WPC@U #F<).Ucb3,{{H=]j*K@Š6 S+?9 j#\!(jå>a< ǚTF{IVlF ɳ%_@i ']IOcW YZ OyB/5с&`I,tIlr+(;-Qk8ɩiʤU v(0`D:'߰rL*q:êlWMLu80Lfv ʤπjpH1!=$rK22p 0f 0` 0W 0N 0B 06 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0j 0I 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0p 0Q 0/ 0 ! 0! 0" 0T# 0l# 0 rH$ 0$ 0rH% 0<% 0>n% 01Bd& 0& 0:.' 0h' 0' 0h( 0Y5) 0)U.* 0_*+ 0-U>- B(. 0 CE.B. 4 4 4 4 5 85 B5 L5 V5 `5 j5}t579d<>?XAsC-E*#H!MJnM 1gVO 7O 0:OQ 0Q 0NQ#RUNS %(TM.T(2TNZT^ \T 1uhT 72TwU4U'U m)U\  `&Times New Roman' OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT LPrince George's County GovernmentL0Prince George's County Government .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.444` hp x (#823  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+` ` ` hp x (#523  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2M+M 0_level3   5+ hp x (#523  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2J+M 0_level4   2( hp x (#223  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2J+M 0_level5   2( hp x (#223  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2G+M 0_level6   /% hp x (#/23  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /%< <<hp x (#/23  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"h hhp x (#,23  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2D+M 0_level9   ," p x (#,23  ..  5+ ` hp x (#5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.444` hp x (#823  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+` ` ` hp x (#523  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+ hp x (#523  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( hp x (#223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( hp x (#223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% hp x (#/23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /%< <<hp x (#/23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"h hhp x (#,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2DM 0_levsl9   ," p x (#,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x (#5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.444` hp x (#823   5+ ` hp x (#5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+` ` ` hp x (#523   5+ ` hp x (#5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+ hp x (#523   5+ ` hp x (#5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( hp x (#223   5+ ` hp x (#5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( hp x (#223   5+ ` hp x (#5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% hp x (#/23   5+ ` hp x (#5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /%< <<hp x (#/23   5+ ` hp x (#5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"h hhp x (#,23   5+ ` hp x (#5  2DM 0_levnl9   ," p x (#,23   5+ ` hp x (#5  6/ 4Heading 1XXX    XXX6) 4Heading 2         6 4Heading 3      6 4Heading 4     6, 4Heading 5         6 4Heading 6   <:Default Para< :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref0A .Footer (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number0A .Header (#A7X` hp x (#A<RO :Body Text In X 8.` hp x (#85+ ` hp x (#5 X 6 4Body Text    64Hyperlink    <\l:documentbodyC. $VerdanaCXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS $Verdana<:FollowedHype      1 L)..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  ! (#X!(  ݔXX#CX#CXݔ2X#CXXX#C'$ (#(#$  ,'B  (1  X#CXX2X#C(2 L$ P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  \  `&Times New Roman d($     8 P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9%@ @ @ hp xX9%ݔXX#C    %  &    1  &GP  ݀Vierlingv.Baxter,293Pa.52,141A.2d728(1928)heldthatastockholdercouldbringsuitagainsttheofficers  ofthecorporationfordefraudinghimofhispatents,royaltiesandotherproperty.Cuttingv.Bryan,9Cir.30F.2d o 754(9thCir.1929)acorporateofficerenteredintoacontracttoconveytothecorporationthetitletocertain .~ propertywhichhadbeentakeninhisownname,itwasdecidedthatindividualstockholderscouldbringsuitagainst = himbecauseheheldthepropertyintrustforthebenefitofthestockholders.Blakesleev.Sottile,118Misc.513,  194N.Y.S.752(1922),wherethemanagerofanincorporatedautomobilesalesagency,whoheldaconsiderable k amountofthecapitalstockastrustee,impairedthebusinessbypersuadingtheautomobilemanufacturertotransfer * z theagencyscontracttoanothercompany,itwasheldthattheownerofthestockcouldbringsuitagainstthe  9 managerforviolatinghisfiduciaryduty.X#CXݔ_top_Hlt87850192_top_Hlt87850184_Hlt87850185_top_top_top_top_top_top s P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9% ` hp xX9%ݔXX#C  %  &    2  &;P  ݀InLumley,thedefendantpersuadedanoperasingertobreachherexistingcontractwiththeplaintiffstheater  sothatshewouldperformathistheater.X#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9% ` hp xX9%ݔXX#C  %  &    3  &;P  ݀Fraidinv.Weitzman,93Md.App.168,611A.2d1046(1992)X#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9% ` hp xX9%ݔXX#C  %  &    4  &;P  ݀Harnishv.HeraldmailCo.,264Md.326,286A.2d146(1972);Marmotv.MarylandLumberCo.,807F.2d  1180,1185(4thCir.1986)( conspiracybetweencorporationanditsagentsrequiresactionsoutsidescopeof o employment).X#CXݔ Z P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9% ` hp xX9%ݔXX#C  %  &    5  &;P  ݀Fraidin,93Md.App.at235,611A.2dat1079(aiderandabettorliabilitypossiblewhereattorneyaid others  notprincipal).X#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9% ` hp xX9%ݔXX#C  %  &    6  &;P  ݀Popev.BoardofSchoolCommrs,106Md.App.578,665A.2d713(1995)X#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  9% ` hp xX9%ݔXX#C  %  &    7  &;P  ݀CountsIIIandIVweredismissedondifferenttheoriesofliabilityinthesameorder.X#CXݔ y P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  ?+` ` ` hp x (#X?%ݔXX#C  %  &    8  &AP  ݀Discountedcashflowmethodestimatescashflowsintothefutureanddiscountsthembackatanappropriate  interestratetoallowforanestimateofintrinsicvalueX#CXݔ # P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  ?+` ` ` hp x (#X?%ݔXX#C  %  &    9  &AP  ݀precedentstocksalesisthepricewillingbuyershavepaidthecorporationforsharesinthepastX#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  ?+` ` ` hp x (#X?%ݔXX#C  %  &    10  &AP  ݀InternalRateofReturnisthereturnacompanycouldreasonablyexpectbyinvestinginitselfX#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  ?+` ` ` hp x (#X?%ݔXX#C  %  &    11  &AP  ݀Thecomparablecompanyanalysisisbasedonwhatothercompaniesintheindustryhavebeenperforming.In  thiscase,thecomparablecompanyanalysiswasprimarilybasedonOrbcomminvestorresearchreports. o Orbcommwasoneofatleasttwocompanies,whichFACSviewedascompetitorsintheindustry.X#CXݔ  P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  ?+` ` ` hp x (#X?%ݔXX#C  %  &    12  &AP  ݀Thisis63%of$507million.X#CXݔ 35=CIOU[a1(1)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.L i.(2t$ P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  #CXXX#C  0  #|x(4s$..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C(O$HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularSX:2 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Yi)n1yweb0"U P4s!..      SX#CXXSXX#CXXSX#C  _       0XX8#CXXdd8  INTHECIRCUITCOURTPRINCEGEORGESCOUNTY,MARYLAND  MICHAELH.AHAN   h     : b  `     h     : H and `     h     : . ~  `     h     :  d PROTOLEX,LLC   h     :  J  `     h     :  0  `  Plaintiffs h     :     `     h     :    v. `     h     : p XXX#C CAL0209937X#CXX     `     h     : ;  GEORGEGRAMMAS h     : !   `     h     :   and `     h     :    `     h     :  GARDNER,CARTON&DOUGLAS  : i  `     h     : O  `  Defendants h     : 5 X#CXXX#C     & x   m  7Ԍ̌ X#CXXX#C  X#CXXX#C         MXX#COPINIONANDORDEROFTHECOURTB    Ԍ  Ќ X#CXM     ` BeforetheCourtareDefendantsGeorgeGrammasandGardner,Carton&Douglas 5 (hereinafterreferredtoas GCD)MotionforJudgmentNotwithstandingtheVerdict,or,in  theAlternative,forNewTrialand/ortoRevisetheVerdict.Thetrialofthiscase } commencedonJuly19,2004.AtthecloseofPlaintiffMichaelH.Ahanscase,all I! DefendantsmadeMotionsforJudgmentpursuanttoMarylandRule2519.TheCourtdenied #e! eachofthesemotions.AtthecloseoftheDefendantscase,allDefendantsrenewedtheir $1 # MotionsforJudgment.TheCourtreservedrulingontheseMotionsatthattime.'xO &!% +    +-    ` OnAugust5,2004,thejuryreturnedaverdictinfavorofPlaintiffagainstthe y(#' DefendantsonthecountsofLegalMalpractice($1,700,000),BreachofFiduciaryDuty E*%) ($8,000,000),BreachofFiduciaryDuty(ThirdPartyLiability)($2,500,000)andTortious ,a'+ InterferencewithEconomicRelationship($5,000,000),foratotalcompensatoryawardof --)- $17,200,000.OnAugust17,2004,DefendantsGeorgeGrammasandGCD,filedthe  postjudgmentmotionsconsideredhere.PlaintiffMichaelAhanfiledanOppositiontothose | motions.AHearingonthesemotionswasheldonSeptember2,2004.+- f ݌ H Ќ    +    ,+  ThisCourtbyitsOrderfollowingthisOpinionforthereasonsstatedbelowwillgrantthe  d DefendantsMotionforJudgmentNotwithstandingtheVerdictonallCounts.+݌  0 Ќ    ,       ,B.444` hp x (#XB&  -  STATEMENTOFTHECASE-  ^Ԍ x  Ќ    X ,H.` hp x (#444` XHPlaintiffMichaelAhanandNaderModanloformedtwocompanies,FinalAnalysis D  Inc.,( FAI),andFinalAnalysisCommunicationsServices,Inc.( FACS),tobuildand ` operateaconstellationofsatellitesthatwouldbeusedfordatatransmissionandmessaging , services.FAIwasincorporatedin1992.FACSwasincorporatedin1993.Ahanand  ModanloweretheonlyshareholdersofFAI,eachowningfiftypercentofthecompanys t stock.Initially,FAIownedalloftheissuedsharesofFACS.AhanandModanlowerethe @ onlydirectorsofFAI.Eachthereforehad negativecontroloverFAI,meaningthateither  \ couldblockdecisionsaffectingthecompanyattheboardofdirectorslevel.FAIandFACS ( wereunsuccessfulinimplementingtheirplanstobuildandoperateaconstellationof  satellitesforwirelesstelecommunicationspurposes.Theylaunchedonlythreesatellites, p!  eachofwhichfailedtooperateasdesigned.'x <#" In1996,FAIretainedGCD.Theinitialrepresentationwaslimitedtointernational %X $ tradeandtechnologytransferissues.OnDecember8,1997,GCDprovidedFAIwithan &$"& amendedengagementletter,whichconfirmedanagreementtoexpandthescopeofits (#( representation.InMay1998,anotherletterwassentwhichexpandedthescopeofGCDs l*%* roletothatofgeneralcounseltoFAIandFACS.InadditiontoGCD,FAIandFACS 8,', employedanumberofotherlawfirmstorepresentthem.Inconnectionwithaplannedhigh  yieldbondoffering,theyretainedChadbourne&Parke.ForFCCissues,theyhiredKelly, | Drye&Warren.Later,FAIandFACSretainedReedSmithforbankruptcyadvice. H Bylate1998,significantdisagreementshadarisenbetweenAhanandModanlo,  d whichdisruptedtheirsharedmanagementofthecompanies.Inessence,theydisagreedon  0 whichofthemwouldbeincontrol.Duringthistime,AhanandModanlo,alongwithathird    memberoftheFACSBoard!VincentCook,begandiscussingrestructuringFAIandFACS x  inawaythatwouldresolvetheirdifferences.OnApril19,1999,Ahan,ModanloandCook D  signedanonbindingMemorandumofUnderstanding( MOA),whichexpressedtheintent ` ofthepartiestoestablishtwoindependently,operatedbusinesses,whichwouldseparately , andindependentlypursueFAIandFACSbusiness.AhanwouldberesponsiblefortheFAI  business,whichhewouldcontrolandoperatethroughanewengineeringcompany. t ModanlowouldberesponsiblefortheFACSbusiness.GCDwouldprovidelegaladviceand @ assistanceintherestructuringprocessbydraftingasetofbylawsandassistinginformation  \ ofAhanLLC,thenewEngineeringCompany. ( * XXH.` hp x (#` XH  *   Despitetheseefforts,theoperationalissuesthatseparatedAhanandModanlopriorto  enteringintotheMOApersisted.InJune1999,AhanretainedDavidBakerashispersonal p!  counseltoadvisehimonalldealingsconcerningtheimplementationoftheMOA.In <#" September1999,thecontinueddiscordandresultingdeadlockbroughtthecompaniestonear %X $ ruin.AninterimmechanismtobreakthedeadlockwasagreedtobyAhanandModanloin &$"& October1999.Pursuanttothe ShareholdersAgreement,AhanandModanlowouldgive (#( proxiestotheFACSBoardofDirectors(whichhadbeenexpandedtofivemembers)sothat l*%* theBoardcouldvoteonissueswhentherewasadeadlockbetweenAhanandModanloon 8,', matterssubmittedtotheFAIshareholdersfordecision.Inaddition,AhanandModanlo  releasedandwaivedtheirrightstoassertclaimsagainsteachother,FAI,FACS,andthe | companiesagentswithrespecttopast,presentorfutureclaimsrelatedtorestructuring.* 2!݌ H Ќ*` X` X* XX  ShortlyafterenteringintotheShareholdersAgreement,thepartiesabandonedtheir  d effortstocomeupwithasinglesetofbylaws.BothAhan,throughDavidBaker,and  0 Modanlo,throughGrammasandGCD,preparedseparatesetsofbylawstobepresentedto    theFACSBoard.OnNovember14,1999,theFACSBoardconsideredbothsetsofbylaws. x  Ultimately,theBoardvoted32toadoptModanlosbylaws.Duringthissamemeeting, D  RaymondSchettino,aFACSBoardmember,nominatedAhantoserveasVicePresidentand ` SecretaryofFAIandFACS.Ahandeclinedtoacceptthenomination.GCDattorneyGeorge , Grammaswasthereafternominatedandelectedtothepositionofcorporatesecretaryforboth  FAIandFACS.Laterintheday,AhanresignedhispositionontheBoardofDirectorsfor t FAIandasChiefExecutiveOfficerofFACS.Modanlodidnotaccepthisresignationatthis @ time.AhanthereforeremainedinhispositionswithFAIandFACS.  \ AhanLLCthereafterbegannegotiatinganEngineeringContractwithFAI.The ( EngineeringContractwassignedonFebruary21,2000.Ahanagainsubmittedhis  resignationasChiefExecutiveOfficer,employee,andanyotherofficerpositionthatheheld p!  orclaimedtohaveheldatFAIandFACS.DespiteAhanagaintenderinghisresignation,it <#" appearsthathecontinuedinhispositionsatbothFAIandFACS. %X $ ProblemsquicklydevelopedbetweenAhanLLCandFAIregardingthe &$"& implementationandinterpretationoftheEngineeringContract.InJuly2000,DavidBaker, (#( onbehalfofAhan,describedinalettertoRodGlover,anotherattorneyassociatedwith l*%* GCD,AhansdesiretohaveFAIdissolvedthroughbankruptcy.OnAugust15,2000, 8,', pursuanttotheprovisionsinthebylawsadoptedbytheBoardinNovember1999,aseriesof  meetingswerecalledbyModanlo,whichresultedinAhanbeingreplacedasadirectorof | FACS.Asaresult,byAugust2000,thedisputebecamethesubjectofanAmerican H ArbitrationAssociation( AAA)proceeding.Duringthissametime,litigationalsoensued  d inMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourt.ThatCourtorderedthatthegovernanceandstructure  0 ofFACSbemaintainedasitwasonAugust14,2000,withModanloservingasPresident.    OnOctober17,2000,allclaimsbyallpartiesweredismissed. x  ThedeadlockcontinueduntilApril2001,whenFACSshareholderselectedanew D  slateofdirectors.RaymondSchettino,whowasnotreelected,filedsuitagainstModanlo, ` FAIandFACSinMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourt.Ahanassertedclaimsagainstthesame , partiesasDr.Schettino.OnSeptember4,2001,threecreditorsofFAIfiledapetitionfor  involuntarybankruptcyintheUnitedStatesBankruptcyCourt.Atrusteewasappointedand t theassetsofFAIwereputupforauction.UltimatelyFACS,whichheldtheFCClicensefor @ operationoftheconstellationthatthecompaniessoughttobuild,forfeitedthatlicense  \ becauseitfailedtomeettherequiredmilestonessetforthinthelicense.InApril2002,Ahan ( filedtheinstantlawsuitagainstGCDandGeorgeGrammas.  Ѐ p!   E+ ` hp x (#` XE <#"        X ,B.444` hp x (#XB& ,  5  DISCUSSION56 st5Ԍ  Ќ          , 7  ApplicableLaw 7n7 st67Ԍ | Ќ   #    #7  A.JudgmentNotwithstandingtheVerdict#798 st!8Ԍ H Ќ   4 ThisCourtsconsiderationofDefendantsMotionforJudgmentNotwithstandingthe  d VerdictisgovernedbyMarylandRule2532.Themotionshouldbegrantedpursuanttothe  0 Rulewhentheevidencepresentedattrialdoesnotsupporttheverdictofthejury.SeePaul     V.Niemeyer&LindaM.Schuett,MarylandRulesCommentaryat448(3ded.2003). x  Thus,themotionteststhelegalsufficiencyoftheevidence.SeeImpalaPlatinum,Ltd.v. D  ImpalaSales(U.S.A.),Inc.,283Md.296,389A.2d887(1978).',k6 `  4 ThestandardforgrantingaMotionforJudgmentN.O.V.isthesameasthestandardfor , grantingaRule2519MotionforJudgment.See,e.g.Millerv.Michalek,13Md.App.16,  281A.2d117(1971).TheMotionforJudgmentN.O.V.mustbedeniedifthereexists t  legallycompetentevidence,howeverslight,fromwhichthejurycouldhavefoundasthey @ did8.Houstonv.SafewayStores,Inc.,109Md.App.177,183,674A.2d87,89  \ (1996)(quotingHuppmanv.Tighe,100Md.App.655,663,642A.2d309(1994)). ( !     &  !&>  !&>o> stK>Ԍ̌  !     !>  B.NewTrial!>? st?Ԍ p!  Ќ    4 TheMotionforNewTrialisgovernedbyMarylandRule2533andisgrantedinthe <#" discretionofthetrialjudgetopreventamiscarriageofjustice.PaulV.Niemeyer&Linda %X $ M.Schuett,MarylandRulesCommentaryat45253(3ded.2003);seealsoCams &$"& BroadloomRugs,Inc.v.Buck,87Md.App.561,590A.2d1060(1991).' c> (#(   l*%* !    &   !A  C.RevisionofJudgment!AA stAԌ       4 PursuanttoMarylandRule2535(a),acourtmayexerciserevisorypoweroverajury | verdict.Thispower,however,is nogreaterthanthepowerithadtograntajudgment H notwithstandingtheverdictornewtrialunderRules2532and2533.PaulV.Niemeyer  d &LindaM.Schuett,MarylandRulesCommentaryat460(3ded.2003).'A  0 !     &  !bD  D.Remittitur!bDD stDԌ x  Ќ    4 Remittiturisnotacreatureofstatute,butinsteadisacommonlawpowerofatrialcourt D  toreduceaverdictthatitdeterminesistoolarge.Technically,whenacourtgrantsa ` remittiturastocompensatorydamages,itordersanewtrialunlesstheplaintiffwillagreeto , acceptalessersumfixedbythecourt,insteadofthejuryverdict.OwensCorningv.Waltka,  125Md.App.313,337,725A.2d579,59091(1999).Aremittiturmaybeorderedifacourt t determinesthattheverdictawardedbythejury isgrosslyexcessive,orshocksthe @ conscienceofthecourt,orisinordinateoroutrageouslyexcessive,orevensimply  \ excessive.Banegurav.Taylor,312Md.609,624,541A.2d969(1988)(quotingConklin (  v.Schillinger,255Md.50,69,257A.2d187(1969).'xD  "       &   "jI  Standing"jII stIԌ  Ќ      4 DefendantsarguethatthePlaintifflacksstandingtoassertthefollowingclaims:CountI | (LegalMalpractice),CountII(LegalMalpractice!ThirdPartyBeneficiary),CountV H (BreachofFiduciaryDuty!asAttorneyandasCorporateOfficer),andCountVI(Breachof  d FiduciaryDuty!ThirdPartyBeneficiary).TheDefendantscontendthattheseclaimsare  0 derivativeclaimsbasedonanallegeddecreaseinthevalueofthePlaintiffsFAIstock.As    such,theseclaimsmustbebroughtbythecorporationandnotbytheplaintiffasan x   individualshareholder.ThisCourtagreeswithDefendantsandwillthereforebythisCourts D  OrderfollowingthisOpiniongranttheDefendantsMotionforJudgmentNotwithstandingthe ` VerdictonCountsI,II,V,andVIbecausePlaintifflacksstandingtoasserttheclaimsset , forththerein.'I   XTheCourtofAppealsholdinginWallerv.Waller,187Md.185,49A.2d449(1946) t controlsthisCourtsdecisioninthecaseatbar.InWaller,theplaintiffclaimedthatseveral @ officersanddirectorswereconspiringtoobtaincontrolofthecompany,destroythevalueof  \ hisstock,andgenerallyruintheplaintifffinancially.Inthatcase,theCourtofAppealsheld ( that anactionatlawtorecoverdamagesforaninjurytoacorporationcanbebroughtonly  inthenameofthecorporationitselfactingthroughitsdirectors,andnotbyanindividual p!  stockholderthoughtheinjurymayincidentallyresultindiminishingordestroyingthevalue <#" ofthestock.Wallerv.Waller,187Md.185,189,49A.2d449,452(1946). %X $ JudgeDelaplaine,writingforaunanimousCourtofAppealsofMaryland,reasoned &$"& that thecauseofactionforinjurytothepropertyofacorporationorforimpairmentor (#( destructionofitsbusinessisinthecorporation,andsuchaninjury,althoughitmaydiminish l*%* thevalueofthecapitalstock,isnotprimarilyornecessarilyadamagetothestockholder,and 8,', hencethestockholdersderivativerightcanbeassertedonlythroughthecorporation.  Waller,187Md.at189,49A.2dat452.Despitethisholding,however,theCourtofAppeals | notedthatashareholdermayindividuallybeallowedtobringadirectactionwhenthe H wrongfulactisdirectedattheshareholderpersonally.Waller,187Md.at192,49A.2dat  d 453.ThisisthedistinctionthatPlaintiffpointstointraversingthebartohisstandingto  0 pursuetheseclaimsintheinstantcasesetupbyWaller.Waller,187Md.at192,49A.2dat    453.Hisargumentistonoavailinthiscaseforthereasonsthatfollow. x  %ݔXX#C  %=W  X#CXݔA derivativeactionisaclaimassertedbyashareholderplaintiffonbehalfofthe D  corporationtoredressawrongagainstthecorporation.Theactionisderivativebecauseitis ` broughtforthebenefitofthecorporation,notfortheshareholderplaintiff.Kramerv. , WesternPacificIndustries,Inc.,546A.2d348,351(Del.1988);SeealsoLewisv.Spencer,  1990WL72615at2(Del.1990)( [W]hereaplaintiffshareholderclaimsthatthevalueofhis t stockwilldeteriorateandthatthevalueofhisproportionateshareofthestockwillbe @ decreasedasaresultofallegeddirectormismanagement,hiscauseofactionisderivativein  \ nature.);Litmanv.PrudentialBacheProperties,Inc.,611A.2d12(Del.Ch.1992);Seinfeld ( v.Bays,595N.E.2d69(1992)(citingKramerv.WesternPacificIndustries,Inc.,546A.2d  348,351(Del.1988)( Claimsofdevaluationofstock...areclaimswhichaccruetothe p!  corporationratherthantoindividualstockholders.).%=WwW݌ <#" ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %\  X#CXݔIncontrast,a directactionisaclaimassertedbyashareholder,individually,against %X $ acorporatefiduciary,suchasadirector,toredressaninjurypersonaltotheshareholder. &$"&  [D]amagesrecoveredinadirectactionaretoremedytheshareholderplaintiffindividually, (#( theyarepayabletohim,notthecorporation.Paskowitzv.Wohlstadter,151Md.App.1,9, l*%* 822A.2d1272(2003).%\ ]݌ 8,', ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %_  X#CXݔMarylandlawisclear. [T]heplaintiff[inadirectaction]mustallegeeitheraninjury  whichisseparateanddistinctfromthatsufferedbyothershareholders,orawrong | involvingacontractualrighttovoteortoassertmajoritycontrol,whichexistsindependently H ofanyrightofthecorporation.Paskowitz,151Md.App.at10,822A.2dat1277(quoting  d Moranv.HouseholdInternational,Inc.,490A.2d1059,1070(Del.Ch.1985)affd,500  0 A.2d1346(Del.1985)(inturnquoting12bFletchersCyclopediaCorps,5921,p.451    (Perm.Ed.,Rev.Vol.(1984)).ThePlaintiffAhanassertsintheinstantcasethathehasa x  directclaimbecausetheactionstakenbyGrammasandGCDbreachedafiduciarydutyowed D  tohimdirectlyandpersonally.%__݌ ` ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %d  X#CXݔPlaintiffinmakingthatassertionreliesonthefollowingpassageinWaller:%dPd݌ , ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X 8 8?%@ @ @ hp x444` X?%9e  X#CXݔ [U]nquestionably[,]astockholdermaybringsuitinhisown  nametorecoverdamagesfromanofficerofacorporationforacts  whichareviolationsofadutyarisingfromcontractorotherwise t andowingdirectlyfromtheofficertotheinjuredstockholder, Z thoughsuchactsarealsoviolationsofdutyowingtothe @ corporation.%9ee݌ &v ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %6h  X#CXݔ%6hph݌̌X#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  8 8%h  X#CXݔWaller,187Md.at192,49A.2dat453.ThisCourtfindsthatrelianceonthisparticular B passageinWaller,withoutmore,ismisplaced.%hKi݌ ( ЌX#CXXX#C  3 l<` %ݔXX#C  X%j  X#CXݔԀTheCourtofAppeals,inWaller,providedconcreteexamplesinwhichcourtshave  allowedstockholderstobringasuitintheirindividualcapacityagainstanofficerordirector  ofacorporation.&  5 4  1     & lMary  ݀ThePlaintiffinthiscasepointsoutspecificinstancesinwhichtheactions   takenbytheDefendantswerespecificallytargetedathim.HeallegesthatGrammasand p!  GCDparticipatedinaconsistentcourseofconducttooustPlaintifffromthecompaniesand V"! toeffectivelydestroyhis50%ownershipinterestinFAIby:draftingandimplementing <#" bylawsthatstrippedAhans50%controlinterest;secretlyissuingFAIsharestoPolyotto "$r#  diluteAhansownershipofthecompanies;callingBoardmeetingsfortheexpresspurposeof %X $ oustinghim;andnegligentlyorintentionallyomittingakeyrestrictionofproxyrightsonany  sharesissuedtoPolyot.%jj݌   X#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %Pp  X#CXݔThisCourtrecognizesthatthecasesmentionedinWallerarenotallencompassing | andaremerelyexamplesofinstancesinwhichcourtshaveallowedashareholdertobring b suitpersonallyagainstacorporation.However,asexamples,theyservetoprovidea H thresholddescriptionofthetypeofrelationshipandtherequisiteconductthattrialcourts, . ~ suchasthisone,shouldconsiderindeterminingwhetherthereisaviolationofadutyowed  d directlytoashareholder.Usingthosecasesasbenchmarks,thisCourtconcludesthat,asa  J matteroflaw,thePlaintiffhasnofiduciaryrelationshipwithDefendants,Grammasand  0 GCDarisingfromeithercontractoranyothersource independent ofthedutyowedtoall    stockholdersofFAIandFACS.Sinceno independent relationshipexistedbetweenPlaintiff    AhanandDefendantsGrammasandGCD,therewasnoindependentduty.Therefore,   Plaintiff,asamatteroflaw,hasnostandingtoassertabreachofsuchaduty.%Ppp݌ x  ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %u  X#CXݔThisanalysisismadeevenmorecompellingbythefactthatPlaintiffAhanclaimsas ^  hisdamagesresultingfromDefendantsGrammasandGCDsconductthedestructionofthe D  businessandwhathewouldhavereasonablyexpectedtoreceiveasprofits,i.e.,anincrease *z  inthevalueofhisstock.MarylandlawisequallywellsettledbyWalleronthisissue. [A] ` stockholdercannotmaintainanactionatlawagainstanofficerordirectorofthecorporation F torecoverdamagesforfraud,embezzlement,orotherbreachoftrustwhichdepreciatedthe , capitalstockorrendereditvalueless.Waller,187Md.at190,49A.2dat452.This  holdinginWalleris applicableevenwhenthewrongfulactsweredonemaliciouslywith  intenttoinjureaparticularstockholder.Danielewiczv.Arnold,137Md.App.601,617,  769A.2d274,283(2001).%uv݌ t ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %z  X#CXݔIntheinstantcase,thereisnoinjurysufferedbyPlaintiffAhanthatwasnotsuffered Z byothershareholders,namelytheother50%shareholderModanlo.Bothshareholdersalike @ lostconsiderableamountsofmoneyduetodecisionsmadebycorporatedirectorsofFAIand &v FACS,whichcausedFACStoseekbankruptcy. Itisimmaterialwhetherthedirectorsare  \ animatedmerelybygreedorbyhostilitytowardaparticularstockholder,forthewrongdoing B affectsallthestockholdersalike.Danielewiczv.Arnold,supra(citingSeitzv.Michael,148 ( Minn.80,181N.W.102,12A.L.R.1060,1068(1921)).Even [w]hereconspiratorsruina  personfinanciallybyforcingintoreceivershipacorporationinwhichhewasalarge  stockholder,inordertoeliminatehimasanofficerandtoacquirecontrolofthecorporation,   thewrongsaresufferedbytheinjuredpersoninhiscapacityasastockholder,andtheaction p!  torecoverforresultinginjuriesshouldbebroughtbythereceiver.Waller,187Md.at191, V"! 49A.2dat453(citingMillerv.Preston,174Md.302,313,199A.471,476(1938)).%zz݌ <#" ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔ % ݌ "$r# ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C    %  X#CXݔLegalMalpractice%݌ %X $ ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X  %  X#CXݔ  Notwithstandingmyholdingtothecontrary,assuming,arguendo,thatthePlaintiffMichael %>!% Ahanhadstandingtobringthissuit,thisCourtnowconsiderstheotherissuespresentedby &$"& theparties.Inasuitagainstanattorneyfornegligence,theplaintiffmustprovethat(1)there ' #' wasanattorneyclientrelationship,whichgivesrisetoadutyowedtotheplaintiff,(2)that (#( theattorneybreachedthatduty,and(3)theattorneysbreachwastheproximatecauseofthe )$) clientsinjury.PaulMarkSandler&JamesK.Archibald,PleadingCausesof l*%* ActioninMaryland3.19,Commentat186(3rded.2004).SeealsoFishowv.Simpson, R+&+ 55Md.App.312,462A.2d540(1983);MarylandCasualtyCo.v.Price,231F.397(4th 8,', Cir.1916);Wongv.Aragona,815F.Supp.889(D.Md.1993),affd,61F.3d902(4thCir -n(- 1995);Berringerv.Steele,133Md.App.442,758A.2d574(2000);Flahertyv.Weinberg,  303Md.116,492A.2d618,53USLW2613,61A.L.R.4th443(1985);Wrenv.Wasserman,  1995WL848529(D.Md.).%݌ | ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔ%݌̌X#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %z  X#CXݔ A.Attorneyclientrelationship%z݌ H ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %v  X#CXݔ  Beforealegalmalpracticeclaimagainstanattorneycangoforward,itisnecessaryto . ~ establishthatanattorneyclientrelationshipexistedbetweenthepurportedclientandthe  d attorney.BlacksLawDictionary230(7thed.1999)definesaclienttobe apersonwho  J employsorretainsanattorney,orcounsellor,toappearforhimincourts,advise,assist,and  0 defendhiminlegalproceedings8.[Aclientalso]include[s]onewhodisclose[s]    confidentialmattersto[an]attorneywhileseekingprofessionalaid,whetherattorneywas    employedornot.ThisCourtrecognizesthattheformationofanattorneyclientrelationship   isnotlimitedtotherigorousformalitiesofanexpressagreementorapaymentarrangement. x  Infact,anattorneyclientrelationship can,andoftenmust,beimpliedfromthefactsand ^  circumstancesofthegivencase.AttorneyGrievanceCommnofMarylandv.Shaw,354 D  Md.636,650651,732A.2d876,883(1999).Inaddition, [t]herelationshipmayariseby *z  implicationfromaclients reasonable expectationoflegalrepresentationandtheattorneys ` failuretodispelthoseexpectations.AttorneyGrievanceCommnofMarylandv.Brooke, F 374Md.155,175,821A.2d414,425(2003)(emphasisadded).%v݌ , ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X%t  X#CXݔThecaseatbarpresentsanissuethatMarylandsappellatecourtshaveneversquarely  faced!whetheranattorneywhoservesascorporatecounseltoacloselyheldcorporation  withtwoequal50%stockholders,absentanindependentcontractorothersourceofthe  relationship,automaticallyalsocreatesanindependentattorneyclientrelationshipwitheach t ofthecorporation'sequalshareholders.Ofcourse,anattorneyclientrelationshipmayarise Z giventhebeliefsofthepurportedclientifthatbeliefis reasonable .Bobbitv.Victorian @ House,Inc.,545F.Supp.1124,1126(Ill.1982).Whilethedeterminationofwhethersucha &v beliefisreasonableisusuallyafactualinquirybasedontheevidencepresentedina  \ particularcase.SeeAttorneyGrievanceCommnv.Brooke,supra,AttorneyGrievance B Commnv.Shaw,supra.Therearecaseswhenitisnot.Theinstantcaseisclearlyoneof ( them.%t݌  ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔThePlaintifftestifiedattrialthathebelievedthattherewasanattorneyclient  relationshipimpliedlyformedbetweenhimselfandtheDefendantsGrammasandGCD.The   issuebeforethisTrialCourtiswhetherthatbeliefwasreasonable.Basedontheevidence p!  presentedinthiscase,thisCourtholdsthat,asamatteroflaw,itwasnot.% ݌ V"! ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %I  X#CXݔMichaelAhantestifiedthathisbeliefwasbasedonthefollowing:Defendants, <#" GrammasandGCD,wereengagedbyFAIinwhichAhanwasa50%shareholder;the "$r# DefendantsundertooktoincorporateAhanscompany,AhanLLCandprovidedtaxadvice %X $ regardingthetaximplicationsofthenewcompany;Defendantsobtainedapowerofattorney %>!% fromAhantoperformlegalworkonhisbehalf;theDefendantspreparedadraftofan &$"& operatingagreement;DefendantsassistedAhanandModanloinrestructuringtheirrespective ' #' ownershipinterestinthecompanies;andDefendantscommittedtorepresenttheinterestof (#( FAIandFACS.ThePlaintiffhoweverspecificallyallegesinhisComplaintthattheactions )$) takenbyGrammasandGCDweretakenbythembecausetheywere  employedascorporate l*%* counseltoFAIandFACS .(Emphasisadded).%I݌ R+&+ ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔInaddition,duringthetrialthePlaintifftestifiedonnumerousoccasionsthatthere 8,', werevariousdiscussionsoftherolesthatMr.GrammasandGCDplayedasoutsidecounsel. -n(- Specifically,hewasawareaccordingtohistestimonyandanemailwrittenbythePlaintiff  toModanlothat George[Grammas] doesnotrepresentyouorIpersonally ;however,asthe  corporateattorney,heprotectsthecompanysinterestandtakeshisdirectionfromthe | companysofficersintheorderofhierarchyiftheresadisagreementbetweenus.Thatis b myunderstanding.(Emphasisadded).ThePlaintiffknewthatMr.GrammasandtheGCD H werecorporatecounsel.TheissueiswhetheritwasstillreasonableforAhantobelievethat . ~ GrammasandGCDalsohadaseparateattorneyclientrelationshipwithhim.Ahansown  d testimonycompelsthisCourttoconclude,asamatteroflaw,thathisbeliefwasnot  J reasonable.%T݌  0 ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %_  X#CXݔAlloftheevidencepresentedattrial,exclusiveofthePlaintiffslayopinion    testimony,supportsthisCourtsholdingthatnoreasonablejurycouldfindthatanattorney    clientrelationshipbetweenAhanandtheDefendantsexistedandthatAhansbeliefthatit   didexistwasunreasonable.TheinitialengagementletterbyGCDidentifiedtheclientas x  FAI.Later,twoupdatedengagementletterspreparedbyGeorgeGrammasandGCDall ^  reiteratedthatFAIwastheclientofGCD.Furthermore,althoughnotdispositive,therewas D  neveranyengagementletterorotherwrittendocumentidentifyingAhanasaclientofGCD *z  nordidAhanpayGCDforanylegalservicesperformed.Modanlowaspresentduring ` conversationsinwhichAhanreceivedadviceaspartofthepurportedpersonalattorney F clientrelationship.AhanretainedDavidBakeronJune25,1999,andrepeatedlyreferredto , himashispersonalcounsel.Finally,AhanconfirmedhisunderstandingofGCDsroleas  corporatecounselinaletterdatedJune21,1999,wherehespecificallyacknowledgesthat  Grammaswascorporatecounselindicatingthathe hasdonethebesthecoulddowithout  losinghispositionasthecorporateattorney.%_݌ t ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔThisCourtthereforeholdsthatMichaelAhanslayopinionandBarryCohensexpert Z opinionwhetherconsideredtogetherorseparatelyareinsufficient,asamatteroflaw,tofind @ anattorneyclientrelationshipexistedbetweenAhanandtheDefendants.ThisCourtalso &v findsthat,ifAhanbelievedthatanattorneyclientrelationshipexisted,hisbeliefwas  \ unreasonablebasedontheevidencepresentedinthiscase.Having,therefore,concludedthat B thereisaninsufficientevidentiaryfoundationuponwhichthejuryinthiscasecouldfind,as ( theydid,thatthereexistedanattorneyclientrelationshipbetweenPlaintiff,MichaelAhan,  andtheDefendants,GrammasandGCD,theirverdictmustbesetasideandJudgment  NotwithstandingthatVerdictenteredfortheDefendantsandagainstthePlaintiffonCountsI   andII.%3݌ p!  ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X%  X#CXݔ %݌̌X#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔB.BreachofDuty/StandardofCare%ȯ݌ <#" ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔ1.ExpertTestimony%݌ "$r# ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %h  X#CXݔ  AsageneralruleinMaryland,aPlaintiffmustprovideexperttestimonyonthestandardof %X $ caretoestablishlegalmalpracticeexceptinthosecases wherethecommonknowledgeor %>!% experienceoflaymenisextensiveenoughtorecognizeorinfernegligencefromthefacts. &$"& CentralCabCo.v.Clarke,259Md.542,552,270A.2d662,667(1970)(quotingButtsv. ' #' Watts,290S.W.2d777,779(Ky.1956);SeealsoFishowv.Simpson,55Md.App.312,462 (#( A.2d540(1983). [E]xperttestimonyisnecessarytoestablishthestandardofcaresince )$) onlyanattorneycancompetentlytestifytowhetherthedefendantmettheprevailinglegal l*%* standard.5RonaldE.Mallen&JeffreyM.Smith,LegalMalpractice33.16at110 R+&+ (5thed.2000).Inthiscase,therewasexperttestimonybyanattorneythattheDefendantsdid 8,', notmeettheprevailinglegalstandard.However,thelegalstandardandthedegreeof -n(- specializationwithintheprofessionnecessarytoqualifytotestifyaboutitareatissueinthis  case.%h݌  ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X%:  X#CXݔTheDefendantsarguethataRuleofProfessionalResponsibilitycanneverbethe | basisofalegalmalpracticeactioncitingLazySevenCoalSales,Incv.Stone&Hinds,PC, b 813S.W.2d400(1991).WhileLazySevenisnotcontrollinginthisjurisdiction,thisCourt H findsitpersuasive.However,thisCourtalsofindsthatitsholdingandcertaindictadonot . ~ supporttheDefendantsposition.%:݌  d ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔTheCourtinLazySevenheldthattheviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct  J wereinsufficienttobethebasisofimposingcivilliabilityontheDefendantinthatcase.  0 However,thefactsofLazySevenareeasilydistinguishedfromthefactsofthepresentcase.    First,thereweretwoexpertswhotestifiedinLazySeven.Oneoftheexpertswasanethics    professionalbuthewasnot familiarwiththepracticeoflawintheareaincluding   Knoxvillenorwasheasked todistinguishbetweenthestandardsbywhichlawyersare x  judgeddependinguponthenatureoftheproceeding.LazySeven,813S.W.2dat406.The ^  secondexpert,ageneralpractitioner,wasnotfamiliarwithcorporatepractice,hadonlya D  generalfamiliaritywiththeCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,wasnotableto state *z  accuratelythedifferencebetweenanEthicalConsiderationandDisciplinaryRule;andhe ` hadneverread[a]decision...regardinglegalmalpracticeoranethicalopinion8.Lazy F Seven,813S.W.2dat406.%=݌ , ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔConversely,inthepresentcase,Mr.CohenstestimonyisasanexpertinProfessional  Responsibility,hehaspracticedinthisareaforthelast20years,hehasaworkingfamiliarity  withthestandardsgoverningattorneyconductforattorneyspracticingintheDistrictof  Columbia,heiscurrentlyservingonRulesofProfessionalConductReviewCommitteefor t theDistrictofColumbiaandhehasrepresentedwellover50lawyersandlawfirmson Z questionsofprofessionalresponsibilityintheirrespectivepractices.%݌ @ ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %(  X#CXݔChiefJusticeReid,writingfortheSupremeCourtofTennessee,inLazySeven &v contemplatedsituationsliketheoneinthiscasewhenhecommentedthat:%(b݌  \ ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X  8<" hp x@ @ @ X<%  X#CXݔԀ Eventhough...theCodedoesnotdefinestandardsforcivil B liability, thestandardsstatedintheCodearenotirrelevant  in ( determiningthestandardofcareincertainactionsfor  malpractice. TheCodemayprovideguidanceinascertaining  lawyersobligationstotheirclientsundervariouscircumstances,   and conduct,whichviolatestheCodemayalsoconstitutea p!  breachofthestandardofcaredueaclient .However,inacivil V"! actionchargingmalpractice,thestandardofcareistheparticular <#" dutyowedtheclientunderthecircumstancesofthe "$r# representation,whichmayormaynotbethestandard %X $ contemplatedbytheCode.(Emphasisadded).%I݌ %>!% ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %e  X#CXݔ%e݌̌X#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C   8%!  X#CXݔLazySeven,813S.W.2dat405.%!w݌ ' #' ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X%=  X#CXݔThisCourtagreeswiththeDefendantsthatPlaintiffsallegationsarecomplexandgo (#( beyondtheunderstandingofalayman.Thetestimonyofanexpertisthereforerequiredto )$) establishthestandardofcareforanattorneysallegedbreachoffiduciaryduty.ThisCourt l*%* disagrees,however,withDefendantscontentionthatPlaintiffsexpertwasnotqualifiedto R+&+ assistthejuryinunderstandingthatstandardandthatthestandardhearticulatedwasa 8,', legallyimpermissiblestandard.%=݌ -n(- ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %q  X#CXݔBarryCohenwas qualifiedasanexpertinprofessionalresponsibilityandgavehis  opinioninthisareaalone.TheDefendantsarguethatbecauseMr.Cohentestifiedthathe  was notacorporatelawyerandhistestimonywaslimitedtotheareaofprofessional | responsibilitythat,hecouldnot establishtheapplicablestandardofcareforacorporate b lawyer;ortestifythatdefendantsfellshortofthatstandard.%q݌ H ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %I  X#CXݔThisCourtfindsthatthefactthatMr.Cohenisnotacorporatelawyergoestothe . ~ weighthisopinionshouldbegivenbythejurynotitsadmissibility.Thenatureofthe  d plaintiffsclaimsisabreachoffiduciarydutybothasalawyerandacorporateofficer.As  J toGrammasandGCDsdutyasalawyerthatdutyinthiscaseisidenticaltotheduty  0 proscribedbytheDCRulesofProfessionalConduct.Mr.Cohenwasthereforequalifiedto    testifyasanexpertastowhatstandardofcarewasrequiredofthedefendantsandwhether    theconductofGrammasandGCDwasconsistentwiththatstandard.%I݌   ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  %  X#CXݔ%-݌ x  ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X%  X#CXݔ2.BreachofFiduciaryDutyasAttorney% ݌ ^  ЌX#CXXX#C  %ݔXX#C  X%  X#CXݔPlaintiffAhancontendsthattheDefendantsbreachedtheirfiduciarydutytohimas D  hisattorneys.SpecificallyhearguesthatGrammasandGCD,ascorporatecounsel,hada *z  duty not totakeinstructionfromModanlo,one50%shareholder,eventhoughthat ` shareholderwasatthetopofthecorporatehierarchy,ifthoseinstructionswerenotinthe F interestofAhan,theother50%shareholder.WhenGeorgeGrammasdidso,Michael , AhansexpertopinesthattheDefendantsbreachedtheirfiduciarydutiesofcare,loyalty,  disclosureandgoodfaithtothePlaintiff.Ahansexpertopinesthatinsuchasituation,  corporatecounselsdutyistoremainneutralandmerelyserveasareferee.Ifthatis  impossibletheDefendantswouldthenberequiredtowithdrawfromrepresentingthe t corporation.%݌ Z ЌX#CXXX#C  ThepartiesstipulatedatthetrialthatDistrictofColumbialawgovernsthe @ considerationofPlaintiffsclaimofaBreachofFiduciaryDutyasAttorney.TheScopeof &v theDistrictofColumbiasRulesofProfessionalConductexpresslystates [n]othinginthese  \ Rules,theCommentsassociatedwiththem,orthisScopesectionisintendedtoenlargeor B restrictexistinglawregardingtheliabilityoflawyerstoothers8.D.C.RulesScope[4]. ( Thereisamplepersuasiveauthoritythataplaintiffcanuseasthebasisofabreachof  fiduciaryaction,aviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalConduct.SeeAvianca,Inc.v.  Corriea,705F.Supp.666,679,13Fed.R.Serv.3d883,(1989)( [W]hilenotstrictly   providingabasisforacivilaction,[theRules]nonethelessmaybeconsideredtodefinethe p!  minimumlevelofprofessionalconductrequiredofanattorney,suchthataviolationofone V"! oftheDRsisconclusiveevidenceofabreachoftheattorneyscommonlawfiduciary <#" [duty].).Inaddition,inWaldmanv.Levine,544A.2d683(D.C.1988),theCourtaffirmed "$r# thetrialjudgesdecisiontoallowanexpertwitnesstousetheD.C.RulesofProfessional %X $ Conductasaguidetotherelevantstandardofcareinamalpracticeaction.Tohold %>!% otherwise,asarguedbytheDefendants,wouldenablelawyerstousetheRulesof &$"& ProfessionalResponsibilitytoshieldthemselvesfromcivilliabilityforactionsotherwise ' #' encompassedintheirdutiestotheirclientssimplybypointingtoaRulethatcoversthe (#( conductatissue.ThisCourtdoesnotbelievethattheJudgeswhoauthoredLazySeven, )$) supra;-VXX#C.6V  46ݔQO  5  -poncl.XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,  ,  Noblev.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,ݔXX#C33Cal.App% 7 .3d654,109Cal.Rptr.269(1973),voncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,6Qoncl  7isc ;48iscQO  5  -fonclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  Bickelv.Mackie, l*%* 447F.Supp.1376(%7% 9 %9% : N.D.Iowa1978),oncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,6YQmoncl  7isc;4;iscQO  5  -onclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  Brodyv.Ruby,267N.W.2d902(Iowa1978),oncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,6Qoncl  7isc6;4<iscQO  5  -GonclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  Hillv.Willmott,561 R+&+ S.W.2d331(Ky.App.1978),oncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,64QHoncl  7iscv;4=iscQO  5  -onclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  Dragov.Buonaguria,46N.Y.2d778,413N.Y.S.2d910,386N.E.2d821(1978),:oncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,6Qoncl  7isc; 8,',  Bud4>iscQO  5  -onclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  GodfreyPontiac,Inc.v.Roloff,291Or.318,630P.2d840(1981),oncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,6Q(oncl  7iscV;4?iscQO  5  -|onclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  Martinv.Trevino,578S.W.2d763 -n(- (Tex.Civ.App.1978),oncl  -Vݔ.6V  .XT,X.6X#CXX.XT,6oQoncl  7isc;4@iscQO  5  -onclݔXX#Cݔݔ  ,  Ayyildizv.Kidd,220Va.1080,266S.E.2d108(1980),{oncl  -Vݔ.6V  6Qoncl  7isc--oncl.k.6ݔ.k  ݀holdingexpertopinionnecessary   andthattheRulesofProfessionalConductarenotabasisforcivilliabilityintendedfortheirholdingstobe  reconciledinthismanner.Forthatreasonandbecausecommonsenseandstrongpublicpolicyconsiderations U dictatesotherwise,thisCourtdeclinestosohold. d FortunatelyfortheDefendants,GrammasandGCDtheydonotneedafavorablerulingonthisissueto # successfullydefendagainsttheBreachofFiduciaryDutyCountallegedagainstthem.Theyprevailforother  reasons.OnJune25,1999,PlaintiffMichaelAhanretainedoutsideDavidBakerashispersonalcounsel.Ahan Q  acknowledgedinaletter,writtenbyhimtoModanloonJune21,1999,thattheDefendantsdonot represent  ` youorIpersonally.Furthermore,onJuly17,1999,DefendantGeorgeGrammasclearlydelineatedthescope   ofGCDsrepresentationaswellastheimplicationsfortheequal50%shareholders,NaderModanloand    MichaelAhan.Heexplained: M   %ݔݔ  X 8 8<%@ @ @ hp x  X<%  X#CXݔGardner,Carton,&DouglasservesasoutsideGeneralCounselto  \  theCompanieswithrespecttoallmattersoftheCompanies,  B  exceptFCClicensingissuesandothermatterswherethe (  Companieshaveengagedspecialcounsel.%݌   ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %I  X#CXݔ%I݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ    %  X#CXݔ***%K݌   ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X8  ?%` ` ` hp x@ @ @ X?%  X#CXݔ%y݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  8X<%@ @ @ hp x` ` ` X<%  X#CXݔTherearetimeswhenanorganizationsinterestsmaybeor V becomeadversetothoseofoneormoreofitsconstituents.Inour < view,thetransitionphasecouldbecomesuchacircumstance. "r Eachofyou[AhanandModanlo]hastheopportunitytobe X representedbypersonalcounselduringthisphase,andwe > understandthateachhasengagedcounsel.%݌ $ ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔ%݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ    %  X#CXݔ***%݌  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X8  ?%` ` ` hp x@ @ @ X?%r  X#CXݔ%r݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  8X<%@ @ @ hp x` ` ` X<%  X#CXݔWearepleasedtocontinueasoutsideGeneralCounseltothe l Companiessubjecttoyouragreementtothisletter.Withthis R understanding,wewillcontinuetorepresenttheinterestsofthe 8 Companies,includingpreservingtheoperationsofthe n Companies,thevalueoftheCompaniesassetsandthevalueof T theCompaniesforallshareholders,butwewillnotrepresentyour :  individualinterestsasFAIshareholdersorasofficersand  ! directorsoftheCompanieswhenwebelieveyourinterestsare !" adversetotheinterestoftheCompanies.% ݌ "# ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  8 8%]   X#CXݔ%]  ݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%5   X#CXݔThisletterwasreceived,acknowledgedandagreedtobyMichaelAhan.ThisCourt h$% thereforeholdsthatthereis no evidenceintherecordofthiscasethatanattorneyclient N% & relationshipbetweenPlaintiffMichaelAhanandDefendantsGeorgeGrammasandGCD 4&!' existedafterJuly17,1999.WhetherthatrelationshipterminatedinJuneorJuly1999,there 'j"( isalsonoevidenceintherecordthatanyactionstakenbytheDefendantsafterthosedates (P#) causedinjurytothePlaintiff.Infact,alloftheactionswhichthePlaintiffassertscausedhis (6$* injuriesoccurredafterJuly1999.%5 } ݌ )%+ ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔAlloftheevidenceproducedattrialinthiscaserevealsonlythreedistinctlegaltasks *&, thatwereperformedbyDefendantsforPlaintiffAhanpriortoJuly1999.TheDefendants +&- (1)providedadviceconcerningtheMemorandumofAgreement;(2)providedtaxandother ~,'. adviceconcerningtheformationofthenewentity,AhanLLC,thatplaintiffwouldown;and d-(/ (3)formedAhanLLC.ThePlaintiffdoesnotcontendthattheperformanceofanyorallof  thesetasksfailedtosatisfythestandardofcare.Furthermore,therenderingoftheseservices  isnotallegedtohavecausedplaintifftosufferanyofthedamagesthatarebeingclaimed. | Finally,nowhereinPlaintiffsexpertBarryCohenstestimonydidheevensuggestthatany b workperformedbytheDefendantspriortoJuly1999failedtosatisfytheapplicablestandard H ofcare.%݌ . ~ ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔInstead,Mr.CohenstestimonyattrialcenteredontheletterdatedJuly17,1999,  d fromdefendantstoFAI,FACS,Ahan,andModanlo.Thelettersoughttheconsentofthe  J addresseestothelawfirmscontinuingrepresentationofFAIandFACSinlightofthe  0 ongoingdisputesbetweenAhanandModanlo.Mr.Cohentestifiedthattheletterwas    deficienttoserveasnoticeintworespects.First,Mr.Cohentestifiedthatitwashisopinion    thattheletterdidnotconstitute informedconsentbecausetheletterdidnotprovideMr.   Ahanthe righttoobjecttoGardner,CartonandDouglasdoingworkforthecorporation. x  Second,heopinedthatbecauseFAIwasasmallcorporation,eachstockholderhavingone ^  seatontheBoardofDirectorsandbecausetheBoardwasdeadlocked alawyershouldnot D  executeactionsonbehalfofsuchacorporationwhichhavethenecessaryeffectoffavoring *z  oneshareholderovertheother,eveniftheyarepresentedasbeinginthenameofthe ` corporation.ThesearetheonlytwoactionswhichthePlaintiffsexpert,Mr.Cohen F testifiedviolatedtheapplicablestandardofcare.Basedsolelyonthisexpertopinion, , PlaintiffassertshisclaimsofLegalMalpracticeandBreachofFiduciaryDuty.%݌  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %o  X#CXݔNoevidencewaspresentedthatMr.Ahanwasadvisedformallyofhisrighttoobject  toGCDscontinuedofFAIandFACSasgeneralcounsel.Mr.Ahanisnotanattorney.  However,Mr.Ahanisasophisticatedbusinessman.Thelevelofnoticeforconsenttherefore t isnotrequiredtobeasexplicitasitwouldbeforsomeonewithlesserornoexperience.The Z lastparagraphofGCDsletter,datedJuly17,1999,beginswiththefollowingsentence [w]e @ arepleasedtocontinueasoutsideGeneralCounseltotheCompanies subjecttoyour &v agreementtothisletter .(Emphasisadded).ThisisenoughtogivenoticetoMr.Ahanthat  \ hedidnothavetosignoragreetothetermsofGCDscontinuedrepresentationofFAIand B FACSoutlinedintheletter.ThisCourtthereforeholdsthatthisdoesnotconstituteevidence ( uponwhichajurycouldreasonablyconclude,oreveninfer,thattherewasabreachofany  fiduciarydutybyDefendantstoPlaintiff.%o݌  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔAstothesecondissue,Plaintiffsexpert,Mr.Cohen,opinesthatbecausethe   Defendantswererepresentingacorporationwherethereweretwoequal50%shareholders, p!  thereisaspecialfiduciarydutyowedsimilartothatowedbyalawyertoapartnership.He V"! thenstatesasanexperthisopinionthatanyactiontakenbywhichcorporatecounselfavors <#" one50%stockholderoveranotherviolatesthat specialfiduciarydutyowedtoeachequal "$r# shareholderseparately.ThisCourtfindsnobasisineithertheexpresslanguageofthe %X $ applicableD.C.RulesofProfessionalConduct1.13(a)oranyOpinionorComment %>!% interpretingthatRulewhichsupportsPlaintiffsexperts'position.NordoIbelievethatMr. &$"& CohensopinioncanbelogicallydeducedfromtheexpresslanguageoftheRuleforthe ' #' followingreasons.% ݌ (#( ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %$  X#CXݔD.C.RuleofProfessionalResponsibility1.13(a)OrganizationasaClient!provides )$) that [a]lawyeremployedorretainedbyanorganizationrepresentstheorganizationacting l*%* throughitsdulyauthorizedconstituents.Thus,thegeneralruleitselfdoesnotexpressor R+&+  evenimplya specialdutyassuggestedbythePlaintiff.Comment4toRule1.13provides 8,', that [w]henconstituentsoftheorganizationmakedecisionsforit,thedecisionsordinarily  mustbeacceptedbythelawyereveniftheirutilityorprudenceisdoubtful.%$$݌   ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %(  X#CXݔD.C.EthicsOpinion216(1991),whichsetsforthanexampleofrepresentationofa | closelyheldcorporationinactionagainstcorporateshareholder.Inthatexample,AandB b wereeach50%shareholdersofC,aclosecorporationorganizedunderMarylandlawwhich H didbusinessintheDistrictofColumbia.DuringanexecutionsaleUbecametheownerof . ~ As50%interestinC.ThequestiononinquiryiswhetherCscorporatelawyer,retained  d whenCwascontrolledbyAandBmaycontinuetorepresentCinitsactionagainstU,now  J oneofits50%shareholdersinUsactiontodissolveC.Usingthisexampleasabasis,the  0 opinionmakesitclearthat [a]lawyeremployedorretainedbyacorporationorsimilar    entityoweshisallegiancetotheentityandnottoashareholder,director,officer,employee,    representative,orotherpersonconnectedwiththeentity.D.C.EthicsOpinion216   (1991)(quotingEC518oftheformerCodeofProfessionalResponsibility).SeealsoD.C. x  EthicsOpinion159(1985);D.C.EthicsOpinion186(1987);Eganv.McNamara,467A.2d ^  733,738(D.C.1983). Throughouttherepresentation,thelawyermustcontinueto D  recognizethattheinterestsofthecorporationmustbeparamountandthathemusttakecare *z  toremainneutral8.Notwithstandingthisneutrality, thecorporationslawyermay ` continuetotakedirectionfrom[thePresident]untilthedisputeovercontrolofthe F corporationisresolvedbythecourtsortheparties.[Unless],thelawyerbecomesconvinced , that[oneshareholders]decisionsareclearlyinviolationof[the]fiduciaryduties[owed]to  thecorporation8.D.C.EthicsOpinion216.%(J(݌  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %0  X#CXݔIntheinstantcase,AhanandModanloweredeadlocked.Thebusinessofthe  corporationcouldthereforenotgoforwardwithoutthisdeadlockbeingbroken.Inthis t situation,Rule1.13(a),Comment4tothatRule,andD.C.EthicsOpinion216alldirect Z corporatecounseltodowhatisinthebestinterestofthecorporation.Thistheydidin @ proposingnewbylawstobreakthedeadlock.Furthermore,theevidencepresentedrevealed &v thatallpartiesincludingthePlaintiffinitiallyagreedtothesesteps.%001݌  \ ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %&4  X#CXݔPlaintiffsexpertsopinionessentiallywasthat,facedwithdeadlockattheBoardof B Directorslevelandbecauseeach50%stockholderwasexercising negativecontrol,the ( dutyofcorporatecounselwastonotadvisetheclientcompanyonthemethodstobreakthe  deadlockifsuchadvicewouldharmorevencompromisetheinterestoftheother50%equity  owner,evenifdirectedtodosobythe50%shareholderwhohadmanagementauthorityand   wasatthetopofthecompanyhierarchy.Inotherwords,corporatecounselsdutyistowalk p!  awayfromthecompanyandletitdieintheprocessifnecessary.%&4`4݌ V"! ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %7  X#CXݔThisCourtrejectedthatopinionasamatteroflawwhenthejurywasinstructedas <#" follows:%78݌ "$r# ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X 8 ?%@ @ @ hp x@ @ @ X?%9  X#CXݔAnattorneyrepresentingthecorporationhasafiduciarydutyto %X $ thecorporation,meaninghemustalwaysacttowardthe %>!% corporationwiththehighestdegreeofintegrity,loyalty,candor, &$"& fidelityandgoodfaith.%99݌ ' #' ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X 8 %f;  X#CXݔ%f;;݌ (#( ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%`<  X#CXݔThejuryobviouslydisregardedthatInstructionand,indoingso,thelawgoverningtheir )$) deliberations.JudgmentNOVmustthereforebegrantedonCountsI,IIandV.%`<<݌ l*%* ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%=  X#CXݔ%=A>݌ R+&+  ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%>  X#CXݔ3.BreachofFiduciaryDutyasCorporateSecretary%>)?݌ 8,', ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %?  X#CXݔ   Thegeneralrule...isthatanofficerordirectorofacorporationdoesnotsustaina   fiduciaryrelationtoanindividualstockholderwithrespecttohisstock8..Llewellynv.  QueenCityDairy,Inc.,187Md.49,5859,48A.2d322,327(1946).Thus, [w]here | directorscommitabreachoftrust,theyareliabletothecorporation,nottoitscreditorsor b stockholdersandanydamagesrecoveredareassetsofthecorporation,andtheequitiesofthe H creditorsandstockholdersaresoughtandobtainedthroughthemediumofthecorporate . ~ entity.Waller,187Md.at190,49A.2dat452.%?/@݌  d ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%C  X#CXݔNevertheless,PlaintiffarguesthatcorporateofficersinthiscaseDefendantGeorge  J Grammas,aCorporateSecretary,owesfiduciarydutiestoboththecorporationandtothe  0 individualstockholders.HecitesTonerv.BaltimoreEnvelopeCo.,304Md.256,498A.2d    642(1985)ashisauthority.RelianceonTonerinthiscaseismisplacedbecauseitsholdings    areinapposite.%CD݌   ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %vF  X#CXݔԀTonerdescribesacloselyheldcorporationandholdsthatmajoritystockholdersowe x  afiduciarydutytominoritystockholders,incertainsituations.Toner,304Md.at268.The ^  situationsdiscussedinTonerareeasilydistinguishedfromthefactsofthecurrentcase.Both D  AhanandModanloareequalshareholders.Neitheristhereforea majoritystockholder. *z  Mostimportantly,Grammasisanonshareholderdirectorasopposedtoashareholder ` director.Toneristhereforenotcontrollingorevenguidingintheinstantcase.%vFF݌ F ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %I  X#CXݔThereare,ofcourse,instancesinwhichadirectororcorporateofficercanbreacha , fiduciarydutyoweddirectlytoashareholder.Waller,187Md.at192,49A.2dat453( a  stockholdermaybringsuit...foractswhichareviolationsofadutyarisingfromcontractor  otherwiseandowingdirectlyfromtheofficertotheinjuredstockholder,thoughsuchactsare  alsoviolationsofdutyowingtocorporation).SeealsoBayberryAssoc.v.Jones,etal.,783 t S.W.2d553,560(Tenn.1990)(applyingMarylandlaw,thecourtnotedthereareinstances Z whereashareholderisclearlyentitledtobringadirectactionforaviolationofpersonal @ rights,e.g.,therighttovote).%IJ݌ &v ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%M  X#CXݔ  TheonlycomplaintbythePlaintiffaboutDefendantGrammasinhisroleasCorporate  \ Secretaryisthathefailedtoprovideadequatenoticethatchangestothecompositionofthe B BoardofDirectorsofFACSwouldbeconsideredatameetingheldonAugust15,2000. ( TherewasnootherevidencepresentedbythePlaintiffthatrelatedtoGrammassroleas  CorporateSecretary.%MEN݌  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%P  X#CXݔUnderMarylandCode(1975,1999Repl.Vol.),CorporationsandAssociations   Article,2409(b)(2)(ii),anoticeofthemeeting [n]eednotstatethebusinesstobe p!  transactedatorthepurposeofanyregularorspecialmeetingoftheboardofdirectors V"! unlessotherwiseprovidedforinthebylawsofthecorporation.Therewasnoevidence <#" presentedinthiscasethatthebylawsofFACSproscribedsuchnotice.Therefore,asamatter "$r# oflaw,nodutywasproventobeowedbyGrammasasCorporateSecretarytoAhanasan %X $ individualshareholderoreventotheCorporationinthiscase.%PP݌ %>!% ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %\T  X#CXݔThePlaintiff,however,contendsthatthefailuretoprovidethisnoticeisnottheonly &$"& actiontakenbyGrammasasCorporateSecretary,whichbreachedafiduciarydutytoAhan. ' #' GrammasnoticedameetingoftheFACSBoardforthepurposeofremovingAhanfromthe (#( FAIBoard.Plaintiffallegesthat,indoingso,henegligentlyorintentionally,failedtorecord )$) theFACSBoardsunanimousintenttoconditionanytransferofsharestoPolyotwithout l*%* proxyrights.ThePlaintiffcontendsthattheseactionsledtothemeetingonAugust15, R+&+ 2000,whichwas designedtoneutralizeand/oreliminateAhansvotingandcontrolinterests 8,', inthecompanies.%\TT݌ -n(- ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %SX  X#CXݔAgaintheCourtofAppealsholdinginWalleriscontrolling.187Md.185,49A.2d  449(1946).Astockholdercannotmaintainanaction,whichaffectsallstockholdersalike,  againstanofficerordirectorofthecorporation evenwhenthewrongfulactsweredone | maliciouslywithintenttoinjureaparticularstockholder.Waller187Md.at19091,49 b A.2dat452. Itisimmaterialwhetherthedirectorswereanimatedmerelybygreedorby H hostilitytowardaparticularstockholder,forthewrongdoingaffectsallthestockholders . ~ alike.Waller187Md.at191,49A.2dat452.%SXX݌  d ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %\  X#CXݔTheCourt,therefore,concludesthatthereisnoevidencethatcouldsupportajury  J findingthattherewasabreachofanyfiduciarydutyasCorporateSecretary;JNOVtherefore  0 willbegrantedastoCountV.%\?\݌    ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%]  X#CXݔ%]^݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %^  X#CXݔ4.ThirdPartyBeneficiary%^^݌   ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %_  X#CXݔ  TheUnitedSupremeCourt,overahundredyearsago,heldthatintheabsenceoffraudor x  collusionapartynotinprivitywithanattorneyhasnocauseofactionagainsttheattorney ^  fornegligence.NationalSavingsBankv.Ward,100U.S.195,10Otto195,25L.Ed.621 D  (1879).Furthermore,inamajorityofjurisdictions,asageneralrule,anattorneyowesaduty *z  ofdiligenceandcareonlytohisdirectclient/employerandonlythatclient/employercan ` recoveragainsthimforabreachofthatduty.Clagettv.Dacy,47Md.App.23,420A.2d F 1285(1980).SincetheSupremeCourtruling,Marylandhasadheredtothisstrictprivity , ruleinattorneymalpracticecases.SeeWlodarekv.Thrift,178Md.453,13A.2d774(1940);  Kendallv.Rogers,181Md.606,31A.2d312(1943);Clagettv.Dacy,47MdApp.23,420  A.2d1285(1980);Noblev.Bruce,349Md.730,709A.2d1264(1998);Flahertyv.  Weinberg,303Md.116,492A.2d618(1985).%__݌ t ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%e  X#CXݔIn1972,theMarylandCourtofAppealsannouncedalimitedthirdpartybeneficiary Z exceptiontoMarylandsstrictprivityrule.Prescottv.Coppage,266Md.562,574,296 @ A.2d150,156(1972).However,thisexceptionisonly totheextentofallowingatruethird &v partybeneficiarytosueanattorney8.Clagett,47Md.Appat27,420A.2dat1288. [T]o  \ establishadutyowedbytheattorneytothenonclient[,]thelattermustallegeandprovethat B theintentoftheclienttobenefitthenonclientwasadirectpurposeofthetransactionor ( relationship.Flaherty,303Md.at130131,492A.2dat625. Inthisregard,thetestfora  thirdpartytorecoveriswhetherornottheintenttobenefitactuallyexisted,notwhether  therecouldhavebeenanintenttobenefitthethirdparty.Flaherty,303Md.at131,492   A.2dat625.%eWe݌ p!  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%"j  X#CXݔԀ  ThePlaintiffargues whether...anattorneyclientrelationshipwaseverestablished... V"! theseclaimsarebasedonthedutiesthatDefendantsassumedbyundertakingworkactually <#" intendedtobenefit[him]personallywhenhewasnotindividuallyrepresentedby "$r# Defendants.ThePlaintiffallegesthatthefollowingserviceswereintendedtobenefithim %X $ personallywhenperformedbytheDefendantsfor thecorporat[e]restructuringofFAIand %>!% FACS,theformationofAhanLLC,andthestructuringanddraftingoftheEngineering &$"& Contract.However,Plaintiffsprooffailstofollowhisproffer.Thereisnoevidence, ' #' whichissufficienttoprovethattherewasaspecificintentforAhantobebenefitedbyanyof (#( theworkperformedbytheDefendantsascorporatecounselforFAIandFACS.%"jjj݌ )$) ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%n  X#CXݔThisCourtfindstheCourtofSpecialAppealsOpinioninGoerlichv.Courtney l*%* Industries,Inc.,84Md.App.660,581A.2d825(1990)isinstructiveonthispoint.The R+&+ plaintiffinGoerlichwasashareholderandemployeeofacorporationthathiredanattorney 8,', todraftashareholdersagreement,whichalsopurportedlygrantedtheplaintifflifetime -n(- employment.Afterhewasfired,theplaintiffsuedtheattorneyhiredbythecorporation,  arguingthattheinvalidityofaclauseintheshareholdersagreementmadeitpossibleforthe  corporationtoterminatehim.Goerlich,84Md.App.at663,581A.2dat827.TheCourt,in | Goerlich,heldthatthethirdpartybeneficiaryexceptiondidnotapplybecausetherewasno b actualintenttobenefittheplaintiffwhenhiringtheattorney.Furthermore,evenif some H incidentalpurpose[ofdraftingtheagreement]mayhavebeentoprovidefor[theplaintiffs] . ~ employment[that]doesnotmakethe[plaintiff]anintendedthirdpartybeneficiaryofthe  d agreement.Goerlich84Md.App.at664,581A.2dat828.SeealsoFergusonv.Cramer,  J 349Md.760,766,709A.2d1279,1282(thirdpartybeneficiaryexceptiondidnotapply  0 becausethedirectpurposeandintentofthetestator/clientinexecutingawillwasnot    necessarilytobenefitthebeneficiariesnamedinthewill).Incontrasttothosecases,the    CourtinMontgomeryCountyv.Jaffe,Raitt,Heuer,&Weiss,PC,897F.Supp.233,236(D.   Md.1995),heldthatMontgomeryCountywasathirdpartybeneficiarybecausethelawfirm x  washiredbyitsclientforthespecificpurposeofprovidinganopinionlettertotheCounty.%n'o݌ ^  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%w  X#CXݔ  ThisCourtfindsnoevidenceintherecordofthiscaseuponwhichthejurycouldfind,as D  theyapparentlydid,thatanyoftheservicesperformedbytheDefendantswereintendedto *z  benefitAhan.Infact,thePlaintiffsComplaintandtheevidencepointtothecontrary.The ` PlaintiffspecificallystatesinhisAmendedComplaintthattheservicesGrammasandGCD F providedinconnectionwiththecompaniesrestructuringactivitieswere partoftheirduties , ascounseltoFAIandFACS.TheJuly17,1999,letterfromGrammastoAhanand  Modanlospecificallyprovidesthat inrelationtorestructuring,wehaveconsideredand  developedvariousalternativereorganizationstrategiesandstructuresintheinterestsofthe  Companies,includingconsideringallshareholdersrightsandthetaxconsequences,in t accordancewithyourmutualdecisionsanddirections.Inaddition,anindependentAAA Z arbitratorstated, [i]tisevidentthatGCDsserviceswereprimarilydesignedtorepresent @ andbenefittheCompanies.%wx݌ &v ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%}  X#CXݔAsarticulatedbytheCourtofAppealsinFlaherty,thethirdpartybeneficiary  \ exceptionhasarathernarrowscope.Thatscopedemonstrablyandindisputablydoesnot B covertheactionsoftheDefendantsinthiscase.Flaherty,303Md.at131,492A.2dat652. ( Thethirdpartybeneficiaryexception,when [p]roperlyapplied,willnot[andshouldnot]  exposetheattorney[includingthoseintheinstancecase]to...litigationbroughtbythose  whomightconceivablyderivesomeindirectbenefitfromthecontractualperformanceofthe   attorneyandhisclient.Flaherty,303Md.at131,492A.2dat652.%}}݌ p!  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %z  X#CXݔThereisnolegallysufficientevidencetosupportajuryfindingthatthePlaintiff,in V"! thiscase,wasanintendedthirdpartybeneficiaryoftheservicesrenderedbytheDefendants <#" intheinstantcase.JudgmentNOVmustthereforebegrantedastoCountIIandCountVIof "$r# PlaintiffsComplaint.%z݌ %X $ ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔ%݌ %>!% ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%  X#CXݔ C.Causation%ʄ݌ &$"& ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %y  X#CXݔ  MarylandCourtshaveneverallowedaclaimtogoforwardagainstanattorneywherethe ' #' recorddidnotcontainsufficientevidencetoallowareasonablejurortoconcludethatthe (#( harmcomplainedaboutbytheplaintiffwascausedbytheattorneysactions.See,e.g.,Stone )$) v.ChicagoTitleIns.Co.,330Md.329,341,624A.2d496,501(1993);Taylorv.Feissner, l*%* 103Md.App.356,370,653A.2d947,954(1995).Plaintiffiscorrectinstatingthatthelaw R+&+ iswellsettledthatwhatisproximatecauseofaninjuryordinarilyisafactualquestionfora 8,', jurytodetermine.Statev.Brandau,176Md.584,589,6A.2d233,236(1939).Courts -n(- may,however,declareasamatteroflaw whetheranactwastheproximatecauseofthe  injury.Statev.Brandau,176Md.at589,6A.2dat236.Albeitthey arelimitedtothose  [cases]inwhichbutoneinferencecanbedrawnfromthefacts.Brandau,176Md.at589,6 | A.2dat236;SeealsoDennardv.Green,etal.,95Md.App.652,662A.2d797(1993); b Stonev.ChicagoTitleIns.Co.,330Md.329,624A.2d496(1993);Taylorv.Feissner,103 H Md.App.356,376A.2d947(1994).%y݌ . ~ ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%  X#CXݔInordertoestablishthatproximatecauseexisted, theplaintiffmustshowsome  d reasonableconnectionbetweenthedefendantsallegednegligenceandtheinjurysufferedby  J theplaintiff.Taylor,103Md.App.at366,653A.2dat952.Accordingly,thePlaintiff  0 mustestablishthattheDefendantsallegednegligencewasthecauseinfactoftheinjury    sustained.%:݌    ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔThePlaintiffsdamagestheoryrestsonthenotionthatbutfortheDefendantsactions   FACSwouldhavebeenasuccessandwouldhavegeneratedover$550millionbetween1999 x  and2007.Therefore,theevidentiaryrecordmustbesufficienttosupportafindingthat ^  FACSwouldhavebeensuccessfulandgeneratedprofitsforitsinvestors,includingAhan. D  Otherwise,thejurysverdictcannotbesustained.%ݎ݌ *z  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %a  X#CXݔThePlaintiffarguesthatthejuryonlyneededtoconsidertwostepsinthecausation ` chain:alltheDefendantsbadactsandthefactthatFACSwasreadytogoforwardwiththe F bondofferingasofAugust14,2000.TheDefendantsurgethatthePlaintiffsburdenisto , provesomethingmore.Inparticular,that(1)theadoptionofcorporatebylawsofFACSwas  withapurportedlyillegalquorumprovision;(2)whichresultedinModanlousingthe  quorumprovisiononAugust15,2000toremoveAhanfromtheFACSBoardandtoelect  KarlOlsoniasdirectortotheFAIBoard;(3)whichresultedinlitigation;(4)whichcaused t LehmanBrothersnottoproceedwithahighyieldbondoffering;(5)whichresultedinFACS Z beingunabletoraisesufficientmoneytofundthedevelopmentofitssatellites;(6)which @ resultedinFACSfailure;and(7)whichultimatelyledtoFAIsbankruptcy.Whether &v Plaintiffsburdenontheissueofcausationisassimpleashestylesitorasmultifacetedas  \ theDefendantsargue,itamountstothesamething.Bothrequireinferencestobedrawnfrom B primaryevidenceproducedthatareneitherrationalnorunattenuated.%a݌ ( ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔ Theexistenceorabsenceofproximatecauserestsuponprinciplesofcommonsense  inlightofthesurroundingfactsandcircumstances.Taylor,103Md.App.at366,653A.2d  at952.ThisCourtscommonsensetellsitthatproximatecausedoesnotexistinthiscase   andthatthereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthejurysverdict.%݌ p!  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %+  X#CXݔToallowthejurysverdicttostandevenassumingthatPlaintiffhasstandingto V"! pursuehisclaimsandthathehasproducedsufficientevidencetosupporteachofhistheories <#" ofliability,Iwouldhavetofindthathehasproducedsufficientevidenceforthisjurytofind: "$r# (1)FACSwouldhavebeensuccessfulwherenoothercompanyhadsucceededandamarket %X $ developedforthesatellitecommunicationsservicesthatFACSwastoprovide;(2)contrary %>!% tothetestimonyofKarlOlsoni,LehmanBrotherswaspreparedtogoforwardwiththehigh &$"& yieldbondofferingdespitetheconditionofthetelecommunicationsindustryandcondition ' #' ofthewouldbecompetitorsinthemarketin2000;(3)eveniftherewashighyieldbond (#( financing,thecompanywouldhavesucceededdespitethedeadlockbetweenthetwo50% )$) shareholders(AhanandModanlo);(4)thehighyieldbondofferingdidnotproceedbecause l*%* ofthelitigationbetweentheFACSboardmembers;(5)theDefendantscausedthelitigation R+&+ totranspire,whichleftAhanwithnoalternativeandthereforecausedhimtofilesuit;and(6) 8,', DefendantswereresponsiblefortheBoardvoting32toacceptthebylawspresentedby -n(- Modanlo,eventhoughbothModanloandAhansubmittedrecommendedbylawstobevoted  uponatthemeeting.%+e݌  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %  X#CXݔThereissimplynoevidenceintherecordofthiscasewhenconsideredinitsentirety | fromwhichrationalinferencescouldbedrawnthatthesefactsweretrue and causally b related.TheJurysverdictmustthereforebestrickenandJudgmentNOVentered.%Q݌ H ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  X%  X#CXݔ %d݌̌ݔXX#C  %ݔݔ    %  X#CXݔTortiousInterference%/݌  d ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ    %ڤ  X#CXݔ  InMaryland,inordertoestablishaclaimoftortiousinterferencetheplaintiffmustallege  J andprove (1)[i]ntentionalandwillfulacts;(2)calculatedtocausedamagetotheplaintiff[]  0 in[his]lawfulbusiness,(3)donewiththeunlawfulpurposetocausesuchdamageandloss,    withoutrightorjustifiablecauseonthepartofthedefendants(whichconstitutesmalice);    and(4)actualdamageandlossresulting.Willnerv.Silverman,109Md.341,71A.962,   964(1909)(quotingWalkerv.Cronin,107Mass.562(1880)).%ڤ ݌ x  ЌݔXX#C  %ݔݔ  %H  X#CXݔ  TheDefendantsmoveforanewtrialbecausetheyarguetheInstructionreadbytheCourt ^  totheJuryontheclaimofTortiousInterferenceconfusedthejuryandtherebycausedthem D  toreturnanerroneousverdict