏfor€civil€liability."€€In€an€attempt€to€bringÏthe€decisions€in€line€with€the€Preamble,€theÏSubcommittee€is€suggesting€the€addition€of€aÏCommittee€note€to€Rule€1.5€which€makes€clearÏthat€the€Rules€evidence€public€policy€and€mayÏbe€relevant€in€deciding€whether€a€contractÏviolates€public€policy.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àMr.€Brault€explained€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€held€that€toÏsome€extent,€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€are€statements€of€theÏpublic€policy€of€Maryland.€€This€can€be€seen€in€the€cases€of€òòPost€v.Ð ˆ+Ø&, ÐBregmanóó,€349€Md.€142€(1998)€and€òòSon€v.€Margoliusóó,€349€Md.€441€(1998),Ð L-œ(. Ðboth€pertaining€to€the€issue€of€fee„splitting€by€attorneys.€€TheÏPreamble€to€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€contains€language€whichÏprovides€that€a€violation€of€one€of€the€Rules€should€not€give€rise€toÏa€cause€of€action.€€The€òòPostóó€and€òòSonóó€cases€now€call€into€question€theÐ ü L Ðcontinued€applicability€of€this€language.€€The€Subcommittee€felt€thatÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€may€wish€to€consider€amendments€that€reconcileÏthe€cases€with€the€Preamble.€€In€the€òòPostóó€and€òòSonóó€cases,€Judge€HowardÐ H˜  ÐS.€Chasanow€dissented€because€he€believes€that€the€decisions€violateÏthe€policy€of€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct.€€Mr.€Brault€notedÏthat€at€the€Subcommittee€meeting,€his€suggestion€was€to€strike€theÏinapplicable€phrase€from€the€Preamble.€€Mr.€Titus€had€argued€that€theÏlanguage€should€remain,€but€a€Committee€note€should€be€added€pointingÏout€the€two€cases.Ìà  àJudge€McAuliffe€questioned€fixing€this€problem€by€adding€aÏCommittee€note.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€a€note€provides€someÏrecognition€of€the€problem.€€The€Vice€Chair€expressed€the€opinionÏthat€a€change€should€be€made€to€the€Preamble.€€Mr.€Brault€argued€thatÏno€one€reads€the€Preamble.€€He€said€that€he€wants€attorneys€to€knowÏabout€this€problem.€€The€decisions€in€the€two€cases€bear€directly€onÏthe€writing€of€a€fee€contract.€€An€attorney€should€be€cautious€as€toÏhow€the€fee€is€split.€€Judge€McAuliffe€remarked€that€the€CommitteeÏnote€is€a€better€red€flag.€€He€added€that€if€the€substance€of€theÏdecisions€were€incorporated€into€the€Rule€itself,€it€would€be€moreÏdifficult€for€the€Court€to€revise€its€approach€to€the€issue€later.Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àMr.€Brault€moved€that€the€proposed€Committee€note€be€added€toÏRule€1.5.€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€unanimously.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€4.€€Consideration€of€a€proposed€amendment€toÌ€€€Appendix:€€The€Maryland€Lawyers'€Rules€of€ProfessionalÌ€€€Conduct,€Rule€4.2€(Communication€With€Person€Represented€byÌ€€€Counsel)Ì_______________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àMr.€Brault€presented€Rule€4.2,€Communication€With€PersonÏRepresented€by€Counsel,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@à à ìàAPPENDIX€„€THE€MARYLAND€LAWYERS'€RULES€OFˆÌÌà@‚‚ ìàPROFESSIONAL€CONDUCTˆÌÌÌAMEND€Rule€4.2€to€add€new€sections€(b),€(c),Ïand€(d),€as€follows:ÌÌÌRule€4.2.€€Communication€With€PersonÏRepresented€by€Counsel.ÌÌÌ€€ò ò(a)ó ó€€In€representing€a€client,€a€lawyer€shallÐ  ^ Ðnot€communicate€about€the€subject€of€theÏrepresentation€with€a€party€the€lawyer€knows€toÏbe€represented€by€another€lawyer€in€the€matter,Ïunless€the€lawyer€has€the€consent€of€the€otherÏlawyer€or€is€authorized€by€law€to€do€so.ÌÌ€€ò ò(b)€€In€representing€a€client,€a€lawyer€mayÐ <&Œ!& Ðcommunicate€about€the€subject€of€theÏrepresentation€with€a€nonparty€employee€of€theÏopposing€party€without€obtaining€the€consent€ofÏthat€party's€lawyer.€€However,€prior€toÏcommunicating€with€any€such€nonparty€employee,Ïa€lawyer€must€disclose€to€such€employee€bothÏthe€lawyer's€identity€and€the€fact€that€theÏlawyer€represents€a€party€with€a€claim€againstÏthe€employee's€employer.ó óÐ ..~)/ Ї€€ò ò(c)€€For€purposes€of€this€Rule,€the€termÐ ° Ð"party"€includes€any€person,€including€anÏemployee€of€a€party€organization,€who€has€theÏauthority€to€bind€a€party€organization€as€toÏthe€representation€to€which€the€communicationÏrelates.ó óÐ  j ÐÌ€€ò ò(d)€€This€Rule€does€not€prohibitÐ Þ . Ðcommunication€by€a€lawyer€with€governmentÏofficials€who€have€the€authority€to€redress€theÏgrievances€of€the€lawyer's€client,€whether€orÏnot€those€grievances€or€the€lawyer'sÏcommunications€relate€to€matters€that€are€theÏsubject€of€the€representation,€provided€that€inÏthe€event€of€such€communications€theÏdisclosures€specified€in€(b)€are€made€to€theÏgovernment€official€to€whom€the€communicationÏis€made.ó óÐ ² ÐññÓoughÓññÌÌÐ  X¨ Ðà@aa'ìàòòCOMMENTóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà ¸ àThis€Rule€does€not€prohibit€communicationÏwith€a€party,€or€an€employee€or€agent€of€aÏparty,€concerning€matters€outside€theÏrepresentation.€€For€example,€the€existence€ofÏa€controversy€between€a€government€agency€and€aÏprivate€party,€or€between€two€organizations,Ïdoes€not€prohibit€a€lawyer€for€either€fromÏcommunicating€with€nonlawyer€representatives€ofÏthe€other€regarding€a€separate€matter.€€Also,Ïparties€to€a€matter€may€communicate€directlyÏwith€each€other€and€a€lawyer€having€independentÏjustification€for€communicating€with€the€otherÏparty€is€permitted€to€do€so.€€CommunicationsÏauthorized€by€law€include,€for€example,€theÏright€of€a€party€to€a€controversy€with€aÏgovernment€agency€to€speak€with€governmentÏofficials€about€the€matter.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€the€case€of€an€organization,€this€RuleÏprohibits€communications€by€a€lawyer€for€oneÏparty€concerning€the€matter€in€representationÏwith€persons€having€a€managerial€responsibilityÏon€behalf€of€the€organization,€and€with€anyÏother€person€whose€act€or€omission€inÏconnection€with€that€matter€may€be€imputed€toÏthe€organization€for€purposes€of€civil€orÏcriminal€liability€or€whose€statement€mayÏconstitute€an€admission€on€the€part€of€theÏorganization.€€If€an€agent€or€employee€of€theÏorganization€is€represented€in€the€matter€byÏhis€or€her€own€counsel,€the€consent€by€thatÏcounsel€to€a€communication€will€be€sufficientÏfor€purposes€of€this€Rule.€€Compare€Rule€3.4Ï(f).ÌÌà ¸ àThis€Rule€also€covers€any€person,€whetherÏor€not€a€party€to€a€formal€proceeding,€who€isÏrepresented€by€counsel€concerning€the€matter€inÏquestion.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€Rule€does€not€prohibit€a€lawyer€fromÏcommunicating€with€employees€of€an€organizationÏwho€have€the€authority€to€bind€the€organizationÏwith€respect€to€the€matters€underlying€theÏrepresentation€if€they€do€not€also€haveÏauthority€to€make€binding€decisions€regardingÐ ..~)/ Ðthe€representation€itself.€€A€lawyer€mayÏtherefore€communicate€with€such€persons€withoutÏfirst€notifying€the€organization's€lawyer.€€ButÏbefore€communicating€with€such€a€"nonpartyÏemployee,"€the€lawyer€must€disclose€to€theÏemployee€the€lawyer's€identity€and€the€factÏthat€the€lawyer€represents€a€party€with€a€claimÏagainst€the€employer.€€It€is€preferable€thatÏthis€disclosure€be€made€in€writing.€€TheÏnotification€requirements€of€Rule€4.2€(b)€applyÏto€contacts€with€government€employees€who€doÏnot€have€the€authority€to€make€bindingÏdecisions€regarding€the€representation.ÌÌà ¸ àThis€Rule€does€not€apply€to€the€situationÏin€which€a€lawyer€contacts€employees€of€anÏorganization€for€the€purpose€of€obtainingÏinformation€generally€available€to€the€public,Ïor€obtainable€under€the€Freedom€of€InformationÏAct,€even€if€the€information€in€question€isÏrelated€to€the€representation.€€For€example,€aÏlawyer€for€a€plaintiff€who€has€filed€suitÏagainst€an€organization€represented€by€a€lawyerÏmay€telephone€the€organization€to€request€aÏcopy€of€a€press€release€regarding€theÏrepresentation,€without€disclosing€the€lawyer'sÏidentity,€obtaining€the€consent€of€theÏorganization's€lawyer,€or€otherwise€acting€asÏparagraphs€(a)€and€(b)€of€this€Rule€require.ÌÌà ¸ àParagraph€(d)€recognizes€that€specialÏconsiderations€come€into€play€when€a€lawyer€isÏseeking€to€redress€grievances€involving€theÏgovernment.€€It€permits€communications€withÏthose€in€government€having€the€authority€toÏredress€such€grievances€(but€not€with€any€otherÏgovernment€personnel)€without€the€prior€consentÏof€the€lawyer€representing€the€government€inÏsuch€cases.€€However,€a€lawyer€making€such€aÏcommunication€without€the€prior€consent€of€theÏlawyer€representing€the€government€must€makeÏthe€kinds€of€disclosures€that€are€required€byÏparagraph€(b)€in€the€case€of€communicationsÏwith€non„party€employees.ÌÌà ¸ àParagraph€(d)€does€not€permit€a€lawyer€toÏbypass€counsel€representing€the€government€onÏevery€issue€that€may€arise€in€the€course€ofÐ ..~)/ Ðdisputes€with€the€government.€€It€is€intendedÏto€provide€lawyers€access€to€decision€makers€inÏgovernment€with€respect€to€genuine€grievances,Ïsuch€as€to€present€the€view€that€theÏgovernment's€basic€policy€position€with€respectÏto€a€dispute€is€faulty,€or€that€governmentÏpersonnel€are€conducting€themselves€improperlyÏwith€respect€to€aspects€of€the€dispute.€€It€isÏnot€intended€to€provide€direct€access€onÏroutine€disputes€such€as€ordinary€discoveryÏdisputes,€extensions€of€time€or€otherÏscheduling€matters,€or€similar€routine€aspectsÏof€the€resolution€of€disputes.ÌÌà ¸ àThis€Rule€is€not€intended€to€enlarge€orÏrestrict€the€law€enforcement€activities€of€theÏState€of€Maryland€which€are€authorized€andÏpermissible€under€the€Constitution€and€law€ofÏthe€United€State€or€Maryland.€€The€"authorizedÏby€law"€proviso€to€Rule€4.2€(a)€is€intended€toÏpermit€government€conduct€that€is€valid€underÏthis€law.€€The€proviso€is€not€intended€toÏfreeze€any€particular€substantive€law,€but€isÏmeant€to€accommodate€substantive€law€as€it€mayÏdevelop€over€time.ÌÌòòCode€Comparison.óó„„€This€Rule€is€substantiallyÐ ¤ô Ðidentical€to€DR€7„104€(A)(1).ÌÌÌññÓto€aÓññÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€4.2€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àIn€a€recent€federal€case,€the€court€heldÏthat€communications€with€a€party's€formerÏemployee€did€not€violate€Rule€4.2.€€The€CourtÏpointed€out€that€Rule€4.2€is€unclear€as€to€whenÏcommunications€with€a€former€employee€areÏprohibited.€€The€Subcommittee€is€recommendingÏthat€Rule€4.2€be€amended€to€follow€the€parallelÏrule€in€the€District€of€Columbia.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àMr.€Brault€explained€that€in€the€case€of€òòCamden€v.€Marylandóó,Ð â(2$) Ð910€F.€Supp.€1115€(D.€Md.€1996),€an€employment€discrimination€caseÏagainst€Bowie€State€University,€the€Honorable€Peter€Messitte,€U.S.ÏDistrict€Court€Judge,€had€disqualified€a€law€firm€because€one€of€itsÐ ..~)/ Ðlawyers€had€interviewed€a€former€officer€of€the€university€who€hadÏquit€his€job€for€other€reasons.€€The€former€officer€gave€the€lawyerÏinformation€to€help€prosecute€the€case€against€the€school.€€TheÏschool€filed€a€motion€to€disqualify€the€law€firm,€and€Judge€MessitteÏwas€very€critical€of€the€firm€and€granted€the€motion.€€The€DistrictÏof€Columbia€had€changed€its€rule€to€be€more€liberal.€€Several€of€theÏU.S.€District€Court€judges€in€Baltimore€in€other€cases€did€not€agreeÏwith€Judge€Messitte.€€The€D.C.€version€of€the€Rule€is€before€theÏRules€Committee€today.€€The€Reporter's€note€to€Rule€4.2€refers€toÏformer€employees.Ìà  àJudge€McAuliffe€questioned€whether€the€issue€includes€bothÏcurrent€and€former€employees.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€it€is€clearÏthat€former€employees€provide€a€good€source€of€information.€€As€withÏthe€trust€accounts€rule,€it€would€be€beneficial€to€have€a€rule€inÏMaryland€which€is€similar€to€the€D.C.€rule,€since€many€attorneysÏpractice€law€in€both€jurisdictions.€€It€is€often€unclear€as€to€whichÏset€of€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€the€attorney€is€subject.Ìà  àMr.€Klein€said€that€the€previous€Friday€he€had€attended€aÏfederal€bench„bar€conference€which€discussed€the€issue€ofÏcommunication€with€former€employees.€€Several€opinions€wereÏexpressed,€but€the€point€was€made€that€a€lawyer€is€on€thin€ice,€whenÏhe€or€she€communicates€with€a€former€employee,€if€the€lawyer€knew€orÏshould€have€known€the€employee€was€giving€privileged€information.€ÏThe€attorney€runs€the€risk€of€becoming€disqualified,€especially€if€heÐ L-œ(. Ðor€she€has€not€alerted€the€other€side€about€talking€to€the€formerÏemployee.€€How€often€will€one€side€get€consent€for€this€from€theÏother€side?€€Mr.€Klein€noted€that€the€D.C.€Rule€does€not€coverÏtalking€to€someone€who€reveals€privileged€information€or€talking€toÏformer€employees.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€the€Rule€can€be€changedÏto€cover€both€issues.Ìà  àThe€Chair€commented€that€the€Rule€does€not€pertain€to€aÏnonparty€employee€or€a€former€employee€who€is€represented€by€counsel.€ÏMr.€Brault€noted€that€the€word€"party"€is€defined€in€section€(c).€ÏThe€Vice€Chair€suggested€that€the€definition€should€be€in€sectionÏ(a).€€She€asked€if€under€section€(b),€one€is€allowed€to€communicateÏwith€someone€who€is€not€included€in€the€definition€of€a€party,€suchÏas€a€former€employee.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€all€nonparty€employeesÏare€grouped€together.€€The€Vice€Chair€inquired€if€one€could€talk€to€aÏformer€director.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€in€a€hospital€situation,Ïthe€prohibition€would€be€against€talking€to€the€person€who€makes€theÏrules.€€The€Chair€pointed€out€that€the€key€is€notice.€€One€can€talkÏto€the€former€president€of€a€corporation,€as€long€as€the€other€sideÏis€notified.€€The€other€side€can€then€go€to€court€and€get€aÏprotective€order€to€prevent€privileged€information€from€beingÏcommunicated.€€Ìà  àJudge€Vaughan€questioned€as€to€how€long€a€former€employee€isÏconsidered€a€former€employee.€€The€Chair€answered€that€one€is€aÏformer€employee€forever.€€Mr.€Brault€remarked€that€the€formerÐ L-œ(. Ðemployee€should€have€a€relationship€which€bears€on€the€litigation.€ÏMr.€Bowen€commented€that€this€is€a€public€policy€matter.€€AttorneysÏget€an€unfair€advantage€by€sneaking€around.€€The€proposed€Rule€wouldÏbe€a€major€policy€change€under€the€guise€of€correcting€a€problem.€ÏThe€Chair€said€that€the€notice€component€is€the€real€protection€forÏcorporations€being€sued.€€The€Vice€Chair€inquired€if€one€could€talkÏto€anyone€as€long€as€one€gives€notice€to€the€other€side.€€The€ChairÏreplied€that€one€can€only€talk€to€persons€within€the€group€as€definedÏin€the€Rule.Ìà  àMr.€Brault€hypothesized€that€if€he€represented€a€corporation,Ïand€a€former€employee€of€that€corporation€gave€damaging€testimony,Ïthe€Rule€is€designed€to€prevent€that€testimony€from€being€admitted€inÏthe€case.€€Mr.€Bowen€noted€that€the€Rule€seems€to€allow€thisÏtestimony.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€many€people€feel€that€it€isÏappropriate€to€speak€with€a€former€employee,€unless€the€person€fallsÏwithin€the€true€definition€of€a€party.€€This€is€an€ethicalÏconsideration€of€privilege.€€If€it€is€barred,€this€will€perpetuateÏconfusion,€and€it€may€be€declared€unconstitutional.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€pointed€out€that€in€a€hypothetical€case€similar€toÏthe€Bowie€State€College€case,€the€plaintiff's€attorney€may€haveÏnotified€the€other€side€that€he€or€she€is€going€to€talk€to€a€formerÏvice€president€of€the€college,€but€the€college€attorney€claims€thatÏthis€is€privileged€information.€€The€college€attorney€could€then€goÏto€court€and€obtain€a€protective€order.€€The€judge's€ruling€protectsÐ L-œ(. Ðboth€the€plaintiff€and€the€defendant.€€Mr.€Brault€commented€that€oneÏof€the€federal€judges€held€that€the€Rule€needs€to€clarify€to€whomÏattorneys€can€speak.€€The€Chair€said€that€the€Rule€should€identifyÏthe€people€with€whom€the€attorney€is€able€to€speak€once€notice€isÏgiven€and€require€the€attorney€who€talks€to€people€to€give€theÏwitnesses€the€information€up€front€as€to€the€attorney's€role€in€theÏmatter.€€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€asked€who€is€the€party€employee€and€who€is€the€non„¼party€employee.€€The€attorney€has€to€notify€the€other€side€if€he€orÏshe€talks€to€any€employee.€€Why€is€the€plaintiff's€attorney€makingÏthe€decision€as€to€who€is€a€party€or€non„party€employee€of€theÏdefendant?€€The€Chair€noted€that€it€could€be€the€defendant's€attorneyÏspeaking€to€the€former€employee.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€his€experienceÏis€with€medical€privilege.€€Usually€a€hospital€or€physician€has€beenÏsued.€€The€person€claiming€the€injury€waives€the€medical€privilege,Ïonce€that€person€puts€his€or€her€health€at€issue.€€In€two€recent€D.C.Ïcases,€the€medical€privilege€was€waived,€because€the€plaintiff€putÏhis€or€her€health€at€issue.€€In€one€of€the€cases,€the€judge€statedÏthat€no€party€to€the€litigation€has€the€right€to€control€theÏwitnesses,€who€should€be€made€available€to€both€sides.€€When€Rule€4.2Ïis€used€to€prevent€someone€from€talking€to€witnesses,€it€is€wrong.€ÏJudge€McAuliffe€noted€that€in€the€criminal€area,€defense€attorneys€goÏto€witnesses€and€police,€asking€questions.€€It€is€improper€for€theÏprosecutor€to€tell€the€defense€attorney€not€to€speak€to€theÐ L-œ(. Ðwitnesses.€€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€suggested€that€the€Rule€could€be€reworked.€€The€ViceÏChair€remarked€that€if€someone€is€not€in€a€higher€echelon€of€aÏcompany,€it€would€be€appropriate€to€contact€that€person.€€The€problemÏis€that€it€is€not€clear€what€the€definition€of€a€"party"€is.€€It€mayÏdepend€on€what€community€the€person€is€in,€or€it€may€depend€on€theÏrelationship€of€a€job€to€the€organization.€€It€is€not€a€bright€lineÏtest.€€One€way€to€change€the€Rule€is€to€use€the€language€from€Rule€2„¼402,€Scope€of€Discovery.€€The€Chair€pointed€out€that€this€could€beÏlooked€at€in€the€context€of€section€(a)€of€Rule€5„803,€HearsayÏExceptions:€€Unavailability€of€Declarant€Not€Required.€€If€anÏadmission€of€a€person€could€come€into€evidence€against€the€employerÏunder€section€(a)€of€that€Rule,€that€person€would€be€considered€aÏ"party"€under€Rule€4.2€(b).€€The€Vice€Chair€inquired€as€to€howÏsomeone€could€know€that€a€statement€is€admissible€before€the€witnessÏis€interviewed.€€Judge€Vaughan€observed€that€a€person€could€not€knowÏthis.€Ìà  àMr.€Brault€suggested€that€section€(c)€could€read€as€follows:€Ï"For€purposes€of€this€Rule,€the€term€"party"€includes€any€person,Ïincluding€an€employee€of€a€party€organization,€who€has€the€authorityÏto€bind€a€party€organization€under€Rule€5„803€(a)€or€has€privilegedÏcommunication€as€to€the€representation€to€which€the€communicationÏrelates."€€Mr.€Bowen€suggested€that€the€words€"or€had"€be€added€afterÏthe€word€"has."Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àThe€Chair€suggested€that€the€Subcommittee€take€another€look€atÏthis€Rule€and€redraft€it.€€Mr.€Brault€remarked€that€based€on€Mr.ÏKlein's€comments,€it€would€be€appropriate€for€the€Subcommittee€toÏalert€the€federal€judges€as€to€possible€changes€to€Rule€4.2.€€TheÏReporter€noted€that€some€of€the€language€in€the€commentary€has€beenÏadded,€and€this€language€should€be€shaded€to€indicate€that€it€is€new.€ÏThe€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€send€the€Rule€back€to€theÏSubcommittee.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€3.€€Consideration€of€a€proposed€amendment€toÌ€€Appendix:€€The€Maryland€Lawyers'€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct,Ì€€Rule€1.10€(Imputed€Disqualification:€€General€Rule)Ì_______________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àMr.€Howell€presented€Rule€1.10,€Imputed€Disqualification:€ÏGeneral€Rule,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@à à ìàAPPENDIX€„€THE€MARYLAND€LAWYERS'€RULES€OFˆÌÌà@‚‚ ìàPROFESSIONAL€CONDUCTˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€1.10€to€permit€screening€toÏprevent€disqualification€when€a€lawyer€changesÏfirms,€as€follows:ÌÌÌRule€1.10.€€Imputed€Disqualification:€€GeneralÏrule.ÌÌÌ€€(a)€€While€lawyers€are€associated€in€a€firm,Ïnone€of€them€shall€knowingly€represent€a€clientÏwhen€any€one€of€them€practicing€alone€would€beÏprohibited€from€doing€so€by€Rules€1.7,€1.8€(c),Ï1.9,€or€2.2.Ð ..~)/ Ї€€(b)€€When€a€lawyer€becomes€associated€with€aÏfirm,€the€firm€may€not€knowingly€represent€aÏperson€in€the€same€or€a€substantially€relatedÏmatter€in€which€that€lawyer,€or€a€firm€withÏwhich€the€lawyer€was€associated,€had€previouslyÏrepresented€a€client€whose€interests€areÏmaterially€adverse€to€that€person€ò òand€aboutÐ ü L Ðwhom€the€lawyer€had€acquired€informationÏprotected€by€Rules€1.6€and€1.9€(b)€that€isÏmaterial€to€the€matteró ó€ò òunless:ó óÐ ¢ ò  ÐÌ€€€€ò ò(1)€€the€newly€associated€lawyer€hasÐ f¶  Ðacquired€from€the€former€client€no€informationÏprotected€by€Rules€1.6€and€1.9€(b)€that€isÏmaterial€to€the€matter;€oró óÐ  \  ÐÌ€€€€ò ò(2)€€the€newly€associated€lawyer€isÐ Ð  Ðscreened€from€any€participation€in€the€matterÏand€is€apportioned€no€part€of€the€feeÏtherefrom.ó óÐ vÆ ÐÌ€€(c)€€When€a€lawyer€has€terminated€anÏassociation€with€a€firm,€the€firm€is€notÏprohibited€from€thereafter€representing€aÏperson€with€interests€materially€adverse€toÏthose€of€a€client€represented€by€the€formerlyÏassociated€lawyer€unless:ÌÌ€€€€(1)€€the€matter€is€the€same€orÏsubstantially€related€to€that€in€which€theÏformerly€associated€lawyer€represented€theÏclient;€andÌÌ€€€€(2)€€any€lawyer€remaining€in€the€firm€hasÏinformation€protected€by€Rules€1.6€and€1.9€(b)Ïthat€is€material€to€the€matter.ÌÌ€€(d)€€A€disqualification€prescribed€by€thisÏRule€may€be€waived€by€the€affected€client€underÏthe€conditions€stated€in€Rule€1.7.ÌÌ€€ò ò(e)€€For€purposes€of€subsection€(b)(2)€ofÐ â(2$) Ðthis€Rule,€a€lawyer€in€a€firm€will€be€deemed€toÏhave€been€screened€from€any€participation€inÏthe€matter€if:ó óÐ ˆ+Ø&, ÐÌ€€€€ò ò(1)€€the€lawyer€has€been€isolated€fromÐ L-œ(. Ðconfidences,€secrets,€and€material€knowledgeÐ ..~)/ Ðconcerning€the€matter;ó óÐ ° ÐÌ€€€€ò ò(2)€€the€lawyer€has€been€isolated€from€allÐ tÄ Ðcontact€with€the€client€or€any€agent,€officerÏor€employee€of€the€client€and€any€witnesses€forÏor€against€the€client;ó óÐ  j ÐÌ€€€€ò ò(3)€€the€lawyer€and€the€firm€have€beenÐ Þ . Ðprecluded€from€discussing€the€matter€with€eachÏother;€andó óÐ ¢ ò  ÐÌ€€€€ò ò(4)€€the€firm€has€taken€affirmative€stepsÐ f¶  Ðto€accomplish€the€foregoing.ó óÐ H˜  ÐÌÌà@aa'ìàòòCOMMENTóóˆÐ î>  ÐññÓe€orÓññÌ€€€€€òòDefinition€of€"firm".óó„„€For€the€purposesÐ ² Ðof€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct,€the€termÏ"firm"€includes€lawyers€in€a€private€firm,€andÏlawyers€employed€in€the€legal€department€of€aÏcorporation€or€other€organization,€or€in€aÏlegal€services€organization.€€Whether€two€orÏmore€lawyers€constitute€a€firm€within€thisÏdefinition€can€depend€on€the€specific€facts.€ÏFor€example,€two€practitioners€who€share€officeÏspace€and€occasionally€consult€or€assist€eachÏother€ordinarily€would€not€be€regarded€asÏconstituting€a€firm.€€However,€if€they€presentÏthemselves€to€the€public€in€a€way€suggestingÏthat€they€are€a€firm€or€conduct€themselves€as€aÏfirm,€they€should€be€regarded€as€a€firm€forÏpurposes€of€the€Rules.€€The€terms€of€any€formalÏagreement€between€associated€lawyers€areÏrelevant€in€determining€whether€they€are€aÏfirm,€as€is€the€fact€that€they€have€mutualÏaccess€to€confidential€information€concerningÏthe€clients€they€serve.€€Furthermore,€it€isÏrelevant€in€doubtful€cases€to€consider€theÏunderlying€purpose€of€the€rule€that€isÏinvolved.€€A€group€of€lawyers€could€be€regardedÏas€a€firm€for€purposes€of€the€rule€that€theÏsame€lawyer€should€not€represent€opposingÏparties€in€litigation,€while€it€might€not€be€soÏregarded€for€purposes€of€the€rule€thatÏinformation€acquired€by€one€lawyer€isÏattributed€to€another.ÌÐ ..~)/ Ðà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€law€department€of€anÏorganization,€there€is€ordinarily€no€questionÏthat€the€members€of€the€department€constitute€aÏfirm€within€the€meaning€of€the€Rules€ofÏProfessional€Conduct.€€However,€there€can€beÏuncertainty€as€to€the€identity€of€the€client.€ÏFor€example,€it€may€not€be€clear€whether€theÏlaw€department€of€a€corporation€represents€aÏsubsidiary€or€an€affiliated€corporation,€asÏwell€as€the€corporation€by€which€the€members€ofÏthe€department€are€directly€employed.€€AÏsimilar€question€can€arise€concerning€anÏunincorporated€association€and€its€localÏaffiliates.ÌÌà ¸ àSimilar€questions€can€also€arise€withÏrespect€to€lawyers€in€legal€aid.€€LawyersÏemployed€in€the€same€unit€of€a€legal€serviceÏorganization€constitute€a€firm,€but€notÏnecessarily€those€employed€in€separate€units.€ÏAs€in€the€case€of€independent€practitioners,Ïwhether€the€lawyers€should€be€treated€asÏassociated€with€each€other€can€depend€on€theÏparticular€rule€that€is€involved,€and€on€theÏspecific€facts€of€the€situation.ÌÌà ¸ àWhere€a€lawyer€has€joined€a€private€firmÏafter€having€represented€the€government,€theÏsituation€is€governed€by€Rule€1.11€(a)€and€(b);Ïwhere€a€lawyer€represents€the€government€afterÏhaving€served€private€clients,€the€situation€isÏgoverned€by€Rule€1.11€(c)(1).€€The€individualÏlawyer€involved€is€bound€by€the€RulesÏgenerally,€including€Rules€1.6,€1.7,€and€1.9.ÌÌà ¸ àDifferent€provisions€are€thus€made€forÏmovement€of€a€lawyer€from€one€private€firm€toÏanother€and€for€movement€of€a€lawyer€between€aÏprivate€firm€and€the€government.€€TheÏgovernment€is€entitled€to€protection€of€itsÏclient€confidences,€and€therefore€to€theÏprotections€provided€in€Rules€1.6,€1.9,€andÏ1.11.€€However,€if€the€more€extensiveÏdisqualification€in€Rule€1.10€were€applied€toÏformer€government€lawyers,€the€potential€effectÏon€the€government€would€be€unduly€burdensome.€ÏThe€government€deals€with€all€private€citizensÏand€organizations,€and€thus€has€a€much€widerÐ ..~)/ Ðcircle€of€adverse€legal€interests€than€does€anyÏprivate€law€firm.€€In€these€circumstances,€theÏgovernment's€recruitment€of€lawyers€would€beÏseriously€impaired€if€Rule€1.10€were€applied€toÏthe€government.€€On€balance,€therefore,€theÏgovernment€is€better€served€in€the€long€run€byÏthe€protections€stated€in€Rule€1.11.ÌÌà ¸ àòòPrinciples€of€Imputed€Disqualification.óó„„Ð À  ÐThe€rule€of€imputed€disqualification€stated€inÏparagraph€(a)€gives€effect€to€the€principle€ofÏloyalty€to€the€client€as€it€applies€to€lawyersÏwho€practice€in€a€law€firm.€€Such€situationsÏcan€be€considered€from€the€premise€that€a€firmÏof€lawyers€is€essentially€one€lawyer€forÏpurposes€of€the€rules€governing€loyalty€to€theÏclient,€or€from€the€premise€that€each€lawyer€isÏvicariously€bound€by€the€obligation€of€loyaltyÏowed€by€each€lawyer€with€whom€the€lawyer€isÏassociated.€€Paragraph€(a)€operates€only€amongÏthe€lawyers€currently€associated€in€a€firm.€ÏWhen€a€lawyer€moves€from€one€firm€to€another,Ïthe€situation€is€governed€by€paragraphs€(b)€andÏ(c).ÌÌà ¸ àòòLawyers€moving€between€firms.óó„„€WhenÐ Â Ðlawyers€have€been€associated€in€a€firm€but€thenÏend€their€association,€however,€the€problem€isÏmore€complicated.€€The€fiction€that€the€lawÏfirm€is€the€same€as€a€single€lawyer€is€noÏlonger€wholly€realistic.€€There€are€severalÏcompeting€considerations.€€First,€the€clientÏpreviously€represented€must€be€reasonablyÏassured€that€the€principle€of€loyalty€to€theÏclient€is€not€compromised.€€Second,€the€rule€ofÏdisqualification€should€not€be€so€broadly€castÏas€to€preclude€other€persons€from€havingÏreasonable€choice€of€legal€counsel.€€Third,€theÏrule€of€disqualification€should€notÏunreasonably€hamper€lawyers€from€forming€newÏassociations€and€taking€on€new€clients€afterÏhaving€left€a€previous€association.€€In€thisÏconnection,€it€should€be€recognized€that€todayÏmany€lawyers€practice€in€firms,€that€many€toÏsome€degree€limit€their€practice€to€one€fieldÏor€another,€and€that€many€move€from€oneÏassociation€to€another€several€times€in€theirÏcareers.€€If€the€concept€of€imputedÐ ..~)/ Ðdisqualification€were€defined€with€unqualifiedÏrigor,€the€result€would€be€radical€curtailmentÏof€the€opportunity€of€clients€to€changeÏcounsel.€€ÌÌà ¸ àReconciliation€of€these€competingÏprinciples€in€the€past€has€been€attempted€underÏtwo€rubrics.€€One€approach€has€been€to€seek€perÏse€rules€of€disqualification.€€For€example,€itÏhas€been€held€that€a€partner€in€a€law€firm€isÏconclusively€presumed€to€have€access€to€allÏconfidences€concerning€all€clients€of€the€firm.€ÏUnder€this€analysis,€if€a€lawyer€has€been€aÏpartner€in€one€law€firm€and€then€becomes€aÏpartner€in€another€law€firm,€there€is€aÏpresumption€that€all€confidences€known€by€aÏpartner€in€the€first€firm€are€known€to€allÏpartners€in€the€second€firm.€€This€presumptionÏmight€properly€be€applied€in€someÏcircumstances,€especially€where€the€client€hasÏbeen€extensively€represented,€but€may€beÏunrealistic€where€the€client€was€representedÏonly€for€limited€purposes.€€Furthermore,€such€aÏrigid€rule€exaggerates€the€difference€between€aÏpartner€and€an€associate€in€modern€law€firms.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€other€rubric€formerly€used€for€dealingÏwith€vicarious€disqualification€is€theÏappearance€of€impropriety€proscribed€in€Canon€9Ïof€the€Maryland€Code€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility.€€This€rubric€has€a€two„foldÏproblem.€€First,€the€appearance€of€improprietyÏcan€be€taken€to€include€any€new€client„lawyerÏrelationship€that€might€make€a€former€clientÏfeel€anxious.€€If€that€meaning€were€adopted,Ïdisqualification€would€become€little€more€thanÏa€question€of€subjective€judgment€by€the€formerÏclient.€€Second,€since€"impropriety"€isÏundefined,€the€term€"appearance€of€impropriety"Ïis€question„begging.€€It€therefore€has€to€beÏrecognized€that€the€problem€of€imputedÏdisqualification€cannot€be€properly€resolvedÏeither€by€simple€analogy€to€a€lawyer€practicingÏalone€or€by€the€very€general€concept€ofÏappearance€of€impropriety.ÌÌà ¸ àA€rule€based€on€a€functional€analysis€isÏmore€appropriate€for€determining€the€questionÐ ..~)/ Ðof€vicarious€disqualification.€€Two€functionsÏare€involved:€preserving€confidentiality€andÏavoiding€positions€adverse€to€a€client.€€ò òTheÐ tÄ Ðprovisions€for€screening€address€bothÏfunctions;€they€are€necessary€to€prevent€theÏdisqualification€rule€from€imposing€too€severeÏa€deterrent€against€moving€between€privateÏfirms,€so€long€as€the€newly€associated€lawyerÏdoes€not€participate€in€the€adverseÏpresentation€and€the€confidentiality€ofÏprotected€information€acquired€by€that€lawyerÏis€preserved.ó óÐ f¶  ÐÌà ¸ àòòConfidentiality.óó„„€PreservingÐ *z  Ðconfidentiality€is€a€question€of€access€toÏinformation.€€Access€to€information,€in€turn,Ïis€essentially€a€question€of€fact€in€particularÏcircumstances,€aided€by€inferences,€deductionsÏor€working€presumptions€that€reasonably€may€beÏmade€about€the€way€in€which€lawyers€workÏtogether.€€A€lawyer€may€have€general€access€toÏfiles€of€all€clients€of€a€law€firm€and€mayÏregularly€participate€in€discussions€of€theirÏaffairs;€it€should€be€inferred€that€such€aÏlawyer€in€fact€is€privy€to€all€informationÏabout€all€the€firm's€clients.€€In€contrast,Ïanother€lawyer€may€have€access€to€the€files€ofÏonly€a€limited€number€of€clients€andÏparticipate€in€discussion€of€the€affairs€of€noÏother€clients;€in€the€absence€of€information€toÏthe€contrary,€it€should€be€inferred€that€such€aÏlawyer€in€fact€is€privy€to€information€aboutÏthe€clients€actually€served€but€not€those€ofÏother€clients.ÌÌà ¸ àApplication€of€paragraphs€(b)€and€(c)Ïdepends€on€a€situation's€particular€facts.€€InÏany€such€inquiry,€the€burden€of€proof€shouldÏrest€upon€the€firm€whose€disqualification€isÏsought.ÌÌà ¸ àParagraphs€(b)€and€(c)€operate€toÏdisqualify€the€firm€only€when€the€lawyerÏinvolved€has€actual€knowledge€of€informationÏprotected€by€Rule€1.6€and€1.9€(b)€ò òand€has€notÐ ˆ+Ø&, Ðbeen€screened€in€accordance€with€paragraphsÏ(b)(2)€and€(e)ó ó.€€Thus,€if€a€lawyer€ò ò(including€aÐ L-œ(. Ðpartner)ó ó€while€with€one€firm€acquired€no€ò òactualó óÐ ..~)/ Ðknowledge€of€information€relating€to€aÏparticular€client€of€the€firm,€and€that€lawyerÏlater€joined€another€firm,€neither€the€lawyerÏindividually€nor€the€second€firm€isÏdisqualified€from€representing€another€clientÏin€the€same€or€a€related€matter€even€though€theÏinterests€of€the€two€clients€conflict.ÌÌà ¸ àIndependent€of€the€question€ofÏdisqualification€of€a€firm,€a€lawyer€changingÏprofessional€association€has€a€continuing€dutyÏto€preserve€confidentiality€of€informationÏabout€a€client€formerly€represented.€€See€RulesÏ1.6€and€1.9.ÌÌà ¸ àòòAdverse€Positions.óó„„€The€second€aspect€ofÐ î>  Ðloyalty€to€client€is€the€lawyer's€obligation€toÏdecline€subsequent€representations€involvingÏpositions€adverse€to€a€former€client€arising€inÏsubstantially€related€matters.€€This€obligationÏrequires€abstention€from€adverse€representationÏby€the€individual€lawyer€involved,€but€does€notÏproperly€entail€abstention€of€other€lawyersÏthrough€imputed€disqualification.€€Hence,€thisÏaspect€of€the€problem€is€governed€by€Rule€1.9Ï(a).€€Thus,€if€a€lawyer€left€one€firm€forÏanother,€the€new€affiliation€would€not€precludeÏthe€firms€involved€from€continuing€to€representÏclients€with€adverse€interest€in€the€same€orÏrelated€matters,€so€long€as€the€conditions€ofÏRule€1.10€(b)€and€(c)€concerningÏconfidentiality€have€been€met.ÌÌòòCode€Comparison.óó„„€DR€5„105€(D)€provides€thatÐ Ò!"! Ð"If€a€lawyer€is€required€to€decline€or€toÏwithdraw€from€employment€under€a€DisciplinaryÏRule,€no€partner,€or€associate,€or€affiliateÏwith€him€or€his€firm,€may€accept€or€continueÏsuch€employment.ÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€1.10€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àRule€1.10€(b)€is€amended€by€reorganizingÏthe€text€and€adding€subsections€(1)€and€(2).€ÏIllinois,€Michigan,€Pennsylvania€and€WashingtonÏhave€incorporated€similar€screening€provisionsÏinto€their€versions€of€Rule€1.10€(b).€€OregonÐ ..~)/ Ðalso€permits€screening€to€avoidÏdisqualification€in€the€private„firm€toÏprivate„firm€employment€switch€context.ÌÌà ¸ àSubsection€(1)€is€derived€in€part€from€theÏformer€text€of€Rule€1.10€(b)€and€in€part€fromÏIllinois€Rule€1.10€(b)(1).ÌÌà ¸ àSubsection€(2)€is€derived€in€part€fromÏRule€1.11€(a)(1)€and€Rule€1.12€(c)(1)€and€inÏpart€from€Illinois€Rule€1.10€(b)(2).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€complete€text€of€Rule€1.10€(b),€asÏamended,€is€identical€to€the€present€text€ofÏIllinois€Rule€1.10€(b),€with€minor€changes€inÏstyle.ÌÌà ¸ àRule€1.10€(e)€is€new.€€It€is€derived,€withÏstyle€changes,€from€Illinois€Rule€1.10€(e).ÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àMr.€Howell€explained€that€this€Rule€pertains€to€imputedÏdisqualification.€€If€an€attorney€leaves€one€firm€and€joins€another,Ïhe€or€she€runs€the€risk€of€disqualifying€the€entire€new€firm€becauseÏthe€attorney€had€some€exposure€to€a€client€of€the€former€firm€who€isÏadverse€to€a€client€of€the€new€firm.€€This€is€a€practical€problemÏwhen€there€is€multi„party€litigation,€and€it€can€be€a€deterrent€toÏmovement€by€attorneys€between€law€firms€because€of€the€possibility€ofÏdisqualification.€€The€new€firm€may€be€reluctant€to€take€on€a€newÏperson.€€The€Subcommittee€is€recommending€that€Rule€1.10€be€modifiedÏto€redress€this€problem.€€à À àMr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€theÐ 'n"' ÐSubcommittee€added€new€language€to€section€(b)€of€the€Rule€to€provideÏthat€if€the€new€lawyer€has€acquired€no€information€from€the€formerÏclient€or€the€new€lawyer€is€screened€from€participation€in€the€matterÏinvolving€the€former€client,€the€lawyer's€new€firm€does€not€have€toÐ ..~)/ Ðbe€disqualified€when€the€interests€of€a€client€of€the€firm€areÏadverse€to€a€former€client€of€the€new€lawyer.€€Under€the€currentÏRule,€the€partners€are€presumed€to€have€knowledge€of€the€secrets€ofÏall€the€other€partners.€€The€primary€use€of€the€Rule€is€by€anÏadversary€who€is€attempting€to€disqualify€a€law€firm.€€It€is€almostÏnever€a€matter€of€a€violation€looked€into€by€the€Attorney€GrievanceÏCommission.€€The€problem€is€addressed€by€most€law€firms€by€theÏestablishment€of€screening€mechanisms.€€This€is€not€an€entireÏpanacea.€€Rule€1.10€currently€contains€no€screening€mechanism,Ïalthough€Rules€1.11€and€1.12€have€such€mechanisms.€€Ethics€opinionsÏin€Maryland€are€ambivalent€on€the€efficacy€of€screening.€€It€isÏdesirable€to€bring€this€issue€out€into€the€open€and€prevent€anÏartificial€situation.€€The€modified€version€is€a€redraft€of€the€ruleÏin€Illinois.€€Ìà  àThe€Chair€inquired€if€there€have€been€any€problems€in€Illinois.€ÏMr.€Howell€said€that€the€annotations€of€cases€are€at€the€end€of€theÏIllinois€rule.€€This€Rule€is€helpful€where€there€is€a€doubt€as€toÏwhether€the€new€attorney€has€confidential€information.€€The€screeningÏprotects€the€firm€from€being€second„guessed€later€on.€€Mr.€KleinÏcommented€that€he€is€sympathetic€to€the€purpose€of€the€modification,Ïbut€his€view€is€that€the€screen€should€be€expanded.€€He€said€that€heÏis€involved€in€a€case€with€a€Pennsylvania€attorney€who€did€some€workÏfor€Mr.€Klein's€client€and€then€joined€another€firm.€€Later€on,€theÏnew€firm€took€on€some€litigation€against€Mr.€Klein's€client,€theÐ L-œ(. Ðother€attorney's€former€client.€€Mr.€Klein€said€his€problem€was€theÏdefinition€of€the€term€"screen."€€Subsection€(e)(3)€does€not€clearlyÏprevent€the€Pennsylvania€attorney€from€telling€his€new€law€firm€whatÏhe€had€heard€at€his€old€law€firm€about€his€former€client.€€However,ÏRule€1.6€does€provide€that€this€is€not€proper.€€Mr.€Klein€suggestedÏthat€subsection€(e)(3)€should€be€changed€as€follows:€"the€lawyer€andÏthe€firm€have€been€precluded€from€discussing€with€each€other€theÏmatter€and€any€information€protected€by€Rules€1.6€and€1.9."€€Mr.ÏHowell€noted€that€this€is€consistent€with€the€other€proposedÏamendments.€€He€moved€that€subsection€(e)(3)€should€read€as€follows:€Ï"the€lawyer€and€the€firm€have€been€precluded€from€discussing€withÏeach€other€the€matter€and€any€information€acquired€from€the€formerÏclient€that€is€protected€by€Rules€1.6€and€1.9€and€is€material€to€theÏmatter."€€The€motion€was€seconded.Ìà  àMr.€Grossman€remarked€that€he€personally€was€in€support€ofÏamending€Rule€1.10,€but€he€observed€that€an€unintended€consequence€ofÏthe€amendment€would€be€that€large€law€firms€would€be€permitted€toÏexpand€to€be€even€larger.€€The€amendment€would€make€it€easier€forÏlarge€firms€to€take€over€large€firms.€€Mr.€Howell€commented€that€thisÏmay€be€an€actual€benefit.€€It€will€facilitate€the€movement€which€isÏalready€occurring.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chair€suggested€that€at€the€end€of€subsection€(b)(1),Ïthe€word€"or"€should€be€changed€to€the€word€"and."€€Mr.€HowellÏstrongly€objected€to€the€suggestion,€noting€that€it€would€createÐ L-œ(. Ðanother€obstacle€and€destroy€the€purpose€of€the€amendments.€€The€ViceÏChair€remarked€that€the€Rule€permits€the€lead€litigator€in€a€firmÏthat€had€represented€a€client€in€many€cases€to€join€a€law€firm€whichÏis€suing€the€client,€if€the€litigator€had€nothing€to€do€with€theÏcases.€€Mr.€Howell€commented€that€the€Rule€is€not€a€guarantee€nor€anÏabsolute€defense.€€Mr.€Bowen€expressed€the€view€that€the€conjunctionÏin€section€(b)€should€be€"and."€€He€said€that€his€law€firm€wouldÏapply€the€Rule€using€the€"and."€€It€would€be€upsetting€for€a€litigantÏto€see€his€former€attorney€at€the€counsel€table€in€the€courtroomÏrepresenting€the€other€side.€€Ìà  àMr.€Howell€moved€that€section€(b)€should€be€accepted€as€it€wasÏpresented€in€the€meeting€materials,€the€motion€was€seconded,€and€itÏcarried€unanimously.ÌòòSpecial€Agenda€ItemóóÐ ¤ô Ðà  àJudge€Johnson€presented€Rule€4„343,€Sentencing€„„€Procedure€inÏCapital€Cases,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@hhìàTITLE€4€„€CRIMINAL€CAUSESˆÌÌà@k k ìàCHAPTER€300€„€TRIAL€AND€SENTENCINGˆÌÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€4„343€(i)€to€clarify€thatÏcertain€advice€of€the€judge€is€given€when€aÏsentence€of€death€is€imposed€and€to€add€aÌrequirement€that€the€defendant€receive€certainÏadvice€when€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€isÏimposed,€as€follows:ÌÐ ..~)/ ЇRule€4„343.€€SENTENCING€„„€PROCEDURE€IN€CAPITALÏCASESÌÌÌ€€€.€.€.ÌÌ€€(i)€€Advice€of€the€JudgeÌÌà ¸ à€€At€the€time€of€imposing€ò òaó ó€sentence€ò òofÐ À  Ðdeathó ó,€the€judge€shall€advise€the€defendantÐ ¢ ò  Ðthat€the€determination€of€guilt€and€theÏsentence€will€be€reviewed€automatically€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeals,€and€that€the€sentence€will€beÏstayed€pending€that€review.€€ò òAt€the€time€ofÐ *z  Ðimposing€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment,€theÏcourt€shall€cause€the€defendant€to€be€advisedÏin€accordance€with€Rule€4„342€(h).ó óÐ Ð  ÐÌ€€€.€.€.ÌññÓwoulÓññÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€4„343€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThe€proposed€amendments€to€section€(i)€ofÏthis€Rule€(1)€make€clear€that€the€judge'sÏadvice€concerning€the€automatic€review€by€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€and€stay€of€sentence€is€givenÏonly€when€a€sentence€of€death€is€imposed€andÏ(2)€add€a€requirement€that€the€court€cause€theÏdefendant€to€be€advised€in€accordance€with€RuleÏ4„342€(h)€when€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonmentÏis€imposed.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àJudge€Johnson€explained€that€an€amended€version€of€Rule€Ì4„343€and€a€letter€from€the€Honorable€Pamela€L.€North,€Circuit€CourtÏJudge€for€Anne€Arundel€County,€were€distributed€at€the€meeting€today.€ÏJudge€North€had€pointed€out€that€current€section€(i)€of€the€Rule,ÏAdvice€of€the€Judge,€only€applies€when€a€death€sentence€is€beingÏimposed,€but€the€Rule€does€not€clearly€provide€this.€€The€CriminalÏSubcommittee€recommends€modifying€the€Rule€to€make€it€clear€that€theÐ L-œ(. Ðautomatic€review€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€the€determination€ofÏguilt€and€the€sentence€applies€only€when€a€sentence€of€death€has€beenÏimposed.€€When€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment€is€imposed,€theÏdefendant€is€to€be€advised€in€accordance€with€Rule€4„342€(h).Ìà  àJudge€Kaplan€moved€to€accept€the€Rule€as€presented.€€The€motionÏwas€seconded,€and€it€passed€unanimously.Ìà  àThe€Chair€adjourned€the€meeting.Ì