ÿWPC! –u-ÒÎÇ`D S劲SaÐåxýqTá É©6Qá´Qýmû ¥UDë¹cÒ^[}……Eç¿´ü½EÃ*hw-fX‹úØßŽ—©¤_g#žæ”NaÃØ9›}a‚žïõ¬Ì²ËÚ¦/ýÛ‰áÎ'wæ€Ee¨ÅkIûôÙŠ&ÜpªlWþ»þ>»«QÈIg“C¨±8÷” ÌÆ…ž_Ù|‰tÔ YjJ[–ej´útPg8ãuÇ´?µ=Pñ_—†0èc%Ö÷+ m¯RÍS¿ŠìÀ·r½è ö£~?Õizddšì4¥Ô³ûW!h°@çÝ‹?—²0Y6¥»·V¦…r°=:Y/BË'•EƒMIä–QKRJPGp¨¨—ß=ï‰/VaNÏ4’RëxâWV6 ñ/³?ÄúwGSSá7ù: Ö©…LÖíÐ6E°"Z̵bRb½,O2&WvOö ý{/b;¡ x~?‡6ØÝ݃޶CÀ1b »ÂPWɉ?³Ô ûeÆ‘_*¿Ãõ€ ¼tß 3! úÃ`¦à»ÁøXÔ³Ð61ÿñ±îàRÂäY«°×âm5¥ù…&î¯*6S«3 ñîÏ~ˆðÊê Y$°/£IøÛµÂ=B€”dhû³Î#ÁPU@ %Q 0(WN† 0D^ KwW4[o~ m€ 0D—UNÛÛ))¢????U@á˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL$,,,,$0'þÿ Z‹(Garamond RegularX($¡¡ |Ý ƒ¯)ÝÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà@&&ìàò òPage€Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú€of€Ú  Ú8Ú  Úó ó(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýqst/â ïsU--еBackup3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(Ô ;  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ñ Ð Ñ colorablePullingsKrusty KrabLettley L.Ednonjuryadmiited(ÎáA Z‹(Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÿÙXXXÔò òÖ€ÿÿÖÑ€/eÑà@&ìàJULY€2003ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òà@u u ìàOUT„OF„STATE€ATTORNEYS€EXAMINATIONó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌò òà@Ä Ä ìàQUESTIONS€AND€BOARDððS€ANALYSISó óˆÐ `° ÐÌÌà@â â ìàò òÔ€XÿÙXXXÿÙÔPRELIMINARY€FACTS€FOR€QUESTIONS€1€AND€2ó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOn€March€1,€2002,€Sam€Slim,€a€resident€of€Baltimore€County€executed€and€delivered€to€AnnÐ ü L  ÐAffluent€a€promissory€note€for€$25,000€with€interest€to€be€paid€monthly€at€an€annual€interest€rate€ofÐ è 8  Ð10%;€the€note€stated€that€the€principal€balance€was€to€be€paid€on€January€2,€2003.€€The€note€alsoÐ Ô$  Ðprovided,€among€other€things,€that,€in€the€event€of€default,€Slim€would€pay€Ann's€attorney's€fees€inÐ À  Ðan€amount€equal€to€one„third€of€the€amount€due.€€Slim's€business€did€not€prosper€and€he€fell€behindÐ ¬ü  Ðon€his€monthly€interest€payments.€€On€January€2,€2003,€he€failed€to€make€any€payment.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àSlim€maintains€a€checking€account€at€the€Queen€Anne€Bank€(the€ð ðBankðð).€€Ann€is€aware€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€accountððs€existence€and€knows€the€balance€is€in€excess€of€$50,000.€€To€her€knowledge,€Slim€hasÐ \¬ Ðno€other€assets€in€Maryland€other€than€those€connected€with€the€business.Ð H˜ ÐÌ€à  àAnn€confronted€Slim€about€the€money€due€her€and€demanded€its€payment.€€Slim€replied€thatÐ  p Ðhe€was€going€on€a€three„week€vacation€to€Brazil€and€would€attend€to€the€matter€when€he€returned.€Ð  \ ÐAnn€has€learned€that€Slim€has€started€a€"Going€Out€of€Business"€sale€at€his€garden€center.€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAnn€desires€to€sue€Slim€for€the€money€due€her€under€the€note€and€to€ensure€that€there€areÐ Ð  Ðassets€available€to€satisfy€any€judgement€in€her€favor.€€Assume€that€the€principal€due€under€the€noteÐ ¼  Ðis€$25,000€and€the€interest€due€is€$1,500.€€Ann€would€like€to€file€suit€in€the€District€Court€ofÐ ¨ø ÐMaryland€if€possible€for€the€full€amount€owed€and€would€like€to€receive€a€judgement€for€attorney'sÐ ”ä Ðfees€as€well.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@%ìàò òQUESTION€1ó óˆÐ X ¨ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà  àà ` àò òCan€Ann€file€suit€in€the€District€Court€of€Maryland?€€For€what€amounts?€Ð #l! ÐExplain€your€reasoning€fully.Ð $X" ÐÌà@W W ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€1ˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌó óà  àAnn€can€bring€an€action€for€the€full€amount€in€District€Court.€€She€seeks€recovery€of€$26,500Ð ¸'#& Ðin€principal€and€interest.€€Md.€Cts.€&€Jud.€Proc.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„401€(1)€provides€that€the€maximumÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjurisdictional€limit€for€the€District€Court€is€$25,000€ð ðexclusive€of€€.€.€.€interest,€costs€and€attorneyððsÐ )à$( Ðfees€if€attorneyððs€fees€are€recoverable€by€law€or€contract.ðð€€The€amount€she€wishes€to€claim€thus€doesÐ |*Ì%) Ðnot€exceed€the€maximum€jurisdictional€limit€of€the€District€Court€and€that€court€has€subject€matterÐ h+¸&* Ðjurisdiction.€Ð ° Ðò òÌÌà@%ìàQUESTION€2ˆÐ tÄ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà  àWhat€legal€options€are€available€to€Ann€to€assure€that€the€Slimððs€assets€will€be€availableÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€satisfy€a€judgment?€€What€facts€and€circumstances€must€Ann€show€in€order€to€accomplishÐ $ t Ðthis?€€What€pleadings€and€other€documents€must€Ann€file€in€order€to€obtain€a€court's€orderÐ  ` Ðto€accomplish€this?€€Explain€your€reasoning€fully.Ð ü L  ÐÌà@W W ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€2ˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌó óà  àAnn€should€attempt€to€obtain€an€order€attaching€his€assets,€i.e.€the€bank€account€and€theÐ ¬ü  Ðmaterial€in€the€garden€store,€on€original€process€pursuant€to€the€authority€granted€to€Maryland€courtsÐ ˜è  Ðby€Section€3„302€„€3„305€of€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article.€€If€granted€and€properlyÐ „Ô  Ðserved€upon€Slim,€an€attachment€on€original€process€will€subject€the€assets€to€the€control€of€the€courtÐ pÀ Ðduring€the€pendency€of€the€action€and€will€make€the€property€available€to€satisfy€a€judgment,€if€any,Ð \¬ Ðin€Annððs€favor.€€Unfortunately€for€Ann,€the€grounds€for€granting€an€attachment€on€original€processÐ H˜ Ðin€Maryland€are€quite€narrow.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àAnn's€action€against€Slim€is€based€upon€a€contract€and€is€for€liquidated€damages.€€SlimððsÐ  \ Ðactions€and€planned€actions,€i.e.€conducting€a€going€out€of€business€sale€as€well€as€by€telling€AnnÐ øH Ðthat€he€intended€to€take€a€lengthy€trip€to€South€America,€may€provide€provided€a€basis€to€concludeÐ ä4 Ðthat€he€is,€or€is€about€to€become,€an€absconding€debtor.€€If€a€judge€so€finds,€the€court€is€authorizedÐ Ð  Ðto€issue€an€order€of€attachment.€€Md.€Cts.€&€Jud.€Proc.€Code€Ann.€ðð€3„303€(d).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€accomplish€her€objectives,€€Ann€should€include€a€request€for€a€writ€of€attachmentÐ ”ä Ðon€original€process€with€her€complaint.€€The€request€must€be€supported€by€an€affidavit€verifying€theÐ €Ð Ðfacts€set€forth€in€the€complaint€and€demonstrating€why€she€is€entitled€to€the€writ.€€Maryland€Rule€3„Ð l¼ Ð115(a).€€In€addition,€Ann€will€be€required€to€file€a€bond€in€an€amount€the€court€deems€appropriate.€Ð X ¨ ÐMaryland€Rule€3„115(c).€€Ð D!” ÐÌò òó óà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@m m ìàò òBASIC€FACTS€FOR€QUESTIONS€3€AND€4.ó óˆÐ $X" ÐÌà  àOn€June€1,€2002,€Christopher€Marlowe€borrowed€$400,000€from€Beaumont€and€FletcherÐ à%0!$ ÐNational€Bank€(ð ðB&Fðð).€€In€support€of€his€application,€he€submitted€a€financial€statement€showingÐ Ì&"% Ða€net€worth€in€excess€of€$1,000,000.€€Marlowe€defaulted€on€the€loan€and€B&F€has€filed€a€collectionÐ ¸'#& Ðaction€against€him.€€During€discovery,€B&F€learned€that€Marlowe€was€recently€involved€in€an€actionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwith€his€former€wife€relating€to€child€support.€€In€a€hearing€in€that€action,€Jane€Jones,€who€was€andÐ )à$( Ðis€Marloweððs€accountant,€was€called€as€a€witness€by€Marlowe€and€testified€that€as€of€March,€2002,Ð |*Ì%) ÐMarloweððs€net€worth€was€less€than€$25,000.€€As€a€result€of€this€information,€B&F€has€amended€itsÐ h+¸&* Ðlawsuit€to€include€a€claim€for€fraud€and€punitive€damages€and€has€summoned€Jones€to€testify€at€trialÐ ° Ðabout€Marloweððs€former€and€current€financial€status.€€However,€Jones€has€married€Marlowe€sinceÐ œì Ðshe€gave€her€earlier€testimony€and€now€refuses€to€testify.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAssume€that€you€are€B&Fððs€attorney€and€that€you€have€obtained€a€transcript€of€Jonesðð€priorÐ `° Ðtestimony.€€Also€assume€that€the€testimony€about€these€topics€is€relevant.€€Ð L œ ÐÌò òà@%ìàQUESTION€3ó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àò òCan€Jones€be€required€to€testify€as€to€(1)€Marloweððs€€financial€status€as€of€March,€2002Ð ü L  Ðand/or€(2)€his€current€financial€status?€€What€grounds€can€be€raised€to€prevent€her€fromÐ è 8  Ðtestifying?€€How€should€the€Court€rule?€€Explain€your€answer€fully.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@W W ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€3ˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌó óà  àJones€and/or€Marlowe€can€assert€several€testimonial€privileges€regarding€Jones's€potentialÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony.€€Whether€these€assertions€will€be€successful€will€depend€upon€the€subject€matter€of€theÐ pÀ Ðtestimony.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAs€Marlowe's€spouse,€Jones€cannot€be€compelled€to€testify€against€her€husband€in€a€òòcriminalóóÐ 4„ Ðcase.€€However,€this€privilege€does€not€extend€to€civil€cases.€€Md.€Cts.€&€Jud.€Proc.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„Ð  p Ð106.€€However,€Jones€cannot€disclose€any€confidential€communication€received€from€her€husbandÐ  \ Ðduring€their€marriage€without€her€spouse's€permission.€€Md.€Cts.€&€Jud.€Proc.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„105.Ð øH ÐÌà  àAs€Marlowe's€accountant,€Jones€may€not€disclose€any€communication€received€fromÐ Ð  ÐMarlowe€in€the€course€of€her€rendering€professional€services€to€him.€€Md.€Cts.€&€Jud.€Proc.€CodeÐ ¼  ÐAnn.€ðð€9„110.€€However,€this€privilege€extends€only€to€communications€from€a€client€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðaccountant€and€information€contained€in€the€client's€books€and€records.€€The€accountant€can€beÐ ”ä Ðcompelled€to€testify€regarding€other€matters.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àSince€Marlowe€and€Jones€were€not€married€at€the€time€of€earlier€testimony,€the€maritalÐ X ¨ Ðprivilege€is€not€applicable€to€Marlowe's€financial€status€as€of€March,€2002.€€Since€Jones€has€alreadyÐ D!” Ðtestified€as€the€Marlowe€financial€status€as€of€March€at€his€request,€he€has€waived€the€accountant'sÐ 0"€  Ðprivilege.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àMarlowe€can€assert€the€accountant's€privilege€and€the€marital€privilege€with€regard€toÐ ô$D # Ðquestions€relating€to€his€current€financial€status€to€the€extent€that€Jones€would€have€to€revealÐ à%0!$ Ðprivileged€communications€(either€marital€or€accountant's)€to€answer€them.€€Section€10„913€of€theÐ Ì&"% ÐCourts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€prohibits€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€a€defendantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðfinancial€circumstances€prior€to€a€verdict€of€liability€and€a€finding€that€an€award€of€punitive€damages€Ð ¤(ô#' Ðis€supported€by€the€facts.€€However,€this€statutes€applies€only€to€personal€injury€cases.Ð )à$( ÐÌò òÐ h+¸&* ЇÌÌÌà@%ìàQUESTION€4ˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àCan€Jones's€prior€testimony€be€used€at€trial?€€Why?€€Explain€your€answer€fully.€Ð L œ ÐÌà@% % ìàBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€4€€ó óˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àWhen€Jones€testified€at€the€earlier€trial,€she€did€so€as€Marlowe's€accountant€and€at€his€request.€Ð ü L  ÐUnder€Maryland€law,€if€the€scope€of€her€employment€included€making€such€statements,€herÐ è 8  Ðtestimony€constitutes€an€admission€which€can€be€introduced€in€the€second€trial.òò€€Brown€v.€Hebbóó,€167Ð Ô$  ÐMd.€535,€175€A.€602€(1934);€MRE€5„803(3).€€The€testimony€is€admissible.€€Ð À  ÐÌÌà@T T ìàò òBASIC€FACTS€FOR€QUESTIONS€5€THROUGH€9ó óˆÐ „Ô  Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà  àTom€Pullings€had€just€arrived€home€from€his€first€semester€at€college€when€he€went€to€theÐ H˜ ÐBig€Store,€a€large€store€in€Talbot€County,€Maryland€to€buy€groceries€for€his€mother.€€While€at€theÐ 4„ Ðstore,€Pullings€was€observed€by€John€Lawman,€an€off„duty€Talbot€County€Police€Department€officer,Ð  p Ðwho€was€working€as€a€security€guard€at€the€store.€€Lawman€believed€that€Pullings€was€attemptingÐ  \ Ðto€steal€some€items€from€the€store€and€grabbed€Pullings€by€the€jacket€as€Pullings€was€leaving€theÐ øH Ðstore.€€Pullings€resisted€and€in€the€resulting€melee€both€men€staggered€into,€and€knocked€down,€AnneÐ ä4 ÐElderly,€another€shopper.€€Elderly€was€injured€as€a€result.€€At€the€time€of€the€incident,€Lawman€wasÐ Ð  Ðwearing€his€Talbot€County€Police€Department€uniform€and€was€working€at€the€store€with€the€expressÐ ¼  Ðpermission€of€his€supervisor€at€the€Department€according€to€a€written€County€policy.€€The€incidentÐ ¨ø Ðtook€place€on€December€23,€2000.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àPullings€and€Elderly€reside€in€Talbot€County,€Maryland.€€Lawman€is€a€resident€of€CarolineÐ l¼ ÐCounty;€the€Big€Store€is€owned€by€Big€Stores,€Inc.,€a€Virginia€corporation€with€its€principal€officeÐ X ¨ Ðin€that€state;€it€has€stores€in€all€Maryland€counties.€Ð D!” ÐÌà@%ìàò òQUESTION€5ó óˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àIn€January,€2003,€Elderly€decided€that€she€would€like€to€file€an€action€for€damages.€€SheÐ ô$D # Ðconsulted€with€Bob€Barrister,€a€Maryland€lawyer.€€After€listening€to€Elderlyððs€story,€BarristerÐ à%0!$ Ðexplained€to€Elderly€that€her€case€was€a€very€difficult€one€and€that€success€was€not€guaranteed.€Ð Ì&"% ÐBarrister€said€he€would€represent€Elderly€for€a€contingency€fee€of€40%€of€the€amount€recovered€fromÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€defendants.€€Barrister€also€said€that€the€case€would€require€substantial€out„of„pocket€expendituresÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€expert€witnesses,€investigators€and€similar€expenses.€€Elderly€agreed€to€pay€Barrister€$5,000€forÐ )à$( Ðsuch€purposes.€€Barrister€and€Elderly€then€shook€hands€and€Elderly€left.€€Two€days€later,€ElderlyÐ |*Ì%) Ðmailed€Barrister€a€check€for€$5,000.€€Barrister€deposited€the€check€in€his€office€checking€account.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àà ` àAfter€investigating€the€facts€surrounding€Elderlyððs€claim,€Barrister€decided€that€thereÐ ° Ðwere€colorable€causes€of€action€for€negligence€against€Lawman,€Pullings,€Big€Stores,€Inc.€and€TalbotÐ œì ÐCounty.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àò ò(a)€What€issues€are€raised€by€Barristerððs€agreement€with€Elderly€and€BarristerððsÐ `° Ðhandling€of€the€check?ó óÐ L œ ÐÌà  àò ò(b)€What€procedural€steps,€if€any,€should€Barrister€take€before€filing€suit?ó óÐ $ t ÐÌà@W W ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€5ó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àA€contingent€fee€agreement€must€be€in€writing.€€MRPC€1.5(c).€€The€agreement€must€includeÐ Ô$  Ðprovisions€relating€to€the€manner€in€which€the€expenses€of€litigation€are€to€be€paid.€€Barristerððs€oralÐ À  Ðagreement€with€Elderly€satisfies€neither€of€these€requirements.€€In€addition,€the€fee€charged€must€beÐ ¬ü  Ðreasonable€in€light€of€the€likelihood€of€success,€the€difficulty€of€the€case,€the€experience€of€the€lawyerÐ ˜è  Ðand€other€factors€set€forth€in€Rule€1.5.€€A€50%€contingency€fee€might€fail€to€satisfy€these€standards.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àBarrister€must€deposit€the€money€in€an€escrow€or€trust€account.€€It€can€be€disbursed€only€forÐ \¬ Ðthe€purposes€intended€by€Elderly.€€MRPC€1.15;€Maryland€Rule€16„603;€16„606;€16„607.€€BarristerððsÐ H˜ Ðmisuse€of€his€clientððs€money€is€a€gross€violation€of€the€Rules€of€Professional€Conduct€and€warrantsÐ 4„ Ðserious€sanction.€€òòAttorney€Grievance€Commððn€v.€€Moore,€óó301€Md.€169,€482€A.2d€497€(1984).Ð  p ÐÌà  àBefore€filing€a€claim€for€unliquidated€damages€against€a€local€government€or€one€of€itsÐ øH Ðemployees,€the€plaintiff€must€file€a€written€notice€to€the€local€government€stating€the€time,€place€andÐ ä4 Ðcause€of€the€injury.€€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€Section€5„304.€€The€notice€must€beÐ Ð  Ðdelivered€within€180€days€of€the€event€giving€rise€to€the€claim.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@%ìàò òQUESTION€6ó óˆÐ ”ä Ðà  àÌà  àBarrister€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County€on€behalf€of€ElderlyÐ l¼ Ðagainst€all€of€the€defendants.€€After€reviewing€the€complaint,€the€lawyers€for€the€various€defendantsÐ X ¨ Ðdecided€that€their€clientsðð€interests€would€be€better€served€if€the€case€were€tried€in€Talbot€County.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àò òHow€should€the€lawyers€for€the€defendants€attempt€to€transfer€the€case?€€How€will€theÐ #l! Ðcourt€rule€on€such€a€request?€€Explain€your€answer.Ð $X" ÐÌó óà@W W ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€6ˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÌó óà  àMaryland€Rule€2„322€provides€that€an€objection€to€venue€must€be€made€by€a€motion€filedÐ ¸'#& Ðprior€to€the€filing€of€an€answer.€€Failure€to€do€so€results€in€waiver€of€the€defense.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àMd.€Anno.€Code€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€Section€6„201€and€6„202€set€forthÐ |*Ì%) ÐMarylandððs€general€venue€rules.€€Section€6„201(a)€states€that€a€civil€action€may€be€brought€in€aÐ h+¸&* Ðcounty€where€the€defendant€resides,€carries€on€a€regular€business,€is€employed€or€habitually€engagesÐ ° Ðin€a€vocation.€€In€an€action€involving€multiple€defendants€with€no€single€venue€otherwise€applicable,Ð œì ÐSubsection€(b)€provides€that€the€action€may€be€brought€in€any€county€where€any€one€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendants€could€be€sued€or€in€the€county€where€the€cause€of€action€arose.€€Section€6„202(3)€providesÐ tÄ Ðthat€where€a€corporate€defendant€has€no€principal€office€in€the€State,€venue€lies€where€the€plaintiffÐ `° Ðresides.€€Where€more€than€one€county€has€venue,€the€plaintiff€may€chose€which€county€he€or€sheÐ L œ Ðprefers€to€try€the€case.€€òòSwanson€v.€Wildeóó,€74€Md.€App.57,€536€A.2d€694,€òòaffððdóó,€314€Md.€80,€548Ð 8 ˆ ÐA.2d€837€(1988).€€Big€Stores,€Inc.€does€business€in€Talbot€County,€Pullings€resides€there€andÐ $ t ÐLawman€is€employed€there.€€Thus,€there€is€a€single€venue€that€is€applicable€and€the€Court€shouldÐ  ` Ðgrant€the€motion.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAny€defendant€can€also€move€to€transfer€the€case€under€Rule€2„327(c)€on€the€grounds€ofÐ Ô$  Ðòòforum€non€conveniens.€€óóThis€motion€would€be€supported€by€pointing€out€that€the€scene€of€theÐ À  Ðaccident,€and€all€of€the€fact€witnesses€reside€or€are€located€in€the€Talbot€County€area.€€A€court€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€discretion€to€grant€such€motions€based€upon€considerations€such€as€the€efficient€administrationÐ ˜è  Ðof€justice€and€the€convenience€of€witnesses€and€parties.€€òòSimmons€v.€€Urquhart,€óó101€Md.€App.€85,Ð „Ô  Ð643€A.2d€487€(1994),€òòrevððd€on€other€grounds€óó339€Md.€1,€660€A.2d€412€(1995).Ð pÀ ÐÌÌà@%ìàò òQUESTION€7ó óˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌà  àAt€trial,€Barrister€called€the€director€of€security€services€for€Big€Stores,€Inc.€to€testifyÐ øH Ðregarding€the€Storeððs€procedures€for€observing€potential€shoplifters.€€During€her€testimony,€theÐ ä4 Ðdirector€made€a€statement€at€variance€with€her€prior€deposition€testimony.€€Barrister€then€asked€theÐ Ð  Ðchief€if€she€had€ever€made€a€statement€contradicting€her€last€answer€during€her€deposition.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðattorney€for€Big€Stores,€Inc.€objected€to€the€question€on€the€grounds€that€(1)€Barrister€was€attemptingÐ ¨ø Ðto€impeach€his€own€witness€and€2)€€Barrister€had€to€disclose€the€contents€of€any€such€prior€statementÐ ”ä Ðprior€to€asking€questions€about€it.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àò òHow€should€the€Court€rule€on€the€objection?€€Why?ó óÐ X ¨ ÐÌà@W W ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€7ó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€should€overrule€the€objection.€€Both€of€the€common€law€rules€asserted€by€theÐ $X" Ðobjecting€attorney€have€been€modified€by€the€Maryland€Rules€of€Evidence.€€MRE€5„607€providesÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€credibility€of€a€witness€may€be€challenged€by€any€party,€including€the€party€who€called€theÐ à%0!$ Ðwitness.€€MRE€5„613€states€that€a€witness€may€be€questioned€about€a€prior€inconsistent€statementÐ Ì&"% Ðwithout€disclosure€of€the€prior€statementððs€contents€if,€prior€the€end€of€the€examination,€disclosureÐ ¸'#& Ðis€made€and€the€witness€given€an€opportunity€to€explain€or€deny€making€the€statement.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌò òÌÐ h+¸&* ЇÌà@~ ~ ìàPRELIMINARY€FACTS€FOR€QUESTIONS€8€THROUGH€10ó óˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àDudley€Duke€was€walking€home€from€his€job€as€a€bartender€at€the€ð ðKrusty€Krabðð,€a€popularÐ tÄ Ðhangout€in€Charles€County,€Maryland,€late€at€night€on€December€27,€2002.€€He€was€accosted€by€aÐ `° Ðman€who€struck€him€several€times.€€The€assailant€fled€before€the€police€arrived.€€Three€days€later,Ð L œ ÐTom€Terrapin€entered€the€Krusty€Krab€and€was€identified€by€Duke€as€his€assailant.€€Duke€confrontedÐ 8 ˆ ÐTom€and€the€two€had€a€shoving€match.€€Tom€was€arrested€and€charged€with€second€degree€assaultÐ $ t Ðfor€both€incidents.Ð  ` ÐÌà@%ìàò òQUESTION€8ó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àTom€went€to€see€Anne€Esquire,€a€Maryland€lawyer€who€had€represented€members€of€theÐ À  ÐTerrapin€family€on€numerous€occasions€in€the€past.€€Tom€denied€any€involvement€in€the€first€incidentÐ ¬ü  Ðand€said€that€Duke€had€been€the€aggressor€in€the€second.€€Esquire€entered€her€appearance€on€behalfÐ ˜è  Ðof€Tom.€€One€week€before€trial,€Tomððs€older€brother€Pete€came€to€see€Esquire€about€an€unrelatedÐ „Ô  Ðcriminal€charge.€€Pete€told€Esquire€that€he€had€assaulted€Duke€on€December€27.€€Pete€asked€EsquireÐ pÀ Ðto€keep€the€information€confidential.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àò òIn€light€of€Peteððs€statement,€what€actions€should€Esquire€take?€€What€information€mayÐ 4„ Ðshe€disclose?€ó óÐ  p ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌà@W W ìàò òó óà@@"ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€8ó óˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àLawyerððs€knowledge€that€Pete€confessed€to€the€first€assault€against€Duke€makes€it€impossible€Ð ¨ø Ðto€represent€Tom€and€Pete€simultaneously.€€MRPC€1.7€provides€that€€a€lawyer€should€not€representÐ ”ä Ðtwo€clients€where€the€representation€of€one€client€will€be€materially€limited€by€the€lawyerððsÐ €Ð Ðresponsibilities€to€the€other€unless€the€lawyer€reasonably€believes€that€the€representation€will€not€beÐ l¼ Ðadversely€affected€and€the€client€consents€after€consultation.€€Here,€if€it€were€not€for€hisÐ X ¨ Ðrepresentation€of€Pete,€Lawyer€could€raise€several€inquiries€at€trial€or,€perhaps,€suggest€to€the€policeÐ D!” Ðthat€Pete€is€actually€the€guilty€party.€€òòLettley€v.€Stateóó,€358€Md.€26,€33€(2000).€€Thus,€it€is€impossibleÐ 0"€  Ðfor€Lawyer€to€provide€Tom€with€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòIdóó.€at€44,€45.€€Lawyer€must€moveÐ #l! Ðto€strike€his€appearance€and€request€a€continuance€for€Tom€in€order€to€obtain€new€counsel.€€WhileÐ $X" ÐLawyer€cannot,€of€course,€reveal€who€confessed€to€him,€he€can€explain€to€the€trial€judge€that€he€hasÐ ô$D # Ðinformation€from€another€client€which€would€interfere€with€his€ability€to€conduct€his€case.€€TheÐ à%0!$ ÐCourt€of€Appeals€has€ruled€that€such€statements€made€by€lawyers€are€to€be€accepted€at€face€value€byÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€courts.€€òòId.óó€at€48.€€òòHolloway€v.€Arkansasóó,€435€U.S.€475,€485,€98€S.€Ct.€1173,€55€L.Ed.€2d€426Ð ¸'#& Ð(1978).€€The€trial€court€should€grant€both€the€motion€to€strike€appearance€and€a€motion€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontinuance€to€permit€Tom€to€obtain€another€attorney.€€òòLettley€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€48.Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÑ/eÑâ âÑаÑâ âÑ  Ñà@%ìàò òQUESTION€9ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àTom€timely€requested€a€jury€trial€on€all€charges€and€the€cases€were€transferred€to€theÐ ˆØ ÐCircuit€Court.€€Tomððs€trial€on€both€assault€charges€are€scheduled€together.€€ò òWhat€motion€shouldÐ tÄ ÐTomððs€lawyer€make€regarding€trial€of€both€incidents€at€the€same€time?€€When€should€theÐ d´ Ðmotion(s)€be€filed?€€How€should€the€court€rule?€€Explain€your€answer€thoroughly.ó óÐ P   ÐÌà@W W ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSIS€ð!ð€QUESTION€9ó óˆÐ ( x ÐÌà  àTomððs€lawyer€should€file€a€motion€to€sever€the€counts€under€Maryland€Rule€4„253.€€TheÐ  P  Ðmotion€should€be€filed€within€30€days€of€the€date€Tomððs€lawyer€entered€her€appearance€or€TomððsÐ ì <  Ðinitial€appearance,€whichever€occurs€earlier.€€Maryland€Rule€4„252(b).€€While€Maryland€law€allowsÐ Ø(  Ðtrial€judges€some€degree€of€discretion€in€ruling€on€severance€motions€in€nonjury€trials,€in€jury€trials,Ð Ä  Ðtrial€courts€have€no€discretion.€€The€test€applied€in€Maryland€is€whether€ð ðthe€evidence€as€to€eachÐ °  Ðindividual€offense€would€not€be€mutually€admissible€at€separate€trials.ðð€€òòWieland€v.€Stateóó,€101€Md.Ð œì  ÐApp.1,€17,€643€A.2d€446€(1994).€€There€is€no€way€that,€if€the€incidents€were€tried€separately,Ð ˆØ  Ðevidence€about€the€second€confrontation€would€be€admitted€in€the€trial€as€to€the€first.€€òòIdóó.,€at€18.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðcounts€should€be€severed.€òòóóÐ `° ÐÌà@^^%ìàò òQUESTION€10ó óˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà  àAt€Tomððs€trial,€the€State€called€Duke€as€a€witness.€€On€direct€examination,€Duke€testified€thatÐ ` Ðhe€had€been€quietly€standing€at€the€bar€on€December€30òòthóó€when€he€was€shoved€and€punched€by€Tom.€Ð üL ÐOn€cross€examination,€Tomððs€lawyer€asked€Duke€whether€he€had€been€convicted€of€a€crime.€€TheÐ è8 ÐStateððs€Attorney€objected.€€Tomððs€lawyer€then€preferred€to€the€Court€that€Duke€had€been€convictedÐ Ô$ Ðof€possession€of€dangerous€weapons€in€1996€and€1999€and€of€theft€in€1985€and€that€the€evidence€wasÐ À Ðrelevant€to€show€Dukeððs€violent€character€and€lack€of€credibility.€€All€of€the€convictions€wereÐ ¬ü Ðmisdemeanors.ò ò€€How€should€the€Court€rule€on€the€objection?ó ó€€ò òExplain€your€answer€thoroughly.ó óÐ ˜è ÐÌà@% % ìàò òBOARDððS€ANALYSISó ó€ð!ð€ò òQUESTION€10ó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€should€sustain€the€objection.€€As€to€the€issue€of€character,€evidence€of€prior€crimesÐ P!  Ðis€inadmissible€to€prove€the€character€of€the€person.€€MRE€5„404(b).€€MRE€5„609€sets€out€a€severalÐ <"Œ  Ðpart€analysis€regarding€the€admissibility€of€prior€crimes€to€attack€credibility.€€First,€the€crime€mustÐ (#x! Ðbe€an€infamous€one€or€ð ð[an]other€crime€relevant€to€the€witnessesðð€credibilityðð€and€the€Court€mustÐ $d" Ðdetermine€that€the€probative€value€outweighs€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice€to€the€witness€orÐ %P # Ðobjecting€party.€€MRE€5„609(a).€€Second,€the€conviction€must€have€occurred€within€15€years.€€MREÐ ì%