ÿWPC Ô“ˆúX¸JdÎ l@hÇç½Ý°¹&Jf¥ŽaX{5ëË-~ìI¨#ðó±éUãˆCáïlØ«lå:,ŠH¡ÎA‰À(v67éÞŠØ¥];¸¾gx¿„ÞCôÉB„?Ï× ¹t‚ õ6w?°Ú“X¯/. jw¹«²ßŠŠþ=›NÆmâ,ð•æHÊiKÇd)˜«_LÖÿ{sXqØ€VqüKSw ¡=Þ륯ܞ01U³àtž r¤©?ÐT½¡þ±,ƒ“h/pp8Ïx¥©u,&åÆ;^,#Á4UNõ %C 0:IU@ƒ 0VÃU@wYU@Ð^ w4 4CE[bqbV‹ máNøú˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô'Úí5 Z‹(Garamond Regular(.3½Þ$§§Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  mÝ ƒ½Þ'ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ À ÑÑ#ÀØòÿÿd#Ñ(Garamond Regular-}·6s Å~F6hared3|x Ñ X Ñ Ñ 9 ÑPage ù of &ùFebruary, 2007 Attorney's Exam Page ù of &ùÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XþlXXXÔÖ€ÿÿÖÓ  ÓÑ€_RÑò òÑ€/VÑÑ€ÑÑ8€´í%%dÎdÈ8Ñà@ÈÈ#ìàFEBRUARY€2007€ˆÐ d ÐÓ  ÓÌOUT€OF€STATE€ATTORNEYSðð€EXAMÐ <Ø ÐÌQUESTIONS€AND€BOARD€ANALYSISÐ  ° ÐÓÓÌà@™ ™ ìàPRELIMINARY€FACTS€FOR€QUESTIONS€1€„€4ˆÐ ì ˆ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÓ  Óó óÓÓÌà  àOn€June€1,€2006€Viola€Victim€was€robbed€at€gunpoint.Ð °L  ÐÌà  àOn€June€7,€2006,€Officer€Williams€observed€a€car€being€operated€in€an€erratic€manner.€Ð ˆ$  ÐWilliams€determined€that€the€vehicle€had€been€reported€as€stolen€by€Victim.€€Williams€stopped€theÐ t  Ðcar,€found€Dave€Defendant€driving€it€and€arrested€him.€€That€night,€Williams€prepared€a€policeÐ `ü  Ðincident€report€describing€these€events.€€As€a€result€of€further€€investigation,€Defendant€was€chargedÐ Lè  Ðwith€ò òó óarmed€robbery€and€use€of€a€handgun€in€the€commission€of€a€felony€or€crime€of€violence.Ð 8Ô  Ðò òÌó óà  àÓ=€ e ÂÐÂdÐd=ÓOn€December€1,€2006,€Dave€Defendant€was€tried€in€Prince€George's€County€Circuit€CourtÐ ¬ Ðon€all€charges.Ð ü˜ ÐÌà  àThe€State's€first€witness€was€Victim.€€€She€testified€that,€at€about€4€PM€on€June€1,€she€wasÐ Ôp Ðapproached€by€a€man€as€she€exited€her€car€at€her€parents'€home.€Her€assailant€was€wearing€a€mask.€Ð À\ ÐThe€man€placed€a€gun€against€her€mid„section€and€ordered€her€to€give€him€her€purse,€cell€phone€andÐ ¬H Ðcar€keys.€€He€then€jumped€into€Victim's€car€and€drove€off.€€Ð ˜4 ÐÌò òó óà  àIn€addition€to€Victim's€testimony,€the€State€introduced€Victim's€cell€phone€bill,€whichÐ p  Ðindicated€that€seven€calls€were€placed€from€her€cell€phone€to€301„555„1212€between€4:30€andÐ \ø Ðmidnight€on€June€1.€€The€State€also€introduced€telephone€company€records€showing€that€301„555„Ð Hä Ð1212€was€the€telephone€number€of€Defendant's€relative€Cal€Cousin.Ð 4 Ð ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ_ÔÐ 0,Ì%) ÐÓ  Óò òQUESTION€1Ð d ÐÓb ÓÓ  ÓÌó óÌÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€State€called€Cousin.€€The€following€transpired:Ð  ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€State:€€Mr.€Cousin,€were€you€interviewed€by€Detective€JonesÐ ì ˆ Ðabout€these€calls€that€you€received€on€June€1,€2006?ÐØ t` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCousin:€€Yeah,€he€spoke€to€me€but€I€didn't€know€€anything€aboutÐ °L  Ðphone€calls.М8 ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€State:€€Well,€didn't€you€tell€Detective€Jones€that€Defendant€calledÐ t  Ðyou€several€times€on€June€1?Ð`ü ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àDefense€Counsel:€€Objection,€the€State€is€attempting€to€impeach€itsÐ 8Ô  Ðown€witness.Ð$À` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€Court:€€Overruled.Ðü˜` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òó óCousin:€€No,€I€never€said€that.ÐÔp` x` x Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àThe€State:€€And€didn't€you€tell€Detective€Jones€that€Defendant€told€you€he€had€justÐ ¬H Ðstolen€a€car?И4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àDefense€Counsel:€€Objection.Ðp Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€State€proffered€that€Detective€Jones€would€testify€that€he€had€interviewed€Cousin€andÐ Hä Ðthat€Cousin€had€told€him€that€Defendant€had€made€several€calls€to€him€on€June€1€and€had€boastedÐ 4 Ð Ðof€stealing€a€car€during€the€conversations.€€The€Court€overruled€the€objection.Ð  !¼ ÐÌò òà  àWere€the€Court's€rulings€on€Defendant's€objections€correct?€€Explain€your€answer.ó óÐ ø"” Ðò òó óÌÓ  Óò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€1Ð Ð$l! Ðà @ àó óÓ£ÓÌà  àThe€Court's€ruling€on€the€first€objection€was€correct.€€The€common€law€rule€that€a€party€mayÐ ¨&D # Ðnot€impeach€its€own€witness€has€been€abolished€by€the€Maryland€Rules€of€Evidence.€€Ô_ÔMREÔ_Ô€5„607.Ð ”'0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€Court's€ruling€on€the€second€issue€was€incorrect.€€Ô_ÔMREÔ_Ô€5„613€sets€out€the€requirementsÐ l)#& Ðfor€the€use€of€extrinsic€evidence€of€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€Detective€Jones'€testimony€as€toÐ X*ô#' Ðhis€conversation€with€Cousin€is€admissible€only€if€(a)€the€contents€of€the€statement,€theÐ D+à$( Ðcircumstances€under€which€it€was€made€and€the€person€to€whom€it€was€made€are€disclosed€to€theÐ 0,Ì%) ÐÔ_Ôwitness€and€(b)€that€the€statement€concerns€a€non„collateral€matter.€€The€proffer€of€Jones'€testimonyÐ d Ðsatisfies€the€first€of€these€requirements€but€not€the€second.€€Jones'€proposed€testimony€about€Cousin'sÐ Pì Ðstatement€about€Defendant's€statement€is€not€related€to€the€reason€why€Cousin€was€called€as€aÐ <Ø Ðwitness,€namely€to€establish€that€the€telephone€calls€were€made€by€the€Defendant.€€It€is€an€attemptÐ ( Ä Ðto€introduce€hearsay€evidence€in€the€guise€of€impeachment.€€òòBradley€v.€Stateóó,€333€Md.€593,€604Ð  ° Ð(1994).Ð   œ Ðò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€2ó óÐ d ÐÓ•ÓÌà  àIn€order€to€prove€that€Defendant€was€driving€Victim's€car€after€the€robbery€the€State€calledÐ <Ø ÐSergeant€Supervisor.€She€testified€that€she€was€William's€supervisor€in€2006€and€that€the€policeÐ ( Ä Ðreport€was€prepared€by€Williams€in€the€normal€course€of€his€duties.€€She€further€testified€thatÐ  ° ÐWilliams€retired€in€August,€2006€and€now€resides€in€Hawaii.€€She€testified€that,€as€a€result€of€aÐ  œ Ðconversation€which€she€had€with€Williams€a€month€before€trial,€she€attempted€to€obtain€money€toÐ ì ˆ Ðpay€for€his€travel€expenses€from€Hawaii€to€Maryland€but€was€unsuccessful.€€Ð Ø t ÐÌà  àò òCan€the€State€introduce€Williams'€police€report?€€If€so,€howó ó?Ð °L  ÐÌÓ  Óò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„QUESTION€2ó óÐ Œ(  ÐÓîÓÌà  àThe€report€is€inadmissible€in€this€proceeding.€€Williams'€report€is€hearsay€and€can€admittedÐ d  Ðonly€under€limited€circumstances.€€MRE€5„803(b)(6)€allows€for€the€introduction€of€business€records.Ð Pì  ÐSupervisor's€testimony€is€sufficient€to€establish€a€basis€for€the€introduction€of€the€report€as€either€aÐ <Ø  Ðbusiness€record€or€a€public€record€or€report,€MRE€5„803(b)(8).€€However,€Subsection€b(8)Ð (Ä Ðspecifically€provides€that€a€record€of€matters€observed€by€a€law€enforcement€office€is€not€admissibleÐ ° Ðin€a€criminal€proceeding€against€the€accused.€€Williams€is€not€an€"unavailable€declarant"€under€MREÐ œ Ð5„804(a)€and,€in€any€event,€none€of€the€exceptions€which€are€available€when€the€declarant€isÐ ìˆ Ðunavailable€apply.€€Ô_ÔÐ  Øt ÐÑ_RÑâ âÑ9°Ñâ âÑ  Ñò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€3ó óÐ d ÐÓÓÌà  àDefendant's€sole€witness€was€Alice€Alibi.€€She€testified€that€she€and€Defendant€went€to€OceanÐ <Ø ÐCity,€Maryland€on€the€morning€of€June€1,€2006,€and€did€not€return€to€Prince€George's€County€untilÐ ( Ä Ðthe€next€day.€€On€cross„examination,€the€State's€Attorney€asked€Alibi€if€she€had€ever€been€convictedÐ  ° Ðof€a€crime.€€Defense€counsel€objected.€€The€State's€Attorney€then€proffered€that€Alibi€had€beenÐ  œ Ðconvicted€of€theft€of€under€$500€in€1990,€possession€of€a€controlled€dangerous€substance€in€1999Ð ì ˆ Ðand€first€degree€assault€in€2000.€€The€first€two€crimes€were€misdemeanors;€the€third€was€a€statutoryÐ Ø t Ðfelony.Ð Ä ` ÐÌà  àò òHow€should€the€Court€rule€on€the€objection?€€Explain€your€answer.ó óÐ œ8  ÐÌÓ  Óò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€3ó óÐ t  ÐÓ "ÓÌà  àÔ_ÔMREÔ_Ô€5„609€controls€impeachment€of€a€witness€by€prior€convictions.€€It€sets€out€a€three€partÐ Lè  Ðtest:€(1)€the€crime€must€be€an€infamous€crime€or€other€crime€relevant€to€the€witness's€credibility,€(2)Ð 8Ô  Ðthe€court€must€consider€whether€the€probative€value€of€admitting€the€evidence€outweighs€the€dangerÐ $À Ðof€unfair€prejudice€to€the€witness€or€the€opposing€party,€and€(3)€a€conviction€may€not€be€used€forÐ ¬ Ðimpeachment€purposes€if€15€years€have€elapsed€since€the€date€of€the€conviction.Ð ü˜ ÐÌà  àTheft€Ô_ÔrelatesÔ_Ô€to€credibility€but€the€conviction€occurred€more€that€15€years€ago.€€It€isÐ Ôp Ðinadmissible.€€Possession€of€a€controlled€dangerous€substance€is€a€misdemeanor€and€is€not€relevantÐ À\ Ðto€credibility.€òòCason€v.€Stateóó,€66€Md.€App.€757,€773,€505€A.€2d€919€(1986).ò ò€ó ó€The€issues€raised€by€theÐ ¬H Ðconviction€of€felony€assault€are€more€difficult.€€Infamous€crimes€are€treason,€forgery,€perjury€andÐ œ8 Ðfelonies€at€common€law.€€€òòÔ_ÔProutÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€311€Md.€348,€358„359;€535€A.2d€445€(1988).€€At€commonÐ ˆ$ Ðlaw,€assaults€were€not€felonies€and€thus€are€not€infamous€crimes.€€òòÔ_ÔGariteeÔ_Ô€v.€Bondóó,€102€Md.€379,Ð t Ð384„385,€62€A.€631€(1905).€€òòóóThe€objection€should€be€sustained€as€to€all€three€convictions.€Ð `ü ÐAlternately,€if€an€Ô_ÔexamineeÔ_Ô€treats€felony€assault€as€an€infamous€crime,€the€trial€court€must€engageÐ Lè Ðin€the€balancing€test€to€determine€admissibility.€€Since€the€witness€being€impeached€is€not€theÐ 8 Ô Ðdefendant,€there€seems€to€be€no€reason€why€the€evidence€should€not€be€introduced.Ð $!À ÐÌà  àTo€receive€substantial€credit,€it€is€not€necessary€to€explain€the€nuances€of€the€MarylandÐ ü"˜ Ðcommon€law€of€assault€and€its€subsequent€statutory€modifications.€€Instead,€a€successful€Ô_ÔexamineeÔ_ÔÐ è#„  Ðshould€be€able€to€read€and€apply€Rule€5„609€to€the€three€separate€crimes.Ð  Ô$p! ÐÔ_Ôò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€4ó óÐ d ÐÓ,ÓÌà  àDefendant€was€found€guilty€on€all€charges.€€On€January€3,€2007,€he€was€sentenced€to€35€yearsÐ <Ø Ðincarceration.€€Ð ( Ä ÐÌà  àò òWhat€options€does€Defendant€have€to€(a)€overturn€his€conviction€or€(b)€have€a€courtÐ  œ Ðreduce€his€sentence?€€What€are€the€time€limits€within€which€he€must€act?Ð ì ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€4Ð Ä ` ÐÓÊ-ÓÌó óà  àDefendant€may€file€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€within€10€days€of€the€date€of€verdict.€€MarylandÐ œ8  ÐRule€4„331(a).€€He€may€file€an€order€of€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€within€30€days€of€theÐ ˆ$  Ðdate€of€the€verdict€or€within€30€days€of€the€denial€of€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Maryland€Rule€8„Ð t  Ð202(b).€€Finally,€he€has€the€right€to€file€an€appeal€òòen€bancóó€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rules€4„352€and€2„Ð `ü  Ð551ò ò€ó ówithin€10€days€of€the€date€of€the€verdict.€€(Article€4,€Section€22€of€the€Maryland€Constitution,Ð Lè  Ðwhich€provides€foròò€en€bancóó€appeals,€was€amended€by€Chapter€421€of€the€Acts€of€2006,€approved€byÐ <Ø  Ðthe€voters€of€the€State€on€November€7,€2006.€€The€amendments€to€Section€22€do€not€affect€theÐ (Ä Ðanalysis€called€for€in€this€question.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€his€sentence,€Defendant€may€file€a€request€within€30€days€for€a€review€of€hisÐ ìˆ Ðsentence€by€a€three€judge€panel€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€4„344.€€Filing€such€a€motion€does€notÐ Øt Ðextend€the€time€frames€for€filing€an€€appeal.€€òòIdóó.€ðððð€(g).€€He€also€has€the€right€to€request€aÐ Ä` Ðmodification€of€his€sentence€under€Maryland€Rule€4„345.€€A€motion€based€upon€an€illegal€sentenceÐ °L Ðmay€be€made€at€any€time,€Maryland€Rule€4„345(a);€otherwise,€the€motion€must€be€made€within€90Ð œ8 Ðdays.€òò€Idóó,€ðððð€(e).Ð  ˆ$ ÐÑ/VÑâ âÑX9Ñâ âÑ  Ñòòóóò òÓ  ÓPRELIMINARY€FACTS€FOR€QUESTIONSó óÔ#†XþlXXXþl=#Ô€€ò ò5€„€10ó óÐ d ÐÓ‹4ÓÌà  àOn€the€early€morning€of€September€6,€2006,€Paula€Plaintiff€and€her€husband€("Husband")€hadÐ @Ü Ðan€argument€in€their€residence€located€in€an€exclusive€neighborhood€of€waterfront€homes€in€TalbotÐ , È ÐCounty,€Maryland.€€As€a€result,€Husband€left€the€house€at€7:00€a.m.€€He€called€the€Talbot€CountyÐ  ´ ÐPolice€Department's€emergency€line€and€asked€for€a€referral€to€a€marriage€counselor.Ð    ÐÌà  àThe€police€dispatcher€told€Husband€that€the€only€listing€she€had€was€for€a€suicide€hot-line.€Ð Ü x ÐHusband€then€stated€that€his€wife€had€threatened€suicide.€€After€further€conversation€with€Husband,Ð È d Ðthe€emergency€dispatcher€sent€police€officers€to€the€Plaintiffs'€home€to€investigate€a€possible€suicidalÐ ´P  Ðperson.Ð  <  ÐÌà  àAt€approximately€7:30€a.m.,€Sergeant€and€Patrolman,€two€uniformed€Talbot€County€policeÐ x  Ðofficers,€arrived€at€the€Plaintiff€home.€When€the€officers€arrived,€Plaintiff€was€visibly€agitated€andÐ d  Ðcrying.€She€stated€that€she€and€her€husband€had€had€a€ð ðpainful€argument.ðð€After€additionalÐ Pì  Ðconversation€between€the€police€officers€and€Plaintiff,€Sergeant€decided€that€the€officers€should€takeÐ <Ø  ÐPlaintiff€to€the€hospital€for€an€emergency€psychiatric€evaluation.€Plaintiff€disagreed€and€resistedÐ (Ä Ðleaving€her€home.€As€a€result,€the€officers€handcuffed€her€before€removing€her€from€her€home€andÐ ° Ðtransporting€her€to€the€nearest€hospital.€€Several€neighbors€saw€Plaintiff€being€taken€handcuffed€fromÐ œ Ðher€house€and€placed€in€the€police€car.Ð ìˆ ÐÌà  àOnce€at€the€hospital,€Plaintiff€was€evaluated€by€the€hospital's€attending€psychiatrist,€whoÐ Ä` Ðdetermined€that€she€was€neither€suicidal€nor€suffering€from€a€mental€disorder€at€that€time.€As€aÐ °L Ðresult,€Plaintiff€was€released€from€the€hospital€shortly€thereafter.Ð œ8 ÐÌà@ìì*ìàò òˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ  .¨'+ ÐÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€5ó óÐ d ÐÓ=ÓÌà  àSeveral€weeks€after€the€incident,€Plaintiff€consulted€with€Barbara€Barrister€of€the€law€firm€Ð <Ø Ðof€Barrister€&€Solicitor,€P.A.,€regarding€a€possible€lawsuit€against€Husband,€Talbot€County,€SergeantÐ ( Ä Ðand€Patrolman.€€In€addition€to€the€facts€related€above,€Plaintiff€stated€that€she€has€separated€from€herÐ  ° Ðhusband€and€that€she€was€more€interested€in€"teaching€them€all€a€lesson"€than€a€financial€recovery.€Ð  œ ÐBarrister€told€Plaintiff€that€she€specialized€in€cases€of€this€type€and€that€Plaintiff's€case€would€be€aÐ ì ˆ Ðdifficult€one.€€She€said€that€she€would€represent€Plaintiff€for€a€fee€of€50%€of€any€recovery€plus€aÐ Ø t Ð$10,000€retainer.€€Plaintiff€replied€that,€as€far€as€she€was€concerned,€Barrister€could€keep€the€entireÐ Ä ` Ðrecovery.€€The€day€after€the€meeting,€Barrister€sent€Plaintiff€a€letter€which€read€in€pertinent€part:Ð °L  ÐÌà8  àYou€have€requested€that€I€represent€you€in€a€claim€against€Husband€and€TalbotÐ ˆ$  ÐCounty€and€its€employees,€agents€and€officials€arising€out€of€your€detention€occurringÐ t  Ðon€May€6,€2006.€Ð`ü Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àAs€I€have€previously€told€you,€I€can€make€no€promise€or€guarantee€as€to€the€outcomeÐ 8Ô  Ðof€this€case.Ð$ÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àBased€upon€the€facts€you€have€given€to€me,€I€undertake€the€representation€of€you€onÐ ü˜ Ða€contingent€fee€basis.€€That€is,€I€will€be€entitled€to€receive€all€of€the€proceedsÐ è„ Ðreceived€by€you€as€a€result€of€the€above-described€matter€whether€received€as€a€resultÐ Ôp Ðof€voluntary€settlement€or€judgment€in€your€favor.€€In€addition,€you€will€pay€me€aÐ À\ Ðretainer€fee€of€$10,000.€€Your€check€is€your€acknowledgment€of€these€terms€andÐ ¬H Ðconditions€.€.€.€€.И4Ð Ð  Ðà  àPlaintiff€sent€Barrister€a€check€for€$10,000,€which€Barrister€deposited€in€her€office€accountÐ „  Ðand€used€for€office€expenses€over€the€next€two€months.€€Barrister€is€admitted€to€practice€in€Maryland.€Ð p  ÐÌò òà  àWhat€issues€are€raised€by€Barrister's€agreement€with€Plaintiff€and€Barrister's€handlingÐ Hä Ðof€the€check?Ð 4 Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€5Ð  "¨ ÐÓfGÓÌà  àó óBarrister's€conduct€raises€several€issues:Ð ä#€  ÐÌà  àFirst,€MRPC€1.5(a)€requires€fees€to€be€reasonable.€€As€a€general€rule,€the€lawyer's€stake€inÐ ¼%X" Ðthe€proceeding€should€not€exceed€that€of€the€client.€€òòAtty.€Griev.€Comm'n€v.€Robersonóó,€373€Md.€328,Ð ¨&D # Ð818€A.2d€1059€(2003).€€Barrister's€original€contingency€fee€of€50%,€together€with€a€retainer€ofÐ ”'0!$ Ð$10,000,€violates€that€prohibition.€€The€same€is€true€of€the€contingency€fee€of€100%€of€the€recovery.Ð €("% ÐÌà  àSecond,€MRPC€1.5(c)€provides€that€a€contingent€fee€agreement€must€be€in€writing€and€signedÐ X*ô#' Ðby€client.€€in€addition,€a€contingency€fee€agreement€must€specifically€address€a€number€of€items,€e.g.Ð D+à$( Ðwhether€and€how€litigation€expenses€will€be€paid;€how€appeals€should€be€funded.€€Barrister's€letterÐ 0,Ì%) Ðfails€these€requirements.Ð -¸&* ÐÐ .¤'+ Ðà  àMRPC€1.15(c)€requires€that€a€retainer€must€be€deposited€in€client€trust€account€andÐ d Ðwithdrawn€only€as€fees€are€earned€or€costs€advanced€"unless€client€gives€informed€consent,Ð Pì Ðconfirmed€in€writing."€€Barrister€violated€this€rule.Ð  <Ø Ðò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€6ó óÐ d ÐÓÒLÓÌà  àBarrister's€factual€investigations€and€legal€research€led€her€to€conclude€that€Plaintiff€shouldÐ <Ø Ðfile€suit€against€Husband,€Sergeant,€Patrolman€and€Talbot€County€for€negligence,€assault,€battery,Ð ( Ä Ðfalse€imprisonment,€defamation,€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€and€related€torts.€€SheÐ  ° Ðlearned€that,€in€October,€2006,€Sergeant€resigned€from€the€Talbot€County€Police€Department€and€isÐ  œ Ða€full„time€graduate€student€at€Towson€University€in€Baltimore€County.€€Sergeant€resides€in€AnneÐ ì ˆ ÐArundel€County€and€Patrolman€resides€in€Caroline€County.€€The€psychiatrist€and€the€hospitalÐ Ø t Ðemergency€room€personnel€all€reside€in€Talbot€County.€€Barrister€concluded€that€it€would€be€inÐ Ä ` ÐPlaintiff's€best€interests€to€file€suit€in€Baltimore€County€and€filed€suit€there.€€The€attorneys€for€theÐ °L  Ðdefendants€believe€that€it€would€be€advantageous€to€transfer€the€case€to€Talbot€County.Ð œ8  ÐÌò òà  àWhat€steps€can€the€defendants'€attorneys€take€to€transfer€the€case?€€How€should€theÐ t  ÐCourt€rule?€Ð `ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€6Ð 8Ô  ÐÓÖQÓÌó óà  àMaryland€Annotated€Code€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€Section€2„601(a)€providesÐ ¬ Ðthat€a€civil€action€may€be€brought€in€a€county€where€the€defendant€resides,€works,€maintains€aÐ ü˜ Ðbusiness€or€"habitually€engages€in€a€vocation."€€Section€6-201(b)€provides€that,€where€there€is€moreÐ è„ Ðthan€one€defendant€and€no€single€venue€is€applicable€to€all,€the€suit€may€be€brought€in€a€countyÐ Ôp Ðwhere€any€one€of€them€could€be€sued€or€in€the€county€where€the€cause€of€action€arose.€€Sergeant'sÐ À\ Ðstatus€as€a€student€does€not€constitute€engaging€in€a€vocation.€€òòCf.€€Dodge€Park€Enterprises€v.€Welshóó,Ð ¬H Ð237€Md.€570,€207€A.€2d€503€(1961)€("Regular€business"€and€"habitual€avocation"€€are€synonymousÐ ˜4 Ðterms).€€If€Baltimore€County€is€an€improper€venue,€the€case€may€be€brought€either€in€Anne€Arundel,Ð „  ÐTalbot€or€Caroline€Counties.€€Ð p  Ðà  àThe€lawyers€for€the€Defendants€should€raise€the€issue€in€a€preliminary€motion,€Maryland€RuleÐ \ø Ð2„322.€€If€they€file€an€answer€or€other€responsive€pleading,€the€venue€issue€is€waived.€€€Ð Hä ÐÌà  àAlternately,€a€court,€invoking€the€doctrine€of€òòforum€non€conveniensóó,€may,€in€its€discretion,Ð  !¼ Ðtransfer€a€civil€case€in€the€interests€of€justice€and€the€convenience€of€the€parties.€€Here,€the€plaintiffÐ  "¨ Ðis€a€resident€of€Talbot€County,€most€or€all€of€the€fact€witnesses,€other€than€Sergeant,€reside€or€workÐ ø"” Ðin€Talbot€County€and€the€cause€of€action€arose€there.€€Transfer€of€the€case€under€these€circumstancesÐ ä#€  Ðwould€be€appropriateòò.€€Stidham€v.€Morrisóó,€161€Md.€App.€562,€569€(2005);€òòSimmons€v.€Urquhartóó,€101Ð Ð$l! ÐMd.€App.€85,€643€A.€2d€487€(1994),€òòrev'd€on€other€groundsóó,€339€Md.€1,€660€A.2d€412€(1995).Ð  ¼%X" Ðò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€7ó óÐ d ÐÓ÷YÓÌà  àThe€lawyers€for€Talbot€County€learned€that€Plaintiff€has€been€treated€since€2000€by€Marcia€Ð <Ø ÐWelby,€M.D.,€a€licensed€psychiatrist€in€Maryland.€€They€filed€a€notice€of€deposition,€together€withÐ ( Ä Ða€subpoena€òòduces€tecumóó,€upon€Dr.€Welby,€seeking€her€records€pertaining€to€any€treatment€providedÐ  ° Ðby€her€to€Plaintiff.€€Plaintiff€would€like€to€deny€Talbot€County€access€to€those€records,€especially€asÐ  œ Ðthey€pertain€to€counseling€provided€by€Dr.€Welby€to€Plaintiff.€€Similarly,€she€does€not€wish€Dr.Ð ì ˆ ÐWelby€to€testify€about€her€counseling€sessions€with€Plaintiff.Ð Ø t ÐÌà  àò òA.€€What€actions€should€Barrister€take€to€prevent€(i)€disclosure€of€Plaintiff's€medicalÐ °L  Ðrecords€and€(ii)€Dr.€Welbyððs€testifying€about€their€counseling€sessions?€ó ó€ò òUpon€what€groundsÐ œ8  Ðwould€the€action€be€based?Ð Œ(  Ðó óÌà  àò òB.€€How€will€the€Court€rule?ó óÐ d  ÐÌÓ  Óò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€7ó óÐ <Ø  ÐÓY^ÓÌà  àA.€€In€order€to€deny€or€limit€discovery,€Barrister€must€file€a€motion€for€a€protective€orderÐ ° Ðpursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€2„403(a).€€This€rule€allows€a€court,€upon€s€showing€of€good€cause,€toÐ œ Ðorder€that€certain€discovery€"not€be€had"€or€that€the€discovery€"be€limited€to€certain€matters."€€At€theÐ ìˆ Ðtime€of€filing€the€motion,€Barrister€must€also€file€a€certificate€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€2„431Ð Øt Ðcertifying€that€she€and€opposing€counsel€have€attempted€to€resolve€the€dispute€and€specifying€theÐ Ä` Ðtime,€date€and€circumstances€of€such€discussions.€€Ð °L ÐÌà  àB.€€Maryland€has€established€by€statute€a€limited€psychiatrist/patient€privilege.€€Courts€andÐ ˆ$ ÐJudicial€Proceedings€Article€Section€9„109(b)€establishes€a€privilege€against€the€unauthorizedÐ t Ðdisclosure€of€communications€relating€to€diagnosis€or€treatment€of€the€patient;€or€any€informationÐ `ü Ðthat€by€its€nature€would€show€the€existence€of€a€medical€record€of€the€diagnosis€or€treatment€of€anÐ Lè Ðemotional€or€mental€disorder.€€However,€Section€9„109(d)(3((i)€provides€that€a€patient€waives€theÐ 8 Ô Ðprivilege€when€the€patient€puts€his€or€her€mental€condition€at€issue€as€Plaintiff€has€done€by€suing€forÐ $!À Ðintentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€The€Court€should€issue€an€order€denying€the€motion.Ð  "¬ Ðò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€8ó óÐ d ÐÓ dÓÌà  àIn€a€response€to€an€interrogatory,€€Plaintiff€stated€that€during€the€early€morning€hours€of€MayÐ <Ø Ð6,€she€and€Husband€had€a€prolonged€argument€about€the€state€of€their€marriage.€€Plaintiff€furtherÐ ( Ä Ðstated€that,€during€the€course€of€the€argument,€Husband€threatened€to€"have€her€committed€up€in€aÐ  ° Ðmental€hospital"€and€that€at€no€time€during€the€argument€did€she€indicate€that€she€was€consideringÐ  œ Ðsuicide.€Husband€filed€a€motion€òòin€limine€óóto€prohibit€introduction€of€evidence€regarding€the€parties'Ð ì ˆ Ðcommunications.Ð Ø t ÐÌò òà  àWhat€arguments€could€be€advanced€in€support€of€Husband's€motion?€€Ð °L  ÐÌà  àHow€should€the€Court€rule?ó ó€€Ð ˆ$  ÐÌÓ  Óò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€8Ð d  Ðó óÓhÓÌà  àMaryland€recognizes€the€spousal€privilege€against€the€disclosure€of€confidentialÐ <Ø  Ðcommunications€between€spouses.€€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€9„105.€€However,€theÐ (Ä Ðstatute€does€not€render€a€€spouse€incompetent€to€testify;€instead,€it€establishes€a€privilege€by€oneÐ ° Ðspouse€to€preclude€disclosure€of€confidential€communications€by€the€other.€€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€359€Md.Ð œ Ð180,€753€A.2d€84€(2000).€€Here,€Plaintiff's€proposed€testimony€as€to€what€she€said,€or€didn't€say,€toÐ ìˆ Ðher€Husband,€is€not€subject€to€the€privilege.€€Her€proposed€testimony€as€to€Husband's€statement€isÐ Øt Ðmore€problematic€but€Maryland€recognizes€that€the€privilege€does€not€extend€to€statements€which,Ð Ä` Ðby€their€nature,€are€destructive€of€marital€harmony.€€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€37€Md.€App.€180,€376€A.2d€1144Ð °L Ð(1977):Ð œ8 ÐÌà8  àIn€this€case€it€was€the€threat€itself€which€wrought€discord€to€the€marriage,€not€theÐ t Ðvoluntary€in-court€disclosure€thereof.€Moreover,€it€is€patent€that€the€marital€harmony,Ð `ü Ðonce€damaged€by€the€inter-spouse€communication,€is€not€miraculously€resurrectedÐ Lè Ðby€a€rule€of€evidence.€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€spouse/incompetency€rule€doesÐ 8 Ô Ðnot€encompass€those€communications€which,€as€here,€are€destructive€by€themselvesÐ $!À Ðof€the€marital€relationship.Ð"¬Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€should€deny€the€motion.Ð  è#„  Ðò òÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€9ó óÐ d ÐÓÚnÓÌà  àAfter€discovery€was€completed,€Patrolman,€Sergeant€and€Talbot€County€moved€for€summaryÐ <Ø Ðjudgment€on€the€grounds€of€governmental€immunity.€€The€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€theÐ ( Ä Ðmotions€filed€by€Patrolman€and€Sergeant€and€an€order€denying€Talbot€County's€motion.€€BarristerÐ  ° Ðwishes€to€appeal€the€decision€regarding€Patrolman€and€Sergeant;€Talbot€County€wishes€to€do€theÐ  œ Ðsame€for€the€trial€court's€denial€of€its€motion.Ð ì ˆ ÐÌà  àò òAre€the€orders€of€the€Circuit€Court€disposing€of€the€motions€for€summary€judgmentÐ Ä ` Ðappealable?€€Ð °L  ÐÌà  àIf€either€or€both€are€not,€what€steps€can€be€taken€by€Barrister€and€Talbot€County€toÐ ˆ$  Ðmake€the€orders€appealable?€€Ð t  ÐÌà  àHow€should€the€Court€rule€on€these€requests?Ð Lè  ÐÌÓ  ÓBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTION€9Ð $À ÐÓÄrÓÌà  àó óThe€order€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€not€appealable€because€it€is€not€a€final€judgment€„€it€doesÐ ü˜ Ðnot€dispose€of€the€claim€against€Husband,€nor€Talbot€County.€€òòSeeóó€Maryland€Rule€2„601€and€2„602Ð è„ Ðand€Courts€and€Judicial€€Proceedings€Article€12„301.€€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€ArticleÐ Ôp ÐSection€12„303€allows€for€interlocutory€appeals€under€certain€circumstances€„€none€apply€to€the€facts.Ð À\ ÐÌà  àMaryland€Rule€2„602(b)€authorizes€the€Circuit€Court€to€direct€entry€of€a€final€judgment€"asÐ ˜4 Ðto€one€or€more€but€fewer€than€all€of€the€claims€or€parties"€if€the€Court€expressly€determines€that€thereÐ „  Ðis€no€just€reason€for€delay.€€The€Circuit€Court€could€arguably€enter€such€an€order€as€to€Patrolman€andÐ p  ÐSergeant€as€its€order€constitutes€a€full€determination€of€Plaintiff's€rights€against€them.€€The€CourtÐ \ø Ðwould€err€in€entering€such€an€order€for€the€denial€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€filed€byÐ Hä ÐTalbot€County.€òòDawkins€v.€Baltimore€City€Police€Deptóó.,€376€Md.€53,€827€A.2d€115€(2003):Ð 4 Ð ÐÌà8  àThe€collateral€order€doctrine€is€based€upon€a€judicially€created€fiction,€under€whichÐ  "¨ Ðcertain€interlocutory€orders€are€considered€to€be€final€judgments,€even€though€suchÐ ø"” Ðorders€clearly€are€not€final€judgments.€€€The€justification€for€the€fiction€is€a€perceivedÐ ä#€  Ðnecessity,€in€"a€very€few€...€extraordinary€situations,"€for€immediate€appellate€review.Ð Ð$l! Ð.€.€.€.€€As€a€general€rule,€interlocutory€trial€court€orders€rejecting€defenses€of€commonÐ ¼%X" Ðlaw€sovereign€immunity,€governmental€immunity,€public€official€immunity,€statutoryÐ ¨&D # Ðimmunity,€or€any€other€type€of€immunity,€are€not€appealable€under€the€MarylandÐ ”'0!$ Ðcollateral€order€doctrine.€€€Id.€at€64€(Footnote€omitted).ò òÐ €("%Ð Ð  ÐÓ  ÓQUESTION€NO.€10Ð d Ðó óÓ!{ÓÌà  àSamuel€Solicitor€was€admitted€to€practice€law€in€Maryland€in€1975.€€For€the€next€28€years,Ð <Ø ÐSolicitor€worked€as€a€member€of€the€in„house€legal€staff€of€a€business€in€Maryland.€€In€2002,Ð ( Ä ÐSolicitor€€retired€and€decided€to€practice€law€privately€in€Maryland.€€He€approached€Barrister,€aÐ  ° Ðfriend€and€neighbor,€about€joining€her€in€her€practice.€€Solicitor€and€Barrister€agreed€to€practice€lawÐ  œ Ðtogether€and€Barrister€changed€the€name€of€her€professional€association€from€"Barrister,€P.A."€toÐ ì ˆ Ð"Barrister€&€Solicitor,€P.A."€€Barrister€remained€the€sole€equity€owner€of€the€practice.€€The€day„to„Ð Ø t Ðday€operations€of€the€office€and€bookkeeping€functions€were€handled€by€Feckless.€€On€January€2,Ð Ä ` Ð2003,€Solicitor€went€to€work€for€€Barrister€and€Solicitor€and€spent€his€working€hours€over€the€nextÐ °L  Ðthree€years€handling€the€firm's€appellate€work.€€Solicitor€did€not€monitor€the€law€firm's€bank€records,Ð œ8  Ðrelying€upon€Barrister€to€perform€those€functions.€Ð ˆ$  ÐÌà  àIn€2005,€Solicitor€received€a€telephone€call€from€Client,€who€told€him€that€Barrister€hadÐ `ü  Ðsettled€Client's€personal€injury€case€two€months€previously€but€that€the€check€for€his€settlementÐ Lè  Ðproceeds€had€been€returned€from€his€bank€marked€"Not€Sufficient€Funds."€€€Solicitor€spoke€toÐ 8Ô  ÐBarrister€who€told€him€that€Feckless€had€inadvertently€deposited€the€check€in€the€wrong€account€andÐ $À Ðthat€she€would€personally€take€care€of€the€matter.€€Solicitor€took€no€further€action.€€In€December,Ð ¬ Ð2006,€Solicitor€learned€that€there€is€a€significant€overdraft€in€the€firm's€account.€€Feckless€failed€toÐ ü˜ Ðmaintain€a€separate€account€for€the€handling€of€client€funds€and€instead,€used€one€account€as€aÐ è„ Ðrepository€for€client€funds€as€well€as€fees.€€Feckless€also€paid€operating€expenses€from€time€to€timeÐ Ôp Ðfrom€the€account.€€Feckless€did€not€keep€accurate€records€of€what€money€in€the€account€representedÐ À\ Ðfees€versus€clients'€monies.€€Feckless€claimed€that€he€took€these€actions€at€Barrister's€specificÐ ¬H Ðinstructions;€Barrister€has€denied€this.Ð ˜4 ÐÌà  àò òWhat,€if€any,€professional€responsibility€issues€are€raised€€by€Solicitor's€role€in€thisÐ p  Ðmatter?ó óÐ \ø ÐÓ  Óò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€„€QUESTIONó ó€ò ò10ó óÐ Hä ÐÓg…ÓÌà  àThe€law€firm€clearly€has€violated€MRPC€1.15€by€co„mingling€client€funds€with€firm€funds.€Ð $!À ÐIn€addition,€the€firm€has€failed€to€follow€the€requirements€of€Maryland€Rules€16„603€(obligation€toÐ "¬ Ðmaintain€separate€trust€account),€16„604€(funds€for€clients€must€be€deposited€in€trust€accounts)€andÐ ü"˜ Ð16„604€(record€keeping€requirements€for€trust€accounts).€€Ð è#„  ÐÌà  àSolicitor€made€no€attempt€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€firm€was€complying€with€the€RulesÐ À%\" Ðof€Professional€Conduct€and€the€Maryland€rules€pertaining€to€lawyer's€trust€accounts.€€This€violatesÐ ¬&H # ÐMRPC€5.1(a)€(a€partner,€or€similar€supervisor,€must€make€reasonable€efforts€to€ensure€that€firmÐ ˜'4!$ Ðcomplies€with€rules€of€conduct.€€This€responsibility€extends€to€supervising€non„lawyer€assistants,Ð „( "% ÐMRPC€5.3.€€Solicitor's€culpability€is€underscored€by€the€fact€that€he€was€contacted€by€Client€aboutÐ p) #& Ða€bounced€check€but€made€no€effort€to€determine€the€cause€of€the€problem€other€than€to€speak€toÐ \*ø#' ÐBarrister€one€time.€€Solicitor's€conduct€could€warrant€professional€discipline,€including€suspensionÐ H+ä$( Ðor€disbarment.€€òòAttorney€Grievance€Comm'n€v.€Fickeróó,€349€Md.€13,€706€A.2d€1045€(1998)€(failureÐ 4,Ð%) Ðto€supervise);€òòAttorney€Grievance€Comm'n€v.€Awuahóó,€346€Md.€420;€697€A.2d€446€((1997)€(failureÐ  -¼&* Ðto€maintain€trust€account).