Bar Admissions

AG No. 12 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David Peter Buehler

Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: David Peter Buehler

AG No. 83 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Eugene Alan Shapiro

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Eugene Alan Shapiro

No. 29 Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al. v. Steve Bell, et al.

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether noise from a predicted increase in traffic constitutes “special damages”?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Gregory J. Swain and Mark F. Gabler
Attorney for Respondent: G. Macy Nelson

No. 28  State of Maryland v. Charles William Callahan

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the lower court violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in finding respondent in violation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with a lawful order of his probation agent where the order was a requirement of his mandatory parole release conditions? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the lower court erred in revoking Callahan’s probation?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mary Ann Ince
Attorney for Respondent: Rachel Simmonsen

AG No. 8 (2013 T.)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kenneth Haley

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Kenneth Haley

Misc No. 1  Joseph Antonio, et al. v. SSA Security, Inc. d/b/a Security Services of America

Certified question of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?

Attorney for Appellant: Ruthanne M. Deutsch
Attorney for Appellee: Gary A. Bryant

No. 31  Metro Maintenance Systems South, Inc. v. Thomas Milburn, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in its decision that the lower court’s remand order was not a “final judgment” as defined by CJP § 12-301? 2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously in remanding a final administrative decision to the processes of an administrative agency without conducting any record review and without any finding of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, cognizable defect, intervening factors or subsequent events? 3) Did CSA properly decide Anne Arundel County v. Rode, 214 Md.App. 702 (2013), and properly apply that ruling to the procedural circumstances in this case?

Attorney for Petitioner: Alfred A. Lancer
Attorneys for Respondent: Kenneth J. Coughlan and Jennifer L. Katz

AG No. 86 (2012 T.), AG No. 13 (2013 T.), AG No. 57 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheron A. Barton

Attorney for Petitioner: James N. Gaither
Attorney for Respondent: Edward J. Smith

No. 30 Falls Garden Condominium Association, Inc. v. Falls Homeowners Association, Inc.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Whether it was error to enforce the Letter of Intent given the parties never intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent and the Letter of Intent does not contain all material terms? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to hold a full plenary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement since the existence of a binding and enforceable agreement was contested and there were contradicting proffers regarding a material issue, i.e. whether the parties intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Michael Paul Smith and Lauren Dodrill Benjamin
Attorney for Respondent: Christopher D. Wolf

AG No. 48 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kevin Trent Olszewski

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Dennis J. Quinn

No. 47 State of Maryland v. Kerryann N. Smith

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in reversing the circuit court’s denial of Respondent’s petition for a writ of coram nobis where Respondent had waived her coram nobis claims, failed to meet her burden of proving that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and was barred from seeking a writ of coram nobis on grounds of laches?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mary Ann Ince
Attorney for Respondent: Jonathan R. Fellner