ÿWPC ±¥Vt¡Ü÷®õÉ„ۓü&r®Æü£¶¸NEûÚüc¥Vt¡°oJÊ3eWñô2ÅëY‰þ„bRaÜBʬ(žŒýûÝ*Â0îˆQ–¿ Èél6bŽÞE¾Ì¢¾EþÀ“ª^>ò"ôu¶À¥Ö'¶æ,é]4Ï›b’¼ñ…š1bX7y€mÑÐò*ö0߹ݨ 5ËEϼ‰ô7¡Ä7´Ô¿jÈ‹¾Ã‘'å:1C‘¢ÅÉì*´»ÃûåKy˜Ïh¡ ¬º N%óc”¸ýݺ“ùVž¿¨@¶D­œqÁS—ÇeŠìïÆÝáÏ€mrnXv|%ì‘Ø'3{D¯_FTAØRÍ Y# Y‰ÁÎ%“ŸNq_á“…þ®×ã<^²Å+Ê{5„$ gÆ£d•Êè8±Ú%ßÅjºE_4U-™˜†ÜÓU%-kÕòðTå]ÆD¾PÅ2¦"¡‡üñ 5kcÙº€\q[Uq¦ˆ}ç”° |†›Î1…Èø1°ãŒÚ ÿê} vAŠâ“Ï­¤úà,“¸#nª]ôð5qfÎ"r²ožjÐëЫ6˜žW·Üä–@»;€ 2cÍçz‹$›³‹b2„A ø;†Z!\Y¯êU>Ò %U:NPb R^nXn 0ØÆ#!ž^ ¿w Ë4Õé më,xÐðA`&UniversScalableX<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpi- ù -#|x «,xÐðA`&UniversScalableXX~xÐðPö»7ûXP<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpieXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@(°`÷$¡¡ÓÓÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€‰PXXdðdð8ÑÔ€X‰PXXXÔÔ€X XXX‰PÔ˜Acrobat PDFWriter,ü,,,,,ü0\v'cDAj'»Ž‚ ø„DÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ`÷!ÝÓÓÓ  ÓѰ°ÑÑX°ÑÑ8€\×XXdîdð8ÑÔ€X\×XXXÔÔ€X½XXX\×ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÑ€ÑÑ = Ñà@3 3 ìàCOURT€OF€APPEALS€STANDING€COMMITTEEˆÐ ° Ðà@k k ìàòòON€RULES€OF€PRACTICE€AND€PROCEDUREóóˆÐ ’â ÐÌÌÌÓÓà  àMinutes€of€a€meeting€of€the€Rules€Committee€held€in€Room€1100A,ÏPeople's€Resource€Center,€100€Community€Place,€Ô_ÔCrownsvilleÔ_Ô,€MarylandÏon€April€25,€1997.ÌÓÓÌà  àMembers€present:ÌÌHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€ChairpersonÌLinda€M.€Ô_ÔSchuettÔ_Ô,€Esq.,€Vice€ChairpersonÌÌLowell€R.€Bowen,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àJames€J.€Ô_ÔLombardiÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð ² ÐRobert€L.€Dean,€Esq.à  àà h àà À àHon.€John€F.€Ô_ÔMcAuliffeÔ_ÔÐ ”ä ÐÔ_ÔBayardÔ_Ô€Z.€Ô_ÔHochbergÔ_Ô,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àAnne€C.€Ô_ÔOgletreeÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð vÆ ÐH.€Thomas€Howell,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àHon.€Mary€Ellen€T.€Ô_ÔRinehardtÔ_ÔÐ X¨ ÐHon.€G.€R.€Ô_ÔHoveyÔ_Ô€Johnsonà h àà À àà  àLarry€W.€Ô_ÔShipleyÔ_Ô,€ClerkÐ :Š ÐHarry€S.€Johnson,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àRoger€W.€Titus,€Esq.Ð l ÐHon.€Joseph€H.€H.€Kaplanà h àà À àà  àHon.€James€N.€VaughanÐ þN ÐRobert€D.€Klein,€Esq.à h àà À àà  àRobert€A.€Ô_ÔZarnochÔ_Ô,€Esq.Ð à0 ÐÌÌà  àIn€attendance:ÌÌSandra€F.€Haines,€Esq.,€ReporterÌÔ_ÔSherieÔ_Ô€B.€Libber,€Esq.,€Assistant€ReporterÌJohn€Broderick,€Esq.,€Assistant€Bar€CounselÌGlenn€Grossman,€Esq.,€Deputy€Bar€CounselÌMartin€B.€Ô_ÔLessansÔ_Ô,€Esq.,ÌÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Chairperson€convened€the€meeting.€€He€announced€that€theÏrules€in€the€134th€Report€were€presented€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€twoÏweeks€ago,€and€the€presentation€went€well.€€Mr.€Bowen€attended€andÏdiscussed€Rule€2„601,€Entry€of€Judgment.€€The€Rules€were€all€adoptedÏwith€the€exception€of€Rule€4„255,€Intention€to€Seek€a€Sentence€ofÏDeath€or€Life€Imprisonment€Without€the€Possibility€of€Parole.€€TheÏdinner€commemorating€the€fiftieth€anniversary€of€the€Rules€CommitteeÐ /`*0= Ðwill€hopefully€be€held€in€the€fall,€since€it€will€be€part€of€theÏfiscal€year€1997„1998€budget.€€ññÐ  P- (4=á ÐññThere€is€also€a€possibility€that€aÏRules€Committee€meeting€will€be€held€at€Donaldson€Brown.€€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€said€that€at€the€next€meeting€on€May€16,€theÏCommittee€can€look€at€rules€requiring€changes€in€light€of€the€1997Ïlegislative€session€which€recently€ended.€€A€criminal€procedure€billÏcovering€pretrial€release€passed€which€may€require€a€change€to€theÏrules.€€Another€bill€which€passed€is€one€which€requires€theÏregistration€of€known€sexual€predators.€€If€this€procedure€is€notÏenacted,€Maryland€could€lose€federal€funding.€€If€anyone€knows€of€anyÏother€bills€which€passed€affecting€the€Rules€of€Procedure,€it€wouldÏbe€important€to€notify€the€Reporter,€Assistant€Reporter,€ViceÏChairperson,€or€the€Chairperson.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€the€Court€of€Special€AppealsÏopinion€pertaining€to€the€admissibility€in€evidence€of€the€results€ofÏexaminations€by€a€Ô_ÔneuropsychologistÔ_Ô€under€Rule€2„423€was€availableÏyet.€€The€Chairperson€answered€that€it€is€not€yet€completed,€and€theÏCourt€will€conference€on€it€this€coming€Tuesday.€€Once€the€opinion€isÏfinalized,€the€Chairperson€will€send€it€to€the€members€of€the€RulesÏCommittee.€€It€may€require€some€work€on€the€part€of€the€Committee.Ìà  àMr.€Ô_ÔLombardiÔ_Ô€moved€to€approve€the€minutes€of€the€March€14,€1997Ïmeeting.€€The€motion€was€seconded€and€approved€unanimously.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€1.€€Consideration€of€"housekeeping"€amendments€toÌ€€Forms€Ô_ÔRGABÔ_Ô€20/M€and€Ô_ÔRGABÔ_Ô€20/O,€Appendix€of€Forms,€Forms€forÌ€€Special€Admission€of€Out„of„State€AttorneysÐ ..~)/ Ð______________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Reporter€presented€Forms€Ô_ÔRGABÔ_Ô€14/M€and€Ô_ÔRGABÔ_Ô€14/O€for€theÏCommittee's€consideration.€€ÌÔ_ÔÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@,,"ìàAPPENDIX€OF€FORMSˆÌÌà@o o ìàFORMS€FOR€SPECIAL€ADMISSION€OF€OUT„OF„STATEˆÌÌà@((&ìàATTORNEYˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Form€Ô_ÔRGABÔ_Ô€ò òó óòòóó20/M€to€rename€it,€correctÐ ² Ðan€obsolete€reference,€and€make€a€certainÏstylistic€change,€as€follows:ÌÌÌForm€Ô_ÔRGABÔ_Ô€ò ò[ó ó20ò ò]ó ó€òò14óó/MÐ l ÐÌÌà@ðð&ìà(Caption)ˆÌÌÌà@6 6 ìàMOTION€FOR€SPECIAL€ADMISSION€OF€OUT„OF„STATEˆÌÌà@((&ìàATTORNEYˆÌÌà@à à ìàUNDER€RULE€ò ò[ó ó20ò ò]ó ó€òò14óó€OF€THE€RULES€GOVERNINGˆÐ ð @  ÐÌà@‚‚ ìàADMISSION€TO€THE€BARˆÌÌÌà ¸ àI,€_________________________________,Ïattorney€of€record€in€this€case,€move€the€courtÏto€admit,€for€the€limited€purpose€of€appearingÏand€participating€in€this€case€as€co„counselÏwith€me,€________________________€ofÏ_________________________________________,Ìà ¸ àà  àà h à(address)Ìan€out„of„state€attorney€who€is€a€member€inÏgood€standing€of€the€Bar€of_________________Ï____________________________________________.ÌÐ ..~)/ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€à p à€à È àà  à€€€€€Ð ° Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€____________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Attorney€forÌÌ______________________________ÌÌÌ______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€AddressÌÌ______________________________Ì€€€€€€€€TelephoneÌÌÌÔ_Ôà@ú ú ìàCERTIFICATE€AS€TO€SPECIAL€ADMISSIONSˆÌÌÌà ¸ àI,€____________________________,€certifyÏon€this€____€day€of________________________,Ïò ò[ó ó19ò ò]ó ó€_______,€that€during€the€precedingÐ vÆ Ðtwelve€months,€have€been€specially€admitted€inÏthe€State€of€Maryland€_____________€times.ÌÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€__________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àOut„of„State€AttorneyÌÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àForm€RGAB€14/M€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒThe€amendments€to€Forms€RGAB€20/M€and€RGAB€20/OÏare€proposed€at€the€suggestion€of€the€SecretaryÏto€the€State€Board€of€Law€Examiners.€€SeveralÏyears€ago,€former€Bar€Admission€Rule€20€wasÏrevised€and€renumbered€as€Bar€Admission€RuleÏ14,€but€conforming€changes€to€the€forms€wereÏnot€made.€€The€proposed€amendments€make€theseÏchanges.€€Also,€as€a€matter€of€style€as€theÏturn€of€the€century€approaches,€the€number€"19"Ïis€proposed€to€be€deleted€from€the€"year"€spaceÏin€each€form.ÌÌÌÐ ..~)/ ЇÌÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@,,"ìàAPPENDIX€OF€FORMSˆÌÌà@o o ìàFORMS€FOR€SPECIAL€ADMISSION€OF€OUT„OF„STATEˆÌà@((&ìàATTORNEYˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Form€RGAB20/O€to€rename€it€and€makeÏa€certain€stylistic€change,€as€follows:ÌÌÌÐ   \  ÐForm€RGAB€ò ò[ó ó20ò ò]ó ó€òò14óó/OÐ ° ÐÌà@ðð&ìà(Caption)ˆÌÌÌà@ÒÒ(ìàORDERˆÌÌÌà ¸ àORDERED,€this€____€day€of€_____________,Ïò ò[ó ó19ò ò]ó ó€_____,€by€the€_________________________Ð ¢ ò  Ð_________________________________Court€forÌÌ____________________________________________,ÏMaryland,€thatÌÌà ¸ àð&ð€€_________________________,€Esq.€isÐ î>  Ðadmitted€specially€for€the€limited€purpose€ofÏappearing€and€participating€in€this€caseÌas€co„counsel€for€__________________________.ÌÌà ¸ àð&ð€€That€the€Special€Admission€ofÐ X¨ Ð_____________________,€Esq.€is€denied€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:__________________________Ï____________________________________________Ì____________________________________________ÌÌand€it€is€furtherÌÌà ¸ àORDERED,€that€the€Clerk€forward€a€trueÏcopy€of€the€Motion€and€of€this€Order€to€theÏState€Court€Administrator.ÌÌÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€______________________________Ìà ¸ à€à  àà h àà À à€€€€€JudgeÐ –#æ# ÐÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àForm€RGAB€14/O€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€ÌÌNote.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àSee€the€Reporter's€Note€to€the€proposedÏamendment€to€Form€RGAB€20/M.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àThe€Reporter€explained€that€Bedford€Bentley,€Esq.,€Secretary€toÐ ..~)/ Ðthe€State€Board€of€Law€Examiners,€had€previously€notified€her€thatÏsome€of€the€forms€used€by€the€State€Board€were€incorrect€because€theyÏwere€citing€Rules€which€had€been€renumbered.€€Several€years€ago,€BarÏAdmission€Rule€20€was€revised€and€renumbered€as€Bar€Admission€RuleÏ14.€€The€amendments€to€the€forms€included€in€the€meeting€materialsÏare€being€renumbered€and€the€term€"19____"€is€being€deleted€as€aÏstylistic€change.€€These€are€"housekeeping"€amendments.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€pointed€out€that€the€certificate€at€the€end€of€Form€RGABÏ14/M€is€not€worded€correctly.€€She€suggested€that€the€word€"I"€beÏadded€in€before€the€word€"have".€€The€Committee€agreed€to€this€changeÏby€consensus.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€said€that€she€had€some€problems€with€someÏof€the€forms€in€the€rule€book.€€Rule€1„302,€Forms,€provides€theÏderivation€of€the€Rule€and€states€in€a€Committee€note€that€anÏAppendix€of€Forms€will€be€developed€later.€€The€derivation€sectionÏshould€be€placed€in€a€source€note.€€Since€there€is€still€no€appendixÏof€forms,€although€the€Rule€has€been€effective€since€1984,€either€theÏNote€should€be€deleted,€or€the€appendix€should€be€developed.€€TheÏCommittee€approved€the€deletion€of€the€Committee€note,€and€theÏplacement€of€the€first€part€of€it€in€a€source€note.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€noted€that€former€Forms€1€to€21,€andÏformer€Form€611€have€been€deleted.€€In€her€book,€òòMaryland€RulesÐ Ä)%* ÐCommentaryóó,€she€had€written€that€new€forms€would€be€developed.€€SheÐ ˆ+Ø&, Ðasked€if€anyone€is€working€on€the€replacement€of€those€forms.€€SheÐ L-œ(. Ðalso€pointed€out€that€Form€22€is€outdated.€€The€term€"order"€shouldÏhave€been€replaced€by€the€term€"notice",€and€the€reference€to€"RuleÏ811"€is€incorrect,€because€that€Rule€no€longer€exists.€€The€referenceÏto€"Mr.€Clerk"€is€obsolete,€and€so€is€the€language€"from€the€judgmentÏentered€in€this€action€on€June€1,€1960."€€A€period€should€be€placedÏafter€the€word€"Plaintiff",€and€the€remainder€of€the€sentenceÏdeleted.€€The€Rule€should€either€be€revised€or€completely€deleted.€ÏJudge€McAuliffe€commented€that€the€form€should€be€revised,€and€theÏannotation€to€it€updated,€because€there€are€cases€pertaining€to€theÏform.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€moved€to€revise€the€forms,€the€motion€wasÏseconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€suggested€that€on€Form€RGAB€14/O€a€box€should€beÏadded€which€would€indicate€whether€the€Maryland€attorney€requestsÏthat€his€or€her€presence€be€waived€and€another€box€should€be€added€toÏForm€14/O€which€provides€whether€the€Maryland€attorney's€presenceÏcounsel€has€or€has€not€been€waived.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€remarkedÏthat€in€practice€the€Maryland€counsel€usually€takes€no€part€inÏhandling€the€case.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€the€Office€of€Bar€CounselÏgets€complaints€when€the€moving€resident€attorney€does€not€show€up€inÏcourt.€€The€judge€in€the€case€may€be€annoyed€with€out„of„stateÏcounsel€who€is€not€prepared.€€This€may€involve€violations€of€Rules€ofÏProfessional€Conduct€8.4€and€5.5.€€Mr.€Titus€added€that€in€mostÏcases,€the€presence€of€the€resident€attorney€is€not€waived€unless€theÏjudge€knows€the€out„of„state€counsel.€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€that€thisÐ L-œ(. Ðis€often€a€problem€in€District€Court€because€the€judge€has€never€seenÏthe€motion€for€the€special€admission€of€an€out„of„state€attorney.€ÏJudge€Vaughan€commented€that€often€only€the€out„of„state€attorneysÏappear€in€court,€and€they€do€not€know€that€they€have€to€appear€with€aÏMaryland€attorney.€€Ì€à  àThe€Chairperson€said€that€if€a€proceeding€is€about€to€getÐ „ Ô  Ðunderway,€and€an€out„of„state€attorney€appears€without€beingÏaccompanied€by€a€Maryland€attorney,€the€judge€is€put€into€a€badÏposition.€€The€burden€is€on€the€Maryland€attorney€to€make€a€requestÏto€the€judge.€€Judge€Johnson€commented€that€this€is€a€big€problem€inÏthe€jurisdictions€which€are€adjacent€to€the€District€of€Columbia.€ÏThe€Maryland€attorney€may€not€realize€that€he€or€she€has€to€beÏpresent€in€court.€€In€Prince€George's€County,€the€judges€never€waiveÏthe€presence€of€the€Maryland€attorney.€€Mr.€Johnson€noted€that€inÏasbestos€cases,€when€there€is€an€out„of„state€attorney,€the€localÏcounsel€tends€not€to€appear€whether€or€not€the€presence€of€the€localÏcounsel€was€waived.€€The€Chairperson€stated€that€attorneys€have€toÏunderstand€that€the€admission€of€an€out„of„state€attorney€is€notÏautomatic.€€Judge€Vaughan€remarked€that€District€Court€cases€usuallyÏdo€not€involve€enough€money€to€support€two€attorneys.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€moved€that€another€block€be€added€to€Form€RGAB€14/OÏupon€which€the€Maryland€attorney€can€indicate€whether€Ìresident€counsel€waives€his€or€her€or€presence€at€the€trial,€and€aÏblock€be€added€to€Form€RGAB€14/M€upon€which€the€court€can€indicateÐ L-œ(. Ðwhether€the€Maryland€attorney's€presence€has€or€has€not€been€waived.€ÏThe€motion€was€seconded.€Ìà  àMr.€Johnson€commented€that€the€limitation€in€the€phrase€in€FormÏRGAB€14/O€which€reads€"admitted€specially€for€the€limited€purpose€ofÏappearing€and€participating€in€this€case"€is€the€fact€that€the€out„¼of„state€attorney€is€co„counsel.€€Mr.€Titus€inquired€if€it€is€clearÏthat€in€depositions€there€will€be€a€great€deal€of€€€participation€byÏout„of„state€counsel.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€responded€that€it€is€notÏclear€in€the€rule.€€She€said€that€her€experience€has€been€that€onceÏthe€attorney€is€specially€admitted,€the€presence€of€the€residentÏattorney€is€waived.€€Mr.€Titus€argued€that€it€is€not€waived.€€TheÏout„of„state€attorney€cannot€appear€and€handle€the€deposition€solo.€ÏDoes€the€form€refer€only€to€waiver€of€the€attorney's€presence€in€theÏcourtroom?€€The€Vice€Chairperson€commented€that€to€clarify€this,€theÏform€could€state€whether€the€presence€of€the€resident€attorney€in€anyÏof€the€proceedings€(every€step€of€the€action)€is€being€waived.€€TheÏChairperson€noted€that€depositions€can€get€out€of€hand.€€It€would€beÏimportant€to€clarify€that€the€limitation€applies€to€all€phases€of€theÏlitigation.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€the€court€would€care€ifÏlocal€counsel€was€present€at€the€deposition,€since€it€is€a€tremendousÏexpense€to€have€two€attorneys.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€an€out„of„¼state€attorney€may€act€outrageously€at€the€deposition.€€This€is€aÏpolicy€question,€and€the€Chairperson€expressed€the€opinion€that€theÏcourt€would€want€to€have€control€over€the€deposition.€€Mr.€TitusÐ L-œ(. Ðremarked€that€if€a€discovery€motion€was€in€front€of€the€judge,€andÏthe€out„of„state€attorney€was€causing€problems,€the€judge€couldÏstrike€the€waiver€and€speak€to€the€Maryland€counsel.€€Mr.€LombardiÏobserved€that€each€case€can€take€care€of€itself€„„€in€a€minor€case,Ïit€is€ridiculous€to€have€two€attorneys.€€This€should€not€be€required.Ìà  àJudge€Kaplan€noted€that€in€mass€tort€cases,€there€are€many€out„¼of„state€attorneys.€€They€file€a€motion€to€be€admitted,€and€the€orderÏentered€thereon€shows€that€each€attorney€is€admitted€for€one€case.€ÏLocal€counsel€is€often€not€present,€and€it€is€not€necessary€to€haveÏtwo€attorneys€at€most€of€the€hearings.€€Judge€McAuliffe€questionedÏwhether€a€deposition€is€considered€to€be€a€court€proceeding.€€Rule€14Ïis€couched€in€terms€of€being€geared€toward€the€actual€appearance€inÏcourt€or€before€an€administrative€body.€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€onÏForm€RGAB€14/M€there€could€be€blocks€for€waiver€for€all€purposes,Ïwaiver€for€court€purposes€only,€and€waiver€for€deposition€purposesÏonly.€€Judge€McAuliffe€noted€that€the€Rule€requires€the€presence€ofÏthe€resident€attorney€at€all€court€proceedings.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏpointed€out€that€the€second€sentence€of€section€(d)€provides€thatÏ"the€specially€admitted€attorney€may€participate€in€the€court€orÏadministrative€proceedings....".€€The€Chairperson€suggested€that€theÏRule€could€provide€that€the€attorney€from€out„of„state€mayÏparticipate€"in€any€stage€of€the€proceedings."€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏasked€if€anyone€had€a€problem€with€this€in€depositions.€€Judge€KaplanÏsaid€that€it€is€not€a€problem€in€Baltimore€City,€but€Judge€JohnsonÐ L-œ(. Ðcommented€that€it€is€a€problem€in€Prince€George's€County.€€Since€theÏRule€provides€the€out„of„state€attorney€is€to€act€as€"co„counsel",Ïthe€judges€in€that€jurisdiction€felt€that€the€Rule€means€what€itÏsays.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€at€the€end€of€Rule€14€instead€ofÏthe€language€"presiding€over€the€action",€the€following€languageÏcould€be€substituted:€€"presiding€at€the€hearing."€€The€ViceÏChairperson€disagreed,€because€this€would€make€the€Rule€applicableÏonly€to€hearings.€€Judge€Vaughan€expressed€the€view€that€the€Rule€isÏappropriate€as€it€is€written.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€Mr.€TitusÏhad€suggested€some€changes€to€Forms€RGAB€14/M€and€14/O.€€Mr.€TitusÏexplained€that€his€motion€was€that€a€block€be€added€to€Form€RGAB€14/MÏwhere€the€Maryland€attorney€can€request€that€his€or€her€presence€beÏwaived,€and€that€a€block€be€added€to€Form€14/O€to€be€used€by€theÏcourt€to€indicate€whether€the€Maryland€attorney's€presence€has€beenÏwaived€and€whether€it€has€been€waived€for€all€purposes,€for€courtÏproceedings€only,€or€for€depositions€only.€€The€Committee€agreedÏunanimously€to€these€additions.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€3.€€Consideration€of€proposed€amendments€to€Rule€Ì€€9„105€(Show€Cause€Order;€Other€Notice)Ì______________________________________________________________ÌÌÓÓà  àThe€Reporter€presented€Rule€9„105€(h)€for€the€Committee'sÏconsideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÐ ..~)/ Ðà@¾ ¾ ìàTITLE€9€„€FAMILY€LAW€ACTIONSˆÌÌà@ú ú ìàCHAPTER€100€„€ADOPTION;€GUARDIANSHIPˆÌÌà@÷ ÷ ìàTERMINATING€PARENTAL€RIGHTSˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€9„105€(h)€to€reword€certainÏportions€of€the€show€cause€order€in€light€of€aÏcertain€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€asÏfollows:ÌÌÌññÓ€thaÓññRule€9„105.€€SHOW€CAUSE€ORDER;€OTHER€NOTICEÌÌÌ€€€.€.€.ÌÌ€€(h)€€Form€of€Show€Cause€OrderÌÌà ¸ à€€The€show€cause€order€shall€be€inÏsubstantially€the€following€form:ÌññÓ€thaÓññÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒTHIS€IS€A€COURT€ORDER.€€IF€YOU€DO€NOT€UNDERSTAND€WHAT€THE€ORDER€SAYS,ÏHAVE€SOMEONE€EXPLAIN€IT€TO€YOU.ÌÌÌÌIN€THE€MATTER€OF€A€PETITION€€€€€€€€€€€€€€IN€THEÌFOR€________________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€CIRCUIT€COURTÌ€€€€(adoption/guardianship)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€FORÌÌÌOF€_________________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€________________________Ì€€€(Name€of€individual€who€isà À àà  àà p à€€€€€€€€€(county)Ð –#æ# Ѐ€€the€subject€of€the€proceeding)Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à€________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à€€€€€(docket€reference)ÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€àH!¢àSHOW€CAUSE€ORDERˆÐ â(2$) ÐÌÌTO:ÌÌ________________________________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(name€of€person€to€be€served)Ð ..~)/ Ї________________________________________________________________ÌÌ________________________________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(address,€including€county)ÌÌ________________________________________________________________Ì(relationship€of€person€served€to€individual€who€is€the€subjectÌ€€of€the€proceeding)ÌÌÌYou€are€hereby€notified€that:ÌÌ€€1.€€òòFiling€of€PetitionóóÐ H˜  ÐÌà  àA€petition€has€been€filed€for_______________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€(adoption/guardianship)ÌÌof€_________________________________________________________€whoÌ€€€(name€of€individual€who€is€the€subject€of€the€proceeding)ÌÌwas€born€at€___________________€on€____________________________.Ìà  à€€€€€€€€€(birthplace)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(date€of€birth)ÌÌÌ(If€the€petition€is€for€guardianship,€include€the€followingÌÌsentence:€€The€petition€was€filed€by€__________________________).Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€(name€of€child€placementÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€agency€seeking€guardianship)ÌÌ€€2.€€òòRight€to€Object;€Time€For€ObjectingóóÐ ,| ÐÌà  à€(A.€€This€portion€should€be€included€when€the€show€cause€ÌÌorder€is€to€be€served€pursuant€to€Rule€2„121.)ÌÌà  àà ` àIf€you€wish€to€object€to€the__________________________,Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€€€€€€€€(adoption/guardianship)ÌÌyou€must€file€a€notice€of€objection€with€the€clerk€of€the€court€ÌÌat€_____________________________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(address€of€courthouse)ÌÌwithin€______€days€after€this€Order€is€served€on€you.€€For€your€ÌÌconvenience,€a€form€notice€of€objection€is€attached€to€this€ÌÐ ..~)/ ÐOrder.ÌÌà  à€(B.€€This€portion€should€be€included€when€the€show€cause€ÌÌorder€is€to€be€published€or€posted.)ÌÌà  àà ` àIf€you€wish€to€object€to€the__________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(adoption/guardianship)ÌÌyou€must€file€a€notice€of€objection€with€the€clerk€of€the€court€ÌÌon€or€before€___________________________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(date)ÌÌat€_____________________________________________________________.Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à(address€of€courthouse)ÌÌÌ€€€€€WHETHER€THE€PETITION€REQUESTS€ADOPTION€OR€GUARDIANSHIP,ÌÌIF€YOU€DO€NOT€FILE€A€NOTICE€OF€OBJECTION€OR€A€REQUEST€FOR€AN€ÌÌATTORNEY€BY€THE€DEADLINE€STATED€ABOVE,€òòYOU€WILL€BE€DEEMED€TO€HAVEÐ l ÐÌIRREVOCABLY€CONSENTED€TO€THE€ADOPTION€OR€GUARDIANSHIP€ANDóó€AÐ à0 ÐÌJUDGMENT€TERMINATING€PARENTAL€RIGHTS€MAY€BE€ENTERED€ò ò[ó óWITHOUT€YOURÐ ¤ô ÐÌCONSENTò ò]ó ó€òòAT€ANY€TIME€AFTER€THE€DEADLINEóó.Ð h¸ ÐÌ€€3.€€òòRight€to€an€AttorneyóóÐ ,| ÐÌÓÓà  à(a)€€You€have€the€right€to€consult€an€attorney€and€obtainÏindependent€legal€advice.Ìà  à(b)€€An€attorney€may€already€have€been€appointed€for€you€basedÏon€statements€in€the€petition.€€If€an€attorney€has€been€appointed€andÏhas€already€contacted€you,€you€should€consult€with€that€attorney.Ìà  à(c)€€If€an€attorney€has€not€already€contacted€you,€you€may€beÏentitled€to€have€the€court€appoint€an€attorney€for€you€if:Ìà  à(1)€€you€are€the€person€to€be€adopted€and:Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àà ` à(A)€€you€are€at€least€ten€years€old€but€areÌà  àà ` àà ¸ ànot€yet€18;€orÌà  à€€€à ` à(B)€€you€are€at€least€ten€years€old€and€haveÐ 8ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àa€disability€that€makes€you€incapable€ofÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àconsenting€to€the€adoption€or€of€participatingÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àeffectively€in€the€proceeding.Ì€€€€€€(2)€€you€are€the€person€to€be€adopted€or€the€person€forÌà  àà ` à€whom€a€guardian€is€sought€and€the€proceeding€involves€Ìà  àà ` à€the€involuntary€termination€of€the€parental€rights€of€Ìà  àà ` à€your€parents.Ìà  à€(3)€€you€are€a€parent€of€the€person€to€be€adoptedÌ€€€€€€€€€€€or€for€whom€a€guardian€is€sought€and:Ìà  à€€€€à ` à€(A)€€you€are€under€18€years€of€age;€orÐ à0 Ðà  à€€€€€€(B)€€because€of€a€disability,€you€are€incapable€ofÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à€consenting€to€the€adoption€or€guardianshipÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à€or€of€participating€effectively€in€theÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à€proceeding;€orÌà  à€€€€€€(C)€€you€object€to€the€adoption€and€cannot€afford€to€¼à  àà ` àà ¸ à€hire€an€attorney€because€you€are€indigent.ÌÌÓÓà  àIF€YOU€BELIEVE€YOU€ARE€ENTITLED€TO€HAVE€THE€COURT€APPOINT€ANÌATTORNEY€FOR€YOU€AND€YOU€WANT€AN€ATTORNEY,€YOU€MUST€NOTIFY€THE€COURTÏBEFORE€THE€TIME€YOUR€NOTICE€OF€OBJECTION€MUST€BE€FILED.€€YOU€MAY€FILEÏA€REQUEST€FOR€AN€ATTORNEY€WITHOUT€FILING€A€NOTICE€OF€OBJECTIONòò,€BUT€AÐ ¦*ö%+ ÐREQUEST€FOR€AN€ATTORNEY€DOES€NOT€EXTEND€THE€DEADLINE€STATED€ABOVE€FORÏFILING€AN€OBJECTIONóó.Ð j,º'- ÐÌÐ ..~)/ ÐÓÓFor€your€convenience,€a€request€for€appointment€of€an€attorney€isÌprinted€on€the€notice€of€objection€form€attached€to€this€Order.Ì(Omit€the€last€sentence€from€a€published€or€posted€show€causeÌorder.)Ìà  à(d)€€If€you€are€a€parent€of€the€person€to€be€adopted,€you€areÏentitled€to€consult€an€attorney€chosen€by€you,€even€if€you€are€notÏentitled€to€an€attorney€appointed€by€the€court.€€If€you€employ€anÏattorney,€you€may€be€responsible€for€any€fees€and€costs€charged€byÏthat€attorney€unless€this€is€an€adoption€proceeding€and€the€adoptiveÏparents€agree€to€pay,€or€the€court€orders€them€to€pay€all€or€part€ofÏthose€fees€or€expenses.Ìà  à(e)€€If€you€wish€further€information€concerning€appointment€ofÏan€attorney€by€the€court€or€concerning€adoption€counseling€andÏguidance,€you€may€contactÌÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ à____________________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ à€€€€€€(name€of€court€official)ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à____________________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€(address)ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à___________________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€(telephone€number)ÌÌÌÓÓ€€4.€€òòOption€to€Receive€Adoption€CounselingóóÐ <&Œ!& Ðà  à€If€this€is€an€adoption€proceeding,€you€also€may€have€theÏoption€to€receive€adoption€counseling€and€guidance.€€You€may€have€toÏpay€for€that€service€unless€the€adoptive€parents€agree€to€pay€or€theÏcourt€orders€them€to€pay€all€or€part€of€those€charges.Ð L-œ(. ÐÓÓÌDate€of€issue:€€___________________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à€___________________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à(Judge)ÌÌÌÓÓ€€€.€.€.ÌÓÓÌà  àRule€9„105€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThis€amendment€to€Rule€9„105€(h)€isÏproposed€to€amend€the€warnings€set€forth€in€theÏshow€cause€order€in€light€of€òòIn€re€Adoption€No.Ð Ð  Ð93321055óó,€344€Md.€458€(1997).Ð ² ÐÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àThe€Reporter€explained€that€the€Honorable€Alan€M.€Wilner,ÏAssociate€Judge€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€and€former€Chairperson€ofÏthe€Rules€Committee,€had€written€an€opinion€pertaining€to€filing€anÏobjection€to€an€adoption.€€The€case€is€òòIn€re€Adoption/GuardianshipÐ ¤ô ÐNo.€93321055/CAD€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€City€et€al.óó,€344Ð h¸ ÐMd.€458€(1997.)€€In€light€of€this€opinion,€an€amendment€to€Rule€9„105Ï(h)€is€proposed.€€This€would€change€the€warnings€in€the€show€causeÏorder.€€There€had€been€a€change€to€Code,€Family€Law€Article,€ðð5„322Ï(d).€€This€section€now€provides€that:€"[i]f€a€person€is€notifiedÏunder€this€section€and€fails€to€file€notice€of€objection€within€theÏtime€stated€in€the€show€cause€order€or€if€a€person's€notification€hasÏbeen€waived€under€subsection€(c)€of€this€section:Ìà  à(1)€the€court€shall€consider€the€person€who€is€notified€orÏwhose€notice€is€waived€to€have€consented€to€the€adoption€or€to€theÐ L-œ(. Ðguardianship;€andÌà  à(2)€the€petition€shall€be€treated€in€the€same€manner€as€aÏpetition€to€which€consent€has€been€given."€€Ìà  àThis€is€stronger€than€the€previous€language€in€the€statute.€ÏThe€Family€and€Domestic€Subcommittee€has€recommended€a€change€toÏsection€(h)€of€Rule€9„105€tracking€the€opinion€which€holds€that€onceÏthe€person€does€not€timely€object,€there€is€no€opportunity€to€objectÏlater.€€Judge€Rinehardt,€Chairperson€of€the€Subcommittee,€wasÏconcerned€that€the€warning€in€the€Rule€might€not€be€strong€enough.€ÏTherefore,€the€Subcommittee€added€language€to€subsection€2.€ofÏsection€(h).Ìà  àMr.€Hochberg€expressed€concern€over€the€language€at€theÏbeginning€of€section€(h)€which€reads:€€"IF€YOU€DO€NOT€UNDERSTAND€WHATÏTHE€ORDER€SAYS,€HAVE€SOMEONE€EXPLAIN€IT€TO€YOU."€€He€asked€to€whomÏthe€term€"someone"€refers,€and€he€suggested€that€it€might€beÏpreferable€to€provide€that€an€attorney€should€explain€the€order.€€Mr.ÏLombardi€commented€that€using€the€word€"attorney"€in€this€provisionÏwould€force€anyone€receiving€the€show€cause€order€to€seek€the€adviceÏof€an€attorney.€€Judge€Johnson€expressed€the€view€that€the€languageÏcannot€be€improved.€€The€Chairperson€asked€if€the€clerk's€officeÏstaff€could€clarify€whether€order€means€if€someone€were€to€call€them.€ÏMr.€Shipley€replied€that€the€personnel€in€the€clerk's€office€have€toÏtread€a€fine€line€as€to€how€much€information€can€be€provided.€€HeÏnoted€that€subsection€3€(e)€refers€to€obtaining€information€from€theÐ L-œ(. Ðclerk's€office.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€expressed€disagreement€with€the€language€at€the€endÏof€subsection€2€which€reads:€€"WHETHER€THE€PETITION€REQUESTS€ADOPTIONÏOR€GUARDIANSHIP...".€€The€Reporter€explained€that€the€petition€canÏrequest€adoption€or€guardianship.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€commentedÏthat€it€does€not€matter€whether€a€guardianship€or€an€adoption€isÏbeing€requested.€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€the€first€clause€to€whichÏhe€just€referred€should€be€deleted,€and€the€Committee€agreed€to€theÏdeletion€by€consensus.€€Mr.€Titus€pointed€out€that€the€proposedÏaddition€to€the€end€of€subsection€2€is€very€lengthy,€and€if€one€stopsÏreading€before€reaching€the€end€of€the€paragraph,€the€information€mayÏnot€be€communicated€properly.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€suggested€thatÏthe€language€"OR€A€REQUEST€FOR€AN€ATTORNEY"€should€be€deleted,€andÏthe€Committee€agreed€by€consensus€to€this€change.€€The€ChairpersonÏexpressed€concern€about€the€language€"you€will€be€deemed",€and€theÏVice€Chairperson€disagreed€with€the€language€"irrevocably€consented."€ÏThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€in€place€of€the€phrase€which€readsÏ"YOU€WILL€BE€DEEMED€TO€HAVE€IRREVOCABLY€CONSENTED",€€the€followingÏlanguage€should€be€substituted:€"YOU€WILL€NOT€BE€ABLE€TO€REVOKE€YOURÏCONSENT."€€The€first€sentence€of€the€paragraph€would€read€as€follows:€Ï"IF€YOU€DO€NOT€FILE€A€NOTICE€OF€OBJECTION,€YOU€WILL€NOT€BE€ABLE€TOÏREVOKE€YOUR€CONSENT."€€The€Committee€agreed€with€this€suggestion€byÏconsensus.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€the€second€sentence€of€theÐ L-œ(. Ðwarning€provision€should€read€as€follows:€"A€JUDGMENT€TERMINATINGÏPARENTAL€RIGHTS€MAY€BE€ENTERED€AT€ANY€TIME€AFTER€THE€DEADLINE."€€TheÏCommittee€agreed€with€this€suggestion.€€The€Reporter€expressed€herÏconcern€over€the€deletion€of€the€opening€clauseÌwhich€formerly€read,€"WHETHER€THE€PETITION€REQUESTS€ADOPTION€ORÏGUARDIANSHIP."€€She€pointed€out€that€most€people€think€that€aÏguardianship€is€temporary,€but€this€language€alerts€the€reader€that€aÏguardianship€terminates€parental€rights.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏremarked€that€the€clause€does€not€state€that€a€guardianshipÏterminates€parental€rights.€€The€Chairperson€asked€if€the€warningÏshould€be€moved€to€the€beginning€of€the€section€pertaining€to€showÏcause€orders.€€Mr.€Bowen€noted€that€that€would€create€a€problem,Ïbecause€the€deadline€is€not€apparent€until€one€reads€the€order.Ìà  àJudge€Vaughan€said€that€he€had€a€problem€with€the€secondÏwarning€at€the€end€of€subsection€3€(c)€of€section€(h).€€He€suggestedÏthat€the€underlined€material€should€be€made€into€a€separate€sentence.€ÏThe€Vice€Chairperson€commented€that€Judge€Wilner's€opinion€makes€theÏpoint€that€the€recipient€of€the€show€cause€order€has€to€mail€in€theÏform€which€includes€both€the€opportunity€to€object€and€to€request€anÏattorney.€€The€statute€provides€that€someone€has€a€right€to€requestÏan€attorney€prior€to€filing€any€objection.€€The€form€almost€seemsÏlike€a€trap.€€If€someone€asks€for€an€attorney,€there€would€be€noÏpaper€remaining€to€later€use€to€file€an€objection.€€Mr.€KleinÏobserved€that€requesting€an€attorney€is€implicitly€making€anÐ L-œ(. Ðobjection.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€responded€that€the€Rule€says€thatÏasking€for€an€attorney€is€not€the€same€as€making€an€objection.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€said€that€the€notice€of€objection€form€isÏsupplied€with€the€order.€€The€Reporter€asked€if€the€process€involvesÏtwo€pieces€of€paper.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€expressed€the€view€thatÏmost€people€would€not€only€request€an€attorney,€but€would€object,€asÏwell.€€If€the€person€who€objected€later€changes€his€or€her€mind,€theÏperson€does€not€have€to€attend€the€hearing.€€Mr.€Hochberg€inquired€asÏto€where€the€form€is€found,€and€the€Chairperson€replied€that€the€formÏis€in€the€Rule.€€Judge€Vaughan€said€that€the€request€for€an€attorneyÏcould€be€deemed€to€be€an€objection,€but€the€Vice€Chairperson€notedÏthat€Judge€Wilner€stated€in€the€opinion€that€one€must€file€anÏobjection.€€The€Chairperson€suggested€that€there€could€be€twoÏseparate€forms€„„€one€to€request€an€attorney€and€one€to€object€to€theÏadoption.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€responded€that€if€there€were€twoÏseparate€forms,€someone€who€only€wanted€to€request€an€attorney€couldÏmake€a€mistake€and€check€the€last€box€which€provides€for€making€anÏobjection.€€Mr.€Klein€expressed€the€opinion€that€requesting€anÏattorney€should€be€treated€as€an€objection.€€The€Chairperson€pointedÏout€that€the€opinion€precludes€that.€€Judge€Johnson€noted€that€theÏRule€could€supersede€the€opinion.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€theÏopinion€is€an€interpretation€of€the€statute.€€Ìà  àJudge€Vaughan€commented€that€many€people€in€District€Court€doÏnot€understand€the€notices.€€The€average€person€to€whom€the€showÐ L-œ(. Ðcause€order€is€directed€will€not€understand€it.€€Judge€Johnson€addedÏthat€generally€people€involved€in€these€matters€have€no€idea€what€isÏtaking€place;€if€they€did,€they€would€not€lose€custody€of€theirÏchildren.€€Judge€Vaughan€said€that€some€people€could€hire€an€attorneyÏof€their€own€but€still€want€to€file€an€objection.€€The€two€need€notÏnecessarily€be€tied€together.€€The€Reporter€suggested€that€theÏSubcommittee€could€redraft€the€form.€€The€Chairperson€asked€Mr.ÏShipley€about€the€form€filed€by€most€people.€€Mr.€Shipley€respondedÏthat€most€people€use€a€combined€form.€€Most€of€the€forms€areÏsubmitted€by€the€petitioner.€€Judge€Vaughan€remarked€that€once€theÏrecipient€of€the€show€cause€order€sends€the€form€back,€the€person€hasÏno€record€of€what€he€or€she€sent€in.€€There€is€no€tear„off€portion.Ìà  àMr.€Johnson€suggested€that€the€issues€being€discussed€need€toÏbe€considered.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€the€Family€and€DomesticÏSubcommittee€will€address€them.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€expressed€theÏconcern€that€the€new€Rules€which€went€into€effect€on€January€1,€1997Ïare€already€causing€problems.€€The€Chairperson€suggested€that€theÏCommittee€attempt€to€solve€the€problems€now.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏproposed€that€there€could€be€one€form,€on€the€top€of€which€would€be€aÏplace€to€indicate€an€objection.€€The€Chairperson€pointed€out€thatÏRule€9„105€(h)€provides:€€"The€show€cause€order€shall€be€inÏsubstantially€the€following€form...".€€€It€is€not€the€form€which€isÏcausing€the€problem;€it€is€the€manner€of€notice.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€explained€that€her€idea€is€to€have€only€one€piece€ofÐ L-œ(. Ðpaper€filed,€whether€it€is€a€request€for€an€attorney€or€an€objection.€ÏThe€Chairperson€said€that€the€proposal€before€the€Committee€today€isÏthe€amendment€to€the€show€cause€order€to€conform€to€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€opinion.€€Once€this€is€done,€the€Rule€can€go€to€theÏSubcommittee€for€further€work.€€Ìà  àMr.€Johnson€reiterated€that€one€of€the€issues€to€be€discussedÏis€the€idea€that€once€the€form€is€sent€in,€the€person€sending€it€hasÏnothing€to€keep€which€would€give€information€about€the€case.€€TheÏChairperson€referred€to€the€amended€provision€at€the€end€ofÏsubsection€3€(c)€and€said€that€a€further€change€could€be€made€whichÏwould€provide€that€a€copy€and€an€original€would€be€sent€to€theÏrecipient.€€Judge€Kaplan€noted€that€the€recipient€could€send€in€theÏoriginal€and€keep€the€copy.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€inquired€what€theÏadvantage€of€retaining€a€copy€is,€and€Mr.€Johnson€replied€that€itÏwould€have€the€caption€of€the€case€on€it.€€Mr.€Shipley€pointed€outÏthat€there€is€a€separate€form€sent€with€the€show€cause€order€whichÏhas€the€case€caption€on€it.€€Judge€McAuliffe€observed€that€the€RuleÏhas€no€requirement€that€the€forms€have€to€be€served€with€the€showÏcause€order,€and€he€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€Rule€needs€furtherÏstudy.€€Mr.€Lombardi€suggested€that€the€amendments€presented€todayÏshould€be€decided.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€referred€to€subsection€(e),€and€he€commentedÏthat€when€this€is€served,€it€is€accompanied€by€a€pre„captionedÏnotice,€but€it€does€not€say€"appointment€of€counsel."€€€Mr.€ShipleyÐ L-œ(. Ðexplained€that€this€is€supplied€by€the€petitioner€when€the€show€causeÏorder€is€submitted.€It€is€on€a€separate€form.€€€Mr.€LombardiÏsuggested€that€the€show€cause€order€can€be€modified.€€The€ChairpersonÏsuggested€that€after€the€first€sentence€in€the€form€which€reads:Ï"THIS€IS€A€COURT€ORDER.",€the€first€two€paragraphs€of€subsection€3Ï(a)€and€(b)€could€be€moved€to€that€point.€€Mr.€Johnson€commented€thatÏit€may€be€difficult€to€separate€subsection€3€(c)€from€(a)€and€(b).€ÏThe€Chairperson€noted€that€subsection€(c)€is€too€long€to€move€to€theÏbeginning€of€section€(h).€€Mr.€Klein€suggested€that€in€place€ofÏmoving€subsections€(a)€and€(b),€the€form€could€cross„reference€thoseÏsubsections.€€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€the€following€language€could€beÏadded€to€the€beginning€of€the€show€cause€order€form€after€the€firstÏtwo€sentences:€€"YOU€HAVE€THE€RIGHT€TO€AN€ATTORNEY€AS€IS€EXPLAINED€INÏPARAGRAPH€(3)."€€€€The€Vice€Chairperson€moved€that€this€language€beÏadded.€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.€€Ìà  à€Mr.€Hochberg€noted€that€when€the€form€is€styled,€it€shouldÏhave€a€date€to€indicate€when€it€was€returned.€€This€would€be€helpfulÏin€deciding€timeliness.€€The€Chairperson€commented€that€subsection€2Ïcould€be€changed€to€indicate€that€the€notice€of€objection€must€beÏfiled€no€later€than€the€close€of€business€on€a€certain€date.€€TheÏVice€Chairperson€said€that€when€she€drafted€some€of€the€rules,€sheÏdid€not€focus€on€the€failure€to€file€on€time.€€Many€people€do€notÏunderstand€the€concept€of€"filing."€€The€show€cause€order€couldÐ L-œ(. Ðrequire€the€recipient€to€appear,€and€if€the€person€fails€to€appear,Ïit€could€constitute€consent.€€The€Chairperson€observed€that€thisÏissue€does€not€come€up€often,€but€when€it€does,€it€is€a€problem.€ÏThere€is€always€litigation.€€Procedural€forfeiture€does€not€occurÏvery€often,€but€the€Subcommittee€can€review€this€Rule€to€clean€it€up.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€noted€that€in€the€adoption€case,€theÏOffice€of€the€Public€Defender€relied€on€Rule€1„204€as€a€basis€ofÏextending€the€time€to€file€an€objection.€€However,€in€the€opinion,ÏJudge€Wilner€held€that€Rule€1„204€only€applies€when€a€rule€or€a€courtÏorder€sets€forth€a€time€period.€€Since€the€time€period€for€theÏadoption€process€is€statutorily€set,€Rule€1„204€does€not€apply.€€€TheÏVice€Chairperson€said€that€she€did€not€agree€with€this€reasoning,Ïbecause€the€rules€were€adopted€after€the€statute,€and€Rule€9„107€setsÏforth€the€time€for€filing€an€objection.€€If€the€time€period€to€fileÏan€objection€cannot€be€shortened€or€extended€under€Rule€1„204,€thatÏRule€should€be€amended€to€provide€that.€€She€moved€to€amend€Rule€1„¼204€accordingly,€the€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€unanimously.€€Ìà  àMr.€Klein€questioned€whether€consideration€will€be€given€to€theÏidea€that€the€mere€filing€of€a€request€for€an€attorney€would€beÏdeemed€to€be€an€objection.€€The€Chairperson€answered€that€theÏSubcommittee€will€look€at€that€and€try€to€come€up€with€a€solution.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€4.€€Consideration€of€proposed€amendments€to€Rule€Ì€€3„648€(Enforcement€of€Judgment€Prohibiting€or€Mandating€Action)Ì_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÐ ..~)/ ÐÓÓà  àThe€Reporter€presented€Rule€3„648,€Enforcement€of€JudgmentÏProhibiting€or€Mandating€Action,€for€the€Committee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà@÷ ÷ ìàMARYLAND€RULES€OF€PROCEDUREˆÌÌà@à à ìàTITLE€3€„€CIVIL€PROCEDURE„„DISTRICT€COURTˆÌÌà@ìàCHAPTER€600€„€JUDGMENTˆÌÌÌà ¸ àAMEND€Rule€3„648€to€allow€the€entry€of€aÏmoney€judgment€under€certain€circumstances,€asÏfollows:ÌÌÌÌRule€3„648.€€ENFORCEMENT€OF€JUDGMENTÏPROHIBITING€OR€MANDATING€ACTIONÌÌÌà ¸ àWhen€a€person€fails€to€comply€with€aÏjudgment€prohibiting€or€mandating€action,€theÏcourt€may€order€the€seizure€or€sequestration€ofÏproperty€of€the€noncomplying€person€to€theÏextent€necessary€to€compel€compliance€with€theÏjudgment€and,€in€appropriate€circumstances,€mayÏhold€the€person€in€contempt€pursuant€to€RulesÏ15„206€and€15„207.€€When€a€person€fails€toÏcomply€with€a€judgment€mandating€action,€theÏcourt€may€direct€that€the€act€be€performed€byÏsome€other€person€appointed€by€the€court€at€theÏexpense€of€the€person€failing€to€comply.€€òòWhenÐ ð @  Ða€person€fails€to€comply€with€a€judgmentÏmandating€the€payment€of€money,€the€court€mayÏenter€a€money€judgment€to€the€extent€of€anyÏamount€due.óóÐ x$È$ ÐÌ€€€.€.€.ÌññÓs€paÓññÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€3„648€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter's€Note.ÌÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThe€proposed€amendment€to€Rule€3„648€addsÏa€sentence€that€allows€the€District€Court€toÏenter€a€money€judgment€when€a€person€has€failedÏto€comply€with€a€judgment€mandating€the€paymentÐ ..~)/ Ðof€money.€€This€sentence€is€taken€verbatim€fromÏRule€2„648€(a).€€ÌÌà ¸ àWhen€Title€3€was€adopted,€the€equityÏjurisdiction€of€the€District€Court€was€moreÏlimited€than€it€is€today€and€Code,€Family€LawÏArticle,€Title€4,€Subtitle€5€(DomesticÏViolence)€had€not€been€enacted.€€Now,€theÏDistrict€Court€may€order€a€person€to€payÏemergency€family€maintenance€in€accordance€withÏCode,€Family€Law€Article,€ðð4„506.€€If€theÏperson€fails€to€make€the€required€payments,€theÏproposed€amendment€to€Rule€Ì3„648€clearly€allows€the€District€Court€toÏenter€a€money€judgment€to€the€extent€of€theÏunpaid€arrearage.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àThe€Reporter€explained€that€when€the€Rules€of€Procedure€wereÏrevised€in€1984,€the€jurisdiction€of€the€District€Court€was€muchÏnarrower.€€Michael€Pullen,€Esq.€wrote€a€letter,€a€copy€of€which€isÏincluded€in€the€meeting€materials,€(See€Appendix€1)€stating€that€anÏorder€for€protection€against€domestic€violence€may€contain€aÏprovision€ordering€payment€of€emergency€family€maintenance.€€If€theÏobligor€does€not€pay,€it€is€not€clear€whether€Rule€3„648€allows€theÏentry€of€a€money€judgment.€€Some€District€Court€judges€haveÏinterpreted€the€Rule€to€allow€the€entry€of€a€money€judgment,€andÏothers€have€not.€€The€solution€would€be€to€add€another€sentence€whichÏwould€conform€Rule€3„648€to€Rule€2„648€and€clarify€that€the€court€mayÏenter€a€money€judgment€to€the€extent€of€any€amount€due.Ìà  àMr.€Lombardi€commented€that€the€proposed€language€would€allow€aÏjudgment€for€the€arrearage.€€It€seems€self„evident€that€thisÏarrearage€is€a€money€judgment.€€The€Committee€was€in€agreement€withÐ L-œ(. Ðthe€addition€to€Rule€3„648.ÌÓÓÌAgenda€Item€5.€€Continued€consideration€of€proposed€new€Title€16,Ì€€Chapter€700,€concerning€the€discipline€and€inactive€status€ofÌ€€attorneysÌ_________________________________________________________________ÌÌÌÓÓà  àMr.€Howell€presented€revised€Rules€16„717€and€16„717A€for€theÏCommittee's€consideration.€€ÌÓÓÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌññÓs€paÓññRule€16„717.€€PREHEARING€PROCEDURESÌÌÌ€€(a)€€Initial€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€doesÏnot€allege€facts€which,€if€true,€constituteÏprofessional€misconduct€or€incapacity,€theÏPanel€shall€dismiss€the€charges€without€aÏhearing,€terminate€the€proceedings,€and€serveÏnotice€of€the€dismissal€upon€the€attorney€andÏBar€Counsel,€who€shall€also€notify€theÏcomplainant.€€Otherwise,€the€Panel€shall€keepÏthe€matter€open€pending€receipt€of€BarÏCounsel's€disclosures.ÌÌ€€(b)€€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€contemporaneously„¼recorded€recitals€do€not€exist;€and€(4)€theÏrecord€of€prior€final€discipline€or€previousÏadjudication€of€misconduct€or€incapacity€of€theÏattorney€that€Bar€Counsel€intends€to€introduceÏafter€a€hearing€pursuant€to€subsection€(g)(3)Ïof€Rule€16„717A.€€The€obligation€of€disclosureÐ ..~)/ Ðpursuant€to€this€Rule€shall€be€continuing€asÏprovided€in€Rule€2„401€(e).ÌÌ€€(c)€€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€òònoticeÐ Þ . Ðof€the€deposition€alleges€that€(1)€theóó€witnessÐ À  Ðis€unable€to€attend€the€hearing€òòor€testifyóóÐ ¢ ò  Ðbecause€of€òòage,€mental€incapacity,€sickness,Ð „ Ô  Ðinfirmity,€or€imprisonmentóó€or€(2)€òòthe€partyÐ f¶  Ðnoting€the€deposition€has€been€unable€toÏprocure€the€attendance€of€the€witnessóó€by€aÐ *z  Ðsubpoena€or€certified€letter€as€provided€inÏsection€(c)€of€Rule€16„718.€€òòThe€deposition€mayÐ î>  Ðbe€admitted€in€evidence€at€the€hearing€if€theÏPanel€Chair€finds€that€the€statements€inÏsubsection€(1)€or€(2)€exist.óó€€Chapter€400€ofÐ ”ä ÐTitle€2€governs€the€taking€of€a€depositionÏòòunder€this€sectionóó€except€that€the€notice€ofÐ X¨ Ðdeposition€shall€be€filed€with€the€Panel€Chair.€ÏThe€Panel€Chair€may€enter€protective€ordersÏpermitted€by€Rule€2„403€and€make€other€rulingsÏas€justice€may€require€pertaining€to€theÏdeposition€of€an€unavailable€witness.ÌÌ€€(d)€€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€pursuant€to€Rule€2„423.ÌÌ€€(e)€€Perpetuation€of€Evidence€BeforeÏStatement€of€ChargesÌÌ€€€€(1)€€Right€to€TakeÌÌà ¸ à€€€€Bar€Counsel€or€an€attorney€who€mayÏhave€an€interest€in€an€anticipated€statement€ofÏcharges€may€perpetuate€testimony€relevant€toÏany€complaint€or€defense€that€may€be€assertedÏin€the€expected€statement€of€charges€inÏaccordance€with€these€Rules.ÌÐ ..~)/ Ѐ€€€(2)€€NoticeÌÌà ¸ à€€€€The€notice€of€deposition€shall€includeÏa€description€of€the€subject€matter€of€theÏexpected€statement€of€charges,€the€substance€ofÏthe€testimony€that€the€person€expects€toÏelicit,€and€a€statement€that€any€person€servedÏhas€a€right€to€be€present.€€The€notice€shallÏinclude€a€statement€that€the€testimony€soughtÏmay€be€used€in€a€later€action.ÌÌ€€€€(3)€€FilingÌÌà ¸ à€€€€The€notice€and€any€exhibits€as€well€asÏthe€transcript€of€testimony€shall€be€filed€withÏthe€Commission€under€seal.ÌÌ€€€€(4)€€ServiceÌÌà ¸ à€€€€The€notice,€request,€or€motion€shallÏbe€served€in€the€manner€provided€by€Chapter€100Ïof€Title€2€for€service€of€summons€on€eachÏperson€against€whom€the€testimony€or€otherÏevidence€is€expected€to€be€used€and€on€anyÏother€interested€person.€€If€the€court€ordersÏthat€service€be€made€upon€a€person€inÏaccordance€with€Rule€2„122,€the€court€mayÏappoint€an€attorney€to€represent€that€person.ÌÌ€€€€(5)€€Subpoena€or€Court€OrderÌÌà ¸ à€€€€No€sanctions€shall€be€availableÏagainst€a€person€from€whom€evidence€is€soughtÏunder€this€Rule€in€the€absence€of€service€of€aÏsubpoena€or€court€order.ÌÌÐ  x$È$ Ѐ€€€(6)€€Use€of€Perpetuated€TestimonyÌÌà ¸ à€€€€Testimony€perpetuated€in€accordanceÏwith€the€requirements€of€this€section€may€beÏused€in€any€action€involving€the€same€subjectÏmatter€and€against€any€attorney€served€with€aÏnotice€in€the€manner€provided€by€subsection€(1)Ïof€this€section.ÌÌ€€(f)€€Final€Prehearing€ReviewÌÌà ¸ à€€Following€Bar€Counsel's€disclosures€asÏprovided€in€section€(b)€of€this€Rule,€BarÏCounsel€shall€provide€to€the€Panel€allÏinformation€which€has€been€disclosed.€€If€theÏPanel€concludes€after€reviewing€the€materialÏprovided€that€the€investigation€of€theÏstatement€of€charges,€even€if€true,€does€notÏconstitute€professional€misconduct€orÏincapacity€or€does€not€constitute€misconductÏthat€warrants€discipline,€the€Panel€may€dismissÏthe€charges€with€or€without€a€hearing,Ïterminate€the€proceedings€and€serve€notice€ofÏthe€dismissal€upon€the€attorney€and€Bar€CounselÏwho€shall€also€notify€the€complainant.€ÏOtherwise,€the€Panel€shall€schedule€a€hearing.ÌÌ€€(g)€€Dismissal€ReviewÌÌà ¸ à€€If€dissatisfied€with€a€dismissal€withoutÏa€hearing€pursuant€to€section€(a)€or€(f)€ofÏthis€Rule,€subject€to€the€approval€of€the€ChairÏof€the€Commission,€Bar€Counsel€may€file€withÏthe€Commission€within€15€days€of€service€of€theÏdismissal€a€request€for€review€of€the€dismissalÏby€the€Review€Board€and€a€statement€of€reasonsÏby€Bar€Counsel€for€the€review.€€Bar€CounselÏshall€serve€copies€of€any€request€for€reviewÏand€statement€of€reasons€upon€the€attorney.€ÏWithin€15€days€of€service,€the€attorney€mayÏfile€with€the€Commission€a€reply€to€theÏstatement€of€reasons.€€The€review€shall€beÏconducted€in€accordance€with€Rule€16„720.ÌññÓutorÓññÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€in€part€derived€fromÏformer€Rule€16„706€(d)€(BV6€d)€and€Rule€2„404,Ïand€is€in€part€new.ÌññÓutorÓññÐ ..~)/ ЇòòóóÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€16„717€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÐ ° ÐÌNote.ÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àSection€(a)€is€based€upon€CommissionÏGuidelines€ðð5„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€sectionÏ(g)€of€this€Rule.Ì€€Ìà ¸ àSection€(b)€is€a€new€provision€which€isÏbased€upon,€and€is€consistent€with,€CommissionÏGuidelines€ðð5„106.€€Section€(b)€is€patternedÏupon€the€"open€file"€policy€declared€in€RuleÏ16„808€(d)(1)€governing€proceedings€before€theÏCommission€on€Judicial€Disabilities.Ì€Ìà ¸ àSection€(c)€is€derived€from€former€RuleÏBV6€d€3€(b),€with€conforming€style€changes.€€ItÏauthorizes€òòdeóó€òòbeneóó€òòesseóó€depositions€ofÐ l Ðunavailable€witnesses,€but€not€depositions€forÏdiscovery€purposes.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(d)€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.€€òòSeeóó,Ð ´"" Ðe.g.,€òòACG€v.€Keisteróó,€327€Md.€56,€77€n.17Ð –#æ# Ð(1992).€€This€conforms€to€Rule€23.C€of€theÏA.B.A.€Model€Rules.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(e)€is€derived€from€Rule€2„404,ÏPerpetuation€of€Evidence.€€The€Committee€was€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€perpetuation€of€evidenceÏdoctrine€is€applicable€when€a€statement€ofÏcharges€is€about€to€be€filed€against€anÏattorney.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(f)€is€derived€from€former€RuleÏBV6€d€4€(c).€€The€Committee€wanted€to€clarifyÐ ..~)/ Ðthat€if€the€Panel€found€there€was€misconduct€onÏthe€part€of€an€attorney€but€it€did€not€warrantÏdiscipline,€the€Panel€could€dismiss€the€chargesÏwith€or€without€a€warning€and€without€aÏhearing.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(g)€is€new€and€is€based€uponÏCommission€Guidelines€ðð5„102.€€The€next„to„lastÏsentence€is€new€and€was€added€by€theÏSubcommittee€to€afford€the€attorney€theÏopportunity€to€respond€to€Bar€Counsel'sÏstatement€of€reasons.€€The€last€sentence€wasÏadded€by€the€Committee€to€clarify€that€Rule€16„¼720€pertains€to€the€consideration€of€BarÏCounsel's€request€for€review.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌRule€16„717A.€€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€on€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)€€Notice€of€HearingÌÌà ¸ à€€The€Panel€Chair€shall€notify€BarÏCounsel,€the€attorney,€and€the€members€of€theÏPanel€of€the€time€and€place€scheduled€for€aÏhearing.€€The€notice€shall€be€in€writing€andÏmailed€at€least€15€days€before€the€scheduledÐ ..~)/ Ðdate.€€If€the€attorney€fails€to€appear€for€theÏhearing,€after€adequate€notice,€the€Panel€mayÏproceed€with€the€hearing€in€the€attorney'sÏabsence€and,€if€the€attorney€was€served€with€aÏsubpoena€to€appear,€may€consider€the€attorney'sÏfailure€as€evidence€of€the€factual€allegations.ÌÌ€€(c)€€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€into€evidence€at€theÏhearing.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)€€OathsÌÌà ¸ à€€The€Panel€Chair€may€administer€oaths€toÏwitnesses.ÌÌ€€(f)€€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€€(g)€€Rules€of€EvidenceÌÌ€€€€(1)€€GenerallyÌÌ€à ¸ à€€€€Unless€excluded€by€the€Panel€ChairÐ j,º'- Ðpursuant€to€Rule€5„403,€all€relevant€evidenceÏdisclosed€in€accordance€with€section€(b)€RuleÐ ..~)/ Ð16„717€and€section€(c)€of€this€Rule,€shall€beÏadmissible€at€the€hearing.€€Otherwise,€theÏhearing€shall€be€conducted€in€accordance€withÏthe€Rules€of€Evidence€in€Title€5.€€The€PanelÏChair€shall€rule€on€objections€to€the€evidence.Ìò òòòÌALTERNATEó óóóÐ ü L ÐÌ€€€€(1)€€GenerallyÌÌà ¸ à€€€€Unless€excluded€by€the€Panel€ChairÏpursuant€to€Rule€5„403,€all€relevant€evidenceÏdisclosed€in€accordance€with€section€(b)€ofÏRule€16„717€and€section€(c)€of€this€Rule,€shallÏbe€admissible€at€the€hearing.€€Although€theÏRules€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.€€The€Panel€ChairÏshall€rule€on€objections€to€the€evidence.ÌÌ€€€€(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€is€on€theÏattorney€and€the€burden€of€persuasion€regardingÏmitigating€factors€is€on€the€attorney€whoÏasserts€such€defenses€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€or€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€as€to€whetherÏor€not€the€evidence€was€disclosed€underÐ ..~)/ Ðsubsection€(e)(4)€of€this€Rule,€and€theÏattorney€at€that€time€may€submit€a€sealedÏenvelope€containing€written€argument€on€theÏeffect€to€be€given€to€such€evidence.€€Upon€aÏfinding€of€misconduct,€the€Panel€may€unseal€theÏenvelopes€and€consider€the€contents€in€arrivingÏat€an€appropriate€disposition€of€the€charges.ÌÌ€€(h)€€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€€(i)€€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.ÌññÓutorÓññÌSource:€€This€Rule€is€in€part€derived€fromÏformer€Rule€16„706€(d)€(BV6€d)€and€in€part€new.ÌÌÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àRule€16„717A€was€accompanied€by€the€following€Reporter'sÌÌNote.ÌÌÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ 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 ¸ àThe€first€and€second€sentences€of€sectionÏ(b)€are€based€upon€Commission€Guidelines€ðð5„¼103.€€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.Ð ..~)/ Їà ¸ àSection€(c)€is€new.€€It€reflects€BarÏCounsel's€practice€and€is€derived€from€theÏrequired€exchange€of€information€provision€inÏRule€16„808€(d)(2).ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(d)€is€a€new€provision€based€inÏpart€on€Rule€2„508€(a)€and€(c).€€It€isÏessentially€consistent€with€CommissionÏGuidelines€ðð5„104.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(e)€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€(f)€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 ¸ àSection€(g)(1)€rejects€the€policyÏexpressed€in€former€Rule€BV6€d€1€that€the€rulesÏof€evidence€"need€not€apply".€€Instead,€sectionÏ(g)€obliges€the€Panel€to€apply€the€MarylandÏRules€of€Evidence;€however,€the€evidenceÏdisclosed€in€accordance€with€section€(b)€ofÏRule€16„717€and€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„717A€isÏmade€automatically€admissible€at€the€hearing.€ÏIn€this€respect,€it€is€identical€to€theÏrequirement€in€Rule€16„808€(e)(4).€€The€PanelÏChair€rules€on€objections€to€the€evidence.ÌÌà ¸ àAlternate€subsection€(g)(1)€is€derivedÏfrom€Commission€Guidelines€ðð5„204.ÌÌà ¸ àSubsection€(g)(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€Rule€BV10Ïd€at€the€judicial€hearing€stage€(see€Rule€16„¼735).€€Similarly,€subsection€(g)(2)€imposesÏupon€the€attorney€the€burden€of€proving€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€any€factualÏmatters€in€defense€of€mitigating€circumstancesÐ ..~)/ Ðexisting€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€misconduct.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòACG€v.€Glennóó,€341€Md.€448,€470€(1996).Ð ’â ÐÌà ¸ àSubsection€(g)(3)€is€new€and€is€anÏamplification€of€A.B.A.€Model€Rule€11.D€(5).€ÏAlthough€prior€discipline€is€relevant€andÏmaterials€to€the€sanction€to€be€imposed€forÏproven€misconduct,€it€is€usually€irrelevant€toÏthe€issue€of€whether€or€not€the€allegedÏmisconduct€actually€occurred,€and€it€may€beÏprejudicial.€€However,€in€order€to€avoid€delayÏresulting€from€bifurcated€hearings,€a€mechanismÏis€created€to€allow€evidence€of€priorÏdiscipline€and€the€attorney's€arguments€inÏmitigation€to€be€submitted€in€sealed€envelopesÏwhich€the€Panel€may€open€only€upon€a€finding€ofÏmisconduct.ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(h)€is€new€but€is€based€onÏCommission€Guidelines€ðð5„203.€€A€sentence€isÏadded€to€provide€that€the€attorney€may€order€aÏtranscript€at€his€or€her€own€expense.€€SectionÏ(h)€is€similar€to€Rule€16„808€(e)(5).ÌÌà ¸ àSection€(i)€incorporates€the€substance€ofÏformer€Rule€BV6€d€4€(a)€but€leaves€to€Rule€16„¼719€the€details€of€the€various€possibleÏdispositions.ÌÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àMr.€Howell€explained€that€at€the€March€meeting,€the€RulesÏCommittee€had€decided€to€divide€Rule€16„717€into€two€rules€„„€oneÏcovering€prehearing€procedures,€one€covering€hearing€procedures.€ÏCopies€of€the€revised€rules€are€included€in€the€meeting€materials€forÏtoday's€meeting.€€Ìà  àMr.€Howell€noted€that€subsection€(g)(1)€of€Rule€16„717AÏcontains€an€alternate€provision€to€the€Subcommittee€proposal.€€TheÏissue€is€whether€the€Rules€of€Evidence€in€Title€5€are€applicable€atÏthe€Inquiry€Panel€stage€of€the€proceedings.€€The€Committee€can€assumeÐ L-œ(. Ðthat€the€Subcommittee€recommends€the€first€version,€although€itsÏchairperson,€Mr.€Brault,€had€stated€some€misgivings€about€it€at€theÏlast€meeting.€€Mr.€Johnson€asked€why€Rule€16„717€was€separated€intoÏtwo€rules.€€Mr.€Howell€answered€that€this€was€the€decision€of€theÏCommittee€at€its€March€meeting.€€Once€the€two€Rules€were€drafted,Ïboth€the€Reporter€and€Mr.€Brault€agreed€that€they€reflect€theÏdecisions€made€by€the€Committee.€€Mr.€Howell€stated€that€he€had€someÏmisgivings€about€the€separation€into€two€rules.€€This€creates€aÏdouble€procedure€to€review€the€complaint€and€adds€a€new€stage€ofÏmotions.€€€There€is€also€the€matter€of€the€Panel€getting€a€preview€ofÏthe€evidence,€especially€if€the€Rules€of€Evidence€apply.€€Mr.ÏHowell's€view€is€that€section€(g)€should€be€deleted.€€He€also€feltÏthat€the€new€section€(e)€in€Rule€16„717€is€too€lengthy,€especiallyÏsince€this€issue€does€not€come€up€very€often.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€Mr.€Sykes€had€said€at€theÏprevious€meeting€that€he€did€not€want€evidence€perpetuated€pursuantÏto€Rule€2„404€because€that€Rule€is€very€broad,€including€request€forÏdocuments,€etc.€€Rule€16„717€could€refer€to€Rule€Ì2„404,€but€exclude€the€portions€that€do€not€apply.€€The€ChairpersonÏinquired€why€Rule€2„404€cannot€be€applied€to€perpetuate€evidence.€ÏThe€Reporter€suggested€that€this€question€be€deferred€to€Mr.€Brault,Ïwho€had€drafted€the€two€new€Rules,€but€was€not€present€at€theÏmeeting.€€Judge€McAuliffe€observed€that€section€(e)€appears€to€beÏvery€different€from€Rule€2„404.Ð L-œ(. Ðà  àMr.€Klein€referred€to€section€(b)€of€Rule€16„717A,€questioningÏwhether€the€language€"fails€to€appear"€should€be€added€to€the€secondÏsentence€after€the€word€"subpoena"€and€before€the€word€"to."€€TheÏReporter€said€that€that€provision€needs€restyling.€€Ìà  àMr.€Lombardi€inquired€what€the€standard€of€review€is€forÏdetermining€whether€or€not€the€case€goes€forward€in€Rule€16„717.€€Mr.ÏHowell€responded€that€section€(f)€provides€that€after€Bar€CounselÏmakes€disclosures€under€section€(b),€the€Panel€can€review€theÏstatement€of€charges€and€the€information€provided€to€determine€if€theÏcharges€are€supported€by€the€evidence€as€a€basis€for€a€finding€ofÏmisconduct.€€The€case€can€be€dismissed€similar€to€a€summary€judgment.€ÏMr.€Lombardi€commented€that€the€Panel€can€find€a€prima€facie€case€orÏmore.€€The€Chairperson€observed€that€if€the€Panel€finds€an€evenÏbalance,€the€Panel€can€hold€a€hearing,€or€it€can€dismiss.€€TheÏquestion€is€if€the€Panel€must€dismiss.€€Section€(f)€states€that€theÏPanel€"may"€dismiss.€€The€Reporter€noted€that€the€language€in€sectionÏ(f)€reads€"[i]f€the€Panel€concludes...that€the€investigation€of€theÏstatement€of€charges€...does€not€constitute€misconduct€that€warrantsÏdiscipline,€the€Panel€may€dismiss€the€charges€with€or€without€a€Ïhearing...",€but€section€(a)€provides€"[i]f€the€Panel€concludes€thatÏthe€statement€of€charges€does€not€allege€facts,€which,€if€true,Ïconstitute€professional€misconduct€or€incapacity,€the€Panel€shallÏdismiss€the€charges€without€a€hearing...".€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏquestioned€why€section€(f)€is€necessary.€€Mr.€Johnson€said€that€heÐ L-œ(. Ðhad€suggested€it€at€the€last€meeting,€but€the€way€it€was€drafted,€itÏmissed€the€point€he€had€made.€€He€had€argued€that€the€previousÏversion€of€the€Rule€did€not€provide€for€the€Panel€to€be€able€toÏdismiss€without€a€hearing,€but€this€Rule€creates€an€additional€step.€ÏAll€that€is€needed€is€in€section€(f),€and€section€(a)€is€notÏnecessary.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€noted€that€at€the€previous€meeting€theÏpoint€had€been€made€that€Bar€Counsel€can€put€everything€into€theÏdisclosures,€including€irrelevant€or€prejudicial€hearsay,€which€go€toÏthe€Panel,€and€the€respondent's€attorney€cannot€argue€that€theÏevidence€should€not€come€in.€€The€Panel€may€be€judging€the€irrelevantÏor€prejudicial€hearsay€as€if€it€were€true.€€She€said€that€sheÏpreferred€the€section€(a)€review.€€The€Chairperson€pointed€out€thatÏsection€(f)€provides€additional€protection€for€the€respondentÏattorney.€€It€affords€a€second€look€at€the€evidence€after€everythingÏhas€been€gathered.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€this€type€ofÏreview€would€be€very€helpful€in€a€civil€case.€€The€Chairperson€saidÏthat€this€provides€a€mechanism€to€get€rid€of€the€case.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€reiterated€that€her€problem€is€whatÏevidence€the€Panel€has€in€its€hands.€€The€disclosures€by€Bar€CounselÏmake€the€review€under€section€(f)€different€than€the€review€underÏsection€(a)€of€Rule€16„717.€€There€is€the€potential€for€unfairÏmaterial€to€go€to€the€Panel€in€the€section€(f)€review.€€Mr.€BroderickÏtold€the€Committee€that€he€had€made€the€point€at€the€previous€meetingÐ L-œ(. Ðthat€this€can€be€viewed€as€a€screening€mechanism€or€as€a€Grand€JuryÏhearing.€€Case€law€provides€that€due€process€rights€do€not€attach€toÏthe€fullest€extent€at€this€point€in€the€proceedings.€€The€onlyÏrequirement€is€notice€and€an€opportunity€to€be€heard.€€These€PanelsÏserve€to€show€that€the€Rules€of€Evidence€are€not€necessary,€since€theÏPanel€has€the€ability€to€screen€the€evidence.€€He€expressed€theÏconcern€that€if€all€of€the€protections€are€incorporated€at€thisÏlevel,€the€system€will€not€move€expeditiously,€and€problems€at€theÏtrial€level€will€arise€when€the€Panel€decision€is€reviewed.€€As€aÏpolicy€matter€the€Rules€Committee€needs€to€address€what€is€to€beÏaccomplished.Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€stated€that€frivolous€complaints€need€to€beÏeliminated.€€The€Panel€should€be€provided€with€some€degree€of€reviewÏto€see€if€the€case€should€go€forward.€€Unfair€evidence€can€prejudiceÏthe€Panel.€€Twenty„five€years€ago,€a€well„known€attorney€was€almostÏdisbarred€because€of€an€unjust€accusation.€€The€fact€that€the€witnessÏwas€lying€did€not€come€up€until€late€in€the€proceedings.€€Section€(f)Ïwould€apply€to€this€type€of€situation.€€In€the€case€referred€to€byÏthe€Chairperson,€it€turned€out€that€later€in€the€proceedings,Ïscientific€evidence€proved€that€the€key€witness€had€forgedÏincriminating€evidence€in€an€unrelated€federal€case.€€Section€(f)Ïprovides€the€mechanism€to€ascertain€the€value€of€the€evidence.€€HeÏsaid€that€he€was€not€as€worried€as€the€Vice€Chairperson€about€theÏevidence€being€tainted.€€The€people€who€review€the€evidence€areÐ L-œ(. Ðprofessionals.€€He€expressed€the€opinion€that€both€sections€(a)€andÏ(f)€are€needed.€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€she€remembered€that€at€theÏprevious€meeting€the€Committee€wanted€the€Rule€to€be€amended€so€thatÏall€evidence€goes€to€the€Panel,€there€is€a€period€for€objection,€andÏthen€the€Panel€can€dismiss€with€or€without€a€warning.€€€Mr.€HowellÏexpressed€his€agreement€with€Mr.€Broderick.€€Bar€Counsel,€after€aÏthorough€investigation,€files€a€statement€of€charges€and€requests€aÏhearing.€€There€is€a€paper€review€on€the€statement€of€charges,€andÏthen€downstream€a€dismissal€review.€€If€there€is€a€period€for€theÏattorney€to€object,€this€builds€in€constitutional€delay€which€goesÏalong€with€the€delay€when€Panels€have€trouble€getting€together.€€ThisÏsystem€would€require€objections,€briefs,€and€memoranda.€€He€said€thatÏMr.€Lombardi€had€referred€to€the€Panel€finding€a€prima€facie€case.€ÏThis€would€work.€€The€Panel€looks€at€the€evidence€and€considersÏobjections.€€The€Panel€either€dismisses€or€finds€that€Bar€Counsel€hasÏmade€a€prima€facie€case€and€takes€it€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€TheÏRules€Committee€had€previously€decided€that€this€is€a€probable€causeÏhearing.€€If€the€Panel€finds€probable€cause,€the€case€can€be€broughtÏto€formal€Court€of€Appeals€charges.€€The€Panel€can€screen€out€a€weakÏcase.€€He€suggested€that€the€language€in€section€(f)€which€readsÏ"with€or€without€a€warning"€should€be€changed.Ìà  àMr.€Lombardi€expressed€the€view€that€the€structure€of€Rule€16„¼717€works.€€Section€(a)€is€simply€a€fast„track€screening€mechanismÐ L-œ(. Ðwhich€gets€rid€of€cases€totally€lacking€in€probable€cause.€€As€aÏsafeguard€if€Bar€Counsel€argues€that€there€is€more€than€meets€theÏeye,€he€or€she€can€ask€for€a€section€(f)€hearing.€€The€test€isÏwhether€there€is€probable€cause€to€send€the€case€to€the€Court€ofÏAppeals.€€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€that€this€Rule€does€not€provide€for€aÏhearing.€€There€is€no€participation€except€by€the€Panel.€€HeÏexplained€that€under€the€present€system€all€goes€to€the€Panel€ChairÏat€the€same€time.€€Under€the€proposed€Rule,€only€the€statement€ofÏcharges€goes€to€the€Panel.€€This€is€why€the€prehearing€process€wasÏdeveloped€to€structure€what€goes€to€the€Panel.€At€the€Panel€hearing,Ïno€advocates€are€present.€€The€review€is€conducted€òòinóó€òòcameraóó.€€Mr.Ð X¨ ÐGrossman€remarked€that,€at€present,€the€Panel€will€receiveÏinvestigative€reports€and€correspondence€between€the€complainant€andÏrespondent.€€Panels€do€throw€these€cases€out.Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€asked€if€section€(f)€is€proper.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€inquired€as€to€how€the€Panel€is€given€the€information€itÏneeds.€€This€is€defined€by€the€investigative€file.€€The€CommissionÏGuidelines€state€that€all€correspondence€from€the€complainant€andÏrespondent€is€to€be€put€into€the€investigative€file.€€It€is€screenedÏwhen€it€goes€to€the€Panel.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€he€and€Mr.ÏJohnson€were€concerned€that€there€was€no€provision€for€a€dismissalÏwithout€a€hearing.€€Mr.€Grossman€asked€why€this€cannot€be€done€in€oneÏstep€as€it€is€done€in€the€current€system.€€Bar€Counsel€supplies€aÏstatement€of€charges€and€an€answer.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€inquired€ifÐ L-œ(. ÐBar€Counsel€has€always€disclosed€to€the€attorney€everything€that€wasÏgiven€to€the€Panel€even€before€the€Panel€gets€it.€€Mr.€GrossmanÏanswered€in€the€negative.€€Mr.€Broderick€suggested€that€there€couldÏbe€a€short€rule€which€provides€that€once€the€Panel€is€appointed,€theÏstatement€of€charges€and€the€investigative€file€are€provided.€€TheÏVice€Chairperson€responded€that€Rule€16„717€provides€this.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€argued€that€this€is€done€seriatim€in€the€Rule.€€HisÏproposal€is€that€a€statement€of€charges€is€drafted€once€the€Panel€isÏappointed.€€The€investigative€file€goes€to€the€respondent€or€his€orÏher€counsel,€and€then€to€the€Panel€with€any€response€of€theÏrespondent.€€The€Chairperson€noted€that€the€Rule€does€not€provideÏthat€the€Panel€gets€the€respondent's€response.Ìà  àMr.€Broderick€commented€that€section€(b)€provides€that€BarÏCounsel€shall€allow€the€attorney€to€inspect€and€copy€"all€evidenceÏaccumulated€during€the€investigation...".€€The€use€of€the€wordÏ"evidence"€triggers€admissibility€issues.€€The€same€Rule€goes€on€toÏsay€that€the€attorney€can€inspect€and€copy€"all€statements...".€€HeÏexplained€that€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€does€not€take€statements.€ÏThey€do€not€interview€witnesses€and€reduce€the€statements€to€writing.€ÏHe€said€that€his€focus€is€on€a€very€informal€procedure.€€Case€lawÏsays€that€the€screening€process€is€informal.€€If€the€procedure€isÏdefined€by€the€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€Court€of€Appeals€may€beÏrelegated€to€reviewing€what€Panels€do.€€Under€the€current€system€theÏpanoply€of€due€process€rights€does€not€apply€until€the€case€goes€toÐ L-œ(. Ðthe€Court€of€Appeals.Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€language€could€be€added€to€RuleÏ16„717€which€provides€that€a€violation€of€the€Rule€does€notÏnecessarily€result€in€a€dismissal.€€He€asked€what€else€is€causingÏproblems€in€the€new€Rule.€€Mr.€Grossman€said€that€the€revisedÏsuggested€procedure€is€not€that€far€removed€from€the€current€system.€ÏHe€agreed€with€Mr.€Broderick€that€formalizing€the€procedure€willÏcreate€procedural€challenges€at€an€earlier€stage€than€in€the€currentÏsystem.€€When€attorneys€seek€injunctions,€his€office€has€not€alwaysÏfollowed€the€specific€rubrics€of€the€Rule.€€Currently,€if€an€attorneyÏhas€not€responded,€he€does€not€supply€the€attorney€with€the€entireÏinvestigative€file.€€The€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€must€give€to€theÏrespondent€attorney€what€the€Rules€and€Commission€Guidelines€require.€ÏAll€attorneys€are€notified€of€the€investigation,€and€they€can€come€toÏthe€Office€of€Bar€Counsel€to€see€the€file.€€Bar€Counsel€generallyÏgives€everything€to€the€respondent€attorney.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€asked€if€there€were€any€suggestions€for€changesÏto€Rule€16„717.€€Judge€McAuliffe€expressed€the€view€that€bothÏsections€(a)€and€(f)€are€not€needed.€€Mr.€Lombardi€explained€thatÏsection€(a)€is€important€to€screen€out€frivolous€cases.€€Mr.€JohnsonÏremarked€that€sections€(a)€and€(f)€are€repetitive.€€Mr.€LombardiÏcommented€that€section€(f)€cannot€function€without€section€(a).€€Mr.ÏJohnson€noted€that€section€(f)€allows€the€Panel€to€look€at€theÏevidence€Bar€Counsel€will€be€providing.€€The€Chairperson€pointed€outÐ L-œ(. Ðthat€it€can€happen€that€Bar€Counsel€is€under€intense€pressure€to€fileÏcharges€against€an€attorney€who€did€something€politically€incorrect.€ÏThe€Panel€can€end€the€proceedings€after€reviewing€the€statement€ofÏcharges,€or€it€can€look€at€the€additional€material€under€section€(f)Ïbefore€it€makes€its€decision.€€Ìà  àMr.€Broderick€noted€that€the€proposed€Rule€is€different€fromÏthe€present€system.€€It€provides€for€mental€and€physical€examinationsÏand€for€the€perpetuation€of€evidence,€which€are€not€available€underÏcurrent€Rule€16„706€(d)€(BV€6€d.)€€Their€need€is€obviated€by€the€factÏthat€depositions€are€available€at€the€discretion€of€the€Panel.€€Mr.ÏTitus€commented€that€he€had€participated€in€the€drafting€process€ofÏdisciplinary€rules€at€the€American€Bar€Association€level.€€The€PanelÏprocess€is€a€Grand€Jury€screening,€not€a€trial.€€He€said€that€he€isÏuncomfortable€with€the€application€of€the€Rules€of€Evidence€at€theÏPanel€level,€and€that€no€hearing€is€needed.€€The€right€to€submitÏone's€position€to€the€Panel€provides€a€check€on€Bar€Counsel.€€One€isÏbetter€off€in€front€of€a€Panel€than€in€front€of€a€trial€judge€whereÏthe€Rules€of€Evidence€and€other€rights€apply.Ìà  àAfter€lunch,€Mr.€Howell€told€the€Committee€that€during€theÏlunch€break,€he€had€discussed€the€issue€of€proposed€Rules€16„717€andÏ16„717A€with€the€representatives€of€the€Office€of€Bar€Counsel.€€TheyÏcame€up€with€a€system€which€codifies€existing€practice.€€The€proposalÏis€that€when€the€Panel€is€appointed,€Bar€Counsel€will€provide€theÏPanel€and€the€respondent€attorney€with€the€information€Bar€CounselÐ L-œ(. Ðhas.€€There€would€be€one€review€similar€to€the€one€in€section€(f).€ÏThe€Panel€will€dismiss€the€case€or€set€it€for€a€hearing.€€Bar€CounselÏwould€have€a€right€of€review€of€a€dismissal€without€a€hearing.€€OtherÏprovisions€of€the€Rules€are€unchanged.€€A€new€Rule€will€be€drafted.€ÏMr.€Lombardi€liked€the€idea€of€the€Panel€treating€the€charge€as€aÏdemurrer,€finding€that€the€charges€may€be€true,€but€still€able€toÏdismiss€the€case€for€charges€not€rising€to€the€level€of€misconduct.€ÏMr.€Howell€explained€that€the€newest€revision€would€avoid€the€two„¼step€process.€€Some€of€the€Panels€from€rural€counties€may€be€locatedÏin€different€parts€of€the€county,€and€it€may€be€difficult€for€them€toÏmeet.€€This€would€eliminate€the€need€for€the€Panel€to€meet€more€thanÏone€time.€€At€the€hearing,€the€Panel€can€find€that€the€statement€ofÏcharges€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€misconduct€and€rule€on€it€as€aÏdemurrer.€€Sections€(a)€and€(f)€of€Rule€16„717€will€be€collapsed,€andÏthere€will€be€a€dismissal€with€or€without€a€warning.Ìà  àMr.€Hochberg€asked€whether€there€would€be€an€opportunity€forÏthe€respondent€attorney€to€submit€material.€€Mr.€Howell€answered€thatÏthis€provision€would€have€to€be€added€in.€€The€decision€about€whetherÏa€hearing€is€needed€has€not€yet€been€made,€and€if€one€is€required,€itÏmight€cause€the€attorney€an€unnecessary€expense,€because€he€or€sheÏmay€feel€obliged€to€submit€material.€€The€panoply€of€rights€isÏprovided€in€the€next€rule.€€The€type€of€hearing€has€also€not€yet€beenÏdecided,€but€it€would€be€similar€to€the€one€described€in€section€(f)Ïof€the€version€of€Rule€16„717€in€today's€meeting€materials.€€Both€theÐ L-œ(. ÐPanel€and€the€attorney€will€get€information€from€Bar€Counsel.€€Mr.ÏGrossman€agreed€that€the€description€by€Mr.€Howell€of€the€concept€ofÏthe€proposed€new€Rule€is€what€was€discussed€during€the€lunch€break.€€€Ìà  àJudge€Johnson€suggested€that€the€Committee€vote€on€the€conceptÏof€the€proposed€new€Rule.€€Mr.€Titus€moved€that€the€concept€of€theÏproposed€new€Rule€be€adopted€by€the€Rules€Committee.€€The€motion€wasÏseconded,€and€it€passed,€with€one€opposed.Ìà  àMr.€Titus€expressed€the€view€that€the€Rules€should€not€includeÏthe€notion€that€a€panoply€of€rights€is€afforded€the€attorney€at€theÏInquiry€Panel€stage.€€The€Rules€of€Evidence€should€not€apply,€and€theÏstandard€for€review€should€be€that€it€was€more€likely€than€not€thatÏthere€was€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€attorney.€€Mr.€TitusÏreiterated€that€no€hearing€should€be€required€as€it€slows€down€theÏprocess.€€If€a€check€on€a€Bar€Counsel€who€is€out€of€control€isÏneeded,€a€paper€review€is€adequate.€€The€matter€can€go€in€front€of€aÏjudge€later€on,€if€it€is€necessary.€€€Mr.€Howell€remarked€thatÏconfidentiality€is€important€at€the€Inquiry€Panel€stage.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€said€that€he€advises€the€Board€of€Education€ofÏMontgomery€County,€which€uses€procedural€rules€to€decide€cases.€ÏSince€there€is€a€high€volume€of€cases,€most€are€conducted€on€a€paperÏreview.€€The€Chairperson€remarked€that€he€recently€testified€onÏbehalf€of€an€attorney€before€an€Inquiry€Panel.€€If€Bar€Counsel€couldÏmake€a€prima€facie€case€that€an€attorney€violated€a€disciplinaryÏrule,€a€paper€review€could€help€the€Panel€determine€mitigatingÐ L-œ(. Ðcircumstances,€so€the€case€need€not€go€to€the€circuit€court.€€Mr.ÏJohnson€commented€that€the€public€is€involved€in€these€cases.€€TheÏhearing€process€serves€a€purpose.€€The€public€person€complains,€andÏmembers€of€the€public€are€on€the€Inquiry€Panel.€€This€would€negateÏthe€criticism€that€the€attorney€discipline€process€is€one€in€whichÏattorneys€protect€attorneys.€€Mr.€Johnson€agreed€with€Mr.€Titus€thatÏthe€Inquiry€Panel€process€should€not€include€use€of€the€Rules€ofÏEvidence€and€should€not€have€procedural€rights€attaching.€€Mr.ÏLombardi€asked€what€is€wrong€with€having€procedural€rights.€€TheÏhistory€of€the€Rules€reflects€providing€for€a€fair€and€impartialÏhearing.€€Mr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€some€of€Rules€16„717€and€16„¼717A€are€taken€from€Rule€16„706€(BV€6).€€The€remainder€is€drawn€fromÏthe€Judicial€Disabilities€Commission€Rules€which€lack€protection€forÏjudges.€€The€Subcommittee€had€argued€over€the€issues€in€Rules€Ì16„717€and€16„717A.Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€stated€that€using€the€term€"fair€and€impartial"Ïshould€be€eliminated,€because€all€hearings€are€supposed€to€be€fairÏand€impartial.€€Mr.€Howell€observed€that€this€is€not€a€judge„enforcedÏrule,€and€using€the€language€"fair€and€impartial"€is€a€reminder€thatÏa€hearing€should€be€fair.€€Mr.€Howell€said€that€the€language€could€beÏdeleted€from€section€(a)€of€Rule€16„717A.€€Mr.€Bowen€moved€to€deleteÏthe€language,€the€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€unanimously.€€Ìà  àTurning€to€section€(b)€of€Rule€16„717A,€the€ChairpersonÏinquired€if€the€15„day€period€is€appropriate.€€Mr.€Howell€explainedÐ L-œ(. Ðthat€it€was€added€at€the€previous€meeting.€€Mr.€Grossman€added€thatÏthe€15„day€period€is€used€in€present€practice.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏcommented€that€it€could€be€changed€to€ten€days.€€Previously€the€RuleÏhad€provided€that€the€notice€should€be€mailed€a€"reasonable€time"Ïbefore€the€scheduled€date€of€the€hearing.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€thatÏthe€Commission€Guidelines€require€15€days€prior€written€notice.€ÏJudge€Kaplan€expressed€the€view€that€this€is€fairer€than€within€15Ïdays€of€mailing.€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€that€this€time€period€can€beÏwaived.€Ìà  àMr.€Howell€asked€how€the€time€is€counted€for€an€abscondingÏattorney.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€said€that€all€of€the€Rules€ofÏProcedure€run€from€the€date€of€service€and€not€from€the€date€ofÏreceipt,€except€for€time€periods€dating€from€the€entry€of€a€courtÏorder.€€She€expressed€her€preference€for€a€longer€time€period.€€Mr.ÏHowell€suggested€that€the€time€period€be€20€days.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€questioned€as€to€how€long€the€time€period€is€between€theÏdate€the€hearing€is€scheduled€and€the€date€it€takes€place.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€replied€that€the€time€is€usually€between€two€and€threeÏmonths,€depending€on€where€the€Panel€is€located.€€The€ChairpersonÏasked€if€using€30€days€would€be€a€problem.€€Ìà  àMr.€Titus€moved€that€the€time€period€in€section€(b)€be€changedÏfrom€15€to€30€days.€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€carriedÏunanimously.Ìà  àMr.€Broderick€said€that€under€the€current€system€if€theÐ L-œ(. Ðrespondent€attorney€does€not€answer€the€certified€mail€notice,€theÏhearing€will€take€place€without€the€attorney€being€present,€and€theÏPanel€will€put€on€the€record€an€explanation€of€the€best€efforts€toÏnotify€the€respondent.€€The€Review€Board€reviews€the€decision€toÏproceed€without€the€respondent.€€Proposed€Rule€16„708€provides€forÏsubstituted€service€on€an€absent€attorney.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏnoted€that€service€for€a€subpoena€is€covered€in€Rule€16„718.€€If€theÏattorney€got€a€letter€and€did€not€appear,€the€Panel€cannot€draw€anyÏinferences€unless€the€attorney€was€served€with€a€subpoena.€€Mr.ÏBroderick€pointed€out€that€section€(b)€of€Rule€16„717A€provides€forÏthe€notice€of€the€hearing,€but€it€does€not€relate€to€whether€theÏattorney€was€served€with€a€subpoena.€€If€the€certified€mail€comesÏback€unanswered,€it€may€mean€that€the€attorney€got€no€notice€of€theÏhearing.€€His€recommendation€is€notice€by€ordinary€and€certifiedÏmail,€so€that€the€Panel€can€infer€that€the€notice€was€received.€€ThisÏwould€be€different€for€purposes€of€a€subpoena.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏsaid€that€the€practice€is€to€notify€the€attorney€using€a€subpoena.€€AÏletter€sent€by€certified€mail€is€the€equivalent€of€a€subpoena.€€TheÏChairperson€observed€that€if€the€respondent€attorney€signs€theÏcertified€mail€receipt€and€fails€to€appear€for€the€hearing,€this€canÏbe€considered€as€evidence€of€the€factual€allegations.€€Ìà  àMr.€Broderick€said€that€this€is€a€new€procedure.€€Current€RuleÏ16„706€d€3€(d),€which€was€previously€numbered€as€BV6€d€3€(d),Ïprovides€that€in€a€proceeding€before€an€Inquiry€Panel,€the€Panel€mayÐ L-œ(. Ðcommand€the€attorney's€attendance€by€sending€a€letter€by€certifiedÏmail.€€Mr.€Lombardi€argued€that€the€attorney€has€to€be€subpoenaed,Ïbecause€his€or€her€failure€to€attend€the€hearing€can€be€considered€asÏevidence€of€the€factual€allegations.€€The€Chairperson€noted€thatÏcurrent€Rule€16„706€d€3€(d)€provides€that€"the€letter€shall€be€asÏeffective€against€the€attorney€as€if€a€subpoena€had€been€issued...".€ÏMr.€Grossman€asked€if€this€provision€should€be€in€section€(b)€of€RuleÏ16„717A.€€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€there€could€be€a€separate€sectionÏpertaining€to€the€effect€of€the€attorney's€failure€to€appear.Ìà  àMr.€Klein€noted€that€there€is€no€requirement€that€the€subpoenaÏmust€be€filed€a€certain€amount€of€time€before€the€hearing.€€It€couldÏpossibly€be€served€the€day€before€the€hearing.€€The€Vice€ChairpersonÏobserved€that€the€notice€will€have€been€sent€30€days€prior€to€theÏhearing€according€to€the€change€made€to€section€(b)€at€today'sÏmeeting.€€She€asked€if€the€sentence€referring€to€consideration€of€theÏfailure€to€appear€as€evidence€should€be€moved.€€The€Chairperson€saidÏthat€it€could€go€into€a€new€section€entitled€"Effect€of€Failure€toÏAppear."€€Mr.€Lombardi€asked€if€the€attorney€is€notified€of€theÏeffect€of€his€or€her€absence,€and€he€suggested€that€it€could€be€putÏinto€the€notice.€€Mr.€Bowen€commented€that€an€attorney€is€chargedÏwith€knowledge€of€the€Rules.€€Mr.€Lombardi€referred€to€the€priorÏdiscussion€where€the€point€was€made€that€some€attorneys€may€chooseÏnot€to€appear,€because€they€feel€that€the€charges€are€so€frivolous.€ÏThis€may€be€a€trap€for€the€unwary€attorney.€€Another€issue€is€if€theÐ L-œ(. Ðattorney€gets€a€notice€to€appear€which€is€not€in€the€form€of€aÏsubpoena,€there€might€be€repercussions€for€failure€to€appear.€€ThisÏshould€be€spelled€out€in€the€notice.€€€The€Chairperson€stated€thatÏthe€notice€could€advise€the€attorney€that€if€the€attorney€fails€toÏappear,€the€Panel€may€proceed.€€Mr.€Lombardi€suggested€that€theÏattorney€also€be€notified€that€a€failure€to€appear€may€be€used€asÏevidence€of€the€factual€allegations.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€theÏnotice€could€provide€both.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€expressed€the€viewÏthat€the€attorney€should€already€know€that€he€or€she€must€appear,Ïeven€without€being€given€the€extra€warnings.Ìà  àMr.€Hochberg€asked€about€the€certified€letter€being€theÏequivalent€of€a€subpoena.€€Mr.€Howell€suggested€that€the€Rule€provideÏthat€a€certified€letter€be€sent.€€Mr.€Broderick€noted€that€underÏcurrent€practice,€the€Panel€Chair€signs€a€form€which€is€sent€to€theÏattorney.€It€provides€that€the€attorney€is€notified€of€the€date€of€aÏhearing.€€If€it€is€a€subpoena€duces€tecum,€it€provides€that€theÏattorney€is€to€appear€and€bring€certain€documents.€€The€certifiedÏmail€acts€as€a€subpoena€pursuant€to€current€Rule€16„706.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€stated€that€Mr.€Lombardi's€motion€is€that€theÏRule€expressly€provide€that€the€attorney€is€notified€of€the€date,Ïtime,€and€place€of€the€hearing,€and€that€the€notice€contain€aÏspecific€provision€that€the€Panel€may€proceed€in€the€absence€of€theÏattorney,€and€that€the€attorney's€absence€may€be€considered€asÏevidence€of€the€factual€allegations.€€There€was€no€second€to€theÐ L-œ(. Ðmotion.Ìà  àMr.€Titus€suggested€that€in€section€(c)€of€Rule€16„717A,€theÏwords€"a€reasonable€time"€should€be€changed€to€"at€least€15€days."€ÏThe€Committee€agreed€to€this€change€by€consensus.Ìà  àMr.€Hochberg€asked€if€the€time€period€in€section€(c)€isÏcalculated€by€the€date€of€mailing€or€the€date€of€receipt.€€JudgeÏRinehardt€responded€that€it€is€measured€in€terms€of€mailing€the€listÏof€witnesses€within€15€days€of€the€scheduled€hearing€date.€€Mr.€TitusÏsuggested€that€the€Rule€provide€that€the€list€may€be€mailed€orÏdelivered.€€The€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€the€sender€can€argueÏthat€the€list€is€in€the€mail.€€Judge€Kaplan€expressed€the€opinionÏthat€it€is€clearer€to€count€from€when€the€recipient€has€the€list€inÏhand.€€Mr.€Howell€suggested€that€the€time€period€could€be€20€days€toÏmail€the€list.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€remarked€that€this€may€beÏdifficult€to€remember€as€it€does€not€conform€with€the€Title€2€mailingÏrequirements.€€Ìà  àThe€Vice€Chairperson€inquired€what€a€reasonable€time€before€theÏhearing€date€would€be€to€send€the€list€of€witnesses.€€If€it€is€mailedÏ15€days€before€the€hearing,€it€is€likely€to€get€to€the€recipient€onÏtime.€€Mr.€Broderick€suggested€that€the€list€could€be€in€the€hand€ofÏthe€recipient€at€least€15€days€before€the€hearing.€€€Mr.€Titus€saidÏthat€it€could€be€sent€15€days€plus€the€time€for€mailing€before€theÏhearing.€€The€Reporter€added€that€it€could€be€delivered€15€daysÏbefore€the€hearing,€and€Mr.€Howell€suggested€that€faxing€15€daysÐ L-œ(. Ðbefore€may€suffice.€€Judge€Kaplan€suggested€that€the€word€should€beÏ"deliver",€but€the€Reporter€noted€that€the€word€"deliver"€has€theÏsame€connotation€as€the€word€"provide."€€€The€Chairperson€said€thatÏeach€side€has€to€ensure€that€each€other€is€in€possession€of€the€list.Ìà  àMr.€Titus€moved€that€the€time€period€to€send€the€list€ofÏwitnesses€be€15€days€plus€time€for€mailing€before€the€hearing,€andÏthat€the€word€"provide"€be€deleted€and€the€word€"mail"€substituted.€ÏThe€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€with€one€opposed.Ìà  àMr.€Johnson€said€that€he€had€a€question€about€the€secondÏsentence€of€section€(d).€€He€hypothesized€a€case€in€which€an€attorneyÏis€alleged€to€be€an€alcoholic,€and€the€Panel€wants€to€wait€for€theÏtestimony€of€a€therapist,€who€is€treating€the€attorney,€but€isÏcurrently€unavailable€to€testify.€He€inquired€as€to€who€would€fileÏthe€required€affidavit.€€€The€Chairperson€said€that€he€did€not€seeÏwhy€the€second€sentence€was€in€section€(d).€€Mr.€Titus€moved€toÏdelete€the€sentence,€the€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€carriedÏunanimously.Ìà  à€The€Chairperson€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€section€(e).€ÏMr.€Grossman€pointed€out€that€currently€the€court€reporterÏadministers€oaths.€€Ms.€Ogletree€questioned€why€it€is€necessary€toÏprovide€in€the€Rule€who€administers€the€oaths.€€Mr.€Howell€respondedÏthat€the€Rule€deliberately€authorizes€the€Panel€Chair€to€do€this.€ÏThe€Vice€Chairperson€commented€that€the€Panel€Chair€may€not€beÏauthorized€to€administer€an€oath.€€The€Chairperson€suggested€thatÐ L-œ(. Ðsection€(e)€should€include€affirmations€as€well€as€oaths.€€TheÏwording€of€this€section€could€be€"A€witness€shall€testify€under€oathÏor€affirmation."€€This€would€avoid€identifying€the€person€whoÏadministers€the€oaths.€€Mr.€Howell€pointed€out€that€the€Rule€shouldÏprovide€the€authorization€for€the€Panel€Chair€to€administer€oaths.€ÏThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€the€second€sentence€of€section€(e)Ïcould€read€as€follows:€"The€Panel€Chair€is€authorized€to€administerÏoaths€or€affirmations€to€witnesses."€€The€Vice€Chairperson€noted€thatÏRule€1„303€provides€that€an€oath€includes€an€affirmation.€€SheÏsuggested€that€both€sections€(e)€and€(f)€be€left€alone,€and€theÏCommittee€agreed.Ìà  àTurning€to€subsection€(g)(1),€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€theÏCommittee€approve€the€alternate€version.€€Mr.€Howell€suggested€thatÏthe€word€"evidence"€in€the€first€sentence€of€whichever€version€isÏadopted€should€be€changed€to€the€word€"information."€The€CommitteeÏagreed€to€these€suggestions€by€consensus.€€Mr.€Howell€explained€thatÏthe€Subcommittee's€position€was€that€the€Rules€of€Evidence€would€beÏavailable€to€all€persons,€and€would€give€everyone€a€chance€to€knowÏthe€rules.€€Otherwise,€decisions€might€vary€from€Panel€to€Panel.€€AnyÏerror€in€admission€would€not€count€until€charges€have€been€filed€inÏthe€Court€of€Appeals.€€Without€the€Rules€of€Evidence,€the€playingÏfield€will€be€uneven.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€noted€that€subsection€(g)(1)€does€not€refer€toÏprivileged€information.€€Mr.€Broderick€said€that€this€is€addressed€inÐ L-œ(. ÐRules€1.6€and€8.1€of€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct.€€TheÏChairperson€remarked€that€there€are€also€statutory€privileges.€€Mr.ÏTitus€commented€that€this€provision€does€not€do€away€with€statutoryÏprivileges.€€The€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€before€its€1994Ïamendment,€Rule€3„701€provided:€"The€court€shall€conduct€the€trial€ofÏa€small€claim€action€in€an€informal€manner€without€being€bound€byÏtechnical€rules€of€evidence,€except€those€relating€to€privilegedÏcommunications."€€Mr.€Titus€noted€that€the€language€in€the€alternateÏprovision€could€include€a€reference€to€privileged€communications.€€€Ìà  àMr.€Howell€explained€that€the€first€version€was€a€compromise€onÏthe€part€of€the€Subcommittee,€which€had€decided€that€the€Rules€ofÏEvidence€would€not€be€required€unless€the€evidence€were€prejudicial.€ÏThe€Subcommittee€felt€that€in€fairness€to€Bar€Counsel,€who€has€madeÏdisclosures€to€the€Panel€which€the€attorney€also€got,€the€evidenceÏshould€all€come€in.€€Anything€else€would€conform€to€the€Rules€ofÏEvidence€or€some€other€standard.€€The€Rules€of€Evidence€did€not€existÏwhen€the€statutory€provisions€and€the€original€Rule€3„701€wereÏdrafted.€€Mr.€Howell€questioned€what€the€term€"technical€rules€ofÏevidence"€means.€€The€Rules€of€Evidence€are€more€will„known.Ìà  àMr.€Titus€moved€that€the€alternate€be€adopted,€except€that€theÏsecond€sentence€would€be€deleted,€and€in€its€place,€the€formerÏsentence€from€Rule€3„701€would€be€added.€€He€also€moved€that€theÏfirst€sentence€of€the€alternate€would€be€deleted.€€The€ChairpersonÏsuggested€that€subsection€(g)(1)€have€one€sentence€which€would€readÐ L-œ(. Ðas€follows:€"The€Panel€Chair€shall€rule€on€objections€to€the€evidenceÏand€shall€conduct€a€hearing€without€being€bound€by€the€technicalÏrules€of€evidence."€€Mr.€Lombardi€noted€that€the€small€claims€formulaÏhas€a€different€standard€of€proof€than€proof€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.€€He€said€that€he€would€be€in€favor€of€the€proposed€changeÏif€the€standard€were€stronger,€but€if€it€were€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence,€he€would€be€opposed.€€Mr.€Howell€asked€why€the€firstÏsentence€is€proposed€to€be€deleted,€and€the€Chairperson€answered€thatÏit€would€not€be€necessary€if€the€relaxed€view€of€not€applying€theÏRules€of€Evidence€is€used.Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€pointed€out€that€there€are€two€issues€to€be€decided.€ÏOne€is€the€addition€of€new€language€to€subsection€(g)(1),€and€theÏother€is€the€deletion€of€the€first€sentence.€€Mr.€Howell€noted€thatÏthe€first€sentence€refers€to€the€standards€of€Rule€5„403.€€The€ViceÏChairperson€moved€that€subsection€(g)(1)€would€read€as€follows:€€"TheÏPanel€Chair€shall€rule€on€objections€to€the€evidence€and€shallÏconduct€a€hearing€without€being€bound€by€the€technical€rules€ofÏevidence."€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passed€with€two€opposed.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€asked€if€there€should€be€a€second€sentence€inÏsubsection€(g)(1).€€Mr.€Bowen€suggested€that€the€second€sentenceÏshould€be€the€first€sentence€of€alternate€subsection€(g)(1).€€Mr.ÏHochberg€remarked€that€if€the€attorney€has€disclosed€relevantÏinformation,€the€first€sentence€only€applies€to€Bar€Counsel.€€Mr.ÏKlein€said€that€Bar€Counsel€is€allowed€to€introduce€more€information.€Ð L-œ(. ÐThe€defense€puts€in€lists€of€witnesses,€but€Bar€Counsel€puts€inÏsummaries€of€oral€statements.€€Mr.€Broderick€observed€that€sectionÏ(c)€of€Rule€16„717A€provides€that€Bar€Counsel€and€the€attorney€shallÏprovide€each€other€with€a€list€of€witnesses€and€copies€of€documentsÏeach€intends€to€introduce.€€It€is€possible€that€a€document€withÏtriple€hearsay€could€come€in.€€Under€the€first€sentence€of€eitherÏversion€of€subsection€(g)(1),€this€might€not€come€in.€€Mr.€KleinÏsuggested€that€the€reference€to€section€(b)€of€Rule€16„717€beÏdeleted.€€The€Vice€Chairperson€expressed€the€view€that€the€firstÏsentence€in€subsection€(g)(1)€may€lead€to€arguments€over€relevance.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€suggested€that€the€administrative€law€rules,Ïwhich€are€applied€in€hearings€before€an€administrative€law€judge,€beÏused.€€He€asked€if€Bar€Counsel€was€concerned€about€respondentÏattorneys€sneaking€information€in.€€Mr.€Broderick€responded€that€thatÏwas€not€a€concern.€€The€problem€is€in€section€(c)€which€refers€to€theÏwitness€lists€and€documents€expected€to€be€introduced€at€the€hearing.€ÏThese€may€hinge€on€their€admissibility€at€the€hearing.€€Mr.€HowellÏexplained€that€the€Subcommittee€intended€that€the€material€exchangedÏin€advance€would€be€admissible€subject€to€the€weight€the€Panel€gaveÏit.€€The€Chairperson€commented€that€this€could€be€unfair€to€BarÏCounsel€or€the€respondent.€€Mr.€Howell€said€that€he€recognized€thereÏis€an€element€of€unfairness€in€admitting€inadmissible€material.€€MostÏadvocates€put€in€evidence€with€probative€value,€and€the€escape€valveÏis€Rule€5„403.€€The€Chairperson€noted€that€Rule€5„403€applies€onlyÐ L-œ(. Ðafter€there€has€been€a€judgment€that€evidence€is€relevant.€€SomeÏirrelevant€evidence€may€come€in.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€Code,€State€GovernmentÏArticle,€ðð10„213€provides€in€section€(b)€that€"[t]he€presidingÏofficer€may€admit€probative€evidence€that€reasonable€and€prudentÏindividuals€commonly€accept€in€the€conduct€of€their€affairs€and€giveÏprobative€effect€to€that€evidence."€€Mr.€Howell€responded€thatÏlanguage€similar€to€this€could€be€included€in€Rule€16„717A.€Mr.ÏGrossman€noted€that€the€first€sentence€of€subsection€(g)(1)€gives€theÏPanel€Chair€the€opportunity€to€rule€on€the€evidence€and€keep€thingsÏout.€€He€questioned€whether€this€is€necessary.€€Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€commented€that€in€the€first€sentence€of€subsectionÏ(g)(1),€the€reference€to€Rule€5„403€could€be€deleted€and€in€itsÏplace,€there€would€be€a€reference€to€the€preceding€sentence.€€In€theÏalternative,€the€language€from€the€State€Government€Article€could€beÏplugged€in€here.€€He€moved€that€the€reference€to€Rule€Ì5„403€be€deleted€and€language€referring€to€the€preceding€sentence€beÏadded.€€The€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€carried€unanimously.€€Ìà  àTurning€to€subsection€(g)(2),€Mr.€Titus€suggested€that€sinceÏthis€provision€"ain't€broke",€it€should€not€be€fixed.€€Mr.€HowellÏexplained€that€this€provision€is€a€bridge€between€the€positionsÏexpressed€by€Mr.€Lombardi€and€Mr.€Titus.€€Instead€of€choosing€aÏstandard€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€or€one€of€probable€cause,Ïthis€standard€of€"more€likely€than€not"€is€a€middle€ground.€€When€theÐ L-œ(. Ðcase€goes€to€a€trial€judge,€it€will€use€the€standard€of€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence.Ìà  àMr.€Howell€drew€the€Committee's€attention€to€subsection€(g)(3).€ÏHe€said€that€this€will€keep€the€Panel€members€focused€on€the€caseÏthat€is€before€them,€but€at€the€appropriate€time,€there€is€aÏmechanism€available€to€allow€evidence€concerning€prior€finalÏdiscipline€or€previous€adjudication€of€misconduct.€€Mr.€GrossmanÏinquired€whether€the€term€"adjudication€of€misconduct"€is€defined.€ÏThe€present€practice€is€that€the€envelope,€which€goes€to€the€Panel,Ïcontains€determinations€of€public€and€private€sanctions€andÏdismissals€with€warnings.€€Mr.€Howell€observed€that€the€SubcommitteeÏfelt€that€dismissals€with€warnings€should€not€be€included€in€theÏenvelope,€because€they€are€not€considered€to€be€discipline.€€TheÏChairperson€suggested€that€this€should€be€clarified€in€subsectionÏ(g)(3)€or€as€a€Committee€note.€€€The€Reporter€suggested€that€a€crossÏreference€be€added€to€Rule€16„717A€referring€to€the€Rules€whichÏprovide€that€a€warning€is€not€misconduct.Ìà  àMr.€Grossman€asked€what€the€difference€is€between€prior€finalÏdiscipline€and€previous€adjudication€of€misconduct.€€Mr.€HowellÏanswered€that€the€latter€was€determined€in€court.€€The€ChairpersonÏquestioned€whether€the€two€terms€are€redundant.€€Mr.€BroderickÏremarked€that€a€dismissal€with€a€warning€under€the€current€Rules€isÏconsidered€to€be€an€adjudication.€€He€noted€that€an€individual€mayÏhave€received€several€dismissals€with€warnings€which€may€be€relevantÐ L-œ(. Ðto€another€case€in€front€of€the€Inquiry€Panel.€€He€inquired€why€theÏdismissal€with€a€warning€is€not€included€in€the€envelope.€€€Mr.ÏHowell€replied€that€there€is€no€procedure€to€contest€a€warning€by€BarÏCounsel,€so€it€is€not€considered€as€discipline.€€Judge€VaughanÏpointed€out€that€the€warnings€may€be€for€very€minor€infractions,€suchÏas€coming€to€court€late,€which€would€not€be€relevant€for€the€Panel€toÏhear€about.Ìà  àMr.€Broderick€reiterated€that€currently€the€envelope€containsÏall€the€dismissals€with€warnings.€€The€envelope€is€opened€only€if€theÏPanel€has€found€a€violation.€€The€Panel€can€determine€what€isÏrelevant€in€the€envelope.€€Mr.€Bowen€asked€if€there€is€always€anÏenvelope€present.€€If€there€is€only€one€present€when€the€respondentÏattorney€has€a€past€history,€this€would€let€the€Panel€know€that€thereÏhas€been€some€prior€disciplinary€activity.€€Mr.€Broderick€respondedÏthat€there€is€always€an€envelope,€even€if€there€has€been€no€priorÏactivity.€€Ìà  àJudge€Kaplan€expressed€the€opinion€that€it€is€a€bad€idea€toÏexclude€consideration€of€prior€warnings.€€If€warnings€mean€nothing,Ïthere€is€no€point€in€issuing€them.€€The€Chairperson€said€that€itÏmight€be€better€to€list€in€the€Rule€the€specific€things€that€can€beÏdisclosed€in€the€envelope.€€Mr.€Howell€noted€that€if€the€CommitteeÏfeels€that€warnings€with€dismissals€should€be€included€in€theÏenvelope,€the€Subcommittee€will€want€to€go€back€to€Rule€16„711€andÏmodify€it€so€that€it€provides€that€the€attorney€can€reject€theÐ L-œ(. Ðwarning.€€Mr.€Broderick€remarked€that€if€dismissals€with€warningsÏhave€to€be€litigated,€it€may€burden€the€system.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€commented€that€he€can€see€both€sides€of€theÏargument€as€to€whether€to€include€dismissals€with€warnings€in€theÏenvelope.€€He€asked€how€much€harm€there€would€be€for€the€Panel,Ïhaving€found€a€violation€in€the€recent€case,€to€see€that€the€attorneyÏhad€been€previously€warned.€€If€the€warnings€were€on€an€unrelatedÏarea,€it€would€mean€little.€€If€the€warnings€were€on€the€same€issueÏjust€decided€by€the€Panel,€it€would€mean€more.€€Finding€out€about€theÏprevious€warnings€would€not€go€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€recentÏviolation€was€committed.€€Mr.€Hochberg€noted€that€these€warnings€mayÏmake€a€difference€at€the€trial€level.€€Mr.€Broderick€responded€thatÏif€an€attorney€has€a€history€of€multiple€neglects,€but€only€one€caseÏgoes€to€a€reprimand€or€charges,€the€Court€of€Appeals€will€only€knowÏabout€that€one€case.€€The€previous€dismissals€with€warnings€will€notÏbe€disclosed€to€the€Court.Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€stated€that€this€is€a€policy€question.€€Mr.ÏHowell€pointed€out€that€the€Subcommittee€intended€for€there€to€be€aÏchange€from€the€current€practice.€€The€Chairperson€suggested€that€theÏRule€include€which€final€sanctions€should€go€into€the€envelope.€€Mr.ÏGrossman€said€that€these€are€listed€in€the€Commission€Guidelines.€ÏMr.€Howell€noted€that€proposed€Rule€Ì16„707€lists€the€sanctions.€€Judge€Vaughan€suggested€that€theÏenvelope€contain€all€that€has€ever€happened€to€the€attorney€relatingÐ L-œ(. Ðto€discipline.€€The€Panel€can€sift€through€and€determine€what€isÏrelevant.€€He€expressed€the€concern€that€the€fact€that€someoneÏreceived€a€series€of€warnings€could€be€eliminated€from€the€envelope.€ÏHe€cautioned€about€warnings€from€many€years€ago.€€Mr.€BroderickÏresponded€that€records€of€dismissals€with€warnings€are€only€kept€forÏ12€years.€€He€said€that€he€has€faith€that€the€Panels€are€able€toÏfigure€out€what€is€relevant.€€Judge€Kaplan€suggested€that€dismissalsÏwith€warnings€be€added.€€The€Chairperson€stated€that€there€are€twoÏissues€to€determine.€€One€is€whether€to€add€in€specific€finalÏdisciplinary€€sanctions€against€an€attorney.€€Mr.€Howell€moved€thatÏthis€be€added€to€the€Rule,€the€motion€was€seconded,€and€it€passedÏunanimously.€€Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€said€that€the€second€issue€to€consider€isÏwhether€to€include€dismissals€with€warnings€in€the€envelope€given€toÏthe€Panel.€€Judge€Kaplan€moved€that€dismissals€with€warnings€be€addedÏto€the€envelope.€€The€motion€was€seconded.€€Mr.€Lombardi€commentedÏthat€if€the€warning€is€an€isolated€case,€and€other€warnings€have€notÏbeen€issued€previously,€it€would€be€appropriate€to€not€include€theÏone€warning€in€the€envelope.€€The€concern€is€a€series€of€repeatedÏwarnings.€€Judge€Johnson€observed€that€the€Panel€can€make€theÏdecision€as€to€whether€to€consider€the€warning€or€not.€€Mr.€LombardiÏasked€why€the€Rule€should€risk€tainting€the€process.€€Judge€VaughanÏremarked€that€the€Panel€can€look€at€the€warning€and€see€whether€orÏnot€it€is€serious.€If€this€is€not€the€first€warning,€it€can€be€givenÐ L-œ(. Ðmore€consideration.€€Ìà  àMr.€Howell€raised€one€possible€way€to€decide€this€issue.€€TheÏBar€Counsel€representative€who€is€at€the€preliminary€hearing€may€orÏmay€not€consider€the€attorney's€position.€€The€distinction€could€beÏmade€between€a€Panel€dismissal€with€a€warning€and€a€dismissal€by€BarÏCounsel€with€a€warning.€€Mr.€Bowen€commented€that€the€Committee€isÏtinkering€with€an€exclusionary€rule.€€Nothing€is€admitted€unless€theÏpanel€has€decided€that€the€alleged€misconduct€probably€occurred.€ÏAfter€that€finding,€everything€comes€in.€€Ìà  àMr.€Broderick€noted€that€on€page€34€of€the€proposedÏdisciplinary€rules,€Rule€16„711€(f)€provides€that€the€warning€has€toÏbe€subject€to€the€approval€of€the€Chair€of€the€Commission.€€This€is€aÏchange€from€the€current€practice€which€requires€the€approval€by€theÏChair€or€Vice€Chair€of€the€Inquiry€Committee.€€No€distinction€is€madeÏfor€dismissals€with€warnings.€€The€Chairperson€asked€if€the€evidenceÏconcerning€prior€final€disciplinary€sanctions€should€be€on€a€piece€ofÏpaper€or€given€through€testimony.€€€Mr.€Howell€responded€that€he€hadÏnot€considered€using€a€form.Ìà  àMr.€Bowen€reiterated€that€this€is€an€exclusionary€rule.€€ThereÏshould€be€a€rule€which€provides€that€only€prior€discipline€which€hasÏprobative€value€can€be€in€the€envelope.€€The€word€"final"€should€beÏdeleted.€€Judge€Rinehardt€remarked€that€before€the€provision€isÏworded€properly,€the€concept€has€to€be€decided.€€The€ChairpersonÏstated€that€the€concept€is€that€unless€and€until€the€Panel€decidesÐ L-œ(. Ðthe€respondent€committed€misconduct,€the€Panel€will€not€be€told€ofÏthe€respondent's€prior€misconduct.€€Mr.€Bowen€added€that€if€the€priorÏmisconduct€is€related€to€the€present€violation,€it€has€to€haveÏprobative€value.€€He€expressed€the€view€that€a€Bar€Counsel€warningÏshould€be€excluded.€€Mr.€Broderick€argued€that€there€should€be€noÏdistinction€between€Bar€Counsel€and€Panel€warnings.Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€pointed€out€that€there€was€no€longer€a€quorumÏpresent€at€the€meeting.€€He€told€the€Committee€that€this€issue€willÏhave€to€be€looked€at€again.€€The€evidence€of€past€discipline€cannotÏbe€used€to€prove€that€the€person€committed€the€present€charge.€€ThisÏis€covered€in€Rule€5„404€(b).€€The€evidence€of€prior€discipline€doesÏnot€come€in€until€a€finding€by€the€Panel€that€the€attorney€committedÏmisconduct.€€Prior€dismissals€with€a€warning€may€have€some€relevance.Ìà  àThe€Chairperson€adjourned€the€meeting.Ì