ÿWPC] (~#ñŸ¶‹Ó"Ãè=ÇG’Q¤‹ÿÆ¥àš ÖûFÞ0‡€ó.§Å”ºa]2^“@ÙK$:îœ>)PNΩŠ¶zIdâ-ò§ÉÝJæj‹UæöÞDfoË‘ŒÙ#CÝöV£Y1€âdÈ~‘j¹g¿:Ti©’§òÈÏï9¾`EàßçÜæ}Í»í=–ADô¤ÍÐLF¸ßÊ`.ãGÜð®n"L_g)éBÎhuáÚ]Y !%¬Oi¹®FTÿ€ûVuŸlûÉéC.˜Ÿøî]b“ÐÔ…² Æ ØR¯”ÈŸ÷à –öQJžØøÜÚíy\ã¨öžß)¦^wÀ°’:6N­îsaôÍÍ×’÷!ÿ·@V³Ý¢0y`/œßÉ¢s[iÚ 2ŠN¶#Õ8]g!oÅX$Ð-E5‘éHŠIÕÂd–†–þJl° >J°ˆÜÓ\¡½=0¹ë8AôÈ,ÁÙàœûÖ—j?É‚ŸWT¶Žbˆ»á^:ÑzRj¶ðÓ1>¾phTï×´ädæŸÇ\AQ.–kË«²º„‡%XÈçãfÍÀôšP•žO{yó¶>¦ÿ›óøu°ˆ,^ FMZA}ë=†ãé«ÜòpÝ£ W*û0ø`·F<U>H~† 0ž 0<¢ 0hÞ 0jF ° 0šÀ #ÁZ U N %i Mo (s N› ^ w© 4­ Á mà  Ú 0¶ç Æ¥ 0ekÆÐ 0e–UFû 0÷A 018 1u8 72­ 0÷ß 0ôÖ 0ôÊ 0ñ¾ 0ñ¯ 0î  0îŽ 1u|U,ñU0 Mô\  `‹&Times New Roman' JULY 2002 BAR EXAMINATION Pat0Pat .   64 'ÿÿ4Heading 1Ô€XXXÔò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  Óó óÔ€XXXÔ<ÿÿ:Default Para6 ÿÿ4Body TextÓ  ÓÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓ< ÿÿ:Body Text InÓ X ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ X Ó#|x(rÅ$¡¡Ô..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ X`UXX XÔÔ€X`UXX X`UÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL$,,,,$0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Xc‘½.â ïsU-ê:i¢×+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒÀF)ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xu XX XÔÔ€Xu XX Xu ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà@üüÊìàò òBoardððs€Analysis€Page€Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú€of€Ú  Ú14Ú  Úó ó(Ž3ÀF$©©Ý ƒÅ!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xo½XX XÔÔ€Xo½XX Xo½ÔÝ  Ý A, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#'æ2Quick A.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Û1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#(v2Quick 1.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Û7ô\  `‹.Times New Roman TUR2M+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó Ôþ ÓÓ X ÓÓ5+4 44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2S+P ÿÿ0_level1Ó Ôþ ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ÜÜÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÓ Ôþ Ó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)2M+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó Ôþ ÓÓ „ ÓÓ5+` ` ` Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2J+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ° ÓÓ2(Œ Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2J+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó Ôþ ÓÓ Ü ÓÓ2(¸ ¸ ¸ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó Ôþ ÓÓ  ÓÓ/%ä ä ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó Ôþ ÓÓ 4 ÓÓ/% <”ìDœôL¤ü!/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ` ÓÓ,"< <<”ìDœôL¤ü!,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó Ôþ ÓÓ Œ ÓÓ,"h hh”ìDœôL¤ü!,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ Ôþ Ó(ÿÿ35=EMU]em1a.)a.)a.)a.)a.)a.)a.)a.)(ô\ Y`‹Symbol2Ͼ¦ `‹CG TimesÿÿPG377Ý ƒÅ!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€ Xu XX XÔÔ€Xu XX Xu ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÖ€ÿÿÖò òFEBRUARY€2003€BAR€EXAMINATIONÐ ° ÐÌBOARDððS€ANALYSISÐ |Ì ÐÌQUESTION€1Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óó óà  àThe€question€asks€for€an€analysis€of€the€"criminal€charges"€that€can€be€brought€against€Lois,Ð  d ÐClark,€Jimmy€or€Megan.€€Maryland€Code,€ðð€10„402(a)(1)€of€the€Court's€and€Judicial€ProceedingsÐ ú J ÐArticle€makes€it€unlawful€for€any€person€to€"(w)Ô_ÔillfullyÔ_Ô€intercept,€endeavor€to€intercept,€or€procureÐ à 0 Ðany€other€person€to€intercept€or€endeavor€to€intercept,€any€wire,€oral,€or€electronic€communicationÐ Æ   Ð[,]"€unless€all€parties€to€the€communication€consent.€€Violation€of€the€Maryland€Wiretap€LawÐ ¬ ü  Ðconstitutes€a€felony,€subject€to€5€years€imprisonment€and/or€a€fine€up€to€$10,000.€€In€2001,€theÐ ’â  ÐMaryland€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòÔ_ÔDeiblerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€365€Md.€185€(2001)€held€that,€"willfulness"€forÐ xÈ  Ðpurposes€of€the€Wiretap€Law,€did€not€require€knowledge€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€that€his€actionsÐ ^®  Ðwere€unlawful,€thus€abrogating€prior€Maryland€law.€€Therefore,€an€interception€that€is€not€otherwiseÐ D”  Ðspecifically€authorized€is€done€"willfully"€if€it€is€done€intentionally€or€purposefully.€€Here,€Lois€wasÐ *z  Ðaware€of€the€fact€that€Jimmy€worked€at€a€surveillance€equipment€store€and€instructed€him€to€"showÐ ` Ðthe€world€what€they're€up€to"€and€thus€solicited€Jimmy€to€violate€the€wire€tap€law.€€Jimmy€followedÐ öF Ðthrough€with€Lois'€instructions€and€therefore€they€both€can€properly€be€charged€with€violatingÐ Ü, ÐMaryland's€wiretap€law€as€co„conspirators€by€recording€the€oral€communications€of€Clark€andÐ Â ÐMegan.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àMegan€and€Clark€may€also€properly€be€charged€with€violating€the€Maryland€Wiretap€law€asÐ tÄ Ðco„conspirators€as€evidenced€by€their€agreement€to€"record€everything€Lois€says."€€The€fact€that€theyÐ Zª Ðwanted€to€use€the€recording€as€evidence€is€not€a€defense.€€Moreover,€the€illegal€recording€would€beÐ @ Ðinadmissible€as€evidence.Ð &v ÐÌà  àMaryland€Code,€ðð€3„903€of€the€Criminal€Law€Article€makes€it€a€misdemeanor€subject€toÐ òB Ðimprisonment€not€exceeding€six€months€and€not€exceeding€$1,000€or€both€for€a€person€to€place€orÐ Ø( Ðprocure€another€to€place€a€camera€on€real€property€where€a€private€residence€is€located€to€conductÐ ¾ Ðdeliberate€surreptitious€observation€of€an€individual€inside€the€private€residence.€€Thus,€as€co„Ð ¤ô Ðconspirators,€Lois€and€Jimmy€may€both€properly€be€charged€with€the€unlawful€camera€surveillanceÐ Š Ú Ðof€Megan€and€Clark.Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àMaryland€Code,€ðð€6„204€of€the€Criminal€Law€Article€makes€it€a€felony€for€any€person€toÐ <#Œ" Ðbreak€and€enter€the€dwelling€of€another€with€the€intent€to€commit€a€crime.€€It€is€reasonable€to€inferÐ "$r# Ðfrom€the€facts€that€Lois€knew€Jimmy€would€have€to€break€and€enter€Megan's€apartment€in€order€toÐ %X $ Ðplace€a€hidden€camera€in€violation€of€the€Wiretap€Law.€€Therefore,€as€co„conspirators,€both€Lois€andÐ î%>!% ÐJimmy€may€properly€be€charged€with€burglary€in€the€3òòrdóó€degree.€Because€violation€of€the€MarylandÐ Ô&$"& ÐWiretap€Law€is€a€felony,€Lois€and€Jimmy€may€also€be€charged€with€common„law€burglary€if€JimmyÐ º' #' Ðbroke€into€Megan's€apartment€at€night.€€Otherwise,€they€may€be€convicted€of€common„law€daytimeÐ  (ð#( Ðhouse€breaking.€€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌà  àJimmy€may€be€charged€with€burglary€in€the€1òòstóó€degree€if€he€had€the€intent€to€steal€Clark'sÐ R+¢&+ Ð$5,000€watch€when€he€broke€into€the€apartment.€€Jimmy€can€properly€be€charged€with€felony€theftÐ 8,ˆ', Ðfor€taking€Clark's€$5,000€watch.€€The€facts€do€not€support€Jimmy's€theft€as€part€of€the€conspiracyÐ ° Ðwith€Lois,€thus,€Lois€should€not€be€charged€with€these€offenses.Ð –æ ÐÌà  àAlthough€Lois€may€be€charged€with€telephone€abuse,€she€may€defend€on€the€basis€that€sheÐ b² Ðmade€only€two€calls€with€the€intent€to€annoy€or€harass€and€as€such,€it€is€insufficient€to€constituteÐ H˜ Ð"repeated€calls"€within€the€meaning€of€the€Statute.€€Whether€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€supportÐ . ~ Ða€conviction€of€telephone€abuse€is€to€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€Similarly,€Lois€may€beÐ  d Ðcharged€with€harassment€if€her€phone€calls€constituted€"a€course€of€conduct"€that€alarmed€orÐ ú J Ðseriously€annoyed€Clark€or€Megan.Ð à 0 ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÔ‡)XIiXXXu ÔÌÔ#†Xu XX)XIiü#Ôò òÌÌÐ  M  Ðà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÌà@’’%ìàQUESTION€2ó óˆÐ |Ì ÐÓ  ÓÌò òDiscussion€of€admissibility€of€Confession:ó óÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àBobððs€extrajudicial€confession€is€admissible€at€trial€against€him€only€if€it€is€(1)€voluntaryÐ  d Ðunder€Maryland€non€constitutional€law;€(2)€voluntary€under€the€due€process€clause€of€the€FourteenthÐ ú J ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€and€Article€22€of€the€Maryland€Declaration€of€Rights,Ð à 0 Ðand;€(3)€elicited€in€conformance€with€the€mandates€of€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€US€436,€86€SupremeÐ Æ   ÐCourt€1602€(1966).€€The€facts€confirm€that€the€police€acted€in€conformity€with€the€requirements€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐMiranda€so€that€issue€need€not€be€addressed.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àOnce€a€confession€is€challenged,€the€State€will€have€the€burden€of€showing€affirmatively€byÐ ^®  Ða€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€confession€was€freely€and€voluntarily€made€and€was€notÐ D”  Ðthe€product€of€a€promise€or€a€threat€at€the€pre„trial€suppression€motion.€€If€there€is€an€issue€ofÐ *z  Ðvoluntariness€at€trial,€it€is€the€Stateððs€burden€to€prove€voluntariness€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€AÐ ` Ðconfession€is€generally€voluntary€if€it€is€freely€and€voluntarily€made€at€a€time€when€the€DefendantÐ öF Ðknew€and€understood€what€he€was€saying€(òòÔ_ÔHoeyÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€311€MD€473,€536€A2d€622€(1988)).€€AÐ Ü, Ðconfession€is€involuntary€if€it€is€induced€by€force,€undue€influence,€improper€promises€or€threats.€Ð  ÐThe€confession€can€be€suppressed€if€the€conduct€of€the€police€has€overborne€the€Defendantððs€willÐ ¨ø Ðto€resist€and€produces€a€statement€that€was€not€freely€self€determined.€€Improper€coercion€can€beÐ ŽÞ Ðphysical€or€psychological.€€Ultimately€the€voluntariness€of€the€statement€turns€on€the€ð ðtotality€of€allÐ tÄ Ðthe€attendant€circumstancesðð€(see€òòÔ_ÔWidnerÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€362€MD€275,€765€A2d€97€(2001)).€€The€factorsÐ Zª Ðrelevant€to€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€standard€include:€€(1)€where€the€interrogation€wasÐ @ Ðconducted,€(2)€its€length,€(3)€who€was€present,€(4)€how€it€was€conducted,€(5)€its€content,€(6)€whetherÐ &v Ðthe€Defendant€was€given€Miranda€warnings,€(7)€the€mental€and€physical€condition€of€the€Defendant,Ð  \ Ð(8)€when€Defendant€was€taken€before€the€Court€Commissioner€following€arrest,€(9)€whetherÐ òB ÐDefendant€was€physically€mistreated,€physically€intimidated€or€psychologically€pressured€(see€òòHofÐ Ø( Ðv.€Stateóó,€337€MD€581,€655€A2d€370€(1995)).€€Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àGenerally,€coercive€police€activity€is€a€necessary€element€to€finding€a€confession€involuntaryÐ Š Ú Ð(see€òòColorado€v.€Ô_ÔConnellyÔ_Ôóó,€479€US€157,€107€Ô_ÔS.CTÔ_Ô€515€(1986)).€€Ð p!À  ÐÌà  àThe€use€of€police€deception€is€a€proper€consideration€in€regard€to€voluntariness€and€aÐ <#Œ" Ðconfession€can€be€suppressed€if€is€the€product€of€excessively€deceptive€conduct.€€The€use€of€trickeryÐ "$r# Ðto€encourage€a€suspect€to€confess,€however,€is€not€inherently€unlawful.€€Use€of€deception€does€notÐ %X $ Ðcompel€suppression,€but€it€is€a€proper€factor€in€determining€voluntariness.Ð î%>!% ÐÌà  àUnder€the€legal€maxims€just€discussed,€primarily€the€Court€will€have€to€determine€if€the€useÐ º' #' Ðof€police€deception€with€reference€to€the€bogus€claim€that€Bobððs€fingerprints€were€found€at€the€crimeÐ  (ð#( Ðscene€(see€òòÔ_ÔFinkeÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€56€MD€App€450,€468€A2d€353€(1983))€and€the€bogus€claim€that€his€semenÐ †)Ö$) Ðwas€found,€which€deception€was€buttressed€by€the€fabrication€of€a€document€(see€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔCaywardÔ_Ôóó,Ð l*¼%* Ð552€SO.2d€971€(Florida€District€Court€of€Appeals€1989)€and€òòArthur€v.€Commonwealthóó,€24òòthóó€VA.Ð R+¢&+ ÐApp.€102,€480€S.E.2d€749€(1997))€compel€a€finding€of€involuntariness.€€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àThe€Court€would€also€have€to€determine€whether€the€police€suggestion€that€Bob€would€beÐ ° Ðð ðbetter€off€if€he€told€the€truthðð€and€that€ð ðif€he€confessed€he€would€get€medical€treatment€instead€ofÐ –æ Ðbeing€locked€upðð€were€sufficient€police€suggestion€to€make€the€statement€involuntary.€€WhereÐ |Ì Ðimproper€promises€or€inducements€are€alleged€to€destroy€voluntariness,€the€Court€requires€a€findingÐ b² Ðboth:€(1)€that€a€police€officer€promised€or€implied€to€Bob€that€he€will€be€given€special€considerationÐ H˜ Ðin€exchange€for€the€confession€and€(2)€that€Bob€made€the€confession€in€apparent€reliance€on€theÐ . ~ Ðpolice€officerððs€statement.€€In€analyzing€this€second€factor,€the€Court€looks€at€intervening€factors,Ð  d Ðsuch€as€the€time€elapsed€between€the€promise/threat€and€the€confession;€who€initiated€the€subsequentÐ ú J Ðinterrogation;€whether€the€confession€was€to€the€same€officer,€etc.€€Basically,€there€needs€to€be€aÐ à 0 Ðcausation€analysis€to€see€if€there€was€a€sufficient€nexus€between€the€promise€and€the€confession€orÐ Æ   Ðin€this€case€the€deception€and€the€confession.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà  àApplying€the€totality€of€circumstances€test,€the€critical€factors€on€the€voluntariness€issueÐ xÈ  Ðunder€the€facts€given€appear€to€be€the€following:€€(a)€Bob€was€a€young€adult€with€limited€educationÐ ^®  Ðand€no€prior€criminal€interrogation€experience,€who€was€not€under€arrest€and€was€properly€givenÐ D”  ÐMiranda€warnings€and€waived€his€rights;€€(b)€Bob€appears€to€have€been€in€police€custody€for€moreÐ *z  Ðthan€7€hours;€€(c)€He€was€given€food,€drink€and€an€opportunity€to€use€the€bathroom;€€(d)€He€was€onlyÐ ` Ðinterviewed€by€one€officer€at€a€time€at€the€police€station.€€(e)€Bob€was€deceived€by€the€police,€butÐ öF Ðthere€is€no€ð ðbright€line€testðð€and€the€facts€suggest€that€the€confession€came€some€eight€€hours€afterÐ Ü, Ðthe€two€deceiving€comments€had€been€made,€such€that€Bobððs€will€was€not€overborne€by€the€phonyÐ Â Ðfingerprint€and€semen€evidence;€€and€(f)€The€improper€verbal€inducement€that€he€might€receiveÐ ¨ø Ðmedical€treatment€instead€of€being€locked€up,€is€the€most€troubling€factor.€€However,€Bob€ended€upÐ ŽÞ Ðconfessing€to€a€different€officer€more€than€1€hour€after€the€improper€oral€inducement.€€It€appears€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€real€issue€in€this€fact€intensive€analysis€is€whether€there€will€be€a€sufficient€nexus€betweenÐ Zª ÐCaptain€Douglasðð€improper€inducing€remark€and€Bobððs€confession€1€hour€later€to€€Lieutenant€Frank.Ð @ ÐÌÐ   \ ÐÑà°ÑÓáúÓà@"ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSISó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òà@’’%ìàQUESTION€3ˆÐ r ÐÌA.€€Papers,€pleadings,€and€defenses€to€be€filed:Ð 4„ ÐÌó óà  àMaryland€Rule€2„121(a)€sets€forth€the€methods€by€which€service€of€process€may€be€made.€Ð ö F ÐOn€the€given€facts,€there€was€no€compliance€with€this€rule.€€Jeff€was€not€personally€served;€no€oneÐ × ' Ðanswered€the€private€process€serverððs€knock€on€the€door;€and€the€summons,€Compliant,€motion,€andÐ ¸  Ðaffidavit€were€not€mailed€to€Jeff.€€€If€a€resident€of€suitable€age€and€discretion€had€responded€to€theÐ ™ é  Ðknock€at€the€door,€service€could€have€been€effected€even€in€Jeffððs€absence.Ð z Ê  ÐÌà  àA€motion€to€dismiss€can€be€filed€under€Maryland€Rule€2„322(a)(4)€for€insufficiency€ofÐ <Œ  Ðservice€of€process.€€This€is€a€mandatory€defense€which€is€waived€if€not€made€before€the€Answer€isÐ m  Ðfiled.Ð þN  ÐÌà  àThe€facts€upon€which€Jeff€would€rely€in€his€motion€are€not€part€of€the€record€or€papers€onÐ À Ðfile€in€the€case€so€Jeff€must€support€his€motion€to€dismiss€by€affidavit€accompanied€by€any€papersÐ ¡ñ Ðon€which€the€affidavit€is€based.€€Maryland€Rule€2„311(d).Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àThe€filing€of€a€motion€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€2„322€would€extend€the€timeÐ D” Ðfor€filing€an€answer€to€the€Complaint€and€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€without€specialÐ %u Ðorder,€to€15€days€after€entry€of€the€Courtððs€order€on€the€motion.€€Maryland€Rule€2„321(C).Ð V ÐÌà  àIf€Jeff€did€not€care€to€challenge€the€service,€an€Answer€could€be€filed€on€his€behalf€pursuantÐ È Ðto€Maryland€Rule€2„323.Ð ©ù ÐÌà  àIf€an€Answer€is€filed,€Jeff€must€also€answer€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€by€MuttÐ k» Ðwith€his€Complaint.€€Jeffððs€response€must€be€accompanied€by€an€affidavit€or€other€statement€underÐ Lœ Ðoath.€€Maryland€Rule€2„501(b).Ð -} ÐÌò òB.€€Response€to€order€for€default:ó óÐ ï? ÐÌà  àJeff€can€file€the€motion€to€dismiss€and€add€to€the€caption€that€it€is€a€motion€to€vacate€theÐ ±!! Ðorder€of€default€as€well.€€His€combined€motion(s)€should€be€filed€within€30€days€after€the€entry€ofÐ ’"â" Ðthe€order€for€default.€€The€mandatory€defenses€to€the€Complaint€would€be€preserved€and€theÐ s#Ã# Ðcombined€motion(s)€would€inform€the€Court€of€the€jurisdictional€and€service€issues€confronting€theÐ T$¤$ Ðorder€of€default€and€the€reasons€for€vacating€that€order.Ð 5%… % ÐÌà  àIf€Jeff€did€not€challenge€the€service€and€filed€an€Answer€instead,€he€should€move€to€vacateÐ ÷&G"' Ðthe€order€for€default€within€30€days€after€its€entry€stating€the€reasons€for€the€failure€to€plead€and€theÐ Ø'(#( Ðlegal€and€factual€basis€for€the€defense€to€the€claim.€Maryland€Rules€2„613(b),€(c),€and€(d).Ð ¹( $) ÐÌò òà@“ “ ìàEXTRACT€SECTIONS€FOR€QUESTION€3ó óˆÐ {*Ë%+ ÐÌò òAnnotated€Code€of€Maryland,€Maryland€Rulesó óÐ =,'- ÐÌò òTITLE€2.€€CIVIL€PROCEDURE€ð!ð€CIRCUIT:€Rule€2„121,€Rule€2„311,€Rule€2„321,€Rule€2„322,Ð ÿ-O)/ ÐRule€2„323,€Rule€2„501,€and€Rule€2„613.ó óÐ  à.0*0 ÐÑXàÑò òÓ3óáúÓà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÌà@’’%ìàQUESTION€4ó óˆÐ d´ ÐÌà@ìàDefamation€ð!ð€public€figure€ð!ð€actual€malice€ð!ð€punitive€and€compensatory€damages€ð!ð€respondeatˆÐ h Ðsuperior€ð!ð€humor€as€defamation.Ð òB ÐÌÓB.` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àA€defamatory€statement€is€a€false€statement€about€another€person€that€exposes€that€personÐ ¦ ö Ðto€public€scorn,€hatred,€contempt,€or€ridicule,€thereby€discouraging€others€from€having€a€goodÐ € Ð Ðopinion€of,€or€from€associating€or€dealing€with€that€person.€€(MPJI€12:1€ð!ð€Defamation).€€When€theÐ Z ª  Ðstatement€is€made€about€a€public€figure,€it€is€defamatory€only€if€made€with€actual€malice.€€ActualÐ 4 „  Ðmalice€is€defined€as€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€statement€was€made€with€knowledge€thatÐ ^  Ðit€was€false€or€with€reckless€disregard€of€whether€it€was€false€or€not.€€òòNew€York€Times.€Sullivan,€376Ð è8  ÐU.S.€254€(1964).Ð Â  ÐÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#‹X(#HÓÌÓE.` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°ŒX(#EÓóóà  àWhether€a€statement€is€capable€of€being€defamatory€is€a€question€of€law€for€the€court€toÐ vÆ  Ðdecide,€however,€once€a€statement€is€found€by€the€court€to€be€capable€of€both€defamatory€and€non„Ð P   Ðdefamatory€meanings,€it€is€for€the€jury€to€decide€whether€it€is€a€harmless€joke€or€a€harmful€injuryÐ *z Ðto€reputation.€€òòEmbry€v.€Holly.€48€Md.€App€571,€affððd€in€part,€revððd€in€part€293€Md.€128.€óó€If€foundÐ T Ðto€be€mere€humor,€even€in€bad€taste,€damages€will€not€be€awarded.€€The€intent€of€the€defendant€inÐ Þ. Ðmaking€the€statement€is€irrelevant€to€this€issue€as€the€test€is€not€the€intent€of€the€person€but€ratherÐ ¸ Ðhow€others€reasonably€understood€the€joke.€€òòEmbry€v.€Holly,€supra.óó€€Ð ’â ÐÌà  àThe€trier€of€fact€also€decides€whether€the€statement€was€made€with€reckless€disregard€of€itsÐ F– Ðtruth€or€falsity,€or€with€actual€knowledge€that€the€statement€was€false.€€The€trier€of€fact€€can€awardÐ  p Ðcompensatory€damages€for€damage€to€oneððs€reputation,€as€well€as€special€damages€for€out„of„pocketÐ úJ Ðloss€or€emotional€distress.€€Furthermore,€punitive€damages€are€allowed€if€the€defendant€had€actualÐ Ô$ Ðknowledge€the€statement€was€false.€ð ðReckless€disregardðð€or€ð ðreckless€indifferenceðð€as€to€whetherÐ ®þ Ða€defamatory€statement€is€true€or€false€has€been€rejected€as€a€standard€for€an€award€of€punitiveÐ ˆØ Ðdamages€in€Maryland.€€òòLe€Marcððs€v.€Valentin,óó€349€Md.€645,€709A.€2d,€222€(1998).Ð b² ÐÌà  àAs€Lester€is€a€public€figure,€he€would€have€to€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€thatÐ f ÐZookeeper€acted€with€actual€malice,€i.e.€he€knew€that€Lester€was€not€a€child€molester.€€It€is€likelyÐ ð@  Ðthat€Lester€will€sustain€his€burden€of€proof€based€upon€the€fact€that€Zookeeper€did€not€believe€LesterÐ Ê ! Ðwas€involved€in€child€molestation.€€Thus,€a€jury€could€award€Lester€both€compensatory€and€punitiveÐ ¤!ô" Ðdamages€in€this€case.Ð ~"Î# ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€Radio,€Inc.,€generally,€an€employer€is€liable€for€the€tortious€acts€of€itsÐ 2$‚% Ðemployee.€€This€includes€punitive€damages€when€the€employee€acts€within€the€scope€of€hisÐ  %\ & Ðemployment€and€with€knowledge€of€falsity.€€However,€punitive€damages€may€be€apportionedÐ æ%6!' Ðbetween€the€parties,€depending€upon€the€degree€of€culpability€and€pecuniary€status€of€each.€€òòEmbryÐ À&"( Ðv.€Holly,€293€MD.€128,€442€A.€2d.966€(1982).Ð š'ê") ÐÌóóà  àZookeeper€and€Radio,€Inc.€will€argue€the€statement€was€not€defamatory€as€it€was€meant€toÐ N)ž$+ Ðbe€humorous.€€They€will€argue€that€a€reasonable€person€would€not€perceive€the€comment€to€beÐ (*x%, Ðtruthful€and€would€understand€that€it€was€said€in€jest.Ð +R&- ÐÌà  àRadio,€Inc.€also€may€argue€that€punitive€damages€should€not€be€awarded€against€it€becauseÐ ¶,(/ Ðit€did€not€authorize,€participate€in€or€ratify€Zookeeperððs€defamatory€acts.€òòSee€Rest.€2òòndóó€Torts,€ðð909Ð -à(0 Ð(1979).€€óóThe€Restatement€test€has€not€been€adopted€in€Maryland.€€See€dissent€in€òòòòEmbry,óó€supra.óóÐ  j.º)1 Ðò òÓî3óÓà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà@’’%ìàò òQUESTION€5ˆÐ Zª ÐòòÌó óóóDefamation€ð!ð€Third€Party€Statements€ð!ð€Hearsay€Exception€ð!ð€Character€Evidence€ð!ð€Evidence€ofÐ T ÐFinancial€AbilityÐ Ù) ÐÓH.` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#‹X(#HÓÌÓ  ÓÓîÓò òòòPART€AÐ ƒ Ó ÐÓ  ÓÓH.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#‹X(#HÓÓÓó óóóà  àThe€trial€court€should€overrule€defense€counselsðð€objection.€€The€substance€of€the€anonymousÐ O Ÿ  Ðtelephone€calls€is€hearsay.€€But€in€defamation€cases,€statements€made€by€third€persons€in€reactionÐ 5 …  Ðto€the€alleged€defamatory€comment€are€admissible€under€the€state„of„mind€exception€to€the€hearsayÐ k  Ðrule.€€òòEmbry€v.€Holly,€supra,€429€A.2d€at€268.óó€€The€evidence€is€offered,€not€for€its€truth,€but€toÐ Q  Ðdemonstrate€the€extent€and€effect€of€the€publication€by€establishing€that€there€were€people€whoÐ ç7  Ðbelieved€Zookeeperððs€remark€to€be€true€and€not€a€joke.€€Consequently,€it€is€not€ð ðhearsayðð€under€theÐ Í  Ðdefinition€provided€in€Rule€5„801(c).Ð ³  ÐÌà  àNOTE:€€Answers€reaching€the€opposite€conclusion€may€receive€equal€credit€so€long€as€theÐ Ï Ðhearsay€rule€and€the€state„of„mind€exception€are€referenced€and€discussed.Ð eµ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòPART€BÐ 1 ÐÌÓ  Óó óóóà  àThe€trial€court€should€overrule€the€objection€and€allow€the€testimony.Ð ýM Ðà  àÌà  àIn€general,€evidence€of€a€personððs€character€or€trait€of€character€is€not€admissible€for€theÐ É Ðpurpose€of€proving€action€in€conformity€therewith€as€to€a€particular€occurrence.€€Rule€5„404(a).€€ButÐ ¯ÿ Ðin€cases€in€which€character€or€trait€of€character€of€a€person€is€an€essential€element€of€að8ð.claim,Ð •å Ðproof€may€also€be€made€of€specific€instances€of€that€personððs€conduct.ðð€Rule€5„405(b).Ð {Ë ÐÌà  àIn€this€defamation€case,€Lester€is€seeking€damages€for€injury€to€his€reputation.€€LesterððsÐ G— Ðcharacter€and€reputation€are€an€essential€element€of€his€claim.€€Hence,€proof€of€reputation,€both€byÐ -} Ðopinion€and€by€proof€of€relevant€specific€instances€of€Lesterððs€conduct,€is€admissible.€€Rule€5„405.Ð  c ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòPART€CÐ ß!/! ÐÌÓ  Óó óóóà  àThe€trial€court€should€admit€the€letter,€but€redact€the€sentence€relating€to€the€$1,000€check.Ð «#û# Ðà  àÌà  àStatements€made€in€compromise€negotiations€are€not€admissible€to€prove€the€validity€orÐ w%Ç % Ðamount€of€a€civil€claim€in€dispute.€€Furnishing€or€offering€to€furnish€a€valuable€consideration€for€theÐ ]&­!& Ðpurpose€of€compromising€or€attempting€to€compromise€the€claim,€likewise€is€inadmissible.€€RuleÐ C'“"' Ð5„408(a)Ð )(y#( ÐÌà  àOn€the€other€hand,€the€statementððs€of€Radio,€Inc.ððs€President€that€Zookeeperððs€remark€wasÐ õ)E%* Ðð ðoutrageous€and€untrueðð€is€admissible€as€an€admission€against€interest€by€Radio,€Inc.,€a€party„Ð Û*+&+ Ðopponent.€€Rule€5„803(a).Ð Á+', ÐÌà  àThe€jury€should€be€allowed€to€consider€that€portion€of€Radio,€Inc.ððs€letter€which€isÐ -Ý(. Ðadmissible,€but€not€the€portion€relating€to€settlement.Ð  s.Ã)/ ÐѰXÑò òÔ‡Xu XXXu ÔÓ3óÓà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌó óà@’’%ìàò òQUESTION€6ó óˆÐ d´ ÐÓE.4Ü44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°°ŒX(#EÓÓ  Óà  àÌà  àMary€and€Sara€can€show€danger€of€substantial€injury€from€the€operation€of€the€laws€andÐ h Ðtherefore€have€standing€to€challenge€each.€€Both€sisters€may€argue€that€the€laws€violate€the€EqualÐ òB ÐProtection€Clause€found€in€the€14òòthóó€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€The€facts€indicateÐ Ì  Ðthat€both€sisters€are€presently€residing€within€the€United€States€but€are€treated€differently€fromÐ ¦ ö ÐMaryland€residents€born€in€the€United€States.€€Mary€will€argue€there€is€no€rational€basis€for€theÐ € Ð Ðdisparate€treatment€since€any€United€States€born€citizen€is€allowed€to€freely€enroll,€and€personsÐ Z ª  Ðwithin€this€group€are€just€as€likely€as€Mary€to€be€terrorists.€€€€Sara€will€argue€there€is€no€rational€basisÐ 4 „  Ðfor€the€disparate€treatment€since€the€law€excludes€all€vehicles€that€are€registered€in€Maryland€andÐ ^  Ðalso€excludes€vehicles€under€5,000€pounds€regardless€of€registration,€without€any€reasonable€basisÐ è8  Ðto€assume€that€such€exclusions€will€promote€safety.à  àÐ Â  Ðà  àÌà  àSara€could€argue€that€the€law€is€violative€of€the€Privileges€and€Immunities€Clause€of€the€14òòthóóÐ vÆ  ÐAmendment,€and€the€right€to€travel€guaranteed€thereby,€since€burdens€are€placed€upon€certain€out„Ð P   Ðof„State€vehicles€and,€as€noted€òòsupra,óó€no€substantial€reason€exists€for€the€discrimination.€€òòSeeóó,€òòSaenzÐ *z Ðv.€Roeóó,€526€U.S.€489,€501€€(1999)€(ð ð[B]y€virtue€of€a€personððs€state€citizenship,€a€citizen€of€one€StateÐ T Ðwho€travels€in€other€States,€intending€to€return€home€at€the€end€of€his€journey,€is€entitled€to€enjoyÐ Þ. Ðthe€ððPrivileges€and€Immunities€of€Citizens€in€the€several€Statesðð€that€he€visits.ð ð)Ð ¸ ÐÓK.ÜÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4Ü44ŠXü!KÓÌÓH.4Ü44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜÜ‹Xü!HÓ€à  àÐ l¼ Ѐà  àArticle€I,€Section€8,€of€the€United€States€Constitution€empowers€Congress€to€regulateÐ F– Ðinterstate€commerce.€€The€State€may€not€burden€or€obstruct€interstate€commerce.€€Sara€Lawson€mayÐ  p Ðargue€that€the€law€does€just€that€since€it€requires€an€out„of„State€business,€such€as€hers,€to€eitherÐ úJ Ðð ðregisterðð€before€it€can€enter€Maryland,€or€have€its€trucks€undergo€numerous€stops€while€travelingÐ Ô$ Ðtherein.Ð ®þ ÐÓK.ÜÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4Ü44ŠXü!KÓÌÓH.4Ü44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜÜ‹Xü!HÓ€à  àThe€State€law€concerning€school€registration€may€be€challenged€on€the€grounds€that€it€isÐ b² Ðunconstitutionally€over€broad€or€under€inclusive,€and€vague.€In€an€attempt€to€make€the€State€ð ðsafeðð,Ð <Œ Ðcitizens€are€required€to€go€through€an€undefined€security€process€òòif€they€were€born€in€anotherÐ f Ðcountry,óó€while€citizens€born€in€America€can€attend€the€State€school.€€The€law€concerning€vehicleÐ ð@  Ðregistration€is€under€inclusive€since€thereððs€no€reason€to€assume€that€vehicles€under€5,000€poundsÐ Ê ! Ðcould€not€be€used€in€an€act€of€terrorism€and€over€broad€in€that€there€has€to€be€a€more€narrowlyÐ ¤!ô" Ðtailored€means€to€achieve€the€goal€of€safety€than€to€require€out„of„State€vehicles€to€pull€over€at€everyÐ ~"Î# Ðweigh€station€passed.€€€ò òÐ X#¨$ ÐÓK.ÜÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4Ü44ŠXü!KÓó óÌÓH.4Ü44Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜÜ‹Xü!HÓÔ#†Xu XXXu ³_#Ôà  àFinally,€tÔ‡Xu XXXu Ôhe€federal€law€arguably€preempts€the€State€from€enacting€its€legislation.€€Article€VIÐ  %\ & Ðof€the€United€States€Constitution€(the€Supremacy€Clause)€notes€that€the€ð ðConstitution€and€the€LawsÐ æ%6!' Ðof€the€United€States€which€shall€be€made€in€pursuance€thereof€.€.€.€shall€be€the€supreme€Law€of€theÐ À&"( ÐLand€.€.€.€.ðð€€€A€federal€statute€preempts€State€law€when€it€is€clear€that€Congress€intended€the€federalÐ š'ê") Ðlaw€to€occupy€a€field€exclusively€or€when€the€state€law€is€in€actual€conflict€with€the€federal€law.€Ð t(Ä#* ÐWhile€the€Federal€Homeland€Security€Law€does€not€expressly€pre„empt€the€State€from€enacting€itsÐ N)ž$+ Ðown€legislation,€an€argument€could€be€made€that€the€State€laws€are€too€restrictive€in€that€theyÐ (*x%, Ðprohibit€that€which€the€federal€law€would€allow,€and€therefore€conflict€with€the€federal€Ô_Ôlaw.Ð  +R&- Ðò òÔ#†Xu XXXu øo#ÔÔ‡ Xu XXXu Ôà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÌà@’’%ìàQUESTION€7ˆÐ d´ ÐÌó óà0  àThere€are€two€inter„related€theories€which€can€be€of€assistance€to€the€Smiths.Ðh(#(# ÐÌà  àFirst,€Maryland€recognizes€a€ð ðprescriptive€easementðð€theory€for€creating€public€roads.€€AÐ Ì  Ðpublic€road€will€arise€if€a€landowner€has€no€intention€of€offering€his€property€for€dedication€to€publicÐ ¦ ö Ðuse,€but€he€allows€the€public€to€use€his€land€as€a€road,€and€the€public€does€use€the€road€in€anÐ € Ð Ðuninterrupted€manner€for€twenty€years.€€òòGarrett€v.€Grayóó,€258€Md.€363€(1970):Ð Z ª  ÐÌà8  àð ðIn€òòThomas€v.óó€òòFord,óó€63€Md.€346,€Chief€Judge€Ô_ÔAlveyÔ_Ô€for€the€Court€said€.€.€.€`It€isÐ ^  Ðcertainly€a€settled€doctrine€in€this€State€that€public€roads€or€ways€of€any€kind€canÐ è8  Ðonly€be€established€by€public€authority,€or€by€dedication,€or€by€long€use€by€theÐ Â  Ðpublic,€which,€though€not€strictly€prescription,€yet€bears€so€close€an€analogy€to€it€thatÐ œì  Ðit€is€not€inappropriate€to€apply€to€the€right€thus€acquired€the€term€prescriptive.€HenceÐ vÆ  Ðthe€existence€Ô% ‡; Ôof€a€public€way€may€be€established€by€evidence€of€an€uninterrupted€useÐ P   Ðby€the€public€for€twenty€years;€the€presumption€being€that€such€long€continued€useÐ *z Ðand€enjoyment€by€the€public€of€such€way€had€a€legal€rather€than€an€illegal€origin.ððÐ T ÐòòId.óó,€376,€377.€Ô%†;8yÔÐÞ.Ð Ð  ÐÓK.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#4Ü44ŠXü!KÓÌà  àIn€addition,€the€Smiths€can€allege€that€they€have€acquired€a€private€right€to€use€the€farm€roadÐ ’â Ðby€the€doctrine€of€prescriptive€easement.€€That€doctrine€involves€proof€that€the€Smiths€had€used€theÐ l¼ Ðroad€for€more€than€twenty€years€in€an€adverse,€exclusive€and€uninterrupted€manner.€€See€e.g.Ð F– ÐòòClayton€v.€Jensenóó,€240€Md.€337€(1965).€€The€use€of€the€roadway€by€the€Smithsðð€predecessorððs„in„Ð  p Ðtitle,€the€Jonesðð,€can€be€ð ðtackedðð€to€the€period€of€use€by€the€Smiths€to€reach€the€required€twenty€yearÐ úJ Ðminimum€period.€€òòÔ_ÔZehnerÔ_Ô€v.€Finkóó,€19€Md.€App.€338€(1973).Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àThe€facts€do€not€clearly€support€a€prescriptive€easement€claim.€€The€Smiths€have€used€theÐ ˆØ Ðroad€in€a€manner€to€establish€a€prescriptive€easement€for€16€years.€€The€fact€that€Owings€was€theirÐ b² Ðfriend€does€not€change€the€adverse€nature€of€their€use€„€the€concept€of€ð ðadversityðð€pertains€not€to€theÐ <Œ Ðrelationship€between€the€parties€but€to€whether€or€not€the€use€is€consistent€with€fee€simple€ownershipÐ f Ðof€the€property€over€which€the€road€passes.€€To€establish€a€prescriptive€easement,€the€Smiths€mustÐ ð@  Ðshow€20€years€of€such€use.€€Other€than€Joe€Jonesðð€use€of€the€road€for€two€years€while€he€was€a€highÐ Ê ! Ðschool€student,€the€Jonesðð€use€of€the€road€was€only€occasional.€€In€addition,€Joeððs€use€occurred€inÐ ¤!ô" Ð1973€and€1974€„€eleven€years€before€the€Smiths€acquired€the€farm.€€It€is€unlikely€that€a€court€wouldÐ ~"Î# Ðview€the€Jonesðð€use€of€the€road€as€being€continuous€in€relationship€to€the€Smith€use.€€Thus,€theÐ X#¨$ ÐSmiths€will€be€unable€to€show€20€years€of€continuous€use.Ð 2$‚% ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€prove€that€the€road€is€a€public€one,€it€will€need€to€be€determined€whether€thereÐ æ%6!' Ðhas€been€uninterrupted€use€of€this€road€by€the€public€for€twenty€years.€€The€road€need€not€have€beenÐ À&"( Ðheavily€traveled€by€the€public€as€long€as€the€members€of€the€public€passed€over€it€freely€withoutÐ š'ê") Ðseeking€the€permission€of€the€owners.€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Jones€can€testify€that€the€road€was€used€byÐ t(Ä#* Ðneighboring€families€for€a€period€in€excess€of€20€years.€€A€court€might€well€find€that€a€public€roadÐ N)ž$+ Ðwas€established€by€prescription€in€the€1950ððs€and€1960ððs.€€The€Smiths€used€the€road€since€1985.€Ð (*x%, ÐThis€fact€indicates€that€no€attempt€was€made€to€close€the€road€until€the€Grayððs€recent€action.€Ð  +R&- ÐÑH°ÑÑh°Ñò òÓõè3óÓà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ H ÐÌà@’’%ìàQUESTION€8ó óˆÐ ê¢ ÐÌà@‰‰ ìàTheories€of€RecoveryˆÐ ŒD ÐÌà  àWithout€an€express€agreement€regarding€payment,€the€hospitalððs€attorney€will€need€to€useÐ .æ Ða€òòquantum€Ô_ÔmeruitÔ_Ôóó€theory€of€recovery.€€A€òòquantum€Ô_ÔmeruitÔ_Ôóó€recovery€refers€either€to€an€implied„in„factÐ ÿ· Ðcontractual€duty,€or€an€implied€in€law€duty,€requiring€compensation€for€services€rendered.€€òòCarolineÐ Ð ˆ ÐCounty€v.€Dashiellóó,€258€Md.€83€(2000)òò;€Ô_ÔMogaveroÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSilversteinÔ_Ôóó,€142€Md.€App.€259€(2002).€€AnÐ ¡ Y  Ðimplied€in€fact€contract€is€inferred€from€the€conduct€of€the€parties.€€òòDashiellóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòÔ_ÔSilversteinÔ_Ôóó,Ð r *  Ðòòsupraóó.€€Contracts€implied€by€law,€commonly€called€ð ðquasi„contractsðð,€are€not€based€on€the€intentionÐ C û  Ðor€consent€of€the€parties,€nor€are€they€€promises;€they€are€obligations€created€by€law€for€reasons€ofÐ  Ì  Ðjustice€and€equity.€€òòDashiellóó,€supra.€€Ð å  ÐÌà  àCindy€was€unconscious€when€she€arrived€at€the€hospital€and€therefore€her€intentions€cannotÐ ‡?  Ðbe€ascertained.€€Therefore€there€is€not€a€contract€implied€in€fact.€€However€the€attorney€couldÐ X  Ðsuccessfully€claim€that€a€quasi„contract€was€created,€obligating€her€to€pay€the€$75,000,€in€order€toÐ )á  Ðprevent€the€injustice€of€the€hospital€performing€services€that€benefitted€Cindy€without€compensation.Ð ú² ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€the€hospitalððs€attorney€could€successfully€use€the€doctrine€of€ð ðunjust€enrichmentððÐ œT Ðas€a€basis€of€recovery.€€Maryland€courts€have€set€forth€the€following€three€elements€that€must€beÐ m% Ðestablished€to€successfully€bring€a€claim€based€on€unjust€enrichment:Ð >ö ÐÌÓ€ '(ÿÿ43ÓÓ XÓÓ<(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°°X<ÓÓ ¨ýÓà  àÔ2 ÿÿ ÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà ` àA€benefit€conferred€upon€the€defendant€by€the€plaintiff;Ð à˜ ÐÐ ±i ÐÓ<(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!44‹X<Óà  à2.à ` àAn€appreciation€or€knowledge€by€the€defendant€of€the€benefit;€andÐ ‚: ÐÐ S  ÐÓ<(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!44‹X<Óà  à3.à0 ` àThe€acceptance€or€retention€by€the€defendant€of€the€benefit€under€such€circumstancesÐ $Ü Ðas€to€make€it€inequitable€for€the€defendant€to€retain€the€benefit€without€payment€ofÐ õ­ Ðits€value.€€òòDashiellóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòÔ_ÔBeryÔ_Ô€&€Gould€v.€Berryóó,€360€Md.€142€(2002);€òòÔ_ÔEverhartÔ_Ô€v.Ð Æ~ ÐMilesóó,€47€Md.€App.€131€(1980).ЗO` (#` (# ÐÐ h   ÐÓ ¨ýÓÓ XÓÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!44‹X?Óà  àThe€treatment€of€Cindyððs€injuries€and€her€full€recovery€was€a€benefit€she€received€from€theÐ 9ñ! Ðhospital,€and€Cindy€is€aware€of€this€benefit.€€It€would€be€inequitable€for€Cindy€to€receive€such€aÐ  Â" Ðbenefit€without€payment€of€its€value€to€the€provider€of€those€benefits.Ð Û“# ÐÌÓ  ÓPossible€Defenses€Against€RecoveryÐ }!5% ÐÓŠ”ÓÌà  àCindy€was€a€minor€when€the€services€were€rendered.€€In€Maryland,€the€contractualÐ #×' Ðobligations€of€minors€are€voidable,€giving€the€child€the€choice€of€avoiding€the€contract€or€performingÐ ð#¨ ( Ðit.€€òòSchmidt€v.€Prince€Georgeððs€Hospitalóó,€366€Md.€535€(2001).€€Therefore,€Cindy€could€declare€theÐ Á$y!) Ðimplied€agreement€or€quasi„contract€to€pay€the€hospital€for€treatment€of€her€injuries€void,€evenÐ ’%J"* Ðthough€she€now€is€an€adult.€€òòSee,óó€òòSchmidtóó,€òòsupraóó.€€This€defense,€however€is€likely€to€fail€becauseÐ c&#+ ÐMaryland€recognizes€the€ð ðdoctrine€of€necessariesðð.€€òòSchmidtóó,€supra,€òòÔ_ÔGarayÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔOverholtzerÔ_Ôóó,€332€Md.Ð 4'ì#, Ð339€(1993).€€Under€the€doctrine€of€€necessaries,€a€minor€may€be€liable€for€the€value€of€necessariesÐ (½$- Ðfurnished€to€her.€€Cindyððs€injuries€rendered€her€unconscious,€and€her€injuries€were€severe€enoughÐ Ö(Ž%. Ðto€cause€the€physicians€to€render€treatment€without€any€agreement€regarding€payment.€€Therefore,Ð §)_&/ Ðit€would€be€difficult€for€Cindy€to€argue€successfully€that€the€medical€treatment€she€received€was€notÐ x*0'0 Ðnecessary.Ð I+(1 ÐÌà  àFinally,€Cindy€could€argue€that€the€amount€of€the€bill€is€unreasonable,€or€exceeds€the€valueÐ ë,£)3 Ðof€the€services€rendered.€€Cindy€only€will€prevail€on€this€argument€if€she€can€show€that€the€chargesÐ ¼-t*4 Ðare€more€than€those€customarily€charged€by€other€hospitals€for€performing€the€same€or€similarÐ .E+5 Ðservices.€Ð  ^/,6 ÐѰHÑѰhÑà@"ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSISó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òÔ#†Xu XX Xu üs#Ôà@’’%ìàQUESTION€9ˆÐ R¢ ÐÌó óà  àSections€4„406(c)€and€(d)€of€the€Maryland€Commercial€Law€Article€require€a€customer€toÐ ôD Ðpromptly€notify€the€bank€of€any€unauthorized€payments.€€Section€4„406(d)€gives€the€customer€aÐ Å Ðreasonable€amount€of€time€(arguably€at€least€30€days)€to€examine€the€statement.€€However,€SectionÐ – æ Ð4„103(a)€allows€for€the€provisions€of€Title€4€to€be€varied€by€agreement,€so€long€as€the€agreementÐ g · Ðdoes€not€disclaim€a€bank's€responsibility€for€its€lack€of€good€faith€or€failure€to€exercise€ordinary€care.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThus,€because€Small€Co.€was€required€under€the€Deposit€and€Disclosure€agreement€to€give€writtenÐ  Y  Ðnotice€within€15€days,€it€may€be€precluded€from€recovering€from€the€bank€on€the€May€and€JuneÐ Ú *  Ðchecks€because€notice€was€not€timely€given.€€Although€notice€was€timely€given€on€the€August€check,Ð « û  Ðit€was€reported€more€than€15€or€30€days€after€the€first€unauthorized€transaction€should€have€beenÐ |Ì  Ðreported€(June€18„20).€€Therefore,€because€the€August€transaction€was€a€result€of€the€sameÐ M  Ðwrongdoer,€Slick,€Small€Co.€may€also€be€precluded€from€recovering€against€the€bank€under€SectionÐ n  Ð4„406(d)(2).€€The€bank's€defenses€under€4„406€and€the€Deposit€Agreement€are€still€subject€to€theÐ ï?  Ðrequirement€that€the€bank€exercised€ordinary€care€in€paying€the€item.€€If€Small€Co.€can€prove€thatÐ À  Ðthe€bank€failed€to€exercise€ordinary€care,€such€as€paying€a€salary€check€when€Small€Co.€never€paidÐ ‘á  Ðsalaries€on€the€business€account,€then€the€loss€will€be€allocated€between€the€parties.€€Whether€theÐ b² Ðbank€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€is€generally€an€issue€for€the€trier€of€fact.Ô‡ Xu XXXu ÔÐ 3ƒ ÐÌà@“ “ ìàò òEXTRACT€SECTIONS€FOR€QUESTION€9ó óˆÐ Õ% ÐÌò òAnnotated€Code€of€Maryland,€Commercial€Law€ArticleÐ wÇ ÐÌTitle€4.€BANK€DEPOSITS€AND€COLLECTIONS:€€ðð4„103(a);€ðð4„406(c),€(d),€and€(e)ó óÐ  i Ðò òÔ#†Xu XX Xu Š£#Ôà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÌà@``%ìàQUESTION€10ˆÐ R¢ ÐÓ  Óó óÌÓ  Óà  àPreliminarily,€as€counsel€to€multiple€clients€you€must€evaluate€whether€a€Ô_ÔnonwaivableÔ_ÔÐ ôD Ðconflict€of€interest€precludes€your€representation€under€the€Rule€1.7€of€the€Rules€of€ProfessionalÐ Å ÐConduct.€€If€the€conflict€is€Ô_ÔwaivableÔ_Ô,€then€representation€can€be€undertaken€with€the€consent€of€allÐ – æ Ðclients€after€consultation.Ð g · ÐÌà  àCharles€can€raise€any€number€of€causes€of€action€grounded€in€traditional€businessÐ  Y  Ðassociations€law,€contract€and€equity.€€However,€in€analyzing€any€complaint€the€Court€must€considerÐ Ú *  Ðthe€following€issues,€which€are€determinative€of€any€liability.Ð « û  ÐÌà  àDid€the€operative€formation€documents€or€Maryland€Law€authorize€the€Board€to€take€theÐ M  Ðactions€challenged€by€Charles?Ð n  ÐÌà  àIf€the€Board€or€the€Members€were€empowered€to€act,€by€what€standard€should€the€courtÐ À  Ðreview€the€Boardððs€exercise€of€that€power?Ð ‘á  ÐÌà  àDid€the€Board€meet€the€appropriate€standard?Ð 3ƒ ÐÌÓ XÓGenerally,€the€Business€Judgment€Rule€does€not€apply€to€limited€liability€companies.€Ð Õ% ÐHowever,€because€Kegððs€Operating€Agreement€requires€that€the€Board€of€Directors€will€be€held€toÐ ¦ö Ðthe€same€standard€as€Boards€of€Directors€of€corporations,€Charlesðð€claims€are€subject€to€the€BusinessÐ wÇ ÐJudgment€Rule.€€The€Business€Judgment€Rule€defines€the€scope€of€the€duty€a€director€owes€to€theÐ H˜ Ðcorporation,€or€in€this€case€to€Keg€and€limits€the€liability€of€Directors€who€act€in€the€best€interestsÐ i Ðof€and€in€good€faith€to€Keg.€€Furthermore,€Maryland€Law€provides€that€a€court€will€overturn€theÐ ê: Ðaction€of€a€board€if€there€is€evidence€of€bad€faith.€€See€òòòòÔ_ÔFroelichÔ_Ô€v.€Ericksonóóóó,€96€F.€Supp.€2d.€507Ð »  Ð(Ô_ÔD.MdÔ_Ô.€2000),€òòaffirmedóó€246€F.3d.€664€(C.A.4€(Md.€2001));€and€òòòòNational€Association€for€theÐ ŒÜ ÐAdvancement€of€Colored€People€v.€Ô_ÔGoldingÔ_Ôóóóó,€342€Md.€663,€679€A.€2d€554€(1996).Ð ]­ ÐÐ .~ ÐBased€on€the€facts,€the€Board€viewed€Bobððs€proposal€as€the€only€sound€plan€for€saving€KegÐ ÿO Ðand€rectifying€its€liquidity€problems.€€All€Board€members€(except€the€Plaintiff,€Charles,€and€theÐ Ð   Ðdefendant,€Bob)€voted€to€approve€and€recommend€the€proposal€to€the€members€even€though€theÐ ¡ñ! Ðproposal€was€against€their€own€personal€interests€because€their€respective€fractional€interests€mayÐ r Â" Ðbe€cashed€out€or€extinguished.€€Since€the€Board€and€the€Members€carefully€reviewed€all€analysesÐ C!“# Ðand€reports€prior€to€their€respective€votes,€there€is€no€evidence€of€bad€faith€and€the€standard€of€theÐ "d$ ÐBusiness€Judgment€Rule€is€met.€€The€Boardððs€procedures€and€decisions€are€not€subject€to€a€secondÐ å"5% Ðguess€by€a€court.€Ð ¶#& ÐÐ ‡$×' ÐÓ XÓà  àThe€breach€of€contract€claim€is€without€merit€because€the€Board€was€authorized€in€theÐ X%¨ ( ÐOperating€Agreement€to€reclassify€the€member€interests€provided€the€plan€of€reclassification€is€firstÐ )&y!) Ðapproved€by€the€Board€and€ratified€by€the€Members.€€Since€Bob€disclosed€the€ramifications€of€theÐ ú&J"* Ðtransaction€and€abstained€from€the€votes€thereon€that€recommended,€approved€and€ratified€the€plan,Ð Ë'#+ Ðthe€claims€made€by€Charles€will€fail.Ô‡ Xu XXXu ÔÐ  œ(ì#, ÐÔ_Ôò òÔ#†Xu XX Xu b´#Ôà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÌà@``%ìàQUESTION€11ˆÐ R¢ ÐÓ  ÓÌó óÓ  Óà  àBruce€is€the€sole€member€and€manager€of€Bruceððs€BBQ€Pit,€LLC€(ð ðRestaurantðð).€€Bruce€isÐ ôD Ðnot€personally€liable€to€Vicky€for€her€tort€claim€unless€Vicky€can€show€that€Bruce€was€negligent€asÐ Å Ðan€immediate€supervisor€or€manager.€€A€member€of€a€limited€liability€company€(ð ðLLCðð)€is€notÐ – æ Ðpersonally€liable€for€the€obligations€of€the€LLC€arising€in€tort€simply€because€a€person€is€a€memberÐ g · Ðof€the€LLC.€€Bruce€instructed€Danny€to€keep€the€restroom€closed€until€the€floor€was€dry.€€It€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðunlikely€that€a€court€would€find€that€Bruceððs€instructions€were€negligent€or€that€he€contributed€toÐ  Y  Ðthe€cause€of€Vickyððs€injury.€€Ð Ú *  ÐÌà  àDanny€is€responsible€to€Vicky€for€his€negligence€when€he€ignored€Bruceððs€instructions€andÐ |Ì  Ðallowed€Vicky€to€enter€the€restroom€before€the€floor€was€dry.€€Danny€is€an€employee€of€theÐ M  ÐRestaurant,€and€the€Restaurant,€as€Dannyððs€principal,€will€be€liable€to€Vicky.€€The€Restaurant€isÐ n  Ðliable€whenever€an€employee€is€acting€within€the€scope€of€his€authority.€€Here,€the€Restaurant€willÐ ï?  Ðclaim€that€Danny€acted€beyond€the€scope€of€his€authority,€and€that€the€Restaurant€should€not€beÐ À  Ðliable.€€However,€this€defense€will€fail.Ð ‘á  ÐÌà  àTerry€was€responsible€for€supervising€Danny.€€Terry€may€be€responsible€to€Vicky€for€hisÐ 3ƒ Ðnegligent€supervision€of€Dannyððs€cooking.€€When€Danny€added€marijuana€to€the€chili,€he€committedÐ T Ðan€unlawful€act,€which€act€is€presumed€to€be€outside€the€scope€of€his€authority.€€Neither€Terry€norÐ Õ% ÐBruce€nor€the€Restaurant€should€be€liable€for€the€injuries€resulting€from€Dannyððs€criminal€act€unlessÐ ¦ö Ðthey€knew€or€should€have€known€that€Danny€was€spiking€the€chili€with€controlled€substances.€€TheÐ wÇ Ðlevel€of€required€supervision€to€avoid€liability€is€a€question€that€will€be€determined€by€the€factÐ H˜ Ðfinder.€€However,€the€fact€finder€will€take€into€consideration€that€Danny€was€merely€enhancing€hisÐ i Ðemployerððs€food€and€that€he€did€not€personally€benefit€from€his€actions.Ð ê: ÐÌà  àBruce€was€aware€that€Danny€was€tending€bar€at€the€time€that€Johnny€was€served.€€Harold,Ð ŒÜ Ðthe€bystander,€was€injured€as€a€result€of€Johnnyððs€actions.€€Danny€wrongfully€served€alcohol€toÐ ]­ ÐJohnny,€who€was€both€a€minor€and€already€intoxicated€when€served.€€Because€Bruce€failed€toÐ .~ Ðproperly€supervise€Danny,€the€Restaurant€will€be€liable€to€Harold€for€his€damages.€€It€is€arguable€thatÐ ÿO ÐBruce€was€negligent€in€not€stopping€Danny€from€tending€bar€because€Bruceððs€distraction€may€notÐ Ð   Ðbe€an€adequate€defense.Ð ¡ñ! ÐÌà  àAny€non„culpable€defendant€may€seek€indemnification€from€any€other€culpable€co„Ð C!“# Ðdefendant.€€In€addition,€the€Restaurant€and€Bruce€may€also€seek€indemnification€from€Johnny€forÐ "d$ Ðhis€willful€acts.€€Under€all€circumstances,€Howard€and€Vicky€may€sue€all€allegedly€responsibleÐ å"5% Ðparties,€however,€each€injured€party€is€entitled€to€only€one€satisfaction€for€his€or€her€damages.€Ð ¶#& ÐòòGrinder,€et€al.€v.€Bryans€Road€Building€and€Supply€Co.,€Inc.,€óó290€Md.€687,€432€A2d€453€Ô_Ô(1981).Ð  ‡$×' Ðò òà@"ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSISˆÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓQUESTION€12ó óÐ R¢ ÐÓ  ÓÌLawyerððs€conduct€violates€the€following€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct,€and€as€Bar€Counsel€IÐ ôD Ðwould€bring€charges€for€the€violation€of€each:Ð Å ÐÌÓ€ ' !"#$%&(ÿÿ04'ÓÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿ0ÅÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]Æ#ÔRule€1.1€of€the€Maryland€Rules€of€Professional€Ô_ÔConductÔ_Ô€requires€Lawyer€to€provideÐ g · Ðcompetent€representation.€€Lawyer€did€absolutely€nothing€to€secure€his€clientððs€claim.€Ð E • ÐThis€failure€raises€questions€of€his€competency€to€handle€the€case.݃ÿÿ0Å-ÆÝŒÐ  f  ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿEÈÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà Ü àÝ  Ý݃ÿÿEÈÐÈ݌Рç 7  ÐŒÓ ,ÓÓ' ÜÜŒX4ŠXü!'ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿ’ÉÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]pÊ#ÔRule€1.2€notes€that€Lawyer€must€abide€by€a€clientððs€decision€whether€to€accept€an€offer€ofÐ ¸   Ðsettlement.€€Lawyer€never€informed€John€of€the€offer€prior€to€accepting€it€on€his€behalf,Ð –æ  Ðthereby€violating€this€provision.݃ÿÿ’ÉÊ݌Рg·  ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿpÌÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà Ü àÝ  Ý݃ÿÿpÌûÌ݌Р8ˆ  ÐŒÓ ,ÓÓ' ÜÜŒX4ŠXü!'ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿ½ÍÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]›Î#ÔRule€1.3€requires€Lawyer€to€act€with€reasonable€diligence€and€promptness€in€representingÐ  Y  Ða€client.€€Again,€Lawyer€did€nothing€for€his€client€and,€therefore,€did€not€act€in€a€diligentÐ ç7  Ðmanner€in€his€representation€of€John.݃ÿÿ½ÍºÎ݌Р¸ ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿžÐÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà Ü àÝ  Ý݃ÿÿžÐ)Ñ݌Р‰Ù ÐŒÓ ,ÓÓ' ÜÜŒX4ŠXü!'ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿëÑÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]ÉÒ#ÔLawyer€failed€to€keep€John€informed€of€the€status€of€his€case.€€This€failure€is€a€violationÐ Zª Ðof€Rule€1.4.€This€Rule€notes€that€a€lawyer€shall€keep€a€client€reasonably€informed€aboutÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€status€of€the€case€and€shall€promptly€comply€with€reasonable€requests€forÐ  Y Ðinformation.݃ÿÿëÑèÒ݌РÚ* ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÕÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà Ü àÝ  Ý݃ÿÿÕžÕ݌Р«û ÐŒÓ ,ÓÓ' ÜÜŒX4ŠXü!'ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ"ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿ`ÖÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]>×#ÔAlthough€it€may€be€proper€to€have€the€fee€be€contingent€upon€Lawyerððs€ability€to€collectÐ |Ì Ðthe€debt,€the€total€fee€charged€John€is€nearly€half€of€the€amount€to€be€collected!€€GivenÐ Zª ÐLawyerððs€lack€of€competence€and/or€diligence,€this€fee€is€excessive€and€in€violation€ofÐ +{ ÐRule€1.5€ððs€mandate€that€fees€be€reasonable€based€on€the€time€and€labor€required,€theÐ üL Ðrequisite€skill€needed€to€properly€handle€the€case,€the€fee€customarily€charged€for€suchÐ Í Ðcases,€the€time€limitations€involved,€and€Lawyerððs€experience€in€this€area.݃ÿÿ`Ö]×݌Рžî ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ "ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿ²ÚÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà Ü àÝ  Ý݃ÿÿ²Ú=Û݌Рo¿ ÐŒÓ ,ÓÓ' ÜÜŒX4ŠXü!'ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ "ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿÛÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]ÝÜ#ÔUnder€Rule€1.16€(d)€a€lawyer€is€charged€with€the€duty€of€surrendering€papers€andÐ @ Ðproperty€to€which€the€client€is€entitled€and€refunding€any€payment€of€fee€that€has€notÐ n  Ðbeen€earned€upon€termination€of€representation.€€Lawyer€did€neither,€under€the€instantÐ ï?! Ðfacts.݃ÿÿÿÛüÜ݌РÀ " ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ "ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿßÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà Ü àÝ  Ý݃ÿÿߨß݌Р‘!á# ÐŒÓ ,ÓÓ' ÜÜŒX4ŠXü!'ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÝ"‚ÿÿ "ÝÓ ÔþÓÓ ,ÓÓB.4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒXBÓÝ  ÝÓ X,ÓÓE(4 4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!4ŠXü!EÓÔ‡(X#]XXXu ÔÝ‚ÿÿjàÝÔ2ÿÿÔð· ðÔ3  Ôà  àÝ  ÝÔ#†Xu XX(X#]Há#ÔFinally,€Lawyerððs€advertisement€arguably€raises€an€unjustified€expectation€about€theÐ b"²$ Ðresults€he€can€achieve.€€This,€therefore,€violates€Rule€7.1ððs€proscription€against€false€orÐ @#% Ðmisleading€communications€€that€are€likely€to€create€such€expectations€and€thatÐ $a& Ðimproperly€compare€the€lawyerððs€services€with€other€lawyersðð€services.݃ÿÿjàgá݌Рâ$2 ' ÐŒÓ XÓÓ! ÜÜŒX44ŠXü!!ÓÓ ÔþÓÝ  ÝÌÔ‡ Xu XXXu Ô€€Ð „&Ô!) ÐÔ#†Xu XX Xu ×ã#ÔÔ‡ Xu XXXu ԀРU'¥"* ÐÔ#†Xu XX Xu 0ä#ÔÔ‡Xu XXXu ÔÌÔ#†Xu XXXu ˆä#Ô