ÿWPC2  
      ì‹    È€oXŒÀó3!-îæ=æC‘zÊ€q¹KT|t3Cµ4j£ÅK­Ûl±Â-;pÎWˆxÞV´
v<åN×ùbÃÄ¦Äüà/g€©|Xæ“lðø“²'ëƒ÷˜ÇöÍ\þÀËñå¤¶†G	<¿ó»—îÛý94ªàú¹¥ci#ËM·z;Xã™{Z$SËo¿Æèÿ®ÂËâ“³:Îjò}è¹g¯1×ÅÖizÒ¦	»3yÛ¹+ór…
`®
œ•å¬tˆ¼FÅ'ˆNékDð4ÅÔ·mZV« 0ŽØÿx b;¬ ­n‚Ï6÷Ùx„ÛS•5r×ÛüÄÙWAXÊØ*3üÎ±Êh°µÇÚ™£ßæF¿Ù§™WËQêÒÒáeÐnšEWãD}cÚÎ‘öw&yþIØ¬Czh,ª¤Üƒy@\hÓ7ÐJŸ´(çeŽ]¡8+ý¦ŽDh59öS<³Ÿ)*ÝÛ”èm¦÷­þr¯èáZƒÓ#Â&Úöÿµ#«5Be££KæçoÆš¤~Cœ0u\Q›¯=¹(0MÀÙÉèó˜ù:Ü·…Ï~«O+Ï‡8Ä¹:Û‹¾¡H*ˆuz˜ŸŒýÍ¿-Ô§G­õByšt^             U   >   à  	%         U   :   $  N      ^   b      `     "   l        Ž  n   X  ž  0   Ø   ö  #   !  Î  ^      ï  w   
   û  4                	m        , xÐð  A   `   & U n i v e r s       S c a l a b l e     X< þ6X  9   ` (  " C o u r i e r   1 0 c p i          -    ù  -    
      Ñ    ° ÑÑ   X Ñ#| x      	 « , xÐð  A   `   & U n i v e r s       S c a l a b l e                                                                                   XX~ xÐð    P ö»7ûXP< þ6X  9   ` (  " C o u r i e r   1 0 c p i         e                                                                                   Xôx þ6X   @É “8Ç; X@    (   °               ¯$ ¡   ¡   Ó          ÓÓ      ÓÑ    °° ÑÑ   X° ÑÑ8 €  9i X  X       dð                  dð  8 ÑÔ €  X9i  X  X X   ÔÔ €  X G X  X X9i Ô ˜A c r o b a t   P D F W r i t e r                                                                            ,ü ,,,,,ü 0                                                                                                                                                                 ´€v'c          D Aj'     »Ž‚   ø„ =             ÿU‹ÿ  ÀÀÀÝ
 ƒ	  ¯! ÝÓ          ÓÓ      ÓÑ    °° ÑÑ   X° ÑÑ8 €  ™ X  X       dî                  dð  8 ÑÔ €  X™  X  X X   ÔÔ €  X½ X  X X™ ÔÝ    ÝÔ_        ÔÓ          ÓÑ €      ÑÑ   = 
 Ñà@    33 ì àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€STANDING€COMMITTEEˆÐ   	 °      Ðà@    kk ì àòòON€RULES€OF€PRACTICE€AND€PROCEDUREóóˆÐ   	 ’â    ÐÌÌÓ          Óà     àMinutes€of€a€meeting€of€the€Rules€Committee€held€in€Room€1100A,ÏPeople's€Resource€Center,€100€Community€Place,€Ô_        ÔCrownsvilleÔ_        Ô,€MarylandÏon€March€14,€1997.ÌÓ          ÓÌà     àMembers€present:ÌÌHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.,€ChairpersonÌLinda€M.€Ô_        ÔSchuettÔ_        Ô,€Esq.,€Vice€ChairpersonÌÌLowell€R.€Bowen,€Esq.à    h àà    À àà     àJoyce€H.€Knox,€Esq.Ð   	 Ð    ÐAlbert€D.€Ô_        ÔBraultÔ_        Ô,€Esq.à    h àà    À àà     àJames€J.€Ô_        ÔLombardiÔ_        Ô,€Esq.Ð   	 ²   ÐRobert€L.€Dean,€Esq.à     àà    h àà    À àAnne€C.€Ô_        ÔOgletreeÔ_        Ô,€Esq.Ð   	 ”ä   ÐH.€Thomas€Howell,€Esq.à    h àà    À àà     àHon.€Mary€Ellen€T.€Ô_        ÔRinehardtÔ_        ÔÐ   	 vÆ   ÐHon.€G.€R.€Ô_        ÔHoveyÔ_        Ô€Johnsonà    h àà    À àà     àMelvin€J.€Sykes,€Esq.Ð   	 X¨   ÐHarry€S.€Johnson,€Esq.à    h àà    À àà     àRoger€W.€Titus,€Esq.Ð   	 :Š   ÐHon.€Joseph€H.€H.€Kaplanà    h àà    À àà     àHon.€James€N.€VaughanÐ   	 l   ÐRichard€M.€Ô_        ÔKarceskiÔ_        Ô,€Esq.à    h àà    À àRobert€A.€Ô_        ÔZarnochÔ_        Ô,€Esq.Ð   	 þN   ÐRobert€D.€Klein,€Esq.ÌÌÌà     àIn€attendance:ÌÌSandra€F.€Haines,€Esq.,€ReporterÌÔ_        ÔSherieÔ_        Ô€B.€Libber,€Esq.,€Assistant€ReporterÌMs.€Beth€Ô_        ÔNilandÔ_        ÔÌJohn€Broderick,€Esq.,€Office€of€Bar€CounselÌDavid€D.€Ô_        ÔDownesÔ_        Ô,€Esq.,€Chair,€Attorney€Grievance€CommissionÌÌ€ÌÌÓ          Óà     àThe€Chairperson€convened€the€meeting.€€He€announced€that€theÏVice€Chairperson€would€be€chairing€the€meeting,€because€he€had€to€beÏaway€for€part€of€the€meeting€in€order€to€provide€some€information€toÏChief€Judge€Robert€Bell,€who€was€in€San€Diego.€€€The€Chairperson€saidÏthat€he€hoped€that€all€of€the€Rules€Committee€members€had€beenÏinvited€to€the€upcoming€Judicial€Conference€to€be€held€in€April.Ìà     àMr.€Ô_        ÔBraultÔ_        Ô€told€the€Committee€that€his€wife€had€been€on€a€tourÐ    ò/B+1 =   Ðof€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court,€which€had€been€conducted€by€Mrs.€ñ  ñÐ	   	 °      Ðñ ñÔ_        ÔThurgoodÔ_        ÔÏMarshall.€€There€is€a€meeting€room€at€the€Supreme€Court€which€isÏavailable€for€use€by€the€public.€€It€might€be€interesting€to€hold€aÏRules€Committee€meeting€there.€€Mr.€Ô_        ÔBraultÔ_        Ô€said€that€he€would€beÏwilling€to€work€with€the€Reporter€on€this.€€The€Reporter€cautionedÏthat€holding€a€meeting€at€the€Supreme€Court€could€possibly€interfereÏwith€the€open€meeting€requirement.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€commentedÏthat€there€may€also€be€restrictions€on€holding€meetings€out€of€theÏState.€Ìà     àThe€Reporter€said€that€the€Chairperson€had€asked€her€to€remindÏthe€Committee€that€the€General€Court€Administration€Subcommittee€willÏsoon€be€discussing€the€Judicial€Disabilities€Commission€Rules.€€IfÏanyone€has€any€changes€to€propose,€the€€changes€should€be€given€toÏthe€Reporter,€the€Chairperson,€or€the€Vice€Chairperson.€€TheÏChairperson€remarked€that€the€Subcommittee€may€be€taking€a€look€atÏthe€definition€of€the€term€"misconduct."€€This€was€suggested€by€ChiefÏJudge€Bell€in€light€of€complaints€by€judges€and€organizations.€€ThereÏwill€be€a€Judicial€Institute€on€the€subjects€of€ethics€and€judicialÏdisabilities€on€March€20,€1997,€which€will€give€judges€a€chance€toÏdiscuss€any€proposed€changes€to€the€Judicial€Disabilities€CommissionÏRules,€including€the€definition€of€the€term€"sanctionable€conduct."€Ìà     àThe€Reporter€told€the€Committee€that€the€136th€Report€was€sentÏto€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€will€consider€it€on€April€7,€1997.€ÏThe€Chairperson€announced€that€the€plans€for€the€50th€anniversaryÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðcelebration€of€the€Rules€Committee€are€moving€forward.€€It€appearsÏÔ_       Ôthat€the€celebration€will€take€place€partially€funded€by€theÏAdministrative€Office€of€the€Courts€Ô_      Ôand€partially€by€the€RulesÏCommittee€members.€€It€will€probably€be€held€in€late€April€or€earlyÏMay.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€said€that€she€had€received€a€letter€fromÏan€attorney€from€the€firm€of€Smith,€Somerville,€and€Case€concerningÏRule€2„423.€€This€Rule€was€discussed€a€number€of€years€ago,€and€theÏissue€of€physical€examinations€has€been€discussed€in€the€context€ofÏthe€Attorney€Discipline€Rules.€€In€lead€paint€cases,€children€areÏoften€examined€by€a€Ô_      ÔneuropsychologistÔ_      Ô,€who€is€not€a€physician.€€TheÏattorney€who€wrote€the€letter€said€that€she€and€other€defense€counselÏare€filing€motions€to€allow€the€examinations€by€Ô_      ÔneuropsychologistsÔ_      Ô,Ïand€the€motions€are€being€granted.€€In€the€practice€of€domestic€law,Ïit€is€routine€to€order€examinations€by€professionals€who€are€notÏphysicians.€€In€one€case,€the€plaintiff's€attorney€refused€to€allowÏthe€examination€by€a€Ô_      ÔneuropsychologistÔ_      Ô.€€At€oral€argument€before€theÏCourt€of€Special€Appeals,€the€panel€who€heard€the€case€was€concernedÏthat€Ô_      ÔneuropsychologistsÔ_      Ô€are€not€physicians,€which€the€Rule€requires.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€explained€that€when€she€and€the€HonorableÏPaul€Ô_      ÔNiemeyerÔ_      Ô€were€writing€their€book,€òòMaryland€Rules€Commentaryóó,Ð   	  (P#(   Ðthey€had€discussed€whether€the€court€has€inherent€authority€to€allowÏexaminations€by€professionals,€other€than€physicians.€€It€may€be€aÏmatter€of€policy€as€to€whether€to€broaden€the€discovery€rules.€€TheÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐChairperson€commented€that€the€opinion€of€the€Court€of€SpecialÏAppeals,€to€which€the€Vice€Chairperson€had€just€referred,€will€beÏissued€within€the€next€30€days.€€This€can€be€sent€out€to€the€RulesÏCommittee.€€Another€problem€in€lead€paint€cases€is€court„orderedÏentry€on€property€to€conduct€tests€when€the€property€has€already€beenÏtransferred€to€someone,€and€the€case€is€against€the€former€owner.€ÏThe€issue€is€whether€someone€can€go€onto€the€property€to€conductÏtests.Ìà     àMr.€Ô_      ÔBraultÔ_      Ô€observed€that€the€examinations€by€Ô_      ÔneuropsychologistsÔ_      ÔÏin€lead€paint€cases€are€the€main€clinical€means€to€establish€brainÏdamage.€€His€law€firm€uses€Ô_      ÔneuropsychologistsÔ_      Ô€frequently€to€conductÏtests€to€establish€neurologic€dysfunction€and€to€detect€whichÏfunctions€of€the€brain€are€affected.€€The€Rules€should€allow€this,Ïsince€this€is€the€way€medicine€is€practiced.€€The€ChairpersonÏremarked€that€most€circuit€judges€have€adopted€the€concept€ofÏinherent€authority,€but€not€the€appellate€courts.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€expressed€the€view€that€the€Discovery€Subcommittee€shouldÏpursue€expanding€the€Rule€to€go€beyond€the€definition€of€"physician."€ÏMr.€Sykes€said€that€if€one€side€in€a€case€presents€expert€evidenceÏwhich€includes€an€examination€as€part€of€the€basis,€the€other€sideÏshould€have€the€option€to€have€an€examination€by€the€same€kind€ofÏperson.€€Mr.€Ô_      ÔLombardiÔ_      Ô€observed€that€the€Rule€might€be€broadened€toÏinclude€chiropractors€and€physical€therapists.€€The€ChairpersonÏcommented€that€the€Rule€could€build€in€protections€to€avoid€abuse.Ð   	 L-œ(.   ÐÓ          ÓÌòòAdditional€Agenda€Item.Ð   	 ’â    ÐÌóóÌÓ          Óà     àThe€Chairperson€said€that€the€Department€of€Veterans€AffairsÏ(the€VA)€has€raised€an€issue€concerning€the€revised€GuardianshipÏRules,€and€this€is€being€brought€before€the€Committee€today€on€anÏemergency€basis.€€ÌÔ_      Ôà     àJudge€Kaplan€presented€Rule€10„202,€Physicians'€Certificates„„¼Requirement€and€Content,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÌÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° ÒÓ          ÓÑ €      Ñà@    ÷÷ ì àMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@    §
§
 ì àTITLE€10€„€GUARDIANS€AND€OTHER€FIDUCIARIESˆÌÌà@    ÜÜ ì àCHAPTER€200€„€GUARDIAN€OF€PERSONˆÌÌÌÌà    ¸ àAMEND€Rule€10„202€to€add€a€new€sectionÏproviding€an€alternate€procedure€forÏdetermining€the€disability€of€a€beneficiary€ofÏthe€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs€when€aÏguardianship€of€the€person€of€that€individualÏis€being€sought,€as€follows:ÌÌRule€10„202.€€PHYSICIANS'€CERTIFICATES„„¼REQUIREMENT€AND€CONTENTÌÌÌ€€(a)€€To€Be€Attached€to€PetitionÌÌ€€€€òò(1)€€GenerallyóóÐ   	 'n"'   ÐÌà    ¸ à€€If€guardianship€of€the€person€of€aÏdisabled€person€is€sought,€the€petitioner€shallÏfile€with€the€petition€signed€and€verifiedÏcertificates€of€two€physicians€licensed€toÏpractice€medicine€in€the€United€States,€one€ofÏwhom€shall€have€examined€the€disabled€personÏwithin€21€days€before€the€filing€of€theÐ   	 ..~)/   ÐÑ       Ñâ
       âÑ    °° ÑÑ   XX Ñâ
       âÑ
   
 Ñpetition.€€Each€certificate€shall€state€theÏname,€address,€and€qualifications€of€theÏphysician,€a€brief€history€of€the€physician'sÏinvolvement€with€the€disabled€person,€the€dateÏof€the€physician's€last€examination€of€theÏdisabled€person,€and€the€physician's€opinion€asÏto:€€(1)€the€cause,€nature,€extent,€andÏprobable€duration€of€the€disability,€(2)Ïwhether€the€person€requires€institutional€care,Ïand€(3)€whether€the€person€has€sufficientÏmental€capacity€to€consent€to€the€appointmentÏof€a€guardian.€€ÌÌÐ	   	 *z   Ð€€€€òò(2)€€Veterans€Administration€BeneficiaryóóÐ   	 °      ÐÌà    ¸ à€€€€òòIf€guardianship€of€the€person€of€aÐ   	 tÄ   Ðdisabled€person€who€is€a€beneficiary€of€theÏUnited€States€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs€isÏbeing€sought,€the€petitioner€shall€file€withÏthe€petition,€in€lieu€of€the€certificates€ofÏtwo€physicians€required€in€subsection€(1)€ofÏthis€section,€a€certificate€of€theÏAdministrator€of€the€Department€of€VeteransÏAffairs€or€a€duly€authorized€representative,Ïsetting€forth€the€fact€that€the€person€has€beenÏrated€as€disabled€by€the€Administration€inÏaccordance€with€the€laws€and€regulationsÏgoverning€the€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs.€ÏThe€certificate€shall€be€prima€facie€evidenceÏof€the€necessity€for€the€appointment.óóÐ   	 Ð    ÐÌCross€reference:€€Code,€Estates€and€TrustsÏArticle,€ðð13„705.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Delayed€Filing€of€CertificatesÌÌ€€€€(1)€€After€Refusal€to€Permit€ExaminationÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€If€the€petition€is€not€accompanied€byÏthe€required€certificate€and€the€petitionÏalleges€that€the€disabled€person€is€residingÏwith€or€under€the€control€of€a€person€who€hasÏrefused€to€permit€examination€by€a€physician,Ïand€that€the€disabled€person€may€be€at€riskÏunless€a€guardian€is€appointed,€the€court€shallÏdefer€issuance€of€a€show€cause€order.€€TheÏcourt€shall€instead€issue€an€order€requiringÏthat€the€person€who€has€refused€to€permit€theÏdisabled€person€to€be€examined€appearÏpersonally€on€a€date€specified€in€the€order€andÏshow€cause€why€the€disabled€person€should€notÏbe€examined.€€The€order€shall€be€personallyÏserved€on€that€person€and€on€the€disabledÏperson.ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€Appointment€of€Physicians€by€Court€ÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€If€the€court€finds€after€a€hearingÏthat€examinations€are€necessary,€it€shallÏappoint€two€physicians€to€conduct€theÏexaminations€and€file€their€reports€with€theÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðcourt.€€If€both€physicians€find€the€person€toÏbe€disabled,€the€court€shall€issue€a€show€causeÏorder€requiring€the€alleged€disabled€person€toÏanswer€the€petition€for€guardianship€and€shallÏrequire€the€petitioner€to€give€notice€pursuantÏto€Rule€10„203.€€Otherwise,€the€petition€shallÏbe€dismissed.ÌÌCross€reference:€€Rule€1„341.ÌÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€in€part€derived€fromÏformer€Rule€R73€b€1€òòand€b€2óó€and€òòisóó€in€part€new.Ð   	 f¶	   ÐÌÌÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 Òà     àRule€10„202€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° Òà    ¸ àThe€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs€isÏrequesting€that€former€Rule€R73€b€2€beÏreinstated€by€adding€it€to€Rule€10„202.€€TheÏformer€provision€allowed€the€Department€toÏsubstitute€its€own€internal€procedures€in€placeÏof€the€requirement€that€two€physicians€mustÏcertify€that€the€person€who€is€the€subject€ofÏthe€guardianship€petition€is€disabled.€€CounselÏfor€the€Department€has€written€two€lettersÏindicating€that€the€deletion€of€Rule€R73€b€2€isÏcreating€an€administrative€burden€because€ofÏthe€need€to€have€two€physicians'€certificatesÏand€because€Rule€10„202€requires€that€at€leastÏone€of€the€physicians€examine€the€person€withinÏ21€days€before€the€filing€of€the€guardianshipÏpetition.€€The€Department€maintains€that€itÏcannot€comply€with€these€requirements.€€TheÏcontention€is€that€the€former€system€under€RuleÏR73€b€2€worked€well€for€the€Department,€and€itsÏcounsel,€as€well€as€two€attorneys€from€a€lawÏfirm€which€handles€these€cases,€are€requestingÏthe€reinstatement€of€that€provision.ÌÌÌÓ          ÓÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 Òà     àJudge€Kaplan€explained€that€copies€of€correspondence€from€theÏVA€concerning€veterans€who€are€allegedly€incompetent€have€beenÏdistributed€today.€€The€VA€has€its€own€board€which€is€able€to€declareÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðthese€veterans€to€be€incompetent€and€therefore€eligible€for€paymentsÏfrom€the€VA.€€A€statute€in€Code,€Estates€and€Trusts€Article,Ïoriginally€authorized€this€certification€by€the€VA€board.€€There€wasÏno€need€to€get€two€physicians'€certificates€in€order€to€set€up€aÏguardianship€of€the€person.€€The€VA€set€up€the€guardianships€so€thereÏwould€be€someone€to€receive€the€payments€on€behalf€of€the€incompetentÏveteran€to€avoid€dissipation€of€the€assets.€€The€statute€was€amended,Ïleaving€out€the€provision€authorizing€the€VA€board€to€make€aÏdetermination€of€incompetency.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€put€thisÏprovision€into€the€former€R€Rules€where€it€remained€until€the€recentÏrevision,€when€it€was€deleted€from€Rule€10„202.€€The€VA€has€asked€forÏthis€to€be€put€back€into€the€revised€Fiduciary€Rules.€€à    x àÐ   	 l   Ðà     àMr.€Sykes€observed€that€the€VA€has€its€own€physicians€andÏquestioned€as€to€how€burdensome€it€would€be€for€the€VA€to€meet€theÏrequirement€of€two€recent€examinations€by€physicians.€€TheÏChairperson€said€that€when€the€guardianship€rules€were€in€the€processÏof€being€revised,€the€Assistant€Reporter€had€called€the€VA€to€askÏabout€their€procedures.€€The€Assistant€Reporter€added€that€this€wasÏdone€about€10€years€ago,€and€at€the€time€of€the€call,€she€had€beenÏapprised€that€the€VA€board€certification€process€was€an€internalÏprocedure€which€was€not€a€part€of€the€law.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏinquired€if€other€states€have€a€similar€procedure.€€Mr.€SykesÏremarked€that€guardianship€is€a€state€matter,€and€it€is€difficult€toÏhave€uniformity.Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ðà     àJudge€Kaplan€pointed€out€that€someone€who€has€been€declaredÏincompetent€by€a€VA€board€can€appear€before€the€board€to€get€his€orÏher€status€changed.€€The€VA€ruling€of€incompetency€allows€the€VA€toÏpay€a€substantial€amount€of€money€on€behalf€of€the€veterans.€€Mr.ÏBrault€remarked€that€state€rules€may€have€no€authority€to€overruleÏthe€federal€procedure.€€Mr.€Lombardi€commented€that€he€had€no€problemÏwith€the€VA€board€making€the€finding€of€incompetency€and€appointmentÏof€a€federal€fiduciary€when€state€jurisdiction€has€not€been€invoked.€ÏHowever,€the€VA€would€like€to€go€beyond€this€and€have€the€court€inÏMaryland€appoint€a€guardian€in€some€cases€based€on€the€VA€boardÏfinding.€€Some€representatives€of€the€VA€had€discussed€this€with€theÏChairperson€at€a€meeting€earlier€this€week.€€Mr.€Lombardi€said€thatÏhe€had€been€unable€to€attend€the€meeting,€but€he€was€interested€toÏknow€why€the€VA€could€not€comply€with€the€requirement€of€having€aÏfresh€certificate€issued€within€21€days€of€the€examination€of€theÏveteran.€€The€Assistant€Reporter€responded€that€at€the€meeting€withÏthe€Chairperson,€the€VA€representatives€had€stated€that€it€is€veryÏdifficult€to€reach€some€of€these€veterans€to€do€an€examination€withinÏ21€days€of€the€issuance€of€the€certificate.Ìà     àThe€Chairperson€noted€that€there€are€less€than€300€cases€a€yearÏwhere€the€VA€files€in€circuit€court.€€The€VA€would€also€like€theÏhearing€requirement€in€Rule€10„205,€Hearing,€to€be€waived,€as€it€wasÏin€former€Rule€R77.€€He€asked€the€Rules€Committee€if€it€wanted€toÏrequire€the€VA€to€follow€the€Maryland€Rules,€or€if€the€VA€system€canÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðbe€left€as€it€had€been€up€until€January€1,€1997.€€Is€there€a€validÏreason€to€expose€the€VA€to€the€problems€they€are€having€under€the€newÏsystem?€€Not€exposing€the€veterans€to€these€problems€may€also€saveÏthe€time€of€the€circuit€courts.€€Judge€Kaplan€pointed€out€that€he€hasÏnever€had€a€problem€with€the€former€R€Rules,€and€has€never€heard€aÏcomplaint€from€a€veteran€or€a€representative€of€a€veteran€about€theÏVA€process.€Ìà     àThe€Chairperson€noted€that€in€the€package€of€materials€whichÏhad€been€distributed€that€day,€there€was€a€letter€from€Charles€S.ÏWinner,€Esq.,€of€the€firm€of€Fisher€and€Winner.€€(See€Appendix€1).€ÏMr.€Winner€had€attended€the€meeting€with€the€Chairperson€earlier€inÏthe€week.€€Mr.€Winner€had€pointed€out€that€banks€are€no€longerÏwilling€to€take€these€cases,€and€because€of€this€the€VA€had€hired€Mr.ÏWinner's€law€firm€to€handle€the€cases.€€Mr.€Winner's€firm€is€alsoÏinterested€in€having€the€changes€made€to€Rules€10„202€and€10„205Ïwhich€have€been€requested€by€the€VA.Ìà     àJudge€Kaplan€moved€to€put€the€provisions€of€former€Rule€R73€b€2Ïback€into€Rule€10„202.€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€on€aÏvote€of€eight€in€favor,€three€opposed.€€Mr.€Howell€noted€that€theÏRule€needs€to€be€styled€to€remove€the€reference€to€"theÏAdministration."Ìà     àJudge€Kaplan€presented€Rule€10„205,€Hearing,€for€theÏCommittee's€consideration.€€ÌÓ          ÓÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° ÒÌà@    ÷÷ ì àMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÐ   	 ..~)/   Ð‡à@    §
§
 ì àTITLE€10€„€GUARDIANS€AND€OTHER€FIDUCIARIESˆÌÌà@    ÜÜ ì àCHAPTER€200€„€GUARDIAN€OF€PERSONˆÌÌÌÌà    ¸ àAMEND€Rule€10„205€to€add€a€new€sectionÏwhich€would€circumvent€the€requirement€of€aÏjury€trial€when€a€guardianship€of€the€person€isÏbeing€sought€for€a€beneficiary€of€theÏDepartment€of€Veterans€Affairs,€as€follows:ÌÌÌRule€10„205.€€HEARINGÌÌÌ€€(a)€€Guardianship€of€the€Person€of€a€MinorÌÌ€€€€(1)€€No€Response€to€Show€Cause€OrderÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€If€no€response€to€the€show€cause€orderÏis€filed€and€the€court€is€satisfied€that€theÏpetitioner€has€complied€with€the€provisions€ofÏRule€10„203,€the€court€may€rule€on€the€petitionÏsummarily.ÌÌ€€€€(2)€€Response€to€Show€Cause€OrderÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€If€a€response€to€the€show€cause€orderÏobjects€to€the€relief€requested,€the€courtÏshall€set€the€matter€for€trial,€and€shall€giveÏnotice€of€the€time€and€place€of€trial€to€allÏpersons€who€have€responded.ÌÌCross€reference:€€Code,€Estates€and€TrustsÏArticle,€ðð13„702.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Guardianship€of€Alleged€Disabled€PersonÌÌ€€€€òò(1)€€GenerallyóóÐ   	 'n"'   ÐÌà    ¸ à€€€€When€the€petition€is€for€guardianshipÏof€the€person€of€an€alleged€disabled€person,Ïthe€court€shall€set€the€matter€for€jury€trial.€ÏThe€alleged€disabled€person€or€the€attorneyÏrepresenting€the€person€may€waive€a€jury€trialÏat€any€time€before€trial.€€If€a€jury€trial€isÏheld,€the€jury€shall€return€a€special€verdictÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðpursuant€to€Rule€2„522€(c)€as€to€any€allegedÏdisability.€€A€physician's€certificate€isÏadmissible€as€substantive€evidence€without€theÏpresence€or€testimony€of€the€physician€unless,Ïnot€later€than€10€days€before€trial,€anÏinterested€person€who€is€not€an€individualÏunder€a€disability,€or€the€attorney€for€theÏalleged€disabled€person,€files€a€request€thatÏthe€physician€appear.€ÌÌ€€€€òò(2)€€Department€of€Veterans€AffairsÐ   	 „Ô
   ÐBeneficiariesóóÐ   	 f¶	   ÐÌà    ¸ à€€€€òòIn€cases€involving€a€beneficiary€ofÐ   	 *z   Ðthe€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs,€if€noÏobjection€to€the€guardianship€is€made,€aÏhearing€shall€not€be€held€unless€the€CourtÏfinds€that€extraordinary€circumstances€existÏwhich€would€require€a€hearing.óóÐ   	 ”ä   ÐÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€in€part€derived€fromÏformer€Rule€R77€and€is€in€part€new.ÌÌÌÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 Òà     àRule€10„205€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° Òà    ¸ àThe€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs€isÏrequesting€that€former€Rule€R77€b€2€beÏreinstated€by€adding€it€to€Rule€10„205.€€TheÏformer€provision€waived€the€requirement€that€aÏhearing€must€be€held€in€a€guardianship€of€theÏperson€proceeding€when€a€beneficiary€of€theÏDepartment€was€the€subject€of€the€proceeding,Ïunless€extraordinary€circumstances€existed.€ÏThe€Department€would€like€that€provision€backÏin€the€guardianship€rules€as€a€means€of€easingÏsome€of€their€administrative€burdens€in€settingÏup€these€guardianships.ÌÌÌÓ          ÓÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 Òà     àJudge€Kaplan€explained€that€the€VA€would€like€the€hearingÏrequirement€in€Rule€10„205€waived€as€it€was€in€Rule€R77€b€3,€theÏpredecessor€to€Rule€10„205.€€Judge€Kaplan€moved€to€add€back€into€RuleÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ð10„205€the€provisions€of€former€Rule€R77€b€3.€€The€motion€wasÏseconded.€€€Ìà     àMr.€Titus€commented€that€he€was€surprised€at€the€concept€ofÏhaving€no€hearing€at€all€for€VA€veterans.€€The€Rule€as€proposed€wouldÏpreclude€the€court€from€holding€a€hearing€except€under€extraordinaryÏcircumstances.€€Mr.€Bowen€noted€that€this€procedure€has€always€workedÏwell,€and€there€is€no€compelling€reason€to€change€it.€€The€motionÏpassed€on€a€vote€of€nine€in€favor,€four€opposed.Ìà     àThe€Chairperson€asked€if€there€were€any€additions€orÏcorrections€to€the€minutes€of€the€February€7,€1997€Rules€CommitteeÏmeeting.€€Mr.€Klein€answered€that€he€had€several€proposed€changes.€ÏOn€page€19€in€the€second€full€paragraph,€the€third€sentence€shouldÏread€as€follows:€€"Mr.€Klein€remarked€that€the€state„of„the„artÏissues€in€asbestos€litigation€involve€medical€literature€dating€backÏas€far€as€the€late€1800's."€€On€page€24€four€lines€up€from€the€bottomÏof€the€page€at€the€end€of€the€sentence€which€begins€"Mr.€KleinÏcommented...",€the€words€"preparing€for"€should€be€added€in€after€theÏword€"for"€and€before€the€word€"the."€€On€page€26,€seven€lines€upÏfrom€the€bottom€of€the€page,€the€sentence€which€reads€"The€linkageÏregulates€the€rates."€should€be€changed€to:€€"The€linkage€between€theÏrate€for€deposition€preparation€time€and€the€rate€for€the€depositionÏitself€would€regulate€the€rates."€€On€page€27,€in€the€first€fullÏsentence€on€the€page,€the€reference€to€Rule€11€needs€to€be€clarified,Ïsince€this€is€not€referring€to€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€11,Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ðbut€rather€to€a€local€federal€rule.€€€à    p àÐ   	 °      Ðà     àMr.€Klein€moved€that€his€proposed€changes€be€made,€the€motionÏwas€seconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏstated€that€the€minutes€were€approved€as€amended.€ÌÓ          ÓÌAgenda€Item€1.€€Continued€consideration€of€proposed€new€Title€16,Ì€€€Chapter€700,€concerning€the€discipline€and€inactive€status€ofÌ€€€attorneys.Ì_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÓ          Óà     àMr.€Howell€said€that€the€Reporter€had€called€attention€to€theÏfact€that€the€Committee,€in€considering€some€of€the€early€AttorneyÏDiscipline€Rules,€had€deleted€the€opening€statements€of€some€of€theÏRules,€such€as€"There€is€a€Disciplinary€Fund.",€and€"There€is€anÏInquiry€Committee."€€The€Reporter€had€expressed€her€concern€thatÏsince€these€bodies€are€not€constitutionally€recognized€nor€created€byÏstatute,€it€would€be€preferable€to€have€a€creation€clause.€€TheÏJudicial€Disabilities€Commission€is€constitutionally€created€and€theÏClients'€Security€Trust€Fund€as€well€as€the€Rules€Committee€areÏcreated€by€statute.€€Since€the€Attorney€Grievance€Commission€and€itsÏintegral€parts€are€not€created€by€the€Constitution€or€by€statute,€theÏdeletion€of€the€creation€clauses€should€be€looked€at€again.€€Mr.ÏZarnoch€pointed€out€that€there€may€be€consequences€for€agencies€notÏbeing€established€properly.€€€Ìà     àMr.€Klein€moved€to€add€the€creation€clauses€back€into€Rules€16„¼702,€Attorney€Grievance€Commission;€16„705,€Inquiry€Committee;€€andÏ16„706,€Review€Board.€€The€motion€was€seconded€and€passedÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðunanimously.Ìà     àMr.€Howell€handed€out€a€revised€version€of€Rule€16„717,€HearingÏProcedures,€and€presented€it€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€€ÌÓ          ÓÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° ÒÌRule€16„717.€€HEARING€PROCEDURESÌÌÌ€€(a)€€Procedural€Rights€of€AttorneyÌÌà    ¸ à€€The€attorney€who€is€the€subject€of€theÏstatement€of€charges€has€the€right€to€a€fairÏand€impartial€hearing€of€the€charges,€to€beÏrepresented€by€counsel,€to€the€issuance€of€aÏsubpoena€for€the€attendance€of€witnesses€andÏfor€the€production€of€designated€documents€andÏother€tangible€things,€to€present€evidence€andÏargument,€and€to€examine€and€cross„examineÏwitnesses.ÌÌ€€(b)€€Prehearing€ReviewÌÌà    ¸ à€€Upon€appointment€to€a€Hearing€Panel,€theÏPanel€members€shall€review€the€statement€ofÏcharges€and€any€response.€€If€the€PanelÏconcludes€that€the€statement€of€charges€allegesÏfacts€which,€if€true,€constitute€professionalÏmisconduct€or€incapacity,€the€Panel€shallÏschedule€a€hearing€on€the€charges.€€Otherwise,Ïthe€Panel€shall€dismiss€the€charges€without€aÏhearing,€terminate€the€proceedings,€and€serveÏnotice€of€the€dismissal€upon€the€attorney€andÏBar€Counsel,€who€shall€also€notify€theÏcomplainant.€€If€dissatisfied€with€a€dismissalÏwithout€a€hearing,€subject€to€the€approval€ofÏthe€Chair€of€the€Commission,€Bar€Counsel€mayÏfile€with€the€Commission€a€request€for€reviewÏof€the€dismissal€and€a€statement€of€reasons€byÏBar€Counsel€for€the€review.€€Bar€Counsel€shallÏserve€copies€of€any€request€for€review€andÏstatement€of€reasons€upon€òòóóthe€attorney.€€WithinÐ   	 Ä)%*   Ð10€days€of€service,€the€attorney€may€file€withÏthe€Commission€a€reply€to€the€statement€ofÏreasons.ÌÌ€€(c)€€Notice€of€HearingÐ   	 ..~)/   Ð‡à    ¸ à€€The€Panel€Chair€shall€notify€BarÏCounsel,€the€attorney€and€the€members€of€theÏPanel€of€the€time€and€place€scheduled€for€aÏhearing.€€òòóóThe€notice€shall€be€in€writing€andÐ   	 V¦   Ðmailed€at€least€15€days€before€the€scheduledÏdate.€€If€the€attorney€fails€to€appear€for€theÏhearing,€after€adequate€notice,€the€Panel€mayÏproceed€with€the€hearing€in€the€attorney'sÏabsence€and€may€consider€the€attorney's€failureÏas€evidence€of€the€factual€allegations.ÌÌ€€(d)€€ContinuanceÌÌà    ¸ à€€On€written€request€of€a€party€or€on€theÏPanel's€own€initiative,€the€Panel€Chair€mayÏpostpone€or€continue€a€hearing€for€good€cause.€ÏThe€absence€of€a€necessary€witness€is€not€causeÏfor€a€postponement€or€continuance€unlessÏsupported€by€an€affidavit€meeting€theÏrequirements€of€Rule€2„508€(c).€€ÌÌ€€(e)€€Bar€Counsel€DisclosuresÌÌà    ¸ à€€Upon€request€of€the€attorney€at€any€timeÏafter€service€of€the€statement€of€charges,€BarÏCounsel€shall€promptly€allow€the€attorney€toÏinspect€and€copy€(1)€all€evidence€accumulatedÏduring€the€investigation;€(2)€all€statements€asÏdefined€in€Rule€2„402€(d);€(3)€summaries€of€anyÏoral€statements€for€which€contempo„€raneously„¼recorded€recitals€do€not€exist;€(4)€the€recordÏof€prior€final€discipline€or€previousÏadjudication€of€misconduct€or€incapacity€of€theÏattorney€that€Bar€Counsel€intends€to€introduceÏafter€a€hearing€pursuant€to€subsection€(k)(3)Ïof€this€Rule;€and€(5)€any€other€informationÏthat€Bar€Counsel€chooses€to€disclose€in€theÏinterest€of€fairness€or€to€expedite€theÏhearing.ÌÌ€€(f)€€Exchange€of€InformationÌÌà    ¸ à€€Within€a€reasonable€time€before€the€dateÏscheduled€for€the€hearing,€Bar€Counsel€and€theÏattorney€shall€provide€to€each€other€a€list€ofÏthe€names€of€the€witnesses€that€each€intends€toÏcall€and€copies€of€the€documents€that€eachÏintends€to€introduce€in€evidence€at€theÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðhearing.ÌÌ€€(g)€€Depositions€of€Unavailable€WitnessesÌÌà    ¸ à€€Bar€Counsel€or€the€attorney€may€take€theÏdeposition€of€a€witness€and€offer€it€inÏevidence€before€the€Hearing€Panel€if€theÏwitness€is€either€(1)€unable€to€attend€theÏhearing€because€of€illness€or€other€disabilityÏor€(2)€unwilling€to€attend€and€cannot€be€servedÏwith€a€subpoena€or€certified€letter€as€providedÏin€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„718.€€Chapter€400€ofÏTitle€2€governs€the€taking€of€such€a€depositionÏin€a€Hearing€Panel€proceeding€except€(1)€theÏnotice€required€by€Rule€2„412€shall€be€filedÏwith€the€Panel€Chair;€(2)€the€filingÏrequirements€of€Rule€2„404€(a)(3)€and€Rule€2„¼415€(e)€are€not€applicable;€and€(3)€theÏdeposition€shall€be€filed€with€the€Panel€ChairÏprior€to€the€scheduled€hearing€date.€€The€PanelÏChair€may€enter€protective€orders€permitted€byÏRule€2„403€and€make€other€rulings€as€justiceÏmay€require€pertaining€to€the€deposition€of€anÏunavailable€witness.ÌòòòòÌALTERNATEóóóóÐ   	 Â   ÐÌ€€(g)€€Depositions€of€Unavailable€WitnessesÌÌà    ¸ à€€Bar€Counsel€or€the€attorney€may€take€theÏdeposition€of€a€witness€and€offer€it€inÏevidence€before€the€Hearing€Panel€if€the€òònoticeÐ   	  ^   Ðof€the€deposition€alleges€that€(1)€theóó€witnessÐ   	 ð @    Ðis€òò[óóeither€(1)òò]óó€unable€to€attend€the€hearing€òòorÐ   	 Ò!"!   Ðtestifyóó€because€of€òò[óóillness€or€otherÐ   	 ´""   Ðdisabilityòò]óó€òòage,€mental€incapacity,€sickness,Ð   	 –#æ#   Ðinfirmity,€or€imprisonmentóó€or€(2)€òò[óóunwilling€toÐ   	 x$È$   Ðattend€and€cannot€be€served€withòò]óó€òòthe€partyÐ   	 Z%ª %   Ðnoting€the€deposition€has€been€unable€toÏprocure€the€attendance€of€the€witness€byóó€aÐ   	 'n"'   Ðsubpoena€or€certified€letter€as€provided€inÏsection€(c)€of€Rule€16„718.€€òòThe€deposition€mayÐ   	 â(2$)   Ðbe€admitted€in€evidence€at€the€hearing€if€theÏPanel€Chair€finds€that€the€statements€inÏsubsection€(1)€or€(2)€exist.óó€€Chapter€400€ofÐ   	 ˆ+Ø&,   ÐTitle€2€governs€the€taking€of€òò[óósuchòò]óó€aÐ   	 j,º'-   Ðdeposition€òò[óóin€a€Hearing€Panel€proceedingòò]óóÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðòòunder€this€sectionóó€except€(1)€the€noticeÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðrequired€by€Rule€2„412€shall€be€filed€with€theÏPanel€Chair;€(2)€the€filing€requirements€ofÏRule€2„404€(a)(3)€and€Rule€2„415€(e)€are€notÏapplicable;€and€(3)€the€deposition€shall€beÏfiled€with€the€Panel€Chair€prior€to€theÏscheduled€hearing€date.€€The€Panel€Chair€mayÏenter€protective€orders€permitted€by€Rule€2„403Ïand€make€other€rulings€as€justice€may€requireÏpertaining€to€the€deposition€of€an€unavailableÏwitness.ÌÌ€€(h)€€Mental€or€Physical€ExaminationÌÌà    ¸ à€€When€the€statement€of€charges€or€anyÏresponse€alleges€that€the€attorney€isÏincapacitated,€the€Panel€Chair,€on€motion€ofÏBar€Counsel€for€good€cause,€may€order€theÏattorney€to€submit€to€a€mental€or€physicalÏexamination€by€a€physician€pursuant€to€RuleÏ2-423.ÌÌ€€(i)€€OathsÌÌà    ¸ à€€The€Panel€Chair€may€administer€oaths€toÏwitnesses.ÌÌ€€(j)€€TestimonyÌÌà    ¸ à€€The€Panel€may€take€the€testimony€ofÏwitnesses.€€The€testimony€shall€be€under€oath.€ÏThe€attendance€and€testimony€of€a€witness€orÏthe€production€of€documents€or€other€tangibleÏthings€may€be€compelled€in€accordance€with€RuleÏ16„718.ÌÌ€€(k)€€Rules€of€EvidenceÌÌ€€€€(1)€€GenerallyÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€Unless€excluded€by€the€Panel€ChairÏpursuant€to€Rule€5„403,€all€evidence€disclosedÏin€accordance€with€sections€(e)€and€(f)€of€thisÏRule,€shall€be€admissible€at€the€hearing.€ÏOtherwise€the€hearing€shall€be€conducted€inÏaccordance€with€the€rules€of€evidence€in€TitleÏ5.€€The€Panel€Chair€shall€rule€on€objections€toÏthe€evidence.ÌÐ   	 ..~)/   Ð€€€€(2)€€Burden€of€ProofÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€Bar€Counsel€shall€have€the€burden€ofÏpersuading€the€panel€that€it€is€more€likelyÏthan€not€that€the€attorney€engaged€inÏmisconduct€or€was€incapacitated.€€The€burden€ofÏgoing€forward€regarding€defenses€or€mitigatingÏfactors€is€on€the€attorney€who€asserts€suchÏdefenses€or€factors.ÌÌ€€€€(3)€€Prior€DisciplineÌÌà    ¸ à€€€€Evidence€concerning€prior€finalÏdiscipline€or€previous€adjudication€ofÏmisconduct€of€the€attorney€shall€not€beÏadmitted€or€considered€by€the€Panel€until€aÏfinding€of€misconduct€is€made€under€Rule€16„¼719,€unless€such€evidence€is€probative€of€theÏissue€of€misconduct€presented€in€the€statementÏof€charges€or€is€otherwise€admissible€underÏRule€5„404€(b).€€At€the€conclusion€of€theÏhearing,€Bar€Counsel€may€submit€to€the€Panel€aÏsealed€envelope€containing€such€evidence€andÏBar€Counsel's€written€statement€whether€or€notÏthe€evidence€was€disclosed€under€subsectionÏ(e)(4)€of€this€Rule,€and€the€attorney€at€thatÏtime€may€submit€a€sealed€envelope€containingÏwritten€argument€on€the€effect€to€be€given€toÏsuch€evidence.€€Upon€a€finding€of€misconduct,Ïthe€Panel€may€unseal€the€envelopes€and€considerÏthe€contents€in€arriving€at€an€appropriateÏdisposition€of€the€charges.ÌÌ€€(l)€€Record€of€ProceedingsÌÌà    ¸ à€€All€testimony€and€argument€at€theÏhearing€shall€be€recorded€stenographically€orÏelectronically.€€Except€as€required€by€sectionÏ(b)€of€Rule€16„720,€a€transcript€shall€not€beÏprepared.€€The€attorney€may,€at€the€attorney'sÏexpense,€have€the€recording€of€the€hearingÏtranscribed.ÌÌ€€(m)€€Disposition€of€ChargeÌÌà    ¸ à€€At€the€close€of€the€evidence€the€Panel,Ïafter€hearing€any€argument,€shall€render€aÏdecision€in€accordance€with€Rule€16„719.€Ð   	 ..~)/   ÐSource:€€This€Rule€is€in€part€derived€fromÏformer€Rule€16„706€(d)€(BV6€d)€and€in€part€new.ÌÌÌÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 Òà     àRule€16„717€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° Òà    ¸ àThis€Rule€incorporates€some€of€theÏprocedural€provisions€of€former€Rule€BV6€d€andÏsome€material€from€the€Commission's€Guidelines.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(a)€omits€part€of€the€firstÏsentence€of€former€Rule€BV6€d€1€and€adds€newÏlanguage€regarding€the€attorney's€proceduralÏrights.€€It€is€similar€to€Rule€16„808€(f),Ïwhich€applies€the€procedural€rights€of€judgesÏbefore€the€Commission€on€Judicial€Disabilities.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(b)€is€based€upon€CommissionÏGuidelines€ðð5-102.€€The€current€Rule€and€theÏguideline€are€consistent€in€providing€that€theÏonly€action€that€may€be€taken€without€a€hearingÏis€dismissal.€€However,€Bar€Counsel€is€affordedÏthe€opportunity€to€request€the€review€of€aÏdismissal€without€a€hearing€pursuant€to€RuleÏ16„718€(a).€€The€last€sentence€is€new€and€wasÏadded€by€the€Subcommittee€to€afford€theÏattorney€the€opportunity€to€respond€to€BarÏCounsel's€statement€of€reasons.ÌÌà    ¸ àThe€first€and€second€sentences€of€sectionÏ(c)€are€based€upon€Commission€GuidelinesÏðð5-103.€€The€third€sentence€incorporates€theÏsubstance€of€the€last€sentence€of€former€RuleÏBV6€d€1,€but€allows€the€Panel€to€consider€theÏattorney's€unexcused€absence€as€evidence€of€theÏfactual€allegations.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(d)€is€a€new€provision€based€inÏpart€on€Rule€2„508€(a)€and€(c).€€It€isÏessentially€consistent€with€CommissionÏGuidelines€ðð5-104.€€ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(e)€is€also€a€new€provision.€€ItÏis€based€upon,€and€is€consistent€with,ÏCommission€Guidelines€ðð5-106.€€Section€(e)€isÏpatterned€upon€the€"open€file"€policy€declaredÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðin€Rule€16„808€(d)(1)€governing€proceedingsÏbefore€the€Commission€on€Judicial€Disabilities.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(f)€is€new.€€It€reflects€BarÏCounsel's€practice€and€is€derived€from€theÏrequired€exchange€of€information€provision€inÏRule€16„808€(d)(2).ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(g)€is€derived€from€former€RuleÏBV6€d€3€(b),€with€conforming€style€changes.€€ItÏauthorizes€òòdeóó€òòbeneóó€òòesseóó€depositions€ofÐ   	 „Ô
   Ðunavailable€witnesses,€but€not€depositions€forÏdiscovery€purposes.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(h)€is€new.€€Because€the€extentÏthat€an€attorney€is€incapacitated€may€become€anÏissue,€the€Panel€Chair€is€authorized€to€invokeÏthe€medical€examination€procedures€of€Rule€2„¼423€on€motion€of€Bar€Counsel€for€good€cause.€ÏFor€example,€an€attorney€who€raises€alcohol€orÏdrug€abuse€as€a€defense€or€in€mitigation€may€beÏan€appropriate€candidate€for€a€mental€orÏphysical€examination€under€Rule€2„423.€€òòSeeóó,Ð   	 l   Ðe.g.,€òòAGC€v.€Keisteróó,€327€Md.€56,€77€n.17Ð   	 þN   Ð(1992).€€This€conforms€to€Rule€23.C€of€theÏA.B.A.€Model€Rules.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(i)€is€derived€from€former€RuleÏBV6€d€3€(a)€but€provides€that€the€Panel€Chair,Ïrather€than€the€Panel€as€a€body,€may€administerÏoaths€to€witnesses.€€Ordinarily€this€will€notÏbe€necessary€if€a€court€reporter€is€present.ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(j)€is€derived€from€former€RuleÏBV6€d€3€(a)€also;€because€the€subpoenaÏprovisions€are€in€a€separate€Rule,€it€goes€onÏto€refer€to€the€Panel's€powers€in€that€regard.ÌÌà    ¸ àSubsection€(k)(1)€rejects€the€policyÏexpressed€in€former€Rule€BV6€d€1€that€the€rulesÏof€evidence€"need€not€apply".€€Instead,€sectionÏ(k)€obliges€the€Panel€to€apply€the€MarylandÏRules€of€Evidence;€however,€the€evidenceÏdisclosed€in€accordance€with€sections€(f)€andÏ(g)€is€made€automatically€admissible€at€theÏhearing.€€In€this€respect,€it€is€identical€toÏthe€requirement€in€Rule€16„808€(e)(4).€€TheÏPanel€Chair€rules€on€objections€to€theÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðevidence.€€ÌÌà    ¸ àSubsection€(k)(2)€is€new€and€declares€thatÏthe€standard€of€proof€at€the€Panel€hearingÏstage€is€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€ThisÏfamiliar€standard€represents€a€compromiseÏbetween€a€relaxed€standard€of€"probable€cause"Ïand€the€more€demanding€"clear€and€convincingÏevidence"€standard€required€by€former€RuleÏBV10d€at€the€judicial€hearing€stage€(see€RuleÏ16„735).€€Similarly,€subsection€(k)(2)€imposesÏupon€the€attorney€the€burden€of€proving€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€any€factualÏmatters€in€defense€or€mitigating€circumstancesÏexisting€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€misconduct.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòAGC€v.€Glennóó,€341€Md.€448,€470€(1996).Ð   	 î>   ÐÌà    ¸ àSubsection€(k)(3)€is€new€and€is€anÏamplification€of€A.B.A.€Model€Rule€11.D€(5).€ÏAlthough€prior€discipline€is€relevant€andÏmaterial€to€the€sanction€to€be€imposed€forÏproven€misconduct,€it€is€usually€irrelevant€toÏthe€issue€whether€or€not€the€alleged€misconductÏactually€occurred€and€it€may€be€prejudicial.€ÏHowever,€in€order€to€avoid€delay€resulting€fromÏbifurcated€hearings,€a€mechanism€is€created€toÏallow€evidence€of€prior€discipline€and€theÏattorney's€arguments€in€mitigation€to€beÏsubmitted€in€sealed€envelopes€which€the€PanelÏmay€open€only€upon€a€finding€of€misconduct.€€ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(l)€is€new€but€is€based€onÏCommission€Guidelines€ðð5-203.€€A€sentence€isÏadded€to€provide€that€the€attorney€may€order€aÏtranscript€at€his€or€her€own€expense.€€SectionÏ(l)€is€similar€to€Rule€16„808€(e)(5).€€ÌÌà    ¸ àSection€(m)€incorporates€the€substance€ofÏformer€Rule€BV€6€d€4€(a)€but€leaves€to€Rule€16„¼719€the€details€of€the€various€possibleÏdispositions.€€ÌÌÌÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 ÒÓ          Óà     àMr.€Howell€explained€that€this€version€of€Rule€16„717€containsÏan€alternate€section€(g).€€The€Rule€is€an€amalgam€of€old€provisions,Ïand€including€it€makes€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€more€parallel€toÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðthe€Judicial€Disabilities€Rules.€€It€spells€out€Commission€guidelinesÏand€practices€that€were€never€previously€included€in€a€rule.€€SectionÏ(b)€provides€for€a€prehearing€review.€€The€Panel€can€dismiss€theÏcharges€without€a€hearing€if€Bar€Counsel€has€not€stated€a€violationÏof€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€Bar€Counsel€can€appealÏthat€dismissal€to€the€Review€Board€by€filing€a€request€for€review,Ïaccompanied€by€a€statement€of€reasons.Ìà     àMr.€Klein€noted€that€the€attorney€has€10€days€to€file€a€replyÏto€the€statement€of€reasons,€but€no€time€limit€is€imposed€on€BarÏCounsel€to€come€up€with€reasons€to€have€a€review.€€Mr.€TitusÏsuggested€that€Bar€Counsel€be€required€to€file€the€request€for€reviewÏwithin€30€days€after€the€date€of€the€dismissal,€and€that€the€responseÏto€the€request€for€review€be€made€within€30€days€of€its€receipt.€€Mr.ÏHowell€responded€that€he€did€not€object€in€principle€to€this,€exceptÏthat€he€felt€that€30€days€goes€too€far.€€One€of€the€goals€of€theÏrevision€of€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€is€to€speed€up€the€process,Ïnot€slow€it€down.€€Mr.€Broderick€pointed€out€that€the€request€forÏreview€by€Bar€Counsel€is€filed€with€the€Commission€which€only€meetsÏonce€a€month.€€Mr.€Howell€explained€that€the€request€for€review€isÏphysically€filed€with€the€Commission,€but€the€Chair€approves€it,€soÏit€would€not€be€necessary€for€the€Commission€to€meet.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€suggested€that€since€the€time€for€aÏresponse€to€the€statement€of€charges€is€15€days€in€Rule€16„713,ÏDisciplinary€Proceedings,€the€same€time€period€could€be€used€in€RuleÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ð16„717.€€Mr.€Titus€agreed€with€this€suggestion.€€David€Downes,€Esq.,ÏChairman€of€the€Attorney€Grievance€Commission,€said€that€under€theÏcurrent€system,€Bar€Counsel€appeals€to€the€Review€Board,€with€theÏapproval€of€the€Commission,€and€the€Board€determines€at€its€nextÏmeeting€if€the€case€should€go€back€to€the€Panel€for€a€hearing.€€Mr.ÏHowell€explained€that€the€revised€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€have€aÏdifferent€procedure€than€the€BV€Rules.€€The€appeal€of€the€dismissalÏby€Bar€Counsel€goes€to€the€Commission€Chair€to€decide€whether€or€notÏto€approve€the€Bar€Counsel€decision€to€go€forward.€€If€the€ChairÏapproves,€the€next€step€is€to€proceed€to€Rule€16„720,€Review€of€PanelÏDecision.Ìà     àMr.€Sykes€inquired€about€the€respondent€attorney's€opportunityÏto€present€his€or€her€reasons€that€the€dismissal€was€proper.€€Mr.ÏHowell€pointed€out€that€the€last€sentence€of€section€(b)€providesÏthat€the€attorney€may€file€with€the€Commission€a€reply€to€theÏstatement€of€reasons€filed€by€Bar€Counsel.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€why€theÏappeal€of€the€dismissal€is€not€filed€with€the€Review€Board.€€Mr.ÏHowell€answered€that€the€Commission€is€in€an€identifiable€location.€ÏThe€Review€Board€and€the€Inquiry€Panels€disband€and€are€reconstitutedÏperiodically,€so€it€may€be€difficult€to€find€them.Ìà     àMr.€Klein€asked€if€Mr.€Titus,€who€had€made€the€suggestion€toÏhave€a€similar€time€period€for€both€Bar€Counsel€and€the€respondentÏattorney€in€section€(b),€agreed€with€a€15„day€time€period€for€BarÏCounsel€to€file€a€request€for€a€review€of€the€Panel€decision€toÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðdismiss€and€a€15„day€period€for€the€respondent€attorney€to€file€withÏthe€Commission€a€reply€to€Bar€Counsel's€statement€of€reasons.€€Mr.ÏTitus€expressed€his€agreement,€and€the€Rules€Committee€agreed€byÏconsensus€to€both€time€periods.Ìà     àMr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€the€final€sentence€of€section€(c)Ïhas€a€standard€default€provision,€so€that€if€an€attorney€defaults,Ïthe€proceedings€do€not€have€to€grind€to€a€halt.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏnoted€that€section€(d)€of€Rule€16„713€provides€that€failure€of€theÏattorney€after€service€to€serve€a€timely€response€without€asserting€aÏprivilege€or€other€basis€for€the€failure€may€be€treated€by€the€PanelÏas€an€admission€of€the€factual€allegations€in€the€statement€ofÏcharges€unless€excused€for€good€cause.€€She€asked€why€the€failure€ofÏthe€respondent€attorney€to€appear€in€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„717€isÏonly€considered€as€evidence€of€the€allegations,€and€not€as€anÏadmission€which€is€what€Rule€16„713€(d)€provides€when€there€is€aÏfailure€to€respond.€€Not€showing€up€at€the€hearing€is€a€greaterÏproblem€than€filing€no€answer€or€a€late€answer.€€Mr.€Howell€remarkedÏthat€this€could€be€changed€to€being€considered€as€an€admissionÏinstead€of€evidence€of€the€factual€allegations.Ìà     àJudge€Vaughan€commented€that€the€attorney€may€deliberately€notÏattend€the€hearing,€because€he€or€she€has€disdain€for€theÏproceedings,€feeling€that€they€are€not€meritorious.€€Mr.€LombardiÏobserved€that€an€attorney's€failure€to€appear€could€have€aÏsubstantial€impact€on€the€case.€€Ms.€Knox€remarked€that€theÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðattorney's€response€could€be€that€he€or€she€refuses€to€attend€theÏhearing.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€technically€that€is€a€violation€ofÏRule€8.1€(b).€€The€investigatory€phase€presumes€a€later€stage€whereÏfull€due€process€applies.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€has€said€that€theÏprocedure€of€Rule€16„717€is€part€of€the€investigatory€stage;€theÏPanel€hearing€is€the€conclusion€of€the€investigation.€€The€Panel€hasÏsubpoena€power€to€get€to€the€repository€of€information€which€is€inÏthe€possession€of€the€respondent€attorney.€€The€Panel€needs€thatÏinformation€to€determine€if€there€is€probable€cause€for€the€case€toÏproceed€further.€€Mr.€Brault€commented€that€it€is€not€a€standard€ofÏprobable€cause.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€if€an€attorney€filed€anÏartful€written€response,€but€opted€not€to€come€to€the€Panel€hearing,Ïand€if€the€matter€were€in€equipoise,€it€would€be€resolved€in€favor€ofÏthe€attorney.€€Ìà     àMr.€Brault€noted€that€in€a€civil€proceeding,€no€rule€or€lawÏrequires€the€defendant€to€attend€his€or€her€trial;€the€defendant€hasÏto€be€subpoenaed.€€If€requested,€the€judge€has€to€give€an€instructionÏto€the€jury€that€the€defendant€is€not€required€to€attend€the€trial.€ÏBar€Counsel€can€argue€that€the€respondent€attorney€has€to€attend€theÏPanel€hearing,€but€in€order€to€assure€the€respondent€attorney'sÏpresence,€the€attorney€has€to€be€subpoenaed.€€If€the€attorney€defendsÏhis€or€her€case€by€testifying€at€the€Panel€hearing,€and€the€PanelÏdoes€not€find€the€attorney€a€credible€witness,€the€attorney€can€beÏcharged€with€a€violation€of€Rule€8.1€and€with€perjury.€€The€attorneyÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðmay€have€only€been€brought€before€the€Panel€on€a€charge€of€having€anÏexcessive€fee€or€failing€to€return€telephone€calls,€which€areÏrelatively€innocuous€charges,€yet€the€attorney€may€be€disbarred€forÏlack€of€credibility€based€on€his€or€her€testimony€in€the€hearing.€Ìà     àMr.€Karceski€again€questioned€whether€the€failure€of€theÏattorney€to€be€present€at€the€Panel€hearing€can€be€considered€asÏevidence€of€the€factual€allegations.€€Mr.€Broderick€reiterated€thatÏthe€notice€of€the€Panel€hearing€is€a€subpoena€in€the€form€of€aÏcertified€letter.€€€Mr.€Sykes€asked€what€the€procedure€is€when€theÏPanel€dismisses€the€charges.€€Mr.€Downes€responded€that€if€a€hearingÏis€to€be€held,€the€notice€is€filed€pursuant€to€section€(c).€€If€theÏPanel€then€dismisses€the€charges,€Bar€Counsel€can€appeal,€and€anotherÏPanel€may€then€be€constituted.€€Mr.€Sykes€commented€that€when€theÏPanel€dismisses€the€charges€without€a€hearing€and€Bar€Counsel€files€aÏrequest€for€review,€it€is€not€clear€from€the€Rule€that€it€is€theÏReview€Board€who€then€considers€the€matter.€€Mr.€Howell€respondedÏthat€Mr.€Sykes€had€made€a€good€point.€€Another€provision€or€a€crossÏreference€may€need€to€be€added€to€Rule€16„717€(b).€An€additionalÏsentence€could€be€added€which€states€that€the€Review€Board€shallÏproceed€pursuant€to€Rule€16„720.€€Ìà     àMr.€Johnson€inquired€if€Rule€16„717€contemplates€the€issuanceÏof€a€dismissal€with€a€warning.€€Mr.€Brault€replied€that€that€is€inÏanother€rule.€€Mr.€Johnson€pointed€out€that€section€(b)€provides:Ï"[i]f€the€Panel€concludes€that€the€statement€of€charges€alleges€factsÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðwhich,€if€true,€constititute€professional€misconduct€or€incapacity,Ïthe€Panel€shall€schedule€a€hearing€on€the€charges."€€If€the€chargeÏwas€very€minor,€and€the€attorney€had€never€been€charged€before,Ïissuing€a€dismissal€with€a€warning€might€be€the€most€appropriateÏpunishment.€€According€to€section€(b),€if€the€Panel€determines€aÏtechnical€violation,€it€must€hold€a€hearing.€€This€excludes€theÏissuance€of€a€dismissal€with€a€warning,€which€is€a€category€of€reliefÏthat€is€frequently€granted.€€Mr.€Howell€explained€that€this€Rule€doesÏnot€have€provision€for€a€warning;€it€is€a€dismissal€without€aÏhearing.€€Mr.€Johnson€noted€that€under€the€current€rules,€the€PanelÏcan€dismiss€with€a€warning.€€Mr.€Broderick€remarked€that€Rule€16„719Ï(b)€provides€for€a€dismissal€with€a€warning.€€Ìà     àMr.€Johnson€expressed€the€view€that€the€dismissal€with€aÏwarning€screens€out€the€cases€with€minor€violations.€€A€hearingÏshould€not€be€required€for€every€violation.€€Mr.€Howell€observed€thatÏthe€responsibility€for€screening€out€the€cases€is€on€Bar€Counsel€whoÏhas€the€unfettered€right€to€dismiss€with€a€warning.€€If€the€attorneyÏfeels€that€the€warning€is€unjustified,€he€or€she€can€ask€for€aÏhearing.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€the€Panel€Chair€should€be€able€toÏdismiss€with€a€warning€without€having€a€hearing.€€Ìà     àMr.€Howell€commented€that€Rule€16„717€is€a€prehearing€review,Ïnot€a€prejudgment€review.€€It€is€simply€a€look€at€the€statement€ofÏcharges,€but€the€investigative€file€is€not€read.€€Mr.€Johnson€pointedÏout€that€this€is€more€than€a€review,€because€the€Panel€is€deciding€ifÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðthere€has€been€a€violation€of€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct.€ÏEven€if€the€attorney's€conduct€constitutes€a€technical€violation,€itÏmay€not€rise€to€the€level€which€would€require€a€hearing.€€The€abilityÏto€issue€a€dismissal€with€a€warning€should€be€protected.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€agreed€that€the€Panel€is€only€getting€the€statement€ofÏcharges€and€not€the€file.€€The€decision€as€to€whether€to€hold€aÏhearing€is€based€on€limited€information.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏcommented€that€this€is€similar€to€a€summary€judgment,€but€Mr.ÏBroderick€noted€that€a€summary€judgment€anticipates€thatÏdocumentation€will€be€presented,€and€Rule€16„717€does€not€anticipateÏany€documentation.Ìà     àMr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€nothing€in€the€Rule€prevents€BarÏCounsel€from€dismissing€the€charges€with€a€warning.€€Bar€CounselÏalways€has€that€power,€but€this€can€be€specifically€added€to€the€RuleÏif€the€Committee€feels€it€is€necessary.€€Mr.€Karceski€remarked€thatÏunder€current€Rule€BV6,€the€Panel€gets€more€than€a€statement€ofÏcharges,€because€it€also€gets€the€file.€€Mr.€Howell€said€that€theÏCommission€guidelines€currently€control€the€prehearing€review.€€ItÏwould€be€a€change€of€practice€if€no€file€were€given€to€the€Panel.€ÏMr.€Karceski€inquired€if€documentation€should€be€sent€to€the€PanelÏunder€Rule€16„717.€€Judge€Vaughan€expressed€the€view€that€it€would€beÏpreferable€if€the€Panel€decided€to€dismiss€the€case€after€viewingÏattached€documentation.€à    h àMr.€Brault€observed€that€the€proposedÐ   	 ˆ+Ø&,   ÐRules€would€eliminate€automatic€review€procedures€by€the€ReviewÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐBoard,€and€this€would€place€more€responsibility€on€the€Panel€than€itÏhas€under€the€current€rules.€€Mr.€Johnson€asked€why€the€Panel€shouldÏget€less€information€if€the€Panel€has€more€responsibility€under€theÏproposed€Rules.€€Mr.€Howell€responded€that€there€seems€to€be€someÏconfusion€about€the€process.€€Rule€16„717€(b)€provides€anÏadministrative€òòexóó€òòparteóó€review€with€neither€Bar€Counsel€nor€theÐ   	 „Ô
   Ðrespondent€attorney€present.€€The€Panel€decides€if€the€statement€ofÏcharges€sufficiently€alleges€on€its€face€a€violation€of€the€Rules€ofÏProfessional€Conduct.€€This€does€not€involve€weighing€theÏinvestigative€file.€€Mr.€Johnson€expressed€the€opinion€that€thisÏinvites€a€hearing€in€almost€every€case.€€If€the€Panel€only€looks€atÏthe€statement€of€charges€and€response,€there€is€no€alternative€but€toÏhave€a€hearing.€€If€the€Panel€is€the€only€body€reviewing€the€case,€itÏshould€have€more€information.€€Ìà     àMr.€Howell€said€that€hypothetically,€Bar€Counsel€could€haveÏdetermined€that€the€charges€were€important,€but€may€have€offered€toÏdismiss€with€a€warning€which€was€rejected€by€the€attorney.€€At€theÏprehearing€review,€would€it€be€sensible€for€the€Panel€to€dismiss€withÏa€warning?€€Mr.€Johnson€argued€that€if€charges€are€filed,€all€theÏPanel€can€do€is€to€have€a€hearing,€since€Bar€Counsel€will€ask€for€aÏhearing.€€Mr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€section€(b)€provides€that€theÏPanel€shall€schedule€a€hearing€if€it€concludes€that€the€statement€ofÏcharges€alleges€facts€constituting€professional€misconduct.€€TheÏPanel€has€no€discretion,€unless€the€statement€of€charges€isÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðinsufficient€on€its€face.€€The€Panel€has€no€authority€to€passÏjudgment€on€the€merits€of€the€case.€€Ìà     àMr.€Sykes€noted€that€there€is€no€opportunity€for€the€Panel€toÏdismiss€without€a€hearing€but€with€a€warning€at€the€first€stage,Ïwhich€is€the€point€made€by€Mr.€Johnson.€€This€takes€away€a€€powerÏthat€the€Panel€currently€has€and€impedes€rather€than€facilitates€theÏscreening€out€process.€€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€that€the€languageÏ"warranting€discipline"€be€added€to€the€second€sentence€of€sectionÏ(b)€after€the€word€"misconduct"€and€before€the€word€"or."€€Mr.ÏBroderick€clarified€that€a€dismissal€without€a€warning€is€notÏdiscipline.€€Ms.€Knox€inquired€if€the€Panel€has€the€statement€ofÏcharges€at€this€point€in€the€proceedings€under€the€current€rules.€ÏMr.€Johnson€replied€that€the€name€of€the€case€is€circulated€beforeÏthe€Panel€is€constituted.€€Once€it€is€constituted,€the€file€and€theÏrespondent€attorney's€response€go€to€the€Panel.€€The€Panel€looks€atÏeverything€and€determines€if€a€hearing€should€be€held€or€if€otherÏaction€should€be€taken€such€as€a€dismissal€or€a€dismissal€with€aÏwarning.Ìà     àMr.€Broderick€told€the€Rules€Committee€that€the€philosophicalÏunderpinnings€of€the€current€discipline€system€involve€a€trade„offÏbetween€the€protection€of€the€public€and€its€right€to€know,Ïcontrasted€with€the€right€of€an€attorney€to€keep€his€or€herÏreputation€unblemished.€€If€there€is€some€minimal€misconduct,€thereÏneed€be€no€public€sanction,€and€this€protects€the€confidentiality€ofÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðthe€attorney.€€At€the€screening€stage,€the€system€should€be€informal.€ÏThe€rules€of€evidence€do€not€apply,€and€neither€do€due€processÏrights.€€Once€the€screening€process€is€over€and€the€case€goes€to€theÏCourt€of€Appeals,€then€those€rights€apply.€€The€premise€of€the€systemÏis€confidentiality.€€Much€of€the€procedure€is€confidential,€includingÏa€reprimand.€€Under€the€proposed€Rules,€the€trade„off€has€been€lost.€ÏThe€Panel€hearing€is€a€full€administrative€hearing€complete€with€theÏrules€of€evidence€and€the€exchange€of€documents.€€Ìà     àMr.€Broderick€said€that€the€original€decision€of€the€RulesÏCommittee€was€to€streamline€the€process,€but,€in€his€opinion,€theÏrevised€rules€will€not€streamline€it,€with€the€exception€of€Rule€16„¼715,€Hearing€Panel,€which€provides€for€a€hearing€before€one€person;ÏRule€16„723,€Injunction;€Expedited€Disciplinary€Action;€and€Rule€16„¼716,€Probation€Agreement.€€The€concern€is€that€the€proposed€RulesÏwill€require€the€staff€in€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€to€double.€€AÏfull€panoply€of€rights€is€available€in€the€Panel€hearing,€andÏconfidentiality€is€at€risk.€€The€revised€Judicial€DisabilitiesÏCommission€Rules€became€a€model€for€the€revision€of€the€AttorneyÏDiscipline€Rules.€€The€revised€judicial€rules€gave€up€some€of€theÏconfidentiality€aspects€of€those€predecessor€rules.€Ìà     àMr.€Brault€responded€that€the€Rules€Committee€had€not€intendedÏfor€the€Judicial€Disabilities€Commission€Rules€to€give€upÏconfidentiality,€and€the€Committee€did€not€particularly€want€thoseÏRules€used€as€a€model€for€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules.€€HeÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðexpressed€the€view€that€confidentiality€is€more€important.€€Mr.ÏHowell€commented€that€drafting€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€forcesÏthe€Committee€to€walk€a€tightrope.€€The€attempt€is€to€adjust€theÏrights€of€the€attorney€who€has€a€reputation€to€preserve€against€theÏrights€of€the€public.€€The€Subcommittee€looked€at€the€balance€thatÏexists€in€the€current€BV€rules€and€in€the€rules€of€otherÏjurisdictions.€€It€is€difficult€to€accommodate€everyone's€point€ofÏview.€€The€screening€process€is€a€footnote€on€how€the€case€moves€to€aÏhearing.€€It€is€simply€a€scheduling€conference€for€Panel€members,€andÏit€is€not€intended€as€òòtheóó€hearing.Ð   	 ”ä   Ðà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€the€concepts€of€due€processÏand€confidentiality€are€very€different.€€In€a€review€of€a€motion€toÏdismiss,€it€does€not€seem€fair€that€the€entire€file€would€come€inÏbefore€the€attorney€has€a€right€to€speak.€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€thatÏRule€16„717€provides€that€the€Panel€is€only€considering€the€chargingÏdocument.€€A€dismissal€with€a€warning€would€be€a€highly€unlikelyÏdecision€at€this€point€when€the€Panel€has€no€information€before€it.€ÏMr.€Brault€suggested€that€a€dismissal€without€a€hearing€but€with€aÏwarning€should€be€presented€in€the€Rule€after€the€disclosures€inÏsections€(e)€and€(f)€of€Rule€16„717€have€been€made.€€After€a€hearingÏconcerning€any€material€in€the€investigative€file€to€which€theÏrespondent€attorney€objects€on€the€basis€of€Rule€5„403,€a€rulingÏwould€be€made,€and€then€a€dismissal€with€a€warning€would€beÏavailable.€€Mr.€Johnson€noted€that€this€would€work€and€would€notÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðrequire€a€hearing€in€every€case.Ìà     àMr.€Titus€commented€that€he€did€not€see€the€same€parallels€toÏthe€Judicial€Disabilities€Commission€Rules€as€Mr.€Broderick.€€€TheÏAttorney€Discipline€Rules€wisely€do€not€provide€the€right€to€a€publicÏhearing€advertised€in€òòTheóó€òòMarylandóó€òòRegisteróó.€€The€secrecy€of€theÐ   	 À   ÐInquiry€Panel€process€is€appropriate.€€Not€all€of€the€due€processÏprotections€are€necessary€at€the€Inquiry€Panel€stage.€€When€the€caseÏgoes€to€court,€those€protections€are€available.€€Judge€KaplanÏexpressed€his€agreement€that€the€process€should€be€confidential.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€pointed€out€that€under€the€current€system,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€has€held€that€the€legal€argument€to€exclude€evidence€from€theÏPanel€does€not€lend€itself€to€full€review.€€This€will€be€availableÏwhen€charges€are€filed€in€court.€€It€is€a€policy€issue.€€TheÏprevailing€thought€is€that€peer€review€screens€out€what€goes€to€theÏcourt.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€clarified€that€under€the€proposed€Rules,Ïthere€will€be€a€hearing€in€all€cases,€unless€the€statement€of€chargesÏfails€to€state€a€claim.€€She€expressed€her€agreement€with€theÏSubcommittee.€€The€public's€perception€is€that€decisions€are€madeÏbehind€closed€doors,€especially€when€a€dismissal€with€a€warning€isÏissued.€€However,€confidentiality€is€cleaner.€€The€Subcommittee€hasÏset€up€an€appropriate€balance,€even€if€more€hearings€than€under€theÏcurrent€system€are€required.€€Ìà     àMr.€Sykes€noted€that€Bar€Counsel€and€the€respondent€can€agreeÏto€bypass€a€hearing.€€There€is€an€argument€that€more€secrecy€leads€toÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ða€less€clean€process.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€Bar€CounselÏshould€be€able€to€throw€a€case€out.€€Their€office€does€not€like€to€doÏthat,€because€it€creates€an€inference€of€a€"good€ol'€boy"€system.€ÏThere€will€not€be€too€many€dismissals.€€Mr.€Johnson€remarked€thatÏcurrently€there€are€a€substantial€number€of€dismissals€with€warningsÏwhich€could€become€trials€under€the€proposed€Rules.€€However,€Mr.ÏBrault's€suggested€addition€will€allow€the€Inquiry€Panel€to€dismiss€aÏcase€with€a€warning€before€a€hearing.€€Ìà     àMr.€Johnson€moved€to€include€a€procedure€in€Rule€16„717€wherebyÏthe€Inquiry€Panel€can€dismiss€a€statement€of€charges€with€a€warningÏprior€to€a€hearing.€€Mr.€Sykes€suggested€that€the€dismissal€would€beÏwith€a€warning€if€the€Panel€finds€professional€misconduct,€butÏdecides€that€it€does€not€warrant€discipline.€€Mr.€Johnson€acceptedÏMr.€Sykes'€amendment.€€Judge€Kaplan€seconded€the€amended€motion.€€ItÏpassed€with€four€opposed.Ìà     àAfter€the€lunch€break,€€Judge€Vaughan€pointed€out€that€sectionÏ(b)€of€Rule€16„717€does€not€explain€what€happens€if€the€request€forÏreview€by€Bar€Counsel€is€sustained.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€thisÏsection€needs€to€be€improved.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€said€that€theÏprehearing€section€of€the€Rule€will€be€placed€in€a€separate€rule,€andÏa€cross€reference€will€be€added.€€Mr.€Howell€noted€that€a€finalÏsentence€will€be€included€which€will€provide€that€if€the€request€forÏreview€is€granted,€it€will€be€covered€under€Rule€16„720.€€Mr.€BraultÏsuggested€that€because€of€the€motion€made€by€Mr.€Johnson,€theÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐSubcommittee€could€draft€a€separate€prehearing€review€rule€whichÏwould€come€before€Rule€16„717€and€pertain€to€a€hearing€which€isÏrequired€by€the€Panel€or€the€Review€Board.€€The€Committee€agreed€toÏthis€suggestion€by€consensus.€€Mr.€Brault€observed€that€the€new€ruleÏcan€contain€provisions€concerning€discovery,€Bar€Counsel€disclosures,Ïdepositions€of€unavailable€witnesses,€and€rules€of€evidence.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€the€notice€which€is€referred€toÏin€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„717€includes€a€subpoena.€€Mr.€BroderickÏreplied€that€the€notice€is€in€the€form€of€a€subpoena.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€questioned€whether€there€is€a€rule€in€the€Rules€ofÏProfessional€Conduct€which€requires€the€attendance€of€an€attorney€atÏthe€hearing.€€Mr.€Broderick€answered€that€there€is€no€rule€compellingÏattendance.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€noted€that€the€attorney's€failureÏto€appear€has€to€be€conditioned€upon€the€attorney€being€required€toÏappear.€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€that€the€following€language€be€added€toÏthe€last€sentence€of€section€(c)€after€the€word€"and"€and€before€theÏword€"may":€€"if€the€attorney€was€subpoenaed€and€failed€to€appear."€ÏThe€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€the€addition€of€this€language.€€Ìà     àJudge€Rinehardt€inquired€what€would€happen€if€the€attorney€whoÏis€being€subpoenaed€cannot€be€found.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€repliedÏthat€service€can€be€effected€through€the€means€stated€in€Rule€16„708,Ïwhich€includes€mailing€to€the€attorney's€last€known€address€and€toÏthe€address€contained€in€the€records€of€the€Clients'€Security€TrustÏFund.€€Mr.€Sykes€commented€that€this€provides€a€method€to€go€forwardÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðwith€cases€which€previously€could€not€be€completed€due€to€lack€ofÏservice.Ìà     àMr.€Johnson€asked€if€counsel€for€the€respondent€attorney€alsoÏgets€notice€under€section€(c).€€The€Vice€Chairperson€responded€thatÏthe€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€specifically€provide€notice€only€to€theÏrespondent€attorney.€€She€questioned€whether€the€Subcommittee€lookedÏat€the€Title€1€notice€rules€to€see€how€they€interact€with€the€noticeÏprovisions€in€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules.€€Rule€1„331€providesÏthat€when€notice€is€to€be€given€by€or€to€a€party,€the€notice€may€beÏgiven€by€or€to€the€attorney€for€that€party.€€Mr.€Howell€suggestedÏthat€a€cross€reference€to€Rule€1„331€could€be€added€to€section€(c),Ïbut€the€Vice€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€there€are€many€other€placesÏin€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€which€refer€to€notice€to€theÏrespondent€attorney.€€To€only€cross€reference€one€rule€could€implyÏthat€in€the€other€situations,€the€respondent€attorney€is€notified,Ïbut€the€respondent€attorney's€attorney€is€not.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€Mr.ÏBroderick€how€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€handles€notice.€€€Mr.ÏBroderick€answered€that€whenever€counsel€enters€an€appearance,€hisÏoffice€notifies€counsel€for€the€respondent€attorney€throughout€theÏproceedings.€€However,€they€do€notify€the€respondent€attorneyÏdirectly€if€there€has€been€a€breakdown€in€the€relationship€betweenÏcounsel€and€the€respondent€attorney.€€They€make€sure€that€counsel€isÏalways€apprised€as€to€how€the€case€is€proceeding.Ìà     àMr.€Brault€said€that€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€provide€thatÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðnotice€is€given€directly€to€the€respondent€attorney,€and€there€is€noÏprovision€that€it€has€to€be€given€to€counsel€for€the€respondentÏattorney.€€Mr.€Broderick€added€that€the€respondent€attorney€getsÏcertified€mail€notice€of€the€hearing€with€a€copy€to€counsel.€€AllÏother€notices€can€go€to€counsel€of€record.Ìà     àThere€was€no€discussion€of€section€(d)€of€Rule€16„717.€€Mr.ÏHowell€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(e).€€Judge€VaughanÏasked€the€meaning€of€item€(5)€of€section€(e)€which€read€"any€otherÏinformation€that€Bar€Counsel€chooses€to€disclose€in€the€interest€ofÏfairness€or€to€expedite€the€hearing."€€Mr.€Karceski€remarked€thatÏsince€the€other€items€listed€in€of€section€(e)€seem€to€coverÏeverything,€item€(5)€implies€that€Bar€Counsel€may€be€hidingÏsomething.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€Bar€Counsel€does€maintain€a€workÏproduct€file€which€is€not€disclosed.€€Mr.€Broderick€explained€thatÏthe€way€this€is€handled€is€different€from€assistant€to€assistant€inÏthe€Office€of€Bar€Counsel.€€The€Attorney€Grievance€CommissionÏguidelines€provide€that€the€file€should€contain€all€correspondenceÏwith€the€complainant€and€all€the€information€received€fromÏrespondent.€€The€Office€sends€what€they€generate€as€investigativeÏreports,€and€the€only€item€not€included€is€attorney€work€product,Ïwhich€may€include€the€personal€ruminations€of€the€person€handling€theÏcase€for€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel,€directions€to€the€officeÏparalegals€to€do€research,€and€communications€with€the€Commission.€ÏMr.€Broderick€said€that€he€will€include€in€the€file€case€law€fromÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðother€jurisdictions,€and€other€research€central€to€the€issue€in€theÏcase€against€the€attorney.€€Mr.€Brault€commented€that€simplisticallyÏwhat€the€respondent€attorney€is€not€entitled€to€is€the€work€product.€€Ìà     àMr.€Karceski€commented€that€what€is€to€be€excluded€from€theÏfile€should€be€referenced€in€section€(f),€and€not€section€(e),€ofÏRule€16„717.€€The€choice€in€item€(5)€of€section€(e)€should€not€beÏdiscretionary.€€What€is€properly€exchanged€is€case€law€from€otherÏjurisdictions€and€research€along€with€the€names€of€witnesses.€€Mr.ÏBrault€agreed€with€Mr.€Karceski.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€commented€thatÏthis€could€be€couched€in€terms€of€required€and€permitted€disclosures.€ÏMr.€Karceski€questioned€as€to€why€this€should€be€optional.€€EitherÏthe€parties€exchange€the€information€referred€to€in€item€(5),€or€thisÏprovision€should€be€eliminated.€€Mr.€Howell€noted€that€under€theÏRules€of€Evidence,€all€evidence€to€be€disclosed€is€admissible€unlessÏit€is€excluded€by€the€Panel€Chairman.€€He€expressed€his€agreementÏwith€deleting€item€(5),€because€the€information€shared€by€Bar€CounselÏis€automatically€admissible.€€€Mr.€Sykes€pointed€out€that€if€item€(5)Ïis€deleted,€the€implication€is€that€all€the€other€information€listedÏin€the€first€four€categories€is€only€what€is€required€to€beÏdisclosed.€€He€asked€what€the€harm€is€of€leaving€item€(5)€in€theÏRule,€indicating€that€the€field€of€information€is€not€necessarilyÏexhausted€by€the€first€four€items.€€A€future€Bar€Counsel€could€argueÏthat€he€or€she€would€only€turn€over€information€required€to€beÏdisclosed€and€nothing€else.€€Mr.€Howell€added€that€Bar€Counsel€mayÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðsay€that€he€or€she€is€not€authorized€to€turn€over€any€otherÏinformation,€except€what€is€listed€in€the€first€four€items.€€€TheÏinformation€known€as€òòBradyóó€material€according€to€the€case€of€òòBrady€v.Ð   	 8ˆ   ÐMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€which€held€that€material€helpful€to€theÐ   	 ü	L   Ðdefense€must€be€disclosed,€is€very€important,€and€Bar€Counsel€mayÏchoose€not€to€disclose€this,€using€the€reason€that€it€is€not€listedÏin€the€first€four€items€in€section€(e).€€€Ìà     àMr.€Brault€commented€that€the€privileged€information€in€theÏpossession€of€Bar€Counsel,€such€as€attorney„client€communications,Ïpresents€an€ethical€problem.€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€that€sometimes€inÏthe€course€of€an€investigation,€the€investigator€gets€informationÏfrom€another€case.€€Bar€Counsel€may€have€to€redact€the€file€toÏsanitize€it,€removing€the€information€from€the€other€case.€€However,Ïfairness€may€dictate€that€Bar€Counsel€disclose€the€identity€of€theÏother€attorney,€so€that€the€respondent€attorney€in€the€original€caseÏknows€who€to€contact€to€get€information.€€It€is€not€a€problem€now,Ïbecause€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€gives€all€the€information€it€hasÏavailable.€€However,€with€a€subsequent€Bar€Counsel,€this€policy€couldÏchange.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€redacting€the€fileÏappears€to€violate€section€(e).€€Mr.€Sykes€said€that€the€itemsÏrequired€in€section€(e)€apply€only€to€the€first€investigation.€€€€Mr.ÏBrault€commented€that€the€Rules€should€avoid€the€situation€where€theÏnames€of€important€witnesses€are€withheld€under€the€doctrine€of€workÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðproduct.€€Mr.€Klein€asked€if€exculpatory€evidence€is€turned€over,Ïsince€item€(1)€refers€to€all€evidence€accumulated€during€theÏinvestigation.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€his€office€does€turn€overÏexculpatory€evidence.€€Under€the€Commission€guidelines,€counsel€forÏthe€respondent€can€look€at€the€file€of€Bar€Counsel.€€This€isÏdifferent€from€what€is€in€the€investigative€file€which€goes€to€theÏPanel.€€Some€items€are€not€in€the€files€including€irrelevant€evidenceÏor€material€which€is€considered€to€be€work€product.€€However,€theÏOffice€of€Bar€Counsel€uses€a€strict€application€of€work€product.€ÏDisclosure€is€analogous€to€a€review€of€the€office€files.Ìà     àMr.€Klein€asked€if€exculpatory€evidence,€which€is€not€in€theÏcontext€of€the€investigation€of€the€respondent€attorney's€case,€butÏrather€from€an€investigation€of€another€case,€ever€gets€into€the€caseÏfile€of€the€respondent€attorney.€€Mr.€Broderick€replied€that€if€theÏevidence€which€comes€into€their€office€is€relevant,€they€alwaysÏdisclose€it.€€Exculpatory€information€has€to€be€disclosed.€ÏDisclosure€facilitates€getting€to€the€root€of€the€issue€in€a€case.€ÏJudge€Vaughan€questioned€as€to€what€happens€to€informationÏaccumulated€after€an€inspection€has€been€completed.€€Mr.€BroderickÏanswered€that€supplemental€information€is€sent€to€the€Panel€and€toÏthe€respondent€attorney.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€a€statement€should€be€added€toÏsection€(e)€which€provides€that€Chapter€400€of€Title€2€applies.€€Mr.ÏHowell€remarked€that€there€is€no€similar€provision€in€the€JudicialÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐDisabilities€Rules.€€Mr.€Karceski€questioned€whether€the€entire€fileÏminus€the€work€product€is€open€to€inspection€and€how€one€would€objectÏto€certain€items€in€the€file€being€shown.€€Mr.€Howell€asked€if€thereÏare€two€separate€files.€€Mr.€Broderick€replied€that€there€are€not€twoÏfiles.€€The€investigative€part€of€the€file€is€kept€in€a€manila€folderÏwith€an€acco€fastener,€and€it€is€organized€document€by€document€withÏexhibit€slips€to€identify€the€documents.€€The€file€has€the€noticeÏletter€and€the€original€complaint.€€There€may€be€memoranda€pertainingÏto€planning€assignments,€and€the€investigation,€as€well€as€personalÏthoughts€of€the€person€from€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€who€is€handlingÏthe€case.€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€that€when€the€file€is€made€availableÏto€the€respondent,€he€would€like€to€be€able€to€exclude€the€planningÏand€other€memoranda,€and€the€personal€ruminations€of€the€assistantÏwho€is€handling€the€case.Ìà     àMr.€Brault€commented€that€the€obligation€of€disclosure€inÏsection€(e)€should€be€continuing€as€it€is€in€Rule€2„401€(e).€€TheÏReporter€noted€that€this€applies€to€section€(f)€of€Rule€16„717€asÏwell.€€Mr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€section€(f)€provides€thatÏdisclosure€should€be€made€within€a€reasonable€time.€€The€JudicialÏDisabilities€Rules€provide€for€disclosure€not€later€than€10€daysÏbefore€the€hearing.€€Using€the€term€"a€reasonable€time"€leaves€theÏamount€up€to€a€common€sense€determination.€€Mr.€Karceski€expressedÏthe€view€that€it€is€preferable€not€to€limit€the€time€period€forÏdisclosure€to€a€specific€number€of€days.€€Mr.€Howell€remarked€thatÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðmost€counsel€wait€to€decide€how€to€put€the€case€together.€€AÏreasonable€time€could€be€three€days€or€three€months€before€theÏhearing.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€time€limits€generate€controversy.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€commented€that€in€the€Visual€andÏElectronic€Evidence€Rules,€the€evidence€in€the€case„in„chief€wasÏdifferentiated€from€rebuttal€evidence.€€She€asked€if€Rule€16„717Ïshould€make€this€differentiation.€€Mr.€Howell€replied€that€it€is€€notÏnecessary.Ìà     àMr.€Howell€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(g).€HeÏexplained€that€the€alternate€version€of€this€section€is€an€attempt€toÏdeal€with€the€issue€of€òòdeóó€òòbeneóó€òòesseóó€depositions€by€using€languageÐ   	 X¨   Ðfrom€Rule€2„419.€€The€alternate€version€makes€the€deposition€of€anÏunavailable€witness€a€two„step€process€by€requiring€that€the€noticeÏof€the€deposition€make€certain€allegations,€and€then€allowing€theÏdeposition€to€be€admitted€into€evidence€if€the€Panel€Chair€finds€thatÏthe€allegations€are€true.€€Mr.€Howell€said€that€he€prefers€theÏalternate€version.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€noted€that€the€certified€letter€in€lieu€ofÏa€subpoena€in€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„718€applies€only€to€attorneys.€ÏMr.€Howell€agreed€that€a€certified€letter€can€only€be€used€if€theÏwitness€is€an€attorney.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€questioned€as€to€whyÏthe€filing€required€in€Rule€2„404€(a)(3),€which€pertains€to€a€requestÏto€perpetuate€testimony€and€is€referenced€in€section€(g),€isÏapplicable€to€Rule€16„717.€€Mr.€Howell€noted€that€the€reference€toÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐRule€2„415€(e)€is€a€carryover€from€Rule€BV6€d.€3.(b)(2)(ii).€€Mr.ÏHowell€suggested€that€the€language€in€section€(g)€which€reads€"(2)Ïthe€filing€requirements€of€Rule€2„404€(a)(3)€and€Rule€2„415€(e)€areÏnot€applicable"€should€be€deleted,€and€the€Committee€agreed€to€thisÏdeletion€by€consensus.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€inquired€as€to€why€section€(g)€providesÏthat€the€deposition€is€filed€with€the€Panel€Chair€prior€to€theÏscheduled€hearing€date.€€Mr.€Howell€responded€that€the€idea€was€thatÏthe€Panel€would€review€all€of€the€evidence.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏpointed€out€that€there€may€be€other€kinds€of€issues€relevant€here,Ïsuch€as€issues€relating€to€admissibility.€€If€the€Panel€Chair€seesÏthe€deposition€before€these€issues€are€decided,€it€may€be€a€problem.€ÏMr.€Broderick€noted€that€under€the€BV€Rules,€all€the€evidence€is€inÏthe€hands€of€the€Panel€Chair,€who€has€the€right€to€make€any€rulesÏpertaining€to€any€deposition.€€This€latter€right€has€been€deletedÏfrom€the€proposed€Rules.€€If€the€Panel€Chair€is€not€going€to€receiveÏthe€deposition,€then€the€language€in€section€(g)€which€reads€"(3)€theÏdeposition€shall€be€filed€with€the€Panel€Chair€prior€to€the€scheduledÏhearing€date"€could€be€deleted.€€Mr.€Brault€commented€that€theÏdeposition€has€to€be€filed€at€some€time.€€Judge€Vaughan€observed€thatÏthe€last€sentence€of€section€(g),€which€provides€for€protectiveÏorders,€will€resolve€any€problems.€€Mr.€Brault€suggested€that€theÏlanguage€referred€to€by€Mr.€Broderick,€which€requires€the€depositionÏto€be€filed€with€the€Panel€Chair,€is€controlled€by€Chapter€400€ofÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐTitle€2,€and€it€should€be€deleted€from€section€(g).€The€CommitteeÏagreed€to€this€suggestion€by€consensus.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€inquired€about€the€language€in€section€(g)Ïwhich€reads€"(1)€the€notice€required€by€Rule€2„412€shall€be€filedÏwith€the€Panel€Chair."€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€under€Chapter€400,€aÏcertificate€that€there€will€be€a€deposition€is€filed€with€the€court.€ÏSection€(g)€of€Rule€16„717€requires€no€certificate,€but€it€doesÏrequire€a€notice€of€the€deposition.€€Mr.€Sykes€pointed€out€that€a€òòdeóóÐ   	 \   Ðòòbeneóó€òòesseóó€deposition€is€required€to€be€filed€with€the€court€pursuantÐ   	 Ð    Ðto€Rule€2„419€(a)(3).€€Under€section€(g)€of€Rule€16„717€the€Rule€hasÏto€be€clear€that€the€òòdeóó€òòbeneóó€òòesseóó€deposition€only€has€to€be€filedÐ   	 X¨   Ðwith€the€Panel€Chair.€€Mr.€Brault€stated€that€the€perpetuation€ofÏevidence€doctrine€does€not€apply€unless€a€complaint€or€statement€ofÏcharges€will€be€or€has€been€filed.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€asked€whereÏthere€is€a€requirement€to€file€a€deposition.€€Mr.€Howell€remarkedÏthat€there€are€no€formalities€under€this€Rule.€€Mr.€Brault€said€thatÏthe€rules€of€Chapter€400€apply.€€For€example,€if€an€attorney€is€beingÏinvestigated€for€theft€of€trust€fund€monies,€and€the€fear€is€that€theÏcestui€que€trust€will€die,€but€Bar€Counsel€cannot€determine€whetherÏto€file€charges,€the€deposition€of€the€cestui€can€be€put€into€theÏfile€and€can€then€be€used€if€charges€are€filed.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€commented€that€if€the€reference€to€Rule€2„¼412€is€taken€out,€then€this€section€can€be€broadened€to€apply€to€aÏnotice€of€a€deposition€to€perpetuate€testimony€under€Rule€Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ð2„404,€Perpetuation€of€Evidence.€€The€wording€of€the€language€whichÏfollows€the€word€"except"€would€read€as€follows:€"(1)€the€notice€ofÏthe€deposition€shall€be€filed€with€the€Panel€Chair."€€€Mr.€SykesÏobserved€that€the€perpetuation€of€testimony€doctrine€does€not€applyÏunless€an€action€is€going€to€be€filed.€€Mr.€Howell€pointed€out€thatÏthe€action€is€filed€in€the€Court€of€Appeals,€and€Rule€16„717€appliesÏin€anticipation€of€this.€€Mr.€Sykes€read€from€Rule€1„202,ÏDefinitions,€which€provides€that€an€action€"means€collectively€allÏthe€steps€by€which€a€party€seeks€to€enforce€any€right€in€a€court€orÏall€the€steps€of€a€criminal€prosecution."€€Mr.€Brault€remarked€thatÏthis€would€be€in€anticipation€of€public€charges,€not€in€anticipationÏof€a€Panel€hearing.€€Mr.€Sykes€suggested€that€there€should€be€someÏadaption€of€the€general€rule€to€allow€depositions€to€be€taken€in€thisÏproceeding.€€Mr.€Broderick€commented€that€depositions€before€a€PanelÏhearing€are€rare.€€Any€depositions€are€usually€held€out„of„state€andÏare€very€infrequent.€Ìà     àMr.€Brault€asked€if€Rule€2„404€should€be€incorporated€into€RuleÏ16„717.€€Rule€2„404€has€the€entire€panoply€of€discovery,€includingÏproduction€of€documents,€and€mental€and€physical€examinations.€€AÏseparate€rule€would€be€needed€to€limit€the€application€of€Rule€2„404Ïin€the€context€of€Rule€16„717€to€depositions.€€Language€could€beÏadded€which€provides€that€a€deposition€may€be€taken€to€perpetuateÏtestimony€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Rule€2„404€as€it€applies€toÏdepositions.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€commented€that€she€was€hesitantÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðabout€incorporating€discovery€provisions€in€Rule€16„717.€€There€areÏthree€forms€of€discovery€to€be€concerned€with:€€depositions€ofÏunavailable€witnesses,€depositions€to€perpetuate€evidence,€and€mentalÏand€physical€examinations.€€Mr.€Brault€disagreed,€explaining€that€theÏonly€concern€is€perpetuation€of€testimony.€€The€examination€pertainsÏonly€to€the€attorney€who€is€alleged€to€be€incapacitated.€€à    Ð  àTheÐ   	 „Ô
   ÐVice€Chairperson€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(h),€andÏshe€suggested€that€the€phrase€"by€a€physician"€be€deleted.€€TheÏCommittee€agreed€to€this€deletion.Ìà     àThere€was€no€discussion€of€section€(i).€€Turning€to€sectionÏ(j),€the€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€use€of€the€word€"may"€makesÏit€sound€like€the€Panel€could€refuse€to€take€the€testimony€ofÏwitnesses.€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€the€first€two€sentences€ofÏsection€(j)€could€be€combined,€so€that€the€language€would€be:€"TheÏPanel€may€take€the€testimony€of€any€witnesses€under€oath."€€Mr.€SykesÏpointed€out€that€that€would€sound€as€though€the€Panel€could€take€theÏtestimony€of€unsworn€witnesses.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€withdrew€herÏcomment€about€section€(j).Ìà     àMr.€Howell€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(k).€€Mr.ÏSykes€noted€that€subsection€(k)(1)€is€very€broad.€€It€would€allowÏself„serving€hearsay€to€be€admitted.€€Mr.€Karceski€suggested€that€theÏfirst€sentence€of€subsection€(k)(1)€be€deleted.€€Mr.€Howell€explainedÏthe€background€of€this€provision.€€He€said€that€this€had€triggered€aÏfierce€debate€in€the€Subcommittee€as€to€whether€there€should€beÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðrelaxed€rules€of€evidence€applicable€or€no€evidence€rules€applicableÏat€all.€€The€decision€was€to€use€the€rules€of€evidence€in€theÏproceedings€before€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€When€the€BV€Rules€wereÏdrafted,€there€was€no€evidence€code.€€The€first€sentence€ofÏsubsection€(k)(1)€was€a€compromise€to€afford€some€flexibility€toÏallow€evidence€to€come€in.€€€The€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€all€theÏinformation€has€been€exchanged€at€this€point€in€the€proceedings.€€Mr.ÏHowell€answered€that€both€sides€have€seen€the€documents€and€have€beenÏable€to€formulate€objections.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€commented€thatÏone€side€could€include€every€conceivable€item€in€the€file,€all€ofÏwhich€is€presumed€to€be€admissible.€€She€suggested€that€the€wordÏ"relevant"€be€added€to€the€first€sentence€of€subsection€(k)(1)€afterÏthe€word€"all"€and€before€the€word€"evidence."€€Mr.€Sykes€observedÏthat€if€it€cannot€be€argued€that€certain€information€in€the€file€isÏinadmissable€hearsay,€the€file€could€be€loaded€with€material€thatÏshould€not€be€admitted.€€Mr.€Brault€said€that€the€Subcommittee€hadÏrun€into€a€problem.€€If€the€Attorney€Grievance€Commission€mustÏproduce€live€testimony€from€all€of€its€witnesses,€the€hearing€couldÏbe€endless.€€It€would€not€be€good€to€burden€the€hearing€withÏunnecessary€detail.€€Mr.€Sykes€remarked€that€it€is€a€matter€of€theÏquality€of€the€evidence,€but€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€it€isÏdifficult€to€include€that€concept€in€the€Rule.€€Mr.€Howell€hadÏsuggested€that€subsection€(k)(1)€refer€to€the€admissibility€of€allÏrelevant€evidence.€€Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ðà     àMr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€at€its€June,€1994€meeting,€theÏRules€Committee€had€decided€that€the€hearing€provided€for€in€Rule€16„¼717€should€be€a€probable€cause€hearing,€which€can€include€theÏadmission€of€hearsay€evidence.€€Subsection€(k)(1)€is€an€attempt€toÏcompromise€this€issue.€€The€respondent€attorney€has€advance€notice,Ïand€there€is€a€screening€process€which€affords€some€protection.€€Mr.ÏSykes€inquired€if€it€could€be€argued€that€hearsay€statements€of€aÏdead€witness€should€be€excluded€from€the€file,€since€their€probativeÏvalue€is€outweighed€by€the€prejudicial€nature€of€the€statements.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€responded€that€evidence€questions€can€be€arguedÏindefinitely.€€Practitioners€understand€this€and€will€take€theseÏproblems€into€consideration.€€If€the€case€against€the€respondentÏattorney€cannot€be€proved€in€enough€detail,€the€attorney€can€be€givenÏa€reprimand€or€a€dismissal€with€a€warning.€€This€is€an€example€of€theÏphilosophy€of€balancing.€€Ìà     àMr.€Karceski€questioned€if€a€catchall€similar€to€the€one€inÏRule€5„803€would€be€helpful.€€This€could€balance€hearsay€which€isÏtrustworthy€against€useless€evidence.€€Mr.€Brault€cautioned€that€theÏprocess€should€not€be€too€rigorous,€or€else€the€Court€of€Appeals€mayÏconclude€that€it€is€too€complicated.€€The€Subcom„mittee€had€discussedÏusing€relaxed€rules€of€evidence.€€This€is€not€a€perfect€solution,€butÏthis€is€how€small€claims€actions€are€handled.€€Mr.€Sykes€pointed€outÏthat€attorney€discipline€matters€are€not€minor.€€€Ìà     àMr.€Howell€noted€that€the€first€sentence€of€subsection€(k)(1)Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ðconforms€to€the€mandate€of€the€Rules€Committee.€€The€SubcommitteeÏwent€further,€providing€that€the€attorney€could€introduce€evidence€toÏcounteract€the€evidence€against€him€or€her€and€could€cross„examineÏdamaging€witnesses.€€He€asked€if€the€Committee€agreed€with€theÏsuggestion€that€the€word€"relevant"€should€be€added€before€the€wordÏ"evidence"€in€the€first€sentence€of€subsection€(k)(1).€€The€CommitteeÏagreed€by€consensus€to€add€this.Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€questioned€whether€the€second€sentence€ofÏsubsection€(k)(1)€should€be€deleted.€€Mr.€Brault€asked€if€hearsayÏwould€be€admitted,€and€the€Vice€Chairperson€replied€that€hearsayÏcould€come€in€under€the€first€sentence.€€Mr.€Titus€commented€that€theÏcurrent€BV€Rules€created€certain€protections,€similar€to€a€Grand€JuryÏproceeding€with€a€check€on€it.€€Mr.€Karceski€said€that€Rule€16„717Ïdoes€not€contemplate€a€Grand€Jury€proceeding.€€It€is€a€prehearingÏreview.€€Mr.€Titus€expressed€the€concern€that€the€rationale€forÏsecrecy€could€be€surrendered.€€Mr.€Brault€observed€that€open€hearingÏadvocates€will€argue€that€the€prehearing€section€should€be€open€toÏthe€public.€€The€Committee€will€have€to€take€a€stand€on€this.€€€€¼à     àÌà     àMr.€Titus€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€Rule€should€not€beÏbogged€down€with€references€to€burdens€of€proof,€and€he€suggestedÏthat€subsection€(k)(2)€be€deleted.€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€with€aÏprobable€cause€hearing€there€is€less€reason€to€have€this€provision.€ÏThe€Subcommittee€combined€the€idea€of€probable€cause€and€a€burden€ofÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðproof.€€The€Chairperson€commented€that€there€is€a€danger€with€theÏproceeding€going€forward€if€the€Panel€is€persuaded€by€a€preponderanceÏof€the€evidence€that€the€attorney€engaged€in€misconduct.€€It€might€beÏpreferable€for€the€Panel€to€be€persuaded€that€the€court€couldÏconclude€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€attorney€engagedÏin€misconduct.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€the€Subcommittee€disagreedÏwith€that€burden€of€proof€because€it€was€too€hard€to€meet.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€expressed€the€view€that€the€Chairperson's€suggestedÏburden€of€proof€may€be€too€complicated.€€Ìà     àMr.€Titus€asked€again€why€burdens€of€proof€are€needed.€€Mr.ÏHowell€remarked€that€this€was€a€compromise€in€the€Subcommittee.€ÏProbable€cause€requires€too€low€a€threshold;€it€is€simply€aÏreasonable€ground€to€believe.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€this€is€aÏprima€facie€case.€€Mr.€Howell€explained€that€the€standard€is€probableÏcause€to€believe€that€misconduct€may€be€found,€without€hearing€anyÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€€Probable€cause€may€be€contrasted€withÏclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€Both€are€difficult€to€grasp;€theÏstandard€of€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€easier€to€understand.€ÏThe€latter€means€that€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€somethingÏhappened.€€The€Rules€Committee€had€said€previously€that€it€wanted€aÏstandard€which€is€lower€than€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÏstandard.€€The€Subcommittee€wanted€to€bring€the€standard€up€somewhatÏbut€not€to€the€level€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€which€is€theÏstandard€used€by€the€Court€of€Appeals.Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ðà     àThe€Chairperson€commented€that€what€persuades€A€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€may€convince€B€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence,€and€it€may€convince€C€by€the€standard€of€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€€The€Grand€Jury€is€hard€to€predict,€and€it€isÏunfair€to€indict€someone€if€the€evidence€will€result€in€a€verdict€ofÏNot€Guilty.€€If€the€Panel€concludes€that€no€reasonable€circuit€courtÏjudge€could€find€misconduct€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€then€itÏshould€not€send€the€case€on.€€Mr.€Howell€expressed€the€opinion€thatÏthis€standard€is€somewhat€high„risk.€€It€is€similar€to€a€standard€ofÏguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€By€using€a€lesser€standard,€someÏcases€will€not€get€screened€out,€but€this€avoids€the€greater€riskÏthat€a€case€will€be€ended€which€should€go€to€charges.€€TheÏChairperson€remarked€that€recognizing€the€difference€between€theÏstandards€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€and€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€a€matter€of€"knowing€it€when€you€see€it."€€Mr.€BroderickÏnoted€that€the€classic€case€of€splitting€hairs€is€one€where€theÏrespondent€is€charged€with€not€returning€telephone€calls€and€notÏturning€over€client€files.€€The€Panel€reviews€the€case€and€issues€aÏdismissal€with€a€warning.€€If€a€rigid€burden€of€proof€is€applied,Ïthen€the€compromises€which€make€the€system€work€will€fall€by€theÏwayside.€€The€system€with€a€nebulous€burden€of€proof€works€better.€€ÏThe€Attorney€Grievance€Commission€guideline,€Section€Ì5„204€of€the€Administrative€and€Procedureal€Guidelines€reads:€€€€€€Ð   	 ˆ+Ø&,   ÐÒ    `	° ÒÒ   `	° ÒÓ          ÓÌ€€Although€Rule€BV6€(c)(1)€provides€that€theÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðrules€of€evidence€need€not€apply,€to€the€extentÏthat€the€rules€of€evidence€are€not€followed€inÏadmitting€evidence,€standards€designed€to€giveÏreasonable€assurance€of€authenticity€andÏveracity€should€be€applied.ÌÌÌÒ    °`	 ÒÒ   °`	 ÒÓ          Óà     àThe€Chairperson€stated€that€he€did€not€disagree,€but€he€askedÏwhether€the€Panel€should€examine€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€orÏresolve€the€burden€of€persuasion.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€she€was€troubled€with€theÏidea€of€instructing€the€Panel€to€put€themselves€in€the€judge's€place.€ÏThe€Chairperson€commented€that€the€proposed€rule€involves€aÏcredibility€call.€€For€the€Panel€to€be€persuaded€that€something€isÏmore€likely€than€not,€it€evaluates€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€ÏThe€Rule€provides€that€the€case€goes€forward€if€the€Panel€isÏpersuaded€that€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€the€attorney€engagedÏin€misconduct€or€was€incapacitated.€€One€objective€is€to€try€to€avoidÏan€outraged€public.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€observed€that€the€publicÏwould€be€more€outraged€if€a€case€is€dismissed€at€the€open€hearingÏstage.€€It€is€easier€to€throw€out€a€case€at€the€confidential€stage.€ÏThe€Chairperson€said€that€it€is€easier€to€dismiss€a€case€once€thereÏhas€been€an€evaluation€of€credibility.€€à    p àMr.€Brault€commented€thatÐ   	 Z%ª %   Ðpanels€make€findings,€and€the€Rule€should€clarify€the€burden€ofÏproof.€€His€concern€is€that€using€the€standard€of€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€will€allow€many€attorneys€to€sidestep€beingÏcharged.€€Mr.€Karceski€pointed€out€that€sections€(e)€and€(f)€would€beÏapplicable€to€this€issue.€€Mr.€Brault€responded€that€at€other€stagesÐ   	 ..~)/   Ðof€the€proceedings,€there€are€live€witnesses.€€Sections€(e)€and€(f)Ïonly€pertain€to€what€a€witness€said€and€may€involve€hearsay.€€Mr.ÏSykes€remarked€that€the€Chairperson's€view€is€that€the€Panel€isÏentitled€to€information€that€the€court€does€not€get.€€The€likelihoodÏis€that€at€the€Panel€hearing€level,€it€is€more€difficult€for€theÏrespondent€attorney€to€prove€his€or€her€innocence€than€when€theÏattorney€is€in€court€and€is€allowed€to€cross„examine€witnesses€andÏuse€the€rules€of€evidence.€€If€the€Panel€still€thinks€that€it€is€notÏlikely€that€a€finding€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€can€be€made,Ïthe€attorney€is€entitled€to€a€dismissal.€Ìà     àJudge€Vaughan€noted€that€the€second€sentence€of€section€(k)(2)Ïprovides€the€attorney€the€chance€to€present€evidence.€€Mr.€BraultÏadded€that€Bar€Counsel€has€the€burden€of€persuasion,€while€theÏrespondent€attorney€has€the€burden€of€going€forward€with€any€defensesÏor€mitigating€factors.€€However,€the€burden€of€going€forward€affectsÏthe€burden€of€persuasion,€and€it€may€add€to€the€probability€thatÏsomething€did€happen.€€€The€Vice€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€theÏtagline€indicates€that€the€burden€of€proof€includes€the€burden€ofÏpersuasion.€€The€respondent€attorney€has€the€burden€of€persuasionÏwith€respect€to€mitigating€factors.€€The€Chairperson€stated€that€inÏthe€circuit€court,€Bar€Counsel€has€to€prove€the€case€against€theÏrespondent€attorney€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€while€theÏattorney€persuades€as€to€mitigation€and€other€defenses€using€theÏstandard€of€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Mr.€Broderick€notedÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðthat€these€are€the€standards€enunciated€in€the€case€of€òòAttorneyÐ   	 °      ÐGrievance€Commission€v.€Bakasóó,€322€Md.€603,€modified,€323€Md.€395Ð   	 tÄ   Ð(1991).€€The€Vice€Chairperson€expressed€the€view€that€the€terminologyÏin€the€Rule€needs€to€be€clear.Ì€à     àMr.€Titus€called€the€Committee's€attention€to€Rule€16„719€onÐ   	 À   Ðpage€66€of€the€revised€Attorney€Discipline€Rules.€€Section€(a)€beginsÏas€follows:€"[i]f€the€Hearing€Panel€after€hearing€finds€that€theÏattorney€has€engaged€in€professional€misconduct€or€isÏincapacitated...".€€Mr.€Titus€noted€that€the€Panel€Hearing€ultimatelyÏresults€in€a€holding€in€the€nature€of€a€Grand€Jury€charge€and€not€aÏfinding.€€He€suggested€that€in€place€of€the€language€"[i]f€theÏHearing€Panel€...€finds€that€the€attorney€has€engaged",€the€followingÏlanguage€should€be€substituted:€"if€the€Hearing€Panel€finds€aÏreasonable€basis€to€conclude€that€the€attorney€has€engaged...".€€€TheÏChairperson€observed€that€the€language€"a€reasonable€basis"€seems€toÏwork.€€Probable€cause€may€be€based€on€inadmissible€hearsay.€€Using€"aÏreasonable€basis"€would€mean€that€if€there€is€no€reasonable€basis€forÏfinding€misconduct€based€upon€admissible€evidence,€then€no€chargesÏwould€result.Ìà     àMr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€the€problem€with€using€theÏ"reasonable€basis"€language€is€that€the€Panel€can€find€eitherÏmisconduct€or€incapacity.€€Mr.€Titus€responded€that€it€does€not€makeÏa€difference€which€finding€the€Panel€makes.€€The€finding€process€isÏan€Inquiry€Panel€function,€and€the€Panel€is€making€a€determinationÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðthat€the€charges€go€forward.€€It€is€up€to€the€trial€judge€and€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€to€make€a€finding€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€ÏThe€Panel€determination€is€simply€finding€enough€evidence€to€goÏforward.€€Mr.€Brault€questioned€as€to€what€"a€reasonable€basis"€is.€ÏThe€Chairperson€again€expressed€the€view€that€this€may€work€well,Ïsince€it€implies€that€the€Panel€could€make€its€decision€using€anÏappropriate€burden€of€proof.€€He€asked€what€would€be€the€trigger€forÏthe€Panel€to€send€the€case€forward.€€Mr.€Titus€replied€it€is€like€theÏstandard€used€by€a€prosecutor.€€Mr.€Howell€remarked€that€it€isÏsimilar€to€probable€cause.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€probable€causeÏcan€exist€on€inadmissible€evidence€„„€this€is€a€reasonable€basis€toÏget€the€case€before€a€judge.€€Ìà     àMr.€Howell€commented€that€there€is€a€philosophical€gap.€€TheÏSubcommittee€soundly€rejected€that€Grand€Jury„type€of€position.€€TheÏRules€Committee€can€reject€the€position€of€the€Subcommittee.€€TheÏSubcommittee€feels€that€a€Grand€Jury€is€inappropriate€to€determineÏattorney€misconduct€and€accountability.€€The€standard€which€should€beÏapplied€should€be€something€above€probable€cause.€€Using€a€reasonableÏbasis€standard€without€a€Committee€note€to€elucidate€what€it€meansÏwould€imply€that€people€on€the€Panels€could€pick€one€piece€ofÏevidence€and€ignore€the€rest.€€The€Subcommittee€felt€that€someÏprotection€should€be€given€to€the€attorney.€€There€should€be€noÏsecret€Grand€Jury€proceeding€without€standards.€€Ìà     àMr.€Titus€remarked€that€it€is€clear€to€him€that€an€InquiryÐ   	 L-œ(.   ÐPanel€proceeding€has€to€be€more€truncated.€€The€concern€is€thatÏincluding€too€many€protection€lengthens€it€substantially.€€Mr.€BraultÏsaid€that€a€standard€of€"it€probably€happened"€is€not€difficult€toÏunderstand.€€He€inquired€how€a€Panel€would€interpret€"reasonableÏbasis."€€Mr.€Titus€responded€that€a€Committee€note€could€explainÏthis.€€The€assessment€would€be€by€a€body€similar€to€a€prosecutorialÏbody,€which,€as€a€whole,€has€authorized€Bar€Counsel€to€go€forward.Ìà     àMr.€Titus€noted€that€the€Panels€currently€do€not€make€findings,Ïbut€Mr.€Brault€argued€that€the€Panels€could€not€dismiss€with€aÏwarning€if€no€findings€were€made.€€Mr.€Broderick€explained€that€thereÏare€two€reasons€to€issue€a€dismissal€with€a€warning.€€The€thresholdÏissue€is€to€determine€if€there€has€been€misconduct.€€The€Panel€shouldÏnot€make€a€value€judgment,€but€it€should€make€a€screening€judgmentÏthat€the€misconduct€probably€did€happen€and€whether€the€conduct€is€ofÏsuch€a€nature€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€needs€to€be€bothered€with€it.€ÏThis€gives€the€Panel€the€ability€to€make€a€screening€judgment.€€Mr.ÏBrault€reiterated€that€the€Panel€has€to€make€findings€to€makeÏdecisions.€€The€Grand€Jury€model€does€not€fit,€because€the€State'sÏAttorney€can€charge€the€defendant€again€if€the€Grand€Jury€does€notÏindict.€€The€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€should€provide€that€if€a€caseÏis€dismissed,€it€is€over,€and€it€cannot€be€charged€again.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€noted€that€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€never€charges€a€caseÏagain.€€Mr.€Brault€pointed€out€that€under€the€Grand€Jury€model,€theÏcase€can€be€charged€again.€€Ð   	 L-œ(.   Ðà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€stated€that€it€is€not€contemplated€thatÏthe€case€would€be€charged€again.€€The€wording€being€discussed€is€howÏthe€Panel€determines€whether€or€not€to€go€forward€with€the€case.€€TheÏReporter€cautioned€that€under€the€proposed€revised€Rules,€theÏfunction€of€the€Review€Board€has€been€reduced,€so€the€Rules€have€toÏbe€carefully€crafted€to€minimize€the€disparity€of€outcomes€from€PanelÏto€Panel.€€Judge€Johnson€commented€that€the€Panel€is€weighing€theÏevidence€from€both€sides,€while€the€Grand€Jury€only€looks€at€theÏevidence€from€one€side.€€Mr.€Howell€remarked€that€this€is€roughÏjustice.€€The€standard€is€that€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€thereÏwas€misconduct.€€The€preponder„ance€of€the€evidence€standard€is€notÏbeing€used.€€Mr.€Titus€said€that€this€is€not€inconsistent€with€theÏchange€he€has€proposed.€€It€is€not€being€called€a€finding,€althoughÏit€looks,€smells,€and€acts€as€if€it€were€one.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€the€dismissal€of€the€caseÏby€the€Panel,€which€is€provided€for€in€section€(a)€of€Rule€16„719,Ïimplies€that€the€Panel€has€not€found€misconduct.€€Can€the€Panel€stillÏissue€a€warning?€€Mr.€Brault€noted€that€in€civil€procedure,€there€areÏdismissals€with€and€without€prejudice.€€If€there€is€no€burden€ofÏproof,€how€can€a€dismissal€be€with€prejudice?€€€Mr.€Titus€suggestedÏthat€the€Rule€could€specify€this.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€there€areÏtwo€problems.€€One€is€that€Bar€Counsel€will€be€concerned€if€aÏcredible€finding€of€misconduct€resulted€in€a€dismissal.€€If€BarÏCounsel€disagrees,€and€wishes€to€have€the€case€considered€again,€itÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðis€more€likely€that€the€case€is€over€if€dismissed€with€prejudice.€ÏThe€second€problem€is€that€after€the€Panel€has€heard€all€theÏevidence,€it€may€not€be€fair€to€the€respondent€attorney€to€go€forwardÏif€the€standard€applied€is€that€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€thereÏwas€misconduct,€since€this€is€not€the€same€as€the€standard€of€clearÏand€convincing€evidence.€€The€case€law€as€expressed€in€the€cases€ofÏòòAttorney€Grievance€Commission€v.€McBurneyóó,€282€Md.€116€(1978)€andÐ   	 H˜
   ÐòòAttorney€Grievance€Commission€v.€Stewartóó,€285€Md.€251,€cert.€denied,Ð   	 \   Ð444€U.S.€845€(1979),€is€that€during€Inquiry€Panel€and€Review€BoardÏproceedings€a€respondent€attorney€does€not€have€available€all€of€theÏconstitutional€safeguards€accorded€an€accused€in€a€criminal€case.€ÏThe€Chairperson€remarked€that€every€time€an€unbalanced€personÏcomplains€about€an€attorney,€the€case€should€not€go€to€a€circuitÏcourt€judge€to€decide.€€Mr.€Broderick€explained€that€the€systemÏanticipates€compromises.€€One€alternative€is€dismissal€with€a€warningÏwhich€is€not€made€public.€€à    À àMr.€Brault€pointed€out€that€theÐ   	 ,|   Ðdifficulty€is€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€said€that€the€PanelÏproceeding€is€similar€to€a€Grand€Jury€proceeding.€€A€distinctionÏbetween€the€two€is€needed€in€the€Rules.€€When€someone€applies€to€theÏJudicial€Nominating€Commission€to€become€a€judge,€there€is€always€aÏreport€on€the€individual€from€Bar€Counsel.€€The€questionnaire€asks€ifÏthere€have€been€any€complaints€filed€against€the€applicant,€and€thisÏrequests€more€information€than€what€Bar€Counsel€reports€to€theÏCommission.€€A€dismissal€is€a€finding€in€favor€of€an€attorney.€€IfÐ   	 L-œ(.   Ðdismissal€under€the€Attorney€Discipline€Rules€means€that€the€caseÏcould€not€be€proven,€the€benefit€to€the€attorney€of€the€dismissal€isÏuseless€and€has€to€be€reported€as€a€complaint.€€Mr.€Brault€expressedÏthe€view€that€having€a€finding€would€be€preferable.€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€referred€to€Mr.€Titus'€suggestion€that€theÏdismissal€in€section€(a)€of€Rule€16„719€be€with€prejudice€to€make€itÏthe€equivalent€of€a€final€finding.€€She€said€she€had€some€concernÏabout€a€finding€of€"more€likely€than€not."€€Ìà     àThe€Vice€Chairperson€adjourned€the€meeting€due€to€a€lack€of€aÏquorum,€stating€that€Rule€16„717€would€again€be€considered€at€theÏnext€Rules€Committee€meeting.€€