Bar Admissions

AG No. 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kenneth Haley

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

No. 87 Larry Cooper v. Melissa Rodriguez, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Is a correctional officer who acts without malice in performing discretionary acts within the scope of his public duties entitled to public official immunity? 2) Did the trial court properly strike the jury’s finding of gross negligence by the correctional officer where there was no evidence of an intentional failure to perform a duty or of reckless disregard for the life or property of another?

Attorney for Petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorney for Respondent: Cary J. Hansel

No. 74 State of Maryland v. William Westray

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that, where Respondent was represented by counsel and requested discharge of counsel, the trial court was required to determine and announce on the record that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to counsel? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Respondent’s request for the appointment of pro bono counsel on the grounds that it lacked the power to appoint pro bono counsel for Respondent?

Attorney for Petitioner: Gary E. O'Connor
Attorney for Respondent: Marc A. DeSimone, Jr.

No. 46 Wicomico County Department of Social Services v. B.A.

Issue – Family Law – Where an instructor used class time to groom a student and lure her into a secret intimate relationship, should he be exempted from a finding of “indicated child sexual abuse” on the basis that his blatantly sexual behavior with the student occurred outside of class?

Attorney for Petitioner: Sandra Barnes
Attorney for Respondent: Robert B. Fine

AG No. 56 (2013 T.), AG No. 18 & AG No. 26  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melissa D. Gray

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Melissa D. Gray

Misc. No. 39   In the Matter of the Application of Omeed Tabiei for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

No. 88  Shyquille Griffin v. Andrew Lindsey, et al.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Do crime victims lack statutory authority to appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Code (2008, 2011 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article § 11-103(e), thus depriving CSA of jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution? 2) Did the trial court properly deny Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution from Petitioner, when the court had already accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner had already performed his part of the plea agreement, and the court had already sentenced Petitioner? 3) Under the principles of Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 604 (2010), does a binding plea agreement prohibit restitution when it makes no mention of restitution and purports to be the “full and complete agreement of the parties”? 4) Does the trial court lack authority to grant a victim’s request for restitution if the victim does not request restitution until after the court has already accepted a plea agreement that does not include it? 5) When a court has already imposed a sentence that does not include restitution, would granting a victim’s request for restitution illegally increase the sentence?

Attorney for Petitioner: Rachel Simmonsen
Attorney for Respondent: Russell P. Butler

No. 89  Board of Trustees, Community College of Baltimore County v. Patient First Corporation

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding indemnification damages to Respondent related to its defense and settlement of claims against it for its own negligence, even though Petitioner did not expressly and unequivocally agree to indemnify Respondent for its own negligence? 2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Respondent’s general counsel to testify to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees charged by outside counsel and clearly erred in awarding Respondent attorneys’ fees based on that testimony?

Attorney for Petitioner: James J. Nolan
Attorney for Respondent: Karen A. Doner