BALTIMORE - Bar Association of Baltimore City

P U B L I S H E D Q U A R T E R LY B Y T H E B A R A S S O C I AT I O N O F B A LT I M O R E C I T Y

FEBRUARY 2016 VOL 6 | NO 1BALTIMORE

B A R R I S T E R2

2TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Baltimore BarristerNews Journal Committee Chair

Carrie McMahon Freeman

Editorial OfficesThe Bar Association of Baltimore City

111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627Baltimore, Maryland 21202

410.539.5936 [email protected]

Communications and News Journal Committee

The Baltimore Barrister is a quarterly publication of The Bar Association of Baltimore City provided to its members at no cost as part of annual dues. Non-members subscriptions are available for $50 per year. The Bar Association of Baltimore City (“BABC”) presents the information contained in the Baltimore Barrister, as a service to our members, including members of the general public. While the information is about legal issues, it is not intended as legal advice or as a substitute for your own legal research and investigation or the particularized advice of your own counsel. Further, any practice tips or summaries of cases contained herein cannot be relied upon as being controlling authority. Any opinions express herein are solely those of the authors, and are not those of BABC. Finally, the articles contained herein are copyrighted, all rights, reserved by the respective authors and/or their law firms, companies or organizations. People seeking specific legal advice or assistance should contact an attorney, either by contacting the BABC Lawyer Referral Service or another source. BABC does not guarantee the accuracy of any of the information or forms presented herein. Similarly, we provide links to other sites that we believe may be useful or informative. These links to third party sites or information are not intended as, and should not be interpreted by you as constituting or implying our endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the third party information, products or services found there. We do not maintain or control those sites and, accordingly, make no guarantee concerning the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information found there. Further, the contents of advertisements are the responsibility of advertisers and do not represent any recommendation or endorse-ment by BABC. BABC may deny publishing any submission or advertisement, in its sole and absolute discretion. For information on submissions or advertising, call or email the editorial offices at

410-539-5936/[email protected]. Copyright 2015 by The Bar Association of Baltimore City.

Gregory K. Kirby, President-ElectCharles M. Blomquist, Vice President

Kelly Hughes Iverson, TreasurerDana M. Middleton, Secretary

Jocelyn S. Szymanowski, Chair, YLD Joshua L. Caplan, Chair-Elect, YLD

Arthur S. AlpersteinThe Honorable Laurie Bennett

Sidney A. ButcherMary Cina Chalawsky

Debra B. CruzTeresa Epps Cummings

Carrie McMahon FreemanThe Honorable Karen Friedman

Tamara B. GoorevitzAssistant Dean D. Jill Green

Darren L. Kadish

The Honorable Lynn Stewart MaysKimberly H. NealPatrick S. PrellerJohn H. Price, Jr.

Divya PotdarThe Honorable Michael W. Reed

Valda G. RicksTodd L. SchulerAnna Z. Skelton

Frederic N.C. SmalkinKerri L. Smith

Michael StuddardGeorge G. Tankard, IIINicole Egerton Taylor

The Honorable Hope TiptonAnthony F. Vittoria

Katherine T. Sanzone

Carrie McMahon Freeman, Chair Natalie Amato

Barry D. Bernstein Oana A. Brooks

Jessica P. Butkera Jennifer Clark

Evelyn Lombardo Cusson Eleanor Dayhoff-Brannigan

Ifeanyi Ezeigbo John Leppler Deborah Levi

Jennifer L. Matzye Myshala E. Middleton

Sarah Moses David D. Nowak

Katherine T. Sanzone Jennifer Thompson Patrick A. Thronson Danielle Williamson Matthew J. Youssef

Levi S. Zaslow

The Bar Association of Baltimore CityOfficers and Executive Council

2015-2016Robert D. Anbinder, President

Executive Director

B A R R I S T E R 3

3

Table of ContentsFebruary 2016 Barrister

4 Message from the President by Robert D. Anbinder, President

6 A broad overview of the parole system by Nicole Egerton Taylor, Esq.

9 Cell site simulators; The basics by Josh Insley, Esq.

11 Member in Spotlight: Warren S. Alperstein

14 Criminal Tips and Tricks by Rene Tywang, Esq.

15 Supreme Court Group Admission photos

16 Calendar of Events

17 Appellate Review by Levi S. Zaslow Esq. and Deborah Levi Esq.

23Ethical Obligation of Communication to the Pro Bono Client by Mary T. Keating Esq.

25Greatest Unfunded Threat to Family… Financial Stability? by Sally H. Leimbach

27BABC Semi-Annual Lunch Series – “Baltimore After Freddie Gray” photos

28 21st Annual Past Presidents’ Luncheon photos

29 Leadership Open House photos

30 BABC, ABWA, and WBA-BCCC Chapter Bus Trip to NYC photos

31 BABC Members Recognized as TDR Leading Women photos

32The Bar Association of Baltimore City/YLD Annual Holiday Party photos

33 New Associates/Attorneys Courthouse Tour photos

34Baltimore Bar Foundation and MD/DC Society for Healthcare Risk Management Symposium photos

36 New BABC Members

38 Assignment of Judges

40 Around the Offices

42 Special Thanks to Corporate/ Law Firm Sponsors

B A R R I S T E R4

4BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Just a couple of weeks ago, I asked my adult son if he wanted ketchup with his hamburger. Immediately, the din-ner conversation halted. My daughter stopped chewing and stared at me. The dog turned her head and sadly walked out of the kitchen. My son’s response was as surprising to me as my question

was to him. “Don’t you know I don’t like ketchup? I’ve never liked ketchup.” I still have no idea how even the dog knew what I didn’t know.

With that in mind, the start of this new year seems like a good time to review some of the basic facts you should know about the Bar Association of Baltimore City but might not:

• Dollar for dollar, the Bar Association of Baltimore City is the best value of any bar association in the state of Mary-land, maybe in the entire United States of America and may-be, I’ve heard it said, in the world.

• Membership in the Bar Association of Baltimore City offers wide-ranging continuing legal education, social events and multiple networking opportunities that can ensure the perfect background for anyone who is a lawyer.

• Membership in the Bar Association of Baltimore City offers wide-ranging continuing legal education, social events and multiple networking opportunities that can ensure the perfect background for anyone who may one day want to be judge.

• Most judicial appointees in Baltimore, at least in recent years, have been members of the Bar Association of Balti-more City.

• Government and public interest lawyers, judges, mag-istrates and law school professors are welcomed into the Bar Association of Baltimore City with discounted mem-bership.

• Paralegals, legal administrators, law librarians, legal secretaries (or, for a limited time only, those who play one on TV), can now join the Bar Association of Baltimore City

as a Legal Affiliate mem-ber with nearly all the same benefits as attorney members.

• Businesses and or-ganizations which serve attorneys who would like to snuggle up to our 2,400 attorney members can join the Bar Associa-tion of Baltimore City as a Business Affiliate mem-ber.

• The BABC’s new Weekly Bar Review contains pretty much everything going on in the Bar Association of Balti-more City with “news you can use,” calendar items, and a Pro Bono Link of the Week, so let us know if you aren’t receiving it.

• If you need conference space or a place to hang out between cases or meetings, the Bar Association’s headquarters in Room 627 of Courthouse East is available at no cost to members.

• The Bar Association of Baltimore’s ABA-certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service is a great place to pick up new cases, receive prescreened clients, meet other lawyers and increase your visibility within the As-sociation.

• Fee disputes can be resolved by the Bar Association of Baltimore City’s Fee Dispute Resolution program (natch!) which mediates or arbitrates disputes if they are less than three years old and suit has not yet been filed.

• If you want to be John Grisham but changing your name to John Grisham seems too obvious, you can submit your work to the Baltimore Barrister- our quarterly news jour-nal—and start making your own name.

• If you are facing an ethical quagmire (or quag-miah, as candidate Bernie Sanders calls it), the Bar Association of

The Dog Always Knowsby Robert D. Anbinder, President

C O N T I N U E D O N N E X T PA G E

Sable — the dog who knows

B A R R I S T E R 5


Baltimore City’s Professional Ethics Committee offers the assistance of its Ethics Hotline.

• You can pick up your Courthouse ID card from the Bar Association of Baltimore City but you must first file your forms and payment with the Maryland State Bar Associa-tion.

• Courthouse lovers (and I hope that is all of us) should tour the Museum of Baltimore Legal History on the second floor of our historic Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Courthouse or at least visit its well-kept companion Facebook page.

• When MDEC – Maryland Electronic Courts- rides into town in May 2017 (give or take, the date seems to move), the Bar Association of Baltimore City will be here to help you through your fears and your tears.

• Senior Legal Services (SLS) is the BABC’s own pro bono project, providing legal services to low-income seniors, aged 60 and over in Baltimore City (an underserved population at risk of losing resources which they need to survive) and can always use your help and/or your donations.

• The Bar Association of Baltimore City’s Bulletin Board just inside Courthouse East may not be glitzy but it’s a great place to learn what’s going on with just one look.

• Nominations are crucial to the success of BABC awards which include the Presidential Award, the Charles H. Dors-ey, Jr., Mentor Award, the Margaret Brent-Juanita Jackson Mitchell Award, the Paul A. Dorf Memorial ADR Award, the Government and Public Interest Lawyers’ Committee Law-yer of the Year award, the Senior Legal Services Volunteer of the Year Award, and the Baltimore Bar Foundation Fellows Award, so be sure to make them.

• No one could enjoy the Presidency of the Bar Associa-tion of Baltimore City as much as the current president—but he knows that there are still five more months to go and any-thing can happen.

• BABC Executive Director Kathy Sanzone and Executive Assistant Patty DeGuilmi know everything about everything bar-related including the items above, and can be reached in person at nearly any BABC event, by phone at 410-539-5936 extension 100 or by email to [email protected].

That’s some of what’s going on in the Bar Association of Baltimore City. If you want to know what’s going on in your house, check with the dog. The dog always knows. Happy New Year!

B A R R I S T E R6


A Broad Overview of the Parole Systemby Nicole Egerton Taylor, Esq.

The Importance of Understanding Parole

When a criminal defendant is sentenced in a Maryland state court, it is usually impossible at the time of the sentenc-ing to know exactly how much actual jail time the defendant will serve. That is because Maryland has a parole and pro-bation system that monitors defendants after they are sen-tenced, and the behavior of a defendant, both in and out of an institution after sentencing, greatly influences how much time s/he spends incarcerated. Understanding the parole is system is crucial for judges, prosecutors, and defense attor-neys to really comprehend the sentence that is being given to the defendant, and what may happen after sentencing. The common misconception that defendants sentenced to jail time will just “get out on parole” demonstrates a true mis-understanding of the mechanism that allows parole to take place. This article gives a very broad overview of parole and parole revocation and aims to take some of the mystery out of the process.

What is Parole?

Parole is the discretionary release by the parole commis-sion of an inmate prior to the execution of his or her full sentence. This is different from mandatory supervised re-lease, when inmates are also released prior to the execution of a full sentence due to a system of credits that are awarded in detention for satisfactory institutional adjustment. See Md. Correctional Services Code Ann. Section 3-701 et seq., and COMAR 12.08.01.04. Colloquially, you will hear that someone is “on parole” when they have been released from detention and are under the supervision of a parole agent.

Being on parole is also different from being on probation. Whereas parole is the discretionary release of a defendant by the parole commission, probation is the decision of the sen-tencing judge, who sentences the defendant, then orders all or a portion of that sentence to be suspended and places the defendant on probation for a period of time in lieu of a full term of incarceration. Probation can be supervised or unsu-

pervised, whereas parole is always a supervised system. The parole commission has the exclusive power of parole release, and considers such factors as the circumstances surround-ing the crime, probability of re-offending, and the moral and mental qualifications of the defendant when considering release. See Md. Correctional Services Code Ann. Section 7-305 and COMAR 12.08.01.18. Of course, a defendant may also be on parole and probation at the same time. Take these examples: The judge sentences a defendant to:

5 years to the Division of Corrections: After this “straight time” sentence, a defendant will serve a portion of 5 years, and will be eligible for parole at a time delineated by statute dependent on the nature of the crime for which he is sentenced and his own behavior and diminution cred-its earned while in the institution. See Correctional Services Code Ann. Section 7-301. If s/he is released on parole, s/he will be supervised by a parole agent, and subject to revoca-tion of parole if s/he does not follow the rules of parole, or re-offends. If for some reason s/he is not paroled, at the very least s/he will be released on mandatory supervised release af-ter serving the majority of his or her sentence. Keep in mind, the defendant’s behavior during incarceration could see him or her earning credits, having credits revoked, and having re-voked credits restored. It is the behavior, work, education or special project history, along with the codifications under Md. Correctional Services Code Ann. Section 3-701 et seq. that will determine a defendant’s diminution credits. A defendant with this sentence will not be on probation.

5 years without parole: After this sentence, a defendant will never be paroled, nor placed on probation. After Octo-ber 1, 2009, an offender may not be released, even on man-datory supervised release, prior to his or her parole eligibil-ity day. That means a sentence of 5 years without parole is 5 years, day for day. There is no supervision upon release on a total non-paroleable sentence. While the sentence is harsh-


B A R R I S T E R 7


er in terms of jail time served, it has no safeguards for the public because upon release the defendant is not obligated to have any contact with any supervising agency.

5 years, suspend all but 65 days of time served, 3 years of supervised probation: In this case, “a split time” sentence, the defendant will be released immediate-ly after sentencing, but will have to report to a probation agent for supervision for the next 3 years. If this defen-dant violates the probationary terms or re-offends, s/he is subject to return to incarceration at the discretion of the sentencing judge for the balance of the sentence (4 years and 300 days) or any portion of it. The judge can also or-der probation to continue without any incarceration, or a period of incarceration to be followed by more probation (subject to the maximum probation terms of a total of 5 years in the circuit court and 3 years in the district court (absent a restitution extension.) However, if the defendant is sentenced to incarceration after a probation violation, s/he may be eligible for parole on that sentence. So, s/he can go back to jail, and then be released on parole or mandato-ry supervised release. If the judge suspended any portion of the sentence, and ordered an additional period of proba-tion as well, then the defendant would be released to parole and probation supervision.

5 years suspend all but 3 years, 3 years of super-vised probation: In this instance, the defendant is sen-tenced to 3 years immediately, with the balance of 2 years to be served only if s/he violates the probation. S/he may be eligible for parole on those 3 years, and if paroled, s/he will be released to parole and probation supervision. If parole is denied, the defendant is still eligible for manda-tory supervised release on those 3 years. If s/he violates a condition of probation, s/he will return to the sentencing judge and will face the balance of those 2 years, or any portion of those 2 years the judge decides is an appropriate sanction.

What happens if a defendant violates parole?

When a defendant is released on parole, there are several standard conditions that apply. Conditions include working or looking for work or attending school, obeying all laws, and

keeping the agent informed of a current address. Usually, a defendant must report to an agent, either in person or by tele-phone. The frequency of reporting is determined by the of-fense, and then the agent is given discretion to move a parolee down through tiers of supervision. For example, immediately after release, s/he may have to report 2 times a week, then if successful once a week, then twice a month, once a month, every other month, so on and so forth. At any time, the agent can increase the reporting requirements if the agent feels it necessary for better supervision, but this usually occurs after a parolee is having less than success in meeting all the terms and conditions of parole.

There is some latitude that the agent has when a parolee violates his or her parole conditions. For example, if the pa-rolee misses one appointment, the agent can simply note the record. However, if the parolee violates the conditions in a way that the agent feels calls for a revocation of the parole, the agent will inform the parole commission and can request a warrant or subpoena. The commission has a variety of op-tions when confronted with an allegation that a defendant has violated parole, the least of which is just ordering a repri-mand. A commissioner can also take no action before an ad-judication of a pending new charge, or issue a subpoena that directs the defendant to appear at a correctional facility for a subpoena hearing. A commissioner can also issue a warrant which simply authorizes the arrest and confinement of the defendant until a revocation hearing. Unlike violation of pro-bation warrants, where the judge determines if there is a bail amount and if so how much, Maryland parole commission warrants have no bail conditions. Warrants can be withdrawn at the discretion of the commission, but usually only if the underlying allegation was a new case on which the defendant did not receive a finding of guilt.

Revocation of Parole

If a defendant is alleged to have violated a condition of parole, s/he is entitled to a hearing, with counsel. See Md. Corr. Serv. Code Ann. Section 7-401, and COMAR 12.08.01.08. The hearing must be with-in 60 days, unless good cause is shown. See COMAR 12.08.01.22. If the commissioner determines that the defendant did violate the conditions of parole, a number of outcomes are possible. The defen-


B A R R I S T E R8


dant could be simply continued on parole, or continued unavailable, meaning that s/he is serving a new sentence acquired while on pro-bation. There could be a short-term hold of 30, 60, or 90 days placed on the defendant. Parole could be revoked, and a defendant could lose diminution credits previously earned. The commissioner has sole discretion, if sanctioning with incarceration, to determine when that sentence will start. It may start no later than the date the defen-dant was taken into custody by the parole commission, but it could date back all the way to the date the defendant was first released on parole. The commissioner may set a parole date in the future, but if a new conviction is involved that date must meet the statutory requirements for the new conviction. The worst case scenario for a defendant is to lose all his diminution credits, to be granted no credit for street time, and to get credit only for the time spent incarcerated while waiting for his revocation hearing.

If a defendant is unhappy with the outcome of the revocation hearing, s/he has the right to appeal the decision to the circuit court.

The benefits of the parole system

Making parole is the goal of every incarcerated individual, if s/

he is eligible for it. The goal of making parole encourages good be-havior while in an institution. The assistance of parole supervision is not only to ease the transition of the defendant from the institu-tion to the street, but to safeguard the public. Parole agents moni-tor a defendant’s progress to see if s/he gets a job, or where s/he is living, or to assist with the access to drug and alcohol treatment.

Ideally, the parole supervision system helps to reduce recid-ivism, and makes the defendant more successful upon re-entry into society. At its best, parole is collaboration between the justice system and the defendant, utilizing substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and job training programs needed by de-fendants leaving the jail behind them. When a defendant goes from an inmate to a parolee to a true ex-offender, everyone wins.

For more of the laws and regulations, see generally Maryland Correctional Services Code Ann. Titles 3 and 7 and the Code of Maryland Regulations 12.08.01.01 et seq.

Joseph I. Rosenberg, CFA, LLC

Economic Damages Expert

Loss of Earning Capacity in cases of Personal Injury

Wrongful Death & Wrongful Termination

9821 La Duke Dr. Kensington MD

Please visit website: www.joe-rosenberg.com

Contact: [email protected] or by phone at 301-802-0617

http://www.mshclegal.com

http://www.joe-rosenberg.com

B A R R I S T E R 9


Cell Site Simulators; The basicsby Josh Insley, Esq.

1 WHAT ARE THESE THINGS?

Cell site simulators simply broadcast a signal that mimics an actual cell phone tower. They are manufactured by the Harris Corporation and come by many names including Stingray, Hailstorm, Amber Ray and others. Cell phones by their very nature are designed to hop seamlessly from tower to tower. When a law enforcement body knows what carrier a target phone is on they can simulate that carrier’s frequen-cy and the target phone will jump onto the device. Once the device has logged on to the simulator the operator can exert a certain level of control over the device as well as hone in on the signal source. Much of what these devices can do is clas-sified, however local law enforcement typically do not have the cutting edge technology that is restricted to military and top secret federal applications. On the local level what we typically see is the ability to increase signal strength and the ability to make the phone ring, the goal being to immediate-ly locate a subject phone, not for the long term surveillance of the user or their communications. Once a target phone is located, the simulator and its software can track the location of the phone down to a very narrow area. This far exceeds the limits of cell tower triangulation or real time GPS.

2 WHAT ARE THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF CELL SIMULATOR USE?

This where its gets complex. The United States Supreme Court has unanimously held that using sophisticated tech-nology not readily available to the public that detects signals emanating from a home is a search, see Kyllo v. United States 533 US 27 (2001). The context in which a cell site simulator is used can have serious 4th Amendment implications. If a phone is stolen in a street robbery, and the subject is still outside when he is located, he has a reduced expectation of privacy for that stolen phone. The ability of the defendant to challenge the search is limited. However, things become

drastically different when the target phone is located in a home. At this point the use of the device becomes some-thing much more, it becomes the search of a home, arguably requiring a search warrant. Things become infinitely more complex as we realize that the devices broadcast the signal to all phones on the carrier in the area. At this point the search is of entire neighborhoods, not just a specific house. These are the kind of general searches that are strongly disfavored in the United States. As the use of these devices has become more mainstream, police and prosecutors are working to narrowly tailor warrant requests so that a judge can weigh the request against the potential invasion of both the target and the surrounding area.

3 SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

The problem is that historically law enforcement endeav-ored to keep use of the device secret. Non-disclosure agree-ments executed between law enforcement and the Depart-ment of Justice imposed onerous conditions restricting the disclosure of the device. These agreements tied the hands of police and prosecutors. Unfortunately, instead of restrict-ing the use of the device to emergencies, police began using them as a routine law enforcement tool. This created a tan-gled web of obfuscation that is still being sorted out today. In lieu of coming forward and asking for a search warrant for an entire neighborhood of houses, which judges may be hesitant to authorize, the decision was made to hide the deployment of these devices from the bench and opposing counsel. Furthermore, admitting that the device was used would trigger many more disclosure requirements under the discovery rules that law enforcement are seeking to avoid.

The solution in Baltimore City was a very poor one in-deed. Police began presenting judges with “Pen Register Applications” for target numbers. Pen registers log numbers dialed in and out of a respective phone, that is all. Pen reg-ister orders are not subject to the level of scrutiny of search warrants and don’t have the same time restrictions. In order


B A R R I S T E R1 0

1 0BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

to hide the use of cell site simulators, police began inserting vague language into Pen Register Applications authorizing the use of “surreptitious devices”. Many defense attorneys have viewed this as an intentional deception of the bench to get around the warrant requirements espoused in Kyllo.

In Maryland this problem has a second facet to it in re-gards to the discovery rules. Maryland Rule 4-263(d)(7) re-quires the State’s Attorney to disclose all means of electronic surveillance used in an investigation. By hiding the use of cell site simulators law enforcement has now violated not only the 4th Amendment but also the Discovery Rules. In addition to all that, the fact that the police broke the law in the course of an investigation can become exculpatory and/or impeach-ment evidence in and of itself, triggering further disclosure requirements under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny.

4 HOW DO I KNOW IF ONE WAS USED IN MY CASE?

The simplest way to spot the clandestine use of a cell site simulator is when police magically locate a phone out of thin air without explanation. Sometimes the casefile will make reference to “sophisticated electronic equipment” used to locate a phone, this is a dead giveaway for a cell site simu-lator. In Baltimore City cell site simulators are deployed by the Advanced Technical Team and the file may make passing reference to their involvement in locating a phone, this too warrants closer inspection.

When interviewing clients be sure to ask whether any-thing strange happened with a target phone prior to the ar-rival of the police. An example would be the phone started ringing and wouldn’t stop but when the target attempted to answer it there was no incoming call, within minutes the po-lice were at the door. Interruptions in service can also be a sign. The cell site simulators used by local law enforcement typically do not have the capability to act as a pass through to the real tower. This means if the phone is logged into the simulator it is not connected to the actual network. It is speculated that newer classified models have this capabili-ty so long term tracking can occur without the target being tipped off that something is amiss.

5 WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT CLOSED CASES WHERE SIMULATOR USE IS NEWLY DISCOVERED?

This is the largest question looming over the issue now. As the secrecy of the device is no longer a priority, future cases have no real reason to hide the deployment of the device. The problem is what to do with thousands of old cases that have been uncovered where the use of the device was hidden from the defense. Currently motions for new trial are pend-ing based on newly discovered evidence and discovery vio-lations. The Court of Special Appeals has held that Petitions for Writs of Actual Innocence cannot be filed after a guilty plea. The Court of Appeals has granted certiorari on the issue and their forthcoming ruling will undoubtedly provide some guidance on the issue. Until the issue is taken up by the Appellate Courts, counsel at the trial court level are left without clear recourse. In Baltimore the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City and the Baltimore Police De-partment have come to the table and closed cases where the use of the device is at issue are slowly being identified. The problem is that these files have to be manually audited which is labor intensive and slow. The Office of the Public Defend-er is also committed to reviewing closed cases to determine whether non-disclosure of cell site simulator technology is an issue, but all these agencies are on tight budgets and the manpower required to go over thousands of closed files is simply not there. If you suspect your client was subject to an unauthorized search through the use of cell site simula-tors the first thing to do is to reach out to an attorney who focuses in this area, there are quite a few in the downtown Baltimore area.

Joshua Insley is a criminal defense attorney in Baltimore City. He is a 2002 graduate of the William S. Boyd School of Law. He is currently involved in an interagency effort to iden-tify cases where the clandestine use of cell site simulators is an issue and an appropriate legal remedy is being sought.

B A R R I S T E R 1 1


The McCammon Groupis pleased to announce our newest Neutral

The Honorable Martin P. Welch retired recently after more than twenty-one years of distinguished judicial service, including ten years as Judge in Charge of the Family Division and four years as Chief Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Prior to his service on the bench, he spent twelve years in the Baltimore City Solicitor’s Office, first in the Contracts and Tax, Pensions and Finance Sections and later in the Corporate Division. A leader in the community, he has served on the boards of numerous educational, charitable, and business organizations. Judge Welch now brings this distinct record of dedication and achievement to The McCammon Group to serve the mediation and arbitration needs of lawyers and litigants throughout Maryland and beyond.

Hon. Martin P. Welch (Ret.)Retired Chief Judge

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Dispute Resolution and PreventionFor a complete list of our services and Neutrals throughout MD, DC, and VA, call 1-888-343-0922 or visit www.McCammonGroup.com

Baltimore City Ba_ HalF_ 7.85” x 5.4375

Member in Spotlight

Warren S. Alperstein attended The George Washington University and in 1993 re-ceived his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. From there, Mr. Alperstein continued his education at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where he received his Juris Doctorate in 1996. While in law school Mr. Alperstein began working as a law clerk for the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. After graduation, Mr. Alperstein served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Joseph P. McCurdy, Jr. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

Upon completion of his one-year term as a judicial clerk in 1997, Mr. Alperstein accepted a position as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Office of the State’s Attor-ney for Baltimore City, where he prosecuted thousands of cases in the district and circuit court. While in the Misdemeanor Jury Trial Unit, Mr. Alperstein was promot-


Warren S. Alperstein, Esquire

http://www.mccammongroup.com



ed to the Firearms Investigation Violence Enforcement (FIVE) Unit—a unit responsible for prosecuting shoot-ings and violent gun offenders—and worked in conjunc-tion with the United States’ Attorney’s Office. He was the youngest prosecutor to be promoted to this prestigious unit. The experience, knowledge, and most important-ly, the relationships he gained during this time inspires a great sense of pride. Mr. Alperstein credits the many clients and referrals he receives today from court staff, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel who became familiar with his work during his time with the State’s Attorney’s Office.

In 2001, Mr. Alperstein transitioned a successful ca-reer as a prosecutor to begin working with his father, Ar-thur S. Alperstein, and brother, Andrew I. Alperstein, at the family owned and operated firm, Alperstein & Die-ner, P.A. It was during this transition that Mr. Alperstein set his focus on growing the firm’s criminal defense, per-sonal injury and worker’s compensation practice. The skills and practical, yet aggressive, approach to case man-agement he gained from his prosecution days helped to evolve his practice into what it is today. His clients in-clude people from all walks of life, including police offi-cers, firefighters and public safety employees throughout the state of Maryland. Because of his relentless advocacy Mr. Alperstein is well known and respected for the qual-ity of his work and professionalism.

Mr. Alperstein also represents high profile individu-als and professional athletes in criminal, domestic and civil matters. Mr. Alperstein has been able to strike the essential balance between advocating for his clients’ best interests while managing intense media coverage and avoiding further sensationalism of the case. This is why many NFL players, lawyers, doctors and other profes-sionals trust him to get the best result while maintaining their privacy.

Regardless of individual status, Mr. Alperstein treats everyone who has had the pleasure of working along-side him—client or opposing counsel—with respect and professionalism. He has spent over 18 years forging rela-tionships with prosecutors, court personnel, law enforce-

ment officials, judges and fellow attorneys, all of which he cherishes and credits with his success as an attorney. These relationships, among his experience and aptitude for the legal profession, serve as evidence of why Mr. Alperstein was named a Rising Star in 2010, and 2011, and since 2013 has been consecutively voted by his peers as a Maryland Super Lawyer and is featured in Baltimore Magazine for this accomplishment.

Mr. Alperstein’s vast wealth of legal knowledge has garnered much reverence and trust throughout the legal community, the state of Maryland and the United States. He provides legal commentary to MSNBC, Washington Post, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Sun, and The Daily Record to name a few. Locally, Mr. Alperstein consistently appears on the four major television networks: WBAL, ABC 2, FOX 45, and WJZ, and he frequently provides commentary to WBAL 1090 AM.

Most recently, many local and national media outlets have called upon Mr. Alperstein to provide legal analysis regarding the trials stemming from the death of Freddie Gray. Freddie Gray was a defendant who died while in police custody; six Baltimore City police officers were criminally charged. Mr. Alperstein’s charisma and ability to explain very complex legal issues make him a trusted resource for journalists, analysts and media producers, and is why he is repeatedly asked to share his knowledge.

Aside from his contributions in the courtroom, Mr. Alperstein works effortlessly in furthering the legal com-munity. He highly regards his position as an Investigator for the Maryland Board of Law Examiners. In addition to his position on the Board, Mr. Alperstein is active in var-ious Bar Associations and committees, and is often asked to speak at continuing legal education (CLE) events and seminars. He currently serves as the Bar Association of Baltimore City’s representative on the Baltimore City Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Mr. Alperstein also contributes to youth organizations, serving as a coach for a variety of sports, and in the past, on the advi-sory council for the Make-A-Wish Foundation.




Full Name: Warren Scott AlpersteinHometown: PikesvilleUndergrad/Law school: The George Washington Univer-sity, B.A. Political Science, 1993; University of Baltimore School of Law, J.D., 1996Married: Sari, 20 yearsChildren: Ryan (15), Aidan (13) and Evan (9)Pets: Rosie (4), Daisy (2) — our Labradoodle daughtersFavorite restaurant: The Food Market in HamdenIf this were Sunday, what would you be doing?: Watching football with my 3 sons or coaching themFavorite ice cream: OreoFavorite movie: Trading Places, The FirmFavorite food: Pizza and FriesMost memorable vacation: My HoneymoonHobbies: Exercising, traveling and my familyBooks you are reading now: Between coaching, work and trying to be the best husband and dad, no time to read.Favorite childhood memory: Playing outside for what seemed like hours every day in my old neighborhood in Randallstown with dozens of other kids.When you were a child, what did you want to be when you grew up?: A lawyer…what else.Two places you would most like to visit: Israel, ArubaOrioles or Ravens?: TieMovie or Book?: MovieWalters or BMA?: Walters

Hero: My dad. He taught me the importance of successfully balancing work and family but at the end of the day, family comes first.Most embarrassing story: As I went to pull out my speech I was about to give to my fellow 10th graders at Pikesville High School during the election for Class President, I real-ized I left the speech at home. I ended up winging it and won – perhaps it was the sympathy.Most famous person you met: Shaquille O’Neal, this past December in a pool. What a nice guy.Any fears?: Jumping out of an air plane, and a close 2nd would having to be a C.P.A.How has the Bar Association impacted your life/career?: The Bar Association has allowed me to forge wonderful re-lationships with attorneys that I ordinarily would never en-counter and for that I am grateful. Also, it is very rewarding for me to be able to contribute to the various committees I serve and equally rewarding to learn from other accomplished attorneys who share their knowledge and experiences as well.One thing most people do not know about you: If I was not a lawyer, my dream job would be to own a sleep away summer camp.If you had to leave your house (never to return) with only three items, what would you take?: Wedding album, Rosie and Daisy. I don’t count my human family as items.If you could live your life over, would you change any-thing?: No. I have no regrets.



Criminal Tips and Tricksby Rene Tywang, Esq.

1 Preparation: Preparation is nothing original or pe-culiar to criminal defense, but it is vital that you start preparing even before you have read the entire police

report. Obviously, there is no need to reinvent the wheel with each individual case, and with each criminal case, you gain more insight into the law and potential defenses for your client. In fact, I use a similar outline for reviewing a case file as the one I used in my first month as a District Court Public Defender. Reusing proven methods and ma-terials can expedite and simplify your work on a case, but be careful that you are not simply taking shortcuts, as these often lead to mistakes.

As you review the facts of a case, remember that clichés are clichés for a reason. These may lead you to a new piece of evidence or an important detail that you might have over-looked for being too obvious or stereotypical. You never know what thread you may pull that will lead to an unravel-ing of the State’s case, so pay attention to even the smallest of details. Remember that the open and shut cases—where every State actor has done everything exactly as they should and your client has confessed to the crime on video—are thankfully rare, and your preparation will often yield sur-prising results. Plus, it’s your job!

2 Communication: In all areas of the law, good com-munication between the parties is not only a good idea, but it’s required by the Maryland Rules. In crim-

inal defense practice, in particular, good communication is essential to you being able to do the best job possible for your client, whether it is with your client or witnesses.

This is especially true for working with the State. In or-der to present the most complete picture to your client, your knowledge of the State’s case and what is important to the State is essential.

In preparing for your case, you should be communicating early and often with your client, with witnesses and the State. You have to know what is important to your client. I have an open communication policy with witnesses and clients; I have found that too much information is better than a last minute surprise. This can be time consuming and annoying but on more than one occasion I have garnered critical information in the fourth or fifth conversation with a client or witness.

3 Know your players: In order to do the best job you can for your client, it is imperative that you know your prosecutor, your judges and your juries. The difference

can be stark between judges within the same jurisdiction and especially in different counties. In my experience, judges are generally consistent in their rulings and sentencing. Prose-cutors, too, have their proclivities when it comes to what is important to them and how they approach different types of cases. A good defense attorney should know about the past outcomes in a judge’s courtroom or against a particular prosecutor. If you are inexperienced in that particular coun-ty, Public Defenders can be a great source of information, since they or their coworkers are likely appearing in front of those judges and against those prosecutors regularly. This tip is very closely tied in with preparation and communication; especially in District Court cases, this is valuable informa-tion you and your client need to know.

4 Be Professional and Courteous: This last one can be the most important and easiest tip to follow. In all your dealings with the Clerk’s Office, Judges’ Clerks,

Court staff and Courtroom Clerks, you need to be respectful and professional. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but most of these people have more experience than you and can save your bacon in any number of ways. Don’t be that arrogant lawyer who is rude to a clerk or staff, remember they don’t have to go out of their way to stop you from looking like an idiot to the judge, even though they often do.

About meAfter clerking for the Office of the Public Defender during my second and third years at University of Baltimore School of Law, I worked as Staff Attorney at the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau. I worked as an Assistant Public Defender first in District Court in Cambridge and then in Circuit Court in Salisbury. I left the Office of the Public Defender in May of 2014 and now practice in Baltimore City Circuit Court as well as in Wicomico and Dorchester Counties. Although I still handle the occasional Major Traffic and Second Degree Assault in District Court, most of my cases are major felony cases, from Mur-der to Human Trafficking to Felony CDS. I also represent clients as a Panel Attorney for the Office of the Public Defender in conflict cases.



Congratulations to the BABC Class of 2015 New Members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Our group enjoyed breakfast at the Court, group admission ceremony, oral arguments, and a tour. A memorable day for all!

Supreme Court Group AdmissionNovember 30, 2015



February 18CLE – A Forum on Vocational Rehabilitation

February 18Black History Month Literary Reception

February 23Black History Month Lecture on Charles Hamilton Houston by Professor Jose Anderson

March 3Baltimore Bar Foundation Fundraiser – “Trial By Jury”

March 16CLE – A Conversation with Stephen T. Moyer, Secretary of Public Safety & Correctional Services, J. Michael Zeigler, Deputy Secretary, Operations, John S. Wolfe, Acting Commissioner of Pretrial and Detention Services and Rachel Sessa, Director of Government Affairs

March 22Women’s History Month Lecture - “Women’s Legal Status in 18th Century Maryland” - Professor Amy Froide

March 26Women’s History Month Program – Tour of Burial Sites of Famous Women in History in the Green Mount Cemetery

April 7Annual Family Law Dinner Program

May 10CLE – A Conversation with Kevin Davis, Baltimore Police Commissioner

May 18Annual Memorial Services

Personal Attention with Professionalism...

YOU DESERVE IT!

Locations in:Baltimore • Towson • Rockville • Annapolis • ColumBia • Washington, D.c.

toll Free: 1.800.837.2285 • Baltimore: 410.494.8300 • Washington: 202.234.8300 • Fax: 410.385.1883www.artmiller.com • [email protected]

COnCEnTRaTIng In MEDICal MalpRaCTICE, BUSInESS, anD paTEnT lITIgaTIOn DEpOSITIOnS. √

Substantial Discounts forVolume Scheduling!

The Bar Association of Baltimore City Calendar of Events

http://www.artmiller.com




Appellate Reviewby Levi S. Zaslow Esq. and Deborah Levi Esq.

Declaratory JudgmentSusan Volkman v. Hanover Investments, Inc., No. 1595, Sept. Term, 2014 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., Nov. 25, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2015/1595s14.pdf

The Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act pro-vides that “a court may grant a declaratory judgment . . . if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding . . . .” Slip Op. at 8 (quoting Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-409(a)). Although this sounds in permissive language, the Court of Appeals has clarified that it is rarely appropriate for a court to dismiss such an action or decline to render a declaratory judgment. Id. at 9. Instead, the Court has generally insisted that courts ren-der a declaratory judgment. Id. at 9. However, a court may decline to exercise its discretion is where it would serve no use purpose or not terminate the controversy. Id. at 9-10. One such instance is “when there is another action pending in a different court involving the same parties and the same issues.” Id. at 10.

In this case, in January 2013 the plaintiff initiated an ac-tion in Minnesota alleging violation of a shareholders’ agree-ment. During the pendency of that action, in June 2013, the defendant in the Minnesota action filed a declaratory judgment action in Maryland asserting that it fulfilled its obligations related to the shareholders’ agreement. Id. at 6-7. The court observed that “[w]hile the specific causes of action, legal theories, and objectives of litigation may differ between the declaratory judgment action and the Minneso-ta action, an adjudication with respect to the interpretation of the shareholders’ agreement and the performance of that agreement are necessary issues common to both actions.” Id. at 12.

The court distinguished between circumstances in which a trial court declines to render a declaratory judg-ment from those in which a trial court decides to affir-matively render such a judgment. Id. at 16. The court

observed that “when the circuit court exercises its dis-cretion to affirmatively render, as distinguished from abstaining from rendering, a declaration while another similar action involving the same parties and same issues is pending, we are to reverse the judgment absent ‘un-usual and compelling circumstances.’” Id. Notably, the court was unable to “unearth[] a single case in which our appellate courts have upheld the grant of a declaratory judgment notwithstanding a pending action involving the same parties and the same issues in another state.” Id. at 22. The court considered: principles of judicial econ-omy; comity; and whether the subsequent action would usurp the jurisdiction of another and “allow one party to wrest control of the litigation from another” – with such a circumstance being a sufficient countervailing interest to disregard a plaintiff ’s choice of forum. Id. at 24-28. The court observed that “the very question…sought to be adjudicated in the declaratory judgment action was the dispositive question in the pending Minnesota litigation.” Id. at 29. Thus, the Maryland declaratory judgment ac-tion did not constitute such an “unusual and compelling circumstance” to deprive the Minnesota plaintiff its right to choose its forum. Id. The court, therefore, held that the trial court erred in rendering such a declaratory judg-ment and reversed with instructions to vacate the Mary-land declaratory judgment. Id. at 30.

Civil Procedure – Jury DemandLisy Corp. v. McCormick & Co., Inc., et al., No. 8, Sept. Term, 2015 (Md. Nov. 23, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2015/8a15.pdf

In this case, the Court of Appeals decided whether a filed and served Case Information Report (“CIR”) is sufficient to demand a jury trial. To make that determination, the Court endeavored to again define the word “paper” within the Maryland Rules. Slip Op. at 1-3.



The Court recognized that the right to a jury trial was guaranteed in the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215, was man-dated by custom long before that, is enshrined in the Mary-land Declaration of Rights, and is further guaranteed by the Maryland Rules. Id. at 7-8. This important right, howev-er, is subject to “reasonable regulation” – most notably by Maryland Rule 2-325(b), which requires “a timely written demand in the form of a ‘pleading’ or a separate ‘paper’” or else the right will be waived. Id. at 8-9.

Although the dictionary definition of “paper” is a “written or printed document or instrument,” the Court stated that a “paper” under the Maryland Rules “is a document, printed or written, that is filed in conjunction with court pleadings.” Id. at 12. “The purpose of a paper is to convey supporting documentation to the court (not necessarily the clerk’s of-fice), which may include information and/or evidence in support of a party’s position.” Id. at 12-13. The Court con-cluded that such a “paper” must “originate[] with a litigant or an interested party.” Id. at 13. The CIR, however, is only a court-produced document designed to convey information to the clerk’s office for case management purposes. The ef-fect of checking “yes” on the Jury Demand box on a CIR is merely to indicate that such a demand has or will be filed in accordance with the Rules. Id. at 13-14. Because the CIR is not a “paper” within the meaning of Maryland Rule 2-325(a), the plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial. Id. at 17.

Judge McDonald dissented, arguing that the language, history, purposes, and some of the Majority’s reasoning sup-port the opposite conclusion. McDonald, J. dissenting, at 1. The dissent pointed out that the defendant did not claim lack of notice, did not argue that it suffered any prejudice, and that the defendant was preparing for a jury trial – including filing proposed voir dire, jury instructions and verdict sheet. Id. at 2. Instead, it merely quibbled with the format of the demand. Id. The purpose of the Rule is to have documen-tation of the request, regulate the timing of the request, and afford a flexible format for the request. Id. at 4-5. Further, federal cases, including one discussing the Maryland CIR, have concluded that checking “yes” to a jury demand box in civil cover sheet can constitute a proper jury demand. Id. at 11. The dissent concluded that the “precise rubrics” that are

the Maryland Rules are “only as fair and just as the decisions that interpret [them] and the forms that implement [them]” and believed that the Majority opinion created a trap for unwary litigants to waive their constitutional rights. Id. at 11-12.

Despite the arguments of the dissent, the law is now set-tled. Checking “yes” in the Jury Demand box in a CIR is not sufficient to demand a jury trial. Instead, it must be de-manded in a pleading or separate “paper” as defined by the Court.

Lead PaintJakeem Roy v. Sandra B. Dackman, et al., No. 6, Sept. Term, 2015 (Md. Oct. 16, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2015/6a15.pdf

In Roy v. Dackman, the Court of Appeals considered whether a proposed expert, Dr. Eric Sundel, a board-certi-fied pediatrician with 20 years in practice, could offer ex-pert opinion as to the source of lead paint and opine as to medical causation. In City Homes, Inc. v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 63 A.3d 713 (2013), the Court of Special Ap-peals determined that Dr. Sundel was not an expert in lead poisoning and was not qualified to testify as to the source of the lead exposure or causation. Slip Op. at 11. This was because, “although [Dr. Sundel] is a board-certified pediatri-cian licensed to practice medicine in Maryland, he has not received any specialized training nor does he have any expe-rience in treating children with lead poisoning or in identi-fying the source of a child’s lead exposure.” Id. at 11 (quoting Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. at 684, 63 A.3d at 754). Based on Hazelwood, the trial court excluded Dr. Sundel in this case. Id. at 11-12.

On the issue of the admissibility of medical causation, the Court of Appeals concluded that Dr. Sundel was sufficiently qualified. The Court examined Hazelwood, which further con-cluded that Dr. Sundel was not competent to testify because he had “never testified as an expert in a lead paint poisoning case . . . and [he] acknowledged that he [wa]s not a certified lead risk assessor”; further, “he had not published or lectured on the topic of lead paint poisoning, he was not a board-certified




psychologist, and he did not administer or interpret IQ tests in his practice.” Id. at 25 (alterations in original). For these rea-sons, Hazelwood determined that the doctor lacked “specialized knowledge.” The Court of Appeals declined to exclude the doc-tor based on Hazelwood. The Court pointed out that Maryland Rule 5-702 requires “only that the ‘witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ because the purpose of expert witness testimony is to assist the finder of fact, in this case, a jury composed likely of lay per-sons.” Id. at 26. Noting Dr. Sundel’s other qualifications and that in the intervening time he read extensively on lead paint poisoning in adolescents, the Court concluded that he was suf-ficiently “conversant with the subject of the controversy.” Id. at 27-29. The Court observed that the overall persuasiveness of the opinion will depend on cross-examination and weighing competing witnesses’ testimony. Id. at 29.

However, the Court of Appeals agreed that the expert could not testify as to the source of the lead paint:

As a board-certified pediatrician, his reliance on circum-stantial evidence alone is not enough for him to be deemed competent as an expert on the source of lead. … Dr. Sundel’s conclusion was based solely on scant circumstantial evidence, including the age of the home and exterior tests of the paint on the dwelling at 2525 Oswego Avenue. Although we have held that a lead poisoning case may succeed grounded on suitable circumstantial evidence as to source, Hamilton, 439 Md. at 527, 96 A.3d at 730, it is not enough for an expert to conclude that a certain property is the source of the child’s exposure to lead when other probable sources have not been eliminated.

Slip Op. at 23. Although Dr. Sundel’s opinions as to the source of the lead paint were excluded, the plaintiff had an al-ternative expert to speak to the source of the lead. Id. at 29. Given the additional expert and the Court’s conclusion that Dr. Sundel could opine as to medical causation, the Court of Ap-peals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 29-30.

GarnishmentMorgan Stanley & Co., Inc. v. John D. Andrews, Jr., No. 935, Sept. Term, 2014 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., Oct. 1, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2015/0935s14.pdf

In this case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether funds in a jointly held account by a debtor and non-debtor are per se subject to garnishment. Slip Op. at 7-8. The court observed that under Maryland law a bank deposit prima facie belongs to the person whose name is on the account and can withdraw funds. However, Maryland’s appellate courts have never held that a bank deposit per se belongs to a person whose name is on the account. Instead, there is only a rebuttable presumption that those funds be-long to the named account holder. Id. at 9-10. The court was careful to point out that its opinion did not address and did “not in any way alter the restriction upon garnishment of property owned jointly by spouses” and it pertained strictly to other jointly owned accounts. Id. at 14-15 n. 10.

In determining how and under what circumstances this presumption may be rebutted, the court first noted that a bank account and the money it contains should be consid-ered as separate entities. Id. at 10. The court then observed that, in addition to secondary sources, “[t]he overwhelming majority of jurisdictions to address this issue have differen-tiated between legal title to the account and equitable title to the funds within the account.” Id. at 11. The two primary factors to differentiate between legal title to the account and equitable ownership of the funds are:

(1) the exercise of control over the funds in the account, and (2) contribution, or the source of funds within the ac-count. Courts also consider various circumstances relevant to each case, such as whether a party’s social security num-ber appeared on an account, which party’s name appeared on checks, which party paid taxes on interest from the ac-count, which party kept possession of the passbook or oth-er documents pertaining to the account, and which party signed checks from the account.

Id. at 13 (internal citations omitted). Thus, a co-owner of a joint account may rebut the presumption by displaying which portion of the accounts belongs to each owner. Id. at 14. Adopting the standard applied by the majority of juris-dictions, the court determined that a clear and convincing evidence standard was the most appropriate. Id. at 19.

Finally, the court examined the evidence presented to the trial court. The joint account holders were a father and son.




The son testified that he wrote checks only to help his father, he paid no personal expenses from the account, each trans-action was for the benefit of his father, the father was the original source of the funds, and the son did not deposit any of his own funds into the account. The father corroborated this testimony. In examining the evidence and testimony presented to the trial court, the Court of Special Appeals concluded “that the circuit court reasonably concluded that Father had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was the sole owner of all funds held in the joint account.” Id. at 22.

Criminal LawCourt of AppealsMeyer v. State, No. 21 Sept. Term, 2015; State v. Rivera, No. 22, Sept. Term, 2015 (Md. Dec. 22, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2015/21a15.pdf

Overruling Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), the Court of Appeals held that in a non-DUI case, a judge may impose a no-driving requirement as a reasonable condition of probation without imposing an illegal sentence or violat-ing the separation of powers doctrine.

Matthew Meyer

On or about November 19, 2003, Mr. Meyer pleaded no contest to two counts of manslaughter by motor vehicle for an accident he caused in which two people died. Mr. Meyer was sentenced to fourteen years of incarceration, seven of which were suspended, and the court imposed three years of unsupervised probation with the special condition that Mr. Meyer not operate a motor vehicle. After his release from prison and during his probationary period, Mr. Meyer ob-tained a driver’s license. In June of 2010, Mr. Meyer received a speeding ticket for driving 84 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. A few months after that, Mr. Meyer received another citation for a minor traffic violation. He was then charged with violating his probation.

At the hearing on his violation of probation, Mr. Meyer admitted to the traffic violations, but moved to dismiss, as-

serting for the first time that the no-driving condition was illegal. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a sen-tence of seven years, three and a half of which were suspend-ed, and he was sentenced to two more years of unsupervised probation. Three years later, on or about April 18, 2014, Mr. Meyer filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence. The trial court denied the motion, in part, because Mr. Meyer agreed to the terms of his probation. Mr. Meyer then ap-pealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and the Court of Ap-peals granted certiorari.

Helen Rivera

On or about June 3, 2013, Ms. Rivera drove aggressive-ly on Beach Drive in Bethesda, Maryland. She forced a bicyclist off the roadway with her SUV and fled the scene. A Montgomery County jury convicted Ms. Rivera of two counts of second-degree assault and one count of failure to remain at the scene of an accident involving bodily in-jury. Ms. Rivera received probation before judgment on the assault charges, but was sentenced to six months of suspended jail time and placed on two years of probation. She was also prohibited from driving a vehicle for at least one year.

Ms. Rivera appealed the no-driving condition of her probation. The Court of Special Appeals granted her ap-peal, and sided with Ms. Rivera, holding that: Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), was controlling; only the Motor Vehicle Administration can restrict an individual’s driv-ing conditions; and thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion by limiting Ms. Rivera’s right to drive. The State appealed and the Court of Appeals granted certio-rari.

The Court of Appeals reviewed Mr. Meyer’s claim that his sentence was illegal for clear error. It reviewed Ms. Rivera’s claim for abuse of discretion. Analyzing the cases under both standards, the Court concluded that a no-driving condition as a special condition of probation may be a reasonable condition of probation and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. In an uncommon move, the Court of Appeals also re-




versed its prior holding in Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996).

In Sheppard, the Court of Appeals had previously held that imposing a no-driving condition violated the separa-tion of powers doctrine because the ability to regulate driv-ing privileges was strictly reserved for the Executive Branch. Reversing that decision, the Meyer court stated that im-posing no-driving condition does not invalidate a driver’s license. It merely restricts a defendant’s physical ability to drive. The court then stated that it was overruling Sheppard because “its rationale grounded in the separation of pow-ers doctrine was clearly wrong.” The Court then explained that when “fashioning conditions of probation, the Judiciary may impose reasonable conditions of probation where ap-propriate to curtail the criminal-defendant’s physical ability to operate a motor vehicle.” Id. at 24. The only restraint on probation is that the condition is “reasonable” and has a “ra-tional connection to the offense.” Id. at 30.

Williams v. State, No. 9, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. Dec. 18, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2015/9a15.pdf

In this case, the Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, “the efficacy of the invocation of the right to remain si-lent,” or in other words, “what constitutes a clear invocation of the right to remain silent and that which is an ambiguous one.” Slip Op. at 17. More specifically, the Court analyzed whether, under the facts of Mr. Williams’ case, the state-ment, “I don’t want to say nothing, I don’t know,” constitutes an unambiguous invocation of the Fifth Amendment’s privi-lege against self-incrimination under Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) and Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).

To answer the question on ambiguity, the Court applied the following test: “[U]sing an objective standard,” the anal-ysis turns on whether a reasonable police officer in the cir-cumstances would understand the statement to be an invo-cation of the right to silence.” Id. at 22 (citing Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381-82). Applying this objective test to the Williams case, the Court held that the statement, “I don’t want to say anything,” on its own would likely have been a clear invoca-

tion. However, once the defendant added, “I don’t know” to his comment that he did not want to say anything, that rendered his statement an equivocal one.

The court next analyzed whether Mr. Williams’ confession was involuntary under Maryland’s common law because the detectives “implied Williams ‘might see outside again if he confessed to a robbery gone bad instead of a premeditated murder.” Id. at 25. The Court concluded in the negative, rea-soning: (1) that the detective “was merely advising appellate of the possible legal consequences of a verdict of first degree premeditated murder at appellant’s future trial;” and (2) that it did not appear to the court that Mr. Williams’ confession was made in reliance on the detectives’ statement. Id. at 28-30.

Wagner v. State, No. 11, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. Dec. 17, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2015/11a15.pdf

The Court of Appeals held, for the first time, that “a party to a joint or multiple-party account may commit theft from that account.” Slip Op. at 30. More specifically, in a case involving a father, a daughter, and a joint bank account, the court affirmed the daughter’s conviction for theft and em-bezzlement (fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary) af-ter she took money from a bank account that she shared with her father. Affirming the defendant’s conviction, the Court held that a joint owner of a bank account may be convicted of theft for taking money from a joint bank account if they do so without the other’s knowledge or consent, and with the intent to deprive the other of those funds. Further, the Court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary, even where there was no formal or professional fiduciary undertaking because Ms. Wagner was added to the bank account to ac-cess funds for her father at his direction and on his behalf.

Court of Special Appeals

Lindsey v. State, No. 0146, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., Dec. 16, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2015/0146s15.pdf




Upholding the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s mo-tion to suppress, the court granted great deference to the judge who issued the search warrant. The court examined whether the area in front of the defendant’s apartment qual-ifies as curtilage, and thus prohibits the government from allowing a K-9 to search that area without a warrant. In one of the first Maryland state cases interpreting Florida v. Jar-dines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013), the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the area in front of the defendant’s apartment did not qualify as curtilage under the four factors espoused in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987). Notably, the court was persuaded by the fact that even though the apart-ment had a lock and buzzer system, there was no evidence to indicate how the officers were able to enter the building, i.e., whether the door had been propped open and whether the defendant had exclusive control over the hallway. The court also found that the lock and buzzer system was merely a “security mechanism” rather than a privacy shield because it did not protect the area from observation by passersby. Finally, the court concluded that the area outside the apart-ment door was a common area, and thus, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the same.

Brice v. State, No. 1620, Sept. Term, 2014 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., Nov. 25, 2015).http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2015/1620s14.pdf

The Court of Special Appeals reversed Mr. Brice’s con-viction for illegal possession of a regulated firearm because the trial court committed reversible error when it declined to ask “the police witness questions.” Slip Op. at 1. In re-versing Mr. Brice’s conviction, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the trial court erroneously interpreted Pear-son v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014), when it declined to ask the police witness questions. The court then went on to hold, quite clearly, that that “where there are police officer wit-nesses for the State, police witness questions requested by the defendant are mandatory.” Id. at 20 (citing Langley v. State, 281 Md. 337 (1977); Bowie v. State, 324 Md. 1 (1991)). The court further explained that this is true even where the defendant does not testify. Moreover, the mandatory nature of the questions are not limited to circumstances in which the officer’s testimony would be “diametrically opposed to that of the defendant.” Id. at 19 (quoting Langley, 281 Md. at 338). In fact, the questions are required even if the defen-dant is not going to testify at all.

Professional office space in heart of Towson available for sublet.

Use of conference room, waiting area, internet, copier.

Excellent for an attorney who wishes an office presence near the county court houses.

Contact [email protected]



Ethical Obligation of Communication to the Pro Bono Clientby Mary T. Keating Esq.

The Rules of Professional Conduct devote one subsection to the principle that a lawyer has a professional responsibility to render pro bono publico service. (Rule 6.1(a)). Subsection (b) (1) emphasizes that much of that service should be for actual clients of limited means.

The rules of professional conduct are no different for pro bono clients than fee-paying clients. But often the rules of the lawyer’s practice are different because of the economic and sophistication disparity between a practice’s typical cli-ent and the pro bono client. I want to address a few of the issues that may pop up if you accept a lot of pro bono cases. These warnings about the necessity of clear communication should not make you view pro bono service as a wretched chore. In most cases, pro bono clients are very appreciative of your efforts, and you are making a real change in their lives. What you can accomplish for the pro bono client can provide true satisfaction as well as improve your skills. And if these clients call you after the engagement is concluded, it could be to refer a paying client.

Even though many pro bono clients are referred for a spe-cific legal issue through an organization such as Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, the formation of the relationship should be just as formal as, and even more clear than, the fee-paying client. A pro bono client needs to know the scope of the representation, including especially whether the lawyer will or might undertake any actions beyond the reason for the referral. Use an engagement letter even if Rule 1.5 does not re-quire it, and take some extra time to go over your mutual ob-ligations. Managing expectations of a pro bono client can take extra patience, sometimes. Some of these clients don’t read well, and many have little experience with the legal system, so your list of services to be rendered may be incomprehensible without additional explanation. Furthermore, some such cli-ents have multiple issues at once, and you are not duty bound to undertake them all, unless you say you will.

The benefit of communicating a clear division of responsi-bilities and scope of service extends beyond the rule encour-aging lawyers to enter into written agreements, however. Pro bono clients can show you, by negative example, the value of the billable hour system. You are best served if the client un-derstands that daily or more frequent phone calls are unnec-essary, and will distract you from meeting his or her needs. Pro bono clients can often expect (a) more rapid results than the legal system is set up to give; (b) frequent phone calls to their lawyer; and (c) a “do whatever I ask” relationship, no doubt fueled by some television shows. Further, at the end of the matter, the pro bono client may continue to consider you his or her lawyer for all future questions they have.

In frustration, many lawyers simply stop returning the pro bono client’s frequent phone calls. It is hard to explain over and over that a judge will decide the case on his own timetable; that an answer is not due until next week, so there is nothing to report yet; that until I have your financial re-cords I can’t file this bankruptcy. But ignoring the difficult client invites different problems. Rule 1.4 requires reason-able communication:

(a) A lawyer shall:(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circum-

stance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is required by these Rules;

(2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for infor-mation; and

(4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the cli-ent expects assistance not permitted by the Maryland Law-yers’ Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

If you have the skills to be a lawyer, you have the ability to explain to a client that you can’t violate ethical or other




rules to meet an unreasonable demand, whether that de-mand be for constant communication, or for a legal tactic that you cannot ethically pursue. In fact, it’s easier to take such a stand with a pro bono client than with someone who provides a quarter of your annual billings. You also can learn a great deal about the limitations and the power of our legal system, and can use your knowledge to protect the less pow-erful of our neighbors.

Mary T. Keating is a Baltimore sole practitioner and serves on the Board of the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service. She is a member of the Ethics Committee of the Bar Association of Baltimore City. The BABC Professional Ethics Committee provides a free Ethics Hotline

to member lawyers. Please consult the Bar Bulletin of the BABC web-site for the phone numbers of this month’s hotline volunteers. Dis-claimer: The BABC Ethics Hotline is provided to lawyers as a service of the Bar Association of Baltimore City and its Professional Ethics Committee. By undertaking to provide advice, neither the Associ-ation nor the individual committee member is entering into an at-torney/client relationship. Any advice given merely reflects the best judgement of those Association members who have volunteered to serve on its committee on Professional Ethics. All callers are advised that a conservative approach is appropriate in matters of professional ethics, and that advice rendered by the Committee will not insulate individuals from investigation or disciplinary action by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland.

Estate Planning Clinic for Low Income Seniors sponsored by Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland, Senior Legal Services of the Bar Association of Baltimore City, and Strong City Baltimore

Monday, March 21, 2016

9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

29th Street Community Center

300 E. 29th Street

Baltimore, MD 21218For information or to volunteer, contact Margaret Henn,

Esq., at [email protected]

Pro Bono Opportunity



Have the Difficult family Conversation — The Need for LONG TERM CARE

This is a FAMILY issue. Many working people now find themselves needing to contribute time, energy, and financ-es to assist parents as they age. Several recent studies have demonstrated the impact on employees and employers alike, as employees are distracted and even become disabled them-selves due to caregiving needs. My father in law suffered through 12 years with Alzheimer’s. We, his family, suffered more than he.

For employees there is the critical need to plan for their future needs. Otherwise they pass on the same problem of their parents, a seriously unfunded risk that threatens their own retirement and perhaps plans to pass on inheritance to children and grandchildren. However, the need for long term care is not only for the aging. Accidents and illness can also strike young people. Having disability insurance to replace income is important. But it must be remembered that the need for long term care (care needs that lasts for more than 90 days and require assistance for a combination of bathing, dressing, transferring, eating, continence and/or toileting) , requires a whole new level of expense.

YOU ARE NOT COVERED!NOT covering long term care expenses are medical insur-

ance, Medicare, or Medicaid unless you meet stringent state requirements of disability and financial destitution. People CAN NOT rely on public help to assist. It is not that the federal and state governments would not like to assist. The financial reality is that THEY CAN’T. Those people that can MUST step up to the responsibility to plan for themselves and for those for whom they feel responsibility. My husband and I found ourselves overseeing care (and often giving it) for SIX family members including two bachelor uncles and a

Are you looking to expand your practice? Are you interested becoming involved with a public service?

Join the Lawyer Referral and Information Service

LRIS

For more information visit www.baltimorebar.org/referral

LRIS is an ABA certified program, offered by

The Bar Association of Baltimore City

Greatest Unfunded Threat to Family… Financial Stability? by Sally H. Leimbach, CLU, ChFC, CEBS, LTCP, CLTC, NAHU Committee Chair, Long Term Care Insurance Advisory Commit-tee; [email protected]


http://www.byterightsupport.com

http://www.baltimorebar.org/referral



widowed aunt with no children. We both work. At the time, we had two children in college. Our family is not unique.

Ways to plan:

1. Identify family member/s responsible to give or co-ordinate care.

2. Identify finances to pay for care (can easily be $100,000 PER YEAR. Probability HIGH anyone 65 and old-er MAY REQUIRE minimum of one year care).1

3. Consider how long your identified finances would last; what family members can contribute to this cost.

EASIEST WAY TO ACCESS LONG TERM CARE PLANNING

The easiest way to access a plan for your long term needs is through an employer sponsored, payroll deduction program. If your company has one does not offer this program, consider implementing one. If no access to a program, know you can set up one yourself and potentially have TAX DEDUCTION and/or STATE CREDITS to assist you paying the premium.

1 Kemper, Komisar, Alecxih. Long-term Care over an Uncer-tain Future: What can current retirees expect? Inquiry 42:335-350; winter 2005/2006.

TRIBRIDGE PARTNERS LLC VALUE ADDED

TriBridge has experienced and cutting edge knowledge-able LTCi Specialists available to assist individuals, employ-ers, and associations. Not only for setting up programs but also at service and claim time, is TriBridge there.

As a Bar Association of Baltimore City member you re-ceive discounted rates on Long Term Care Insurance:

• 10% premium discount available to active members, spous-es, parents, grandparents and children over the age of 18.

• Highly rated Insurance Company.

• Skilled assistance by Long Term Care Insurance Specialists.

• Increase in rates for new applications, (specifically for females) are on horizon, so seize the opportunity now!

Email: [email protected]: 240-422-8799

Website: www.tribridgepartners.comSecurities and investment advisory services offered through qualified registered representatives of MML Investors Services, LLC , Member SIPC. Supervisory Office: 11350 McCormick Road, Executive Plaza IV, Suite 200, Hunt Valley, MD 21031 – 410.785.7654. TriBridge Partners, LLC is not an affiliate or subsidiary of MML Investors Services, LLC or its affiliated companies.

http://www.tribridgepartners.com

http://www.tribridgepartners.com



BABC Semi-Annual Lunch Series – “Baltimore After Freddie Gray”

November 13, 2015The BABC launched its Semi-Annual Lunch Series on November 13, “Baltimore After Freddie Gray,” with guest speaker Dan Rodricks. It was a sell-out with a dynamic speaker, engaged audience, and great lunch! Great way to start our new Semi-Annual Lecture Series.



21st Annual Past Presidents’ LuncheonNovember 24, 2015

The BABC’s 21st Annual Past Presidents’ Luncheon was held on November 24 at The Grand. Darren L. Kadish, Esquire, and Carrie McMahon Freeman, Esquire, were recipients of the 2015 Presidential Awards. Elva E. Tillman, Esquire, received the Charles H. Dorsey, Jr. Mentor Award, and The Honorable Pamela J. White received the Paul A. Dorf Memorial ADR Award. The Association also recognized those Baltimore City Judges who recently retired from the Bench: The Honorable M. Brooke Murdock, The Honorable Martin P. Welch, The Honorable John R. Hargrove, Jr., and The Honorable Askew W. Gatewood.



Leadership Open HouseDecember 2, 2015

A fantastic Leadership Open House was held on December 2. It was a full house of members interested in learning more about the BABC and how to get involved. Topics included the responsibilities of serving as an officer, on the board, chairing a committee or serving as a committee member. And, of course, how to apply for a position. We had a great panel that included some of our current officers, past presidents, and staff. The future of the BABC will be in good hands!



BABC, ABWA, and WBA-BCCC Chapter Bus Trip to NYC!!December 5, 2015

The Bar Association of Baltimore City, Alliance of Black Women Attorneys, and the WBA – Baltimore City, County and Carroll County Chapter, had a blast in New York City on December 5. Games and prizes on the way, shows, tours, great dining, movie and popcorn on return trip. What a great day with a wonderful and fun group of members and friends!



BABC Members Recognized as TDR Leading WomenDecember 7, 2015

Congratulations to our own Natalie Grossman, Director of Senior Legal Services, who was recognized by The Daily Record as one of its 2015 Leading Women. So proud of you Natalie! Also congrats to BABC members and Leading Women Taren Butcher, Tiffani Collins, Evelyn Cusson, Myshala Middleton, Erin Miller and Laurie Wasserman.



The Bar Association of Baltimore City/ YLD Annual Holiday Party

December 10, 2015The BABC’s Holiday Party, sponsored by the Young Lawyers’ Division, was held on December 10 at Barcocina in Fells Point. A great time was had by all! Special thanks to all of those who supported the Silent Auction to benefit the YLD’s Annual Holiday Party for Homeless Children.



New Associates/Attorneys Courthouse TourJanuary 11, 2016

The BABC Membership Committee hosted a program for new Associates/Attorneys — “Insider’s Guide to Baltimore City Circuit Court: A Practitioners Courthouse Tour,” on January 11, followed by a reception in the Bar Library. New attorneys got an overview of the courthouse including the civil, criminal and family divisions, as well as the Clerk’s office.



The Baltimore Bar Foundation and Maryland/DC Society for Healthcare Risk Management hosted a Symposium, “When World’s Collide: The Intersection of Healthcare, Law & Technology,” on January 13 at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (Westminster Hall). Keynote speakers were world-renowned doctor Thomas Scalea, M.D., Physician-in-Chief, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, and Leana Wen, Commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department.

Baltimore Bar Foundation and MD/DC Society for Healthcare Risk Management Symposium – “When Worlds Collide: The Intersection of Healthcare, Law & Technology

January 13, 2016



The Bar Association of Baltimore City Serving Lawyers and our Community since 1880!

Now Welcomes Legal and Business Affiliate Members

If you are a Court Reporter, Legal Secretary, Paralegal, Legal Administrator, Law Librarian, Legal Assistant, or a business that serves attorneys, we invite you to participate in the leading local Bar Association in Maryland.

Join today at www.baltimorebar.org. For information, call 410-539-5936 x 100, or email [email protected].

Congratulations Kindle Winner!Congratulations to new attorney Maya Zegarra, pictured with Executive Director Kathy Sanzone. Maya was the winner of the Skittles contest conducted at the BABC’s booth at the

recent Professionalism Course. Enjoy your new Kindle Maya!

www.baltimorebar.org



Welcome New BABC Members!Joined October – December 2015

Zohab Ahmed Law Student

Ella Aiken, Esq. Regular Member

Jasmyn Allen Law Student

Brian Bajew, Esq. Regular Member

Nila Bala, Esq. Regular Member

Justen Barbierri Law Student

Julia Bartels, Esq. Regular Member

Monica Basche Law Student

Paul Batchelor, Esq. Regular Member

Courtney Bennett Law Student

Mary Biscoe Law Student

Rasheena Bogans Law Student

Avalon Brandt, Esq. Regular Member

Gregory Brooks Law Student

Hannah Catt Law Student

Farrah Champagne, Esq. Regular Member

Ara Sofia Chung Law Student

Eleanor Chung Law Student

Michael Clarke, Esq. Regular Member

Ava Claypool Law Student

Adam Cline, Esq. Regular Member

Brandon Cooper Law Student

Timothy Costello, Esq. Regular Member

Kelli Cover Law Student

Hon. Michael DiPietro Regular Member

Harout Doukmajian Law Student

Joseph Ecker Law Student

Brian Epshteyn Law Student

Paul Farmer, Esq. Regular Member

Eddie Freeman Law Student

Julian Gabbard Law Student

Laura Elizabeth Gagne Law Student

Maya Garza, Esq. Regular Member

Meagan George Law Student

Erin Godwin Law Student

Jaimi Gonzalez Law Student

Bryant Green, Esq. Regular Member

Jordan Halle, Esq. Regular Member

Donavan Ham Law Student

Ethan Han, Esq. Regular Member

Elizabeth Harlan, Esq. Regular Member

Matthew Hartman, Esq. Regular Member

Garrett Hasslinger Law Student

Amy Hennen, Esq. Regular Member

Kyle Hildreth, Esq. Regular Member

Jennifer Huisman, Esq. Regular Member

Ferdinand U. Ibebuchi, Esq. Regular Member

Lavanya Jagadish, Esq. Regular Member

James Jeffcoat, Esq. Regular Member

Taylor Kasky, Esq. Regular Member

Erick Kim Law Student

Natalie Krajinovic, Esq. Regular Member

Stephannie Krulevitz, Esq. Regular Member

Nadine Lindsay Law Student



Elizabeth Loebl, Esq. Regular Member

Andrea Marcin Law Student

Ashley McFarland, Esq. Regular Member

Timothy P. McGough, Esq. Regular Member

Kameron Millar, Esq. Regular Member

James Miller, Esq. Regular Member

Krishna Mistry Law Student

Chris Moran, Esq. Regular Member

Gabriel Moreno, Esq. Regular Member

Tom Morris Law Student

Sarah Moses, Esq. Regular Member

Jordan Myers Law Student

Dumlesi Ndam Law Student

Leon Nemirovsky Law Student

Bach Nguyen Law Student

Fiona Nguyen Law Student

Mary Noor Law Student

Jeannine Ntamatungiro Law Student

Lelia Parker Law Student

Jasmine Pope Law Student

Calissa Randall Law Student

Michael Raykher, Esq. Regular Member

Kiyanoush Razaghi, Esq. Regular Member

Julie Reamy, Esq. Regular Member

Traci Robinson, Esq. Regular Member

William Rodowsky Law Student

Brian Rollyson Law Student

Durriyyah Rose, Esq. Regular Member

Jordan Rosenfeld, Esq. Regular Member

Adam Rubin, Esq. Regular Member

Rachel Samakow, Esq. Regular Member

Aarti Sardana Law Student

David Schult, Esq. Regular Member

Janice Shih, Esq. Regular Member

Jennifer Shockley, Esq. Regular Member

Kathryn Simpson, Esq. Regular Member

Jennifer E. Smith Law Student

Vishnu Solanki Law Student

Emily Spiering, Esq. Regular Member

Meghan Stepanek, Esq. Regular Member

Thomas Stowe Law Student

Matthew Stubenberg, Esq. Regular Member

Evan Thalenberg, Esq. Regular Member

Stephan Thomas, Jr., Esq. Regular Member

Jonathan Tincher Law Student

Nana Tufuoh Law Student

Lea Uradu Law Student

Trevonne Walford Law Student

Roxanne Ward, Esq. Regular Member

Barbara Weisman Law Student

Matthew West Law Student

Jeffrey Wettenel Law Student

Danielle Wiggins Law Student

Iceney Williams Law Student

Samantha Williamson Law Student

Shawntee Wright Legal Affiliate

Sidney Zahabizadeh Law Student



Circuit Court for Baltimore City Assignment of JudgesJanuary 2, 2016 through December 31, 2016

Updated: November 20 ,2015

C O N T I N U E D O N PA G E 3 9

Court Assignment Judge CR/Chambers Telephone

Admin Judge At Large Judge W. Michel Pierson, AJ 234E/208E 396-4916 & 4917

Part 1 Criminal Judge Jeannie J. Hong 236M/234M 396-5140 & 5141

Part 2 Juvenile Judge Melissa K. Copeland A3401(C-3) 443-263-2799

Part 3 At Large Judge W. Michel Pierson, AJ 234E/208E 396-4916 & 4917

Part 4 Civil Judge Emanuel Brown 215M/251M 396-1776 & 1777

Part 5 Domestic Judge Yvette M. Bryant, JICFD F-2E/126E 396-5102 & 5103

Part 6 Civil Judge Edward R. K. Hargadon 227E/241E 396-5070 & 5071

Part 7 Criminal Judge Pamela J. White 428M/426M 396-5056 & 5057

Part 8 Criminal Judge Stephen J. Sfekas 509E/505E 396-5090 & 5091

Part 9 Criminal Judge Wanda K. Heard 600M/642M 396-4918 & 4919

Part 10 Civil Judge Jeffrey Geller 330E/330E 396-5008 & 5009

Part 11 Criminal Judge Lynn Stewart Mays 228E/214E 396-5052 & 5053

Part 12 Criminal Judge Charles J. Peters, JICr 404E/406E 396-5080 & 5081

Part 13 Domestic Judge Michael DiPietro F-4E/122E 396-5060 &5061

Part 14 Civil Judge Althea M. Handy, JICC 523E/529E 396-5054 & 5055

Part 15 Criminal Judge Christopher L. Panos 329E/329E 396-5062 &5063

Part 16 Criminal Judge Timothy J. Doory 226M/228M 396-5112 & 5113

Part 17 Civil Judge Philip S. Jackson 636M/636M 396-5066 & 5067

Part 18 Civil Judge Cynthia H. Jones *** 420M/424M 396-5082 & 5083

Part 19 Civil Judge Julie R. Rubin 434M/432M 396-5132 & 5133

Part 20 Criminal Judge Marcus Z. Shar 203M/245M 396-5100 & 5101

Part 21 Criminal Judge Yolanda Tanner 438M/436M 396-5074 & 5075

Part 22 Civil Judge Alfred Nance 556E/561E 396-4020 & 4021

Part 23 Civil Judge Audrey J. S. Carrion 225E/209E 396-5130 & 5131

Part 24 Domestic Judge Kendra Y. Ausby F-1E/120E 396-4627 & 4631

Part 25 Juvenile Judge Robert B. Kershaw, JICJ A3401 (C-1) 443-263-2793



Part 26 Criminal Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill 113M/101M 396-6826 & 6843

Part 27 Juvenile Judge Sylvester Cox A3401 (C-2) 443-263-2796

Part 28 Criminal Judge Melissa M. Phinn 540E/550E 545-6235 & 6236

Part 29 Domestic Judge Karen C. Friedman F-3E/124E 396-3836 & 3837

Part 30 Civil Judge Shannon E. Avery*** 406M/408M 545-0115 & 0116

Part 31 Criminal Judge Barry G. Williams 528E/534E 545-3516 & 3517

Part 32 Criminal Judge John Addison Howard 400M/466M 545-0887 & 0888

Part 33 Criminal Judge Videtta A. Brown 201E/205E 410-361-9311&9312

Part 99 Visiting Judge Judge Paul E. Alpert 255E 396-1119

Part 98 Visiting Judge Judge Pamela North 237E 396-8057

Part 97 Visiting Judge Judge Martin P. Welch 317M 396-8352

Part 96 Visiting Judge Judge Dennis McHugh/L. Daniels JJC/Crim & Civil 396-8057

Part 95 Visiting Judge Judge John M. Glynn 508E 396-8057

Part 94 Visiting Judge Judge Carol E. Smith 237E 396-8057

Part 93 Visiting Judge Judge John Carroll Byrnes 253E 545-3423

Part 92 Visiting Judge Judge Kathleen O'Ferrall Friedman 237E 396-8057

Part 91 Visiting Judge Judge M. Brooke Murdock 509M 396-8343

Part 90 Visiting Judge Judge Ellen M. Heller 253E 396-8057

Part 89 Visiting Judge Judge Thomas J. S. Waxter 247E 545-3490

Part 88 Visiting Judge Judge Louis Becker/Robert Dugan 237E 396-8057

Part 87 Visiting Judge Judge Gale Rasin 134M 396-8057

Part 86 Visiting Judge Judges Teaette Price/Marcella Holland JJC/252E 396-8057 / 5-6090

Part 85 Visiting Judge Judge Paul Smith 264E 396-8057

Part 84 Visiting Judge Judge David Young 317M 396-8350

Part 83 Visiting Judge Judge Evelyn Omega Cannon 255E 545-3491

Part 82 Visiting Judge Judge Clifton J. Gordy 237E 396-8057

Part 81 Visiting Judge Judge Joseph P. McCurdy 237E 396-8057

Part 80 Visiting Judge Judge John Miller 237E 396-8057

*** Indicates temporary courtroom/chambers assignment.



Around the OfficesMiles & Stockbridge P.C. is pleased to announce

that Brian L. Moffet recently joined the law firm as a principal in its Commercial & Business Liti-

gation Practice Group. Mr. Moffet’s practice focuses on mort-gage-related litigation, including foreclosures and mortgage servicing, lender-liability claims, arbitration, commercial law, and class action defense. He represents financial institu-tions – from national banks to mortgage lenders and other financial services providers – in federal and state consumer financial services class action litigation and in arbitrations. He has handled a wide variety of lender liability claims aris-ing under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), state unfair and deceptive acts and trade practic-es laws (UDAP), and other federal and state consumer lend-ing statutes and regulations. Mr. Moffet is the former chair of Gordon Feinblatt’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group and a former member of the firm’s Financial Services Practice Group. He earned his J.D. with honors from the University of Baltimore School of Law and his bachelor’s degree from the University of Delaware.

Silverman|Thompson|Slutkin|White is pleased to an-nounce Steven J. Kelly have been elected to the Part-nership at the Firm. Mr. Kelly focuses his practice on

enforcing crime victims’ rights in criminal cases and obtain-ing significant compensation from offenders and third par-ties in civil cases. In criminal cases, he has achieved landmark rulings furthering crime victims’ rights to privacy, protection, and full participation in all aspects of the prosecution. In civil matters, Mr. Kelly has regularly obtained seven-figure judg-ments and settlements in high-profile cases against offenders and third parties.

Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP, is pleased to announce that for the second consecutive year, Maryland Super Lawyers has named Ferrier R. Stillman to its 2016

Top 50 Women Lawyers in Maryland for her family law prac-tice. She regularly negotiates complex separation and property

settlement agreements that involve the valuation and division of assets such as businesses, partnerships, investments, and retirement plans. She often handles cases in which custody, visitation rights, alimony, and child support are in dispute. In cases involving many moving parts and points of contention, Ms. Stillman is an advocate with experience and the resources of a large law firm at her disposal. She is also experienced in premarital and post-marital agreements; pre- and post-di-vorce planning; separation agreements; adoptions; paternity cases; appeals; and mediations. Ms. Stillman has represented same-sex couples for more than two decades. The recognition of same sex marriage by Maryland and then by the U.S. Su-preme Court brought new and unique legal issues to the fore-front. Ms. Stillman helps her clients navigate these challenges.

McGuireWoods Baltimore partner Jennifer J. Stearman has been appointed the Greater Balti-more chair of the 2016 Go Red for Women cam-

paign, the American Heart Association’s nationwide initiative to end heart disease and stroke in women. Ms. Stearman, who has served on the board of visitors of the University of Mary-land Children’s Hospital for 11 years and as its chair from 2011 to 2014, developed a passion for fighting heart disease when she became deeply involved in the hospital’s campaign for pediatric cardiac care. Building on her years of philan-thropy and volunteerism within the healthcare community, in 2014 she was appointed co-chair of AHA’s Circle of Red, a group of women leaders who joined together to support the Go Red campaign.

Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP, recently an-nounced that prominent bankruptcy attorney Nelson C. Cohen has joined the firm as Senior

Counsel in its Bethesda office. With decades of experience in bankruptcy law, Mr. Cohen is experienced representing both debtors and creditors in bankruptcy courts and has negotiated hundreds of workouts. Mr. Cohen concentrates his practice on homebuilding and related fields, including mortgage lend-ing, office and apartment buildings and home furnishings, as

http://www.milesstockbridge.com

http://www.milesstockbridge.com

https://www.mcguirewoods.com/People/S/Jennifer-J-Stearman.aspx

https://www.mcguirewoods.com/People/S/Jennifer-J-Stearman.aspx

https://www.goredforwomen.org/



well as on companies in the hospitality and luxury goods in-dustries. He has represented numerous debtors in complex Chapter 11 reorganizations, served as creditor committee counsel and represented secured creditors in bankruptcy cas-es. He has also represented Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 Trust-ees in virtually all aspects of bankruptcy law.

John H. Denick & Associates, P.A. recently announced that Natalie Krajinovic has joined the Baltimore City law firm as an Associate. Natalie graduated from the Universi-

ty of Baltimore School Of Law with a concentration in Business Law. While in law school, Natalie served as the President for the International Law Society, Comments Editor for the Journal of International Law, and Student Fellow for the Center for Inter-national and Comparative Law. Natalie is a native of Toronto, Canada and currently lives in Baltimore City.

Weinberg & Schwartz, L.L.C. is pleased to an-nounce that Lauren M. Wright recently joined the firm as an Associate. Ms. Wright graduated

Magna Cum Laude from the University of Baltimore School of Law in May 2014. For the first year after law school, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Nancy M. Purpura in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Ms. Wright was admitted to the Maryland Bar in December 2014.

Eric N. Schloss has joined the Law Offices of Lee Saltzberg in Towson where he will continue to prac-tice personal injury law in Maryland, Virginia and

Washington, D.C.

Twenty-three Ober|Kaler attorneys have been selected for the 2016 edition of Maryland Super Lawyers. The selections span twelve categories, with

Ober|Kaler lawyers making an especially strong showing in the Construction Litigation, Estate Planning and Probate, and Health Care categories. Ober|Kaler’s Maryland Super Lawyers are: Kenneth B. Abel (Mergers and Acquisitions); Raymond Daniel Burke (Construction Litigation); Pat-rick K. Cameron (Banking); Kevin A. Dunne (Personal Injury Plaintiff: General); John P. Edgar (Estate Planning & Probate); James E. Edwards, Jr. (Construction Litigation); S. Craig Holden (Health Care); Joseph C. Kovars (Con-struction Litigation); Matthew A. Mace (Estate Planning & Probate); Donald R. Mering (Estate Planning & Probate); John F. Morkan III (Construction Litigation); Howard L. Sollins (Health Care); Paul S. Sugar (Construction Liti-gation); Sanford V. Teplitzky (Health Care); Geoffrey S. Tobias (Transportation/Maritime); M. Hamilton Whitman, Jr. (General Litigation); and John Anthony Wolf (Construc-tion Litigation). Six lawyers were selected as 2016 Maryland Rising Stars: Emily R. Billig (Intellectual Property); Jennifer L. Curry (Employment Litigation: Defense); Christopher C. Dahl (General Litigation); Jack R. Daley (Transportation/Maritime); Kelly M. Preteroti (Estates & Trust Litigation); and Michael A. Schollaert (Construction Litigation).

Brown, Goldstein & Levy is proud to announce that Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum has assumed the role of managing partner. She started her legal

career with the Maryland Office of the Attorney Gener-

Did you know that there is a FREE fee dispute resolution program?

If you are in need of Mediation or Arbitration Call

The Bar Association of Baltimore City 410-539-5936, ext. 112.

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/kenneth-abel

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/raymond-burke

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/patrick-cameron

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/patrick-cameron

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/kevin-dunne

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/john-edgar

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/james-edwards

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/s-holden

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/joseph-kovars

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/matthew-mace

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/donald-mering

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/john-morkan

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/howard-sollins

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/howard-sollins

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/paul-sugar

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/sanford-teplitzky

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/geoffrey-tobias

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/geoffrey-tobias

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/m-whitman

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/m-whitman

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/john-wolf

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/emily-billig

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/jennifer-curry

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/jennifer-curry

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/christopher-dahl

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/christopher-dahl

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/jack-daley

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/kelly-preteroti

http://www.ober.com/attorneys/michael-schollaert



al and began practicing law at Brown, Goldstein & Levy in 2001. She has used her knowledge, experience, and strong and respectful relationships to effectively coun-sel and defend health care providers in actions involving licensure and regulatory compliance. Ms. Krevor-Weis-baum represents non-profit and for-profit entities that provide supports and services to individuals with dis-abilities and the elderly, as well as representing individual health care practitioners before professional disciplinary boards. She has extensive expertise and experience ad-vocating on behalf of children who require special edu-cation and support services, and on behalf of adults who need developmental and mental health services, and will continue to represent clients in all of these areas.

Special Thanks to our Annual Corporate Sponsors

Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.

The Daily Record

Gore Brothers Reporting & Videoconferencing

AMA/Art Miller Court Reporting

DTI Court Reporting Solutions

Byte Right Support

Ellin & Tucker, Chartered

Multi-Specialty Health Care

Joseph I. Rosenberg, CFA, LLC, Mediation and Financial Advisory Services

Special Thanks to our Annual Law Firm Sponsors

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C.

Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl

Ober | Kaler

Gallagher Evelius & Jones, LLP

Goodell, DeVries

Gordon Feinblatt LLC

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Pessin Katz Law, P.A.

Semmes, Bowen & Semmes

Wright, Constable & Skeen, L.L.P.

Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC

Baxter, Baker, Sidle, Conn & Jones, P.A.

Law Offices of Frank F. Daily, P.A.

Fedder & Garten, P.A.

Ferguson, Schetelich, & Ballew, P.A.

Gorman & Williams

Kramon & Graham, P.A.

Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A

Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP

Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC

Saul Ewing LLP

Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, P.A.

Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC

Thomas & Libowitz, P.A.

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP



Name______________________________________________________________________________________________

Firm/Organization____________________________________________________________________________________

Address_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone______________________Fax________________Email_________________Website______________________

Date Admitted to the Court of Appeals of MD (month/year) ________________ Other (state/year)___________________

Date of Birth_____________ Race (optional)___________ Gender (optional)___________________

How did you hear about the BABC___________________________________________________________________________________ Enclosed is my check payable to the Bar Association of Baltimore City in the amount of $____________

Please charge my VISA MC #_____________________________________________Exp. Date:____________ V-Code____________

Name on card_______________________________________________Signature_____________________________________________

Amount authorized for payment $____________ Return with payment to: The Bar Association of Baltimore City Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-539-5936 Fax 410-685-3420 Email [email protected] Visit www.baltimorebar.org

THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE CITY __________________________

ATTORNEY/LAW STUDENT MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Join a Committee! Please indicate the committees on which you are interested in serving in order of preference (1, 2, 3…) Number YLD Committees separately.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Events Membership Young Lawyers’ Division Bench-Bar Family Law Member Benefits Awards Budget & Finance Federal Practice Non-Dues Revenue Bridge-the-Gap Business Law Fee Dispute Resolution Personal Injury Litigation Continuing Legal Education Business Litigation Gov. & Public Interest Lawyers Pro Bono & Access to Legal Services Events Continuing Legal Education Historical Professional Ethics Membership Communications/News Journal Judicial Selections Senior Legal Services Policy & Planning Criminal Law Lawyer Referral & Info. Service Sponsorship Public Education Diversity Legislation Technology Public Relations Estates & Trusts Long Range Planning Workers’ Compensation Public Service Health Law

What is the maximum number of committee appointments you will accept____

For committee descriptions, visit www.baltimorebar.org.

Membership Dues – July 1 through June 30*

Admitted to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (please appropriate box below):

Regular Member Gov/Public Interest Lawyers/Judges Magistrates, Law School Professors

Ten years or more $175 $117 Five years, but less than ten $150 $100 Less than five years $ 75 $ 50 New Admittee $ 0 $ 0 Law Student (must reapply annually) $ 0 $ 0 I would like to make a deductible contribution to the Baltimore Bar Foundation, Inc. (voluntary) $35 $50 $100 Other______________ The Baltimore Bar Foundation awards grants to non-profit organizations for law-related programs and other good works in the community.

* Membership in the BABC is based on your admission date to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Attorneys 37 years or under, or who are admitted to the Bar less than 5 years, as well as law students, are automatically members of the Young Lawyers’ Division. There are no additional dues to be a member of the YLD.. If you join the BABC after January 1, please submit ½ the dues amount. If you join after April 1, submit full amount (this will cover you through the next fiscal year, beginning on July 1).



Name______________________________________________________________________________________________

Firm/Company name__________________________________________________________________________________

Address_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone___________________________Fax________________Email_________________

Website________________________

___I certify that I am an employee of the above named firm/company

Please describe nature of your business ____________________________________________________________________

How did you hear about the BABC Legal Affiliate Membership ______________________________________________________________

I am a: �Court Reporter �Legal Secretary �Paralegal �Legal Administrator �Law Librarian �Legal Assistant � Other (please describe) ___________________________________

Affiliate members must be sponsored by an attorney member of the BABC.

Name of sponsoring member________________________________________________________________________________________

Legal Affiliate Annual Dues: $117

I would like to make a tax deductible contribution to the Baltimore Bar Foundation, Inc. (voluntary) €$35 €$50 € $100 €Other_______ The Baltimore Bar Foundation awards grants to non-‐profit organizations for law-‐related programs and other good works in the community.

Enclosed is my check payable to the Bar Association of Baltimore City in the amount of $____________

Please charge my �VISA � MC #______________________________________________Exp. Date:____________ V-‐Code____________

Name on card________________________________________________________________Signature____________________________

Amount authorized for payment $____________ Return with payment to: The Bar Association of Baltimore City Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-‐539-‐5936 Fax 410-‐685-‐3420 Email [email protected] www.baltimorebar.org

A Legal Affiliate Member is any individual who is not an attorney, but who falls into a particular defined class or profession which is closely associated with the legal system is eligible to be a Legal Affiliate member upon sponsorship by an Attorney member and approval by the Executive Director. Legal Affiliate Membership includes, but is not limited to, Paralegals, Court Reporters, Legal Administrators, Law Librarians, Legal Secretaries and Assistants, Mediators and Arbitrators. A Legal Affiliate member shall be eligible to participate in all committees with the exception of the Standing Committee on Judicial Selections and the Bench Bar Committee. The Legal Affiliate member shall be able to participate in social activities and other activities of the Association, but shall not be entitled to serve as a chair or vice chair of a committee. The Legal Affiliate member shall not be eligible to vote, hold office, or participate as a member of the Lawyer Referral panel.


ANNUAL LEGAL AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Join a Committee! Please indicate the committees on which you are interested in serving in order of preference (1, 2, 3…) �Alternative Dispute Resolution �Family Law �Member Benefits �Business Law �Federal Practice �Non-‐Dues Revenue �Business Litigation �Fee Dispute Resolution �Personal Injury Litigation �Continuing Legal Education �Government/Public Interest Lawyers �Pro Bono & Access to Legal Services �Communications/News Journal �Historical �Professional Ethics �Criminal Law �Lawyer Referral & Information Service �Senior Legal Services �Diversity �Legislation �Sponsorship �Estates & Trusts �Long Range Planning �Technology �Events �Membership �Workers’ Compensation �Health Law



Name________________________________________________________________________________________

Firm/Company Name____________________________________________________________________________

Address______________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone___________________________Fax________________Email_________________

Website________________________

___I certify that I am an employee of the above named firm/company

Please describe nature of your business ___________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

How did you hear about the BABC Business Affiliate Membership_______________________________________

Business Affiliate Annual Dues $300

Additional Business Members (within same organization) $100 per individual Name(s)____________________________________________________________________________________ I would like to make a tax deductible contribution to the Baltimore Bar Foundation, Inc. (voluntary) $35 $50 $100 Other_______ The Baltimore Bar Foundation awards grants to non-profit organizations for law-related programs and other good works in the community. Enclosed is my check payable to the Bar Association of Baltimore City in the amount of $____________

Please charge my VISA MC #______________________________________________Exp. Date:____________ V-Code____________

Name on card________________________________________________________________Signature____________________________

Amount authorized for payment $____________ Return with payment to: The Bar Association of Baltimore City Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-539-5936 Fax 410-685-3420 Email [email protected] www.baltimorebar.org

The BABC is now inviting businesses and organizations who serve attorneys to belong to our organization. This gives you access to over 2,400 local attorneys and their support staff. A Business Affiliate Member is a person who is not an attorney, but through his or her business regularly conducts business or serves an attorney or a government agency in legal related matters is eligible to be a Business Affiliate member upon approval by the Executive Director. A Business Affiliate member shall be eligible to participate in the social and other activities of the Association, but shall not be permitted to join committees nor vote, hold office, or participate as a member of the Lawyer Referral panel.

Benefits include:

City Bar Report - the BABC’s monthly e-news Baltimore Barrister - BABC’s Quarterly News Journal Member rates on advertising in the Baltimore Barrister Member rates on tickets to programs and events Name on BABC Business Affiliate webpage


ANNUAL BUSINESS AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

First right of refusal of BABC event sponsorships Member rates for BABC mailing list Opportunity to become a BABC member benefit provider Opportunity to submit news to the Baltimore Barrister Opportunity to submit a substantive article to the Baltimore

Barrister



Providing excellence and value in insurance and benefi ts services, selected and endorsed by your Bar Associations- for you, for your family, and for your practice.

Through TriBridge Partners, LLC, the Agency analyzes and endorses insurance programs to ensure Bar members have access to high quality insurance products they can purchase with confidence at competitive rates.

• Individual and Group Life Insurance• Individual and Group Disability Income Insurance*• Individual & employer-sponsored long-term care insurance*• Business overhead expense insurance• Group long-term & short-term disability insurance• Group and individual dental plans• Lawyers professional liability insurance• General business owners insurance• Homeowners, Auto, & Umbrella *Discounted rates available to Bar Association Members

TriBridge Partners, LLC : Coordinating Broker

One East Pratt Street | Suite 902 | Baltimore, MD 21202 6550 Rock Spring Drive | Suite 190 | Bethesda, MD 20817 5280 Corporate Drive | Suite C250 | Frederick, MD 21703

38 South Potomac Street | Suite 303 | Hagerstown, MD 21703

240.422.8799 (local) | 855.333.6399 (toll-free) [email protected] (email)

www.mdbarinsurance.com (website)

FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR A LIFETIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE.

Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.

For thePEOPLE

in yourLIFE◦

FINANCIAL SECURITY

for aLIFETIME

Providing excellence and value in insurance and benefits services,selected and endorsed by your Bar Associations- for you, for your family, and for your practice.

• Life insurance• Disability income insurance• Business overhead expense insurance• Group life insurance• Group long-term and short-term

disability insurance• Group and individual dental plans• Individual and employer-sponsored

long-term care insurance• Lawyers professional liability

insurance• General business owners insurance

Through FranklinMorris, a TriBridge Partners, LLC company ,the Agency analyzes and endorses insurance programs to ensure Bar members access to high quality insurance products they can purchase with confidence at discounted rates.

Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.FranklinMorrs, a TriBridge Partners, LLC Company : Coordinating Broker

One East Pratt Street ◦ Suite 902 ◦ Baltimore, Maryland 21202526 Chairmans Court ◦ Suite 101 ◦ Frederick, Maryland 21703

6550 Rock Spring Drive ◦ Suite 190 ◦ Bethesda, Maryland 20817240-422-8799 or toll free 855-333-6399

[email protected] www.mdbarinsurance.com

For thePEOPLE

in yourLIFE◦

FINANCIAL SECURITY

for aLIFETIME

Providing excellence and value in insurance and benefits services,selected and endorsed by your Bar Associations- for you, for your family, and for your practice.

• Life insurance• Disability income insurance• Business overhead expense insurance• Group life insurance• Group long-term and short-term

disability insurance• Group and individual dental plans• Individual and employer-sponsored

long-term care insurance• Lawyers professional liability

insurance• General business owners insurance

Through FranklinMorris, a TriBridge Partners, LLC company ,the Agency analyzes and endorses insurance programs to ensure Bar members access to high quality insurance products they can purchase with confidence at discounted rates.

Bar Associations Insurance Agency, Inc.FranklinMorrs, a TriBridge Partners, LLC Company : Coordinating Broker

One East Pratt Street ◦ Suite 902 ◦ Baltimore, Maryland 21202526 Chairmans Court ◦ Suite 101 ◦ Frederick, Maryland 21703

6550 Rock Spring Drive ◦ Suite 190 ◦ Bethesda, Maryland 20817240-422-8799 or toll free 855-333-6399

[email protected] www.mdbarinsurance.com

www.mdbarinsurance.com



www.gorebrothers.com



C E R T I F I E D P U B L I C A C C O U N T A N T S A N D B U S I N E S S C O N S U L T A N T S

410-727-5735 ETNET.COM BALTIMORE • WASHINGTON • FREDERICK • BELCAMP

We have a long and successful record as advisors to the law firm

community, serving clients from start-ups, to large, regional firms.

Find out how we can bring greater profitability to your firm.

Legal matters can be complex.

So can managing a law firm.

Personal Attention with Professionalism...

YOU DESERVE IT!

Locations in:Baltimore • Towson • Rockville • Annapolis • ColumBia • Washington, D.c.

toll Free: 1.800.837.2285 • Baltimore: 410.494.8300 • Washington: 202.234.8300 • Fax: 410.385.1883www.artmiller.com • [email protected]

Recipients of the Volunteer of the Year Award granted by the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, the 1997 People’s Pro Bono Award by the People’s Pro Bono Action Center, financial sponsors of the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service and the Homeless Person’s Representation

Project, and pro bono court reporting and digital media transcription for needy litigants.

http://etnet.com

http://www.artmiller.com



Searchable categories are:

When Opinions Count, Count On

The Daily Record’s unreported opinions database is essential to your practice because it organizes opinions for easy searching and provides case background, reason summaries,

and any issues presented to the courts.

Visit subscribe.thedailyrecord.com/H5ZBABC or call 800-451-9998 and mention the promo code H5ZBABC .

TheDailyRecord.com/Unreported-OpinionsUseful. Easy to use. All the information on the opinions you care about.

Access to the index is restricted, but you can subscribe today for as little as $15.99 for your first 4 weeks and gain access to our brand new database, along with all of our premium online content, special features, blogs, and public notice database!

•Administrative Law•Civil Litigation•Civil Rights•Criminal Law•Estates and Trusts

•General Business• Intellectual Property•Real Property Law•Taxation Law

http://thedailyrecord.com/Unreported-Opinions



ASSOCIATION DISCOUNTED

LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE

Benefits:

10% Association discount available

to active members, spouses AND

parents, grandparents and children

over age 18

Highly rated Insurance Company.

Skilled assistance by Long Term Care Insurance Specialists.

Increase in rates for new applications could be on horizon, so seize the opportunity now!

To arrange a free consultation to explore your Long Term Care options or other discounted Insurance Programs through the BABC, please contact TriBridge Partners.

Email: [email protected] Phone: 240-422-8799Website: www.mdbarinsurance.com

www.mdbarinsurance.com



Tuesday, February 9, 2016 504 Clarence Mitchell Courthouse

12:30 – 1:30 p.m.

300 Men March Movement Guest Speakers Munir Bahar

Founder, 300 Men March Movement and COR Community Brandon M. Scott

Member, Baltimore City Council _____________________

Thursday, February 18, 2016 504 Clarence Mitchell Courthouse

5:30 – 7:30 p.m.

Literary Reception

Guest Authors Professor Larry S. Gibson

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Leonard Hamm

Former Baltimore City Police Commissioner A. Dwight Pettit, Esquire

Attorney and Author Antero Pietilla

Former Baltimore Sun Reporter and Editorial Writer Janine A. Scott, Esquire

Attorney and Author

____________________

Tuesday, February 23, 2016 504 Clarence Mitchell Courthouse 12:30 – 1:30 p.m.

Charles H. Houston and William H. Murphy, Sr.: How a Baltimore Trial in the 1940’s Changed the

Criminal Law of the Nation Forever Guest Speaker

Professor Jose Anderson University of Baltimore School of Law

______________________________________ The Black History Month Lecture Series and Literary Reception are sponsored by

The Historical Committee of the Bar Association of Baltimore City, Alliance of Black Women Attorneys, Monumental City Bar Association and The Library Company of the Baltimore Bar

Admission is FREE. Limited seating available. Lunch is provided at the February 9 and 23 Lectures, and

light refreshment will be provided at the Literary Reception on February 18.

RSVP to [email protected]

When registering, please indicate which events you will be attending.



http://www.bcba.org



The Baltimore Bar Foundation presents

Gilbert and Sullivan’s Operetta

Trial by Jury Thursday, March 3, 2016

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Westminster Hall

519 W. Fayette Street Pre-Show Reception w/ Cast: 6:00 p.m.

Performance: 7:30 p.m.

Produced by the Young Victorian Theatre Company

Tickets are $45 each and are on sale now at www.baltimorebar.org. If purchasing by check, make check payable to Baltimore Bar Foundation, Inc. and mail to 111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627,

Baltimore, MD 21202. For information, email [email protected], or call 410-539-5936.

TRIAL BY JURY - CAST

The Learned Judge Brian Goodman Usher Thom King Counsel for Plaintiff Peter Tomaszewski Edwin, the Defendant Ben Schuman Jury Foreman Jonathan Biran Angelina Jaely Chamberlain First Bridesmaid Claire Iverson

JURY

Lee Carpenter Ifeanyl Ezeigbo James Miller

Hon. Michael Reed Orbie Shively

Hon. Charles Shubow Tate Tiemann

BRIDESMAIDS

Alisa Antonenko Erica Furguson

Jhanelle Graham Kelly Hughes Iverson

K. Nichole Nesbitt Dawn O’Cronin Lawren Palmer Melodie Rinaldi

GALLERY

Lydie Glynn

Katherine Kelly Howardd Hon. Edward Hargadon

Jeffrey Hochstetler Kendra Randall Jolivet

Singleton Wyche

http://www.baltimorebar.org



Tuesday, March 22, 2016

504 Clarence Mitchell Courthouse 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

“Women’s Legal Status in 18th-Century Maryland: Dependent Wives or Independent Agents?"

Married women in colonial America lived under the legal doctrine of coverture, which meant that wives did not enjoy a legal status

independent of their husbands. Coverture was not the entire story, however. Learn how women enjoyed more rights in practice than they did in legal theory and how both property and equity laws provided women with opportunities for economic autonomy.

Guest Speaker

Amy M. Froide

Associate Professor of History

Affiliate Faculty in Gender and Women's Studies & Language, Literacy, and Culture Ph.D. program

History Department

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Admission is FREE. Limited seating available. Light refreshment will be provided. RSVP to [email protected]

______________________________________

Saturday, March 26, 2016

504 Clarence Mitchell Courthouse 1:00 p.m.

Walking Tour at Green Mount Cemetery Walking Tour - Final Resting Place of Many Famous Women in History

Green Mount Cemetery opened in 1839 as the city’s first urban-rural cemetery. Green Mount is the final resting place of

Johns Hopkins, Mary Elizabeth Garrett, Enoch Pratt, William and Henry Walters, Betsy Patterson Bonaparte, Arunah Abell, Moses Sheppard, Isaac Emerson, Albert Ritchie, Theodore McKeldin, Robert Oliver, Harriett Lane Johnston,

William Henry Rinehart, John H. B. Latrobe, A. Aubrey Bodine, Walter Lord, John Wilkes Booth, and many more. Our Walking Tour will focus on famous women in history.

The length of the tour is approximately one hour and we are limited to 30 participants. Participants need to be able to navigate

the tour independently as we will be walking on paved paths but also through the grass and steps of the grave yard. Wear comfortable shoes and bring your camera! Parking is available inside the cemetery. Enter through the main gate and you will be directed where to

park. The registration fee for the tour is $15. Register now online at www.baltimorebar.org. If you wish to pay by check, make check payable to Bar Association of Baltimore City and send to 111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627, Baltimore, MD 21202.

______________________________________

The Women’s History Month events are sponsored by

The Historical Committee of the Bar Association of Baltimore City Alliance of Black Women Attorneys Monumental City Bar Association

The Library Company of the Baltimore Bar Women’s Bar Association of Maryland




THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE CITY AND BALTIMORE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

ANNUAL JOINT FAMILY LAW DINNER PROGRAM

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Forest Park Golf Course Clubhouse 2900 Hillsdale Road

Baltimore, MD 21207

6:00 p.m. Meet & Greet (Cash Bar) 6:45 p.m. Dinner Program

Marketing and Media Advice to Enhance Your Family Law Practice

Speaker

Randall M. Kessler, Esquire

Kessler & Solomiany Family Law Attorneys

Our guest speaker, Randy Kessler, is a nationally recognized family law attorney from Atlanta, Georgia. In addition to practicing law, Mr. Kessler is an author, professor, and is active in local, state, and national bar associations. He has been often quoted in the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, People Magazine, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated and frequently serves as a guest commentator for CNN, HLN, NBC Today Show, ESPN, Fox Business.com, and other media outlets. He is a LinkedIn “Influencer” with over 180,000 followers. ________________________________________________________________________________

Annual Joint Family Law Dinner Program - Thursday, April 7, 2016

Name(s) ________________________________________________Phone___________Email___________________

Address_________________________________________________City/State/Zip_____________________________

Email___________________________________________________Telephone_______________________________

Menu includes hors d’oeuvres and buffet dinner of Baked Chicken and Tilapia, sides, iced tea, lemonade, and dessert. Registration fees: BABC/BCBA Members ____tickets @ $60

Non-Members: ____tickets @ $70 Total Enclosed $______

Make check payable to Bar Association of Baltimore City and return to 111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, no later than April 1, 2016, or fax to 410-685-3420 (credit card orders only). For information, call 410-539-5936, or email [email protected]. Register online at www.baltimorebar.org. For directions to Forest Park Golf Course, visit http://www.bmgcgolf.com/-forest-park

Please charge my ___ Visa ___ MasterCard

Card # _________________________________________

Security Code__________Expiration _________________

Signature_______________________________________


BALTIMORE - Bar Association of Baltimore City

Documents

Transcript of BALTIMORE - Bar Association of Baltimore City