Bar Admissions

AG. No. 4 (2016 T.)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Claire L.K.K. Ogilvie

Attorneys for Petitioner: Lydia Lawless and Kelsey Lynn Brown
Attorney for Respondent: Claire L.K.K. Ogilvie

No. 62 Estate of Charles Howard Zimmerman, Robert Clayton Stevens, Personal Representative v. Erich E. Blatter, et ux.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Do new Real Property §§ 14-601 through 14-621 and new rules 12-801 through 12-811, all of which concern quiet title actions and which took effect during the pendency of this appeal apply to this appeal? 2) If so, do the new procedural statutes and rules eliminate any requirement in prior law that a quiet title action is subject to automatic dismissal for non-joinder of a deceased record owner who has no personal representative? 3) If the answer to question 1 is no, what is the standard of review (de novo or abuse or discretion) of a trial court’s determinations under Rule 2-211? 4) If the answer to question 1 is no, did the trial court err in its determination under 2-211(c) that the case could proceed among the parties before it? 5) If the answer to question 4 is yes, did the trial court’s decision on Petitioners’ counterclaim for trespass q.c.f. become law of the case as a result of Petitioners’ failure to present, raise and argue the denial of their counterclaim? 6) Alternatively does this Court recognize the concept of a judgment having multiple and severable parts, as CSA recognized in Harrison v. Harrison, 109 Md.App. 652 (1996)? 7) If the answer to question 5 or question 6 is yes, did CSA err in reversing and dismissing that part of the trial court’s judgment concerning the counterclaim? 8) If the answers to the above questions do not materially change the disposition of the case, did CSA err in ordering a dismissal of the entire case for failure to join a necessary party rather than remanding to allow the joinder of a necessary party?

Attorney for Petitioner: John L. Thompson, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Matthew B. Ruble

No. 59 Elizabeth Hanson-Metayer v. Leslie Rach

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the District Court A) exceed its jurisdiction by denying a motion to stay despite the dicta in McKlveen v. Monika Courts Condominium, 208 Md.App. 369 (2012) or B) commit constitutional error by denying a motion to dismiss or demand for a jury trial given the claims at issue had identical counterparts already pending in the circuit court with a jury demanded? 2) Did the circuit court, on appeal, erroneously find the case to be moot despite the fact that Respondent sought to use the very judgment being challenged to obtain a warrant of restitution, that the judgment has multiple collateral consequences, and the exception to mootness doctrine articulated in Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Jackson, 306 Md. 556 (1986) applies?

Attorneys for Petitioner: William Moran, II and Alexander D. Hawgood
Attorney for Respondent: M. Arnold Politzer

No. 63 William Louis Kranz v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where the trial court had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s post-conviction petition and rendered a valid judgment from which Petitioner, while he was in custody, sought timely appellate review under MD Code Ann., Crim. Proc § 7-109, did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that it had been divested of appellate jurisdiction, after having granted Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal and appellate briefing was complete, because during the three-year long pendency of his application for leave to appeal Petitioner was no longer imprisoned or on parole or probation?

Attorney for Petitioner: Piedad Gomez
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich

No. 64 Attorney Grievance Commission, et al. v. Ty Clevenger

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court err in issuing a writ of mandamus directing Petitioner to investigate a complaint against three members of the Maryland Bar where exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters is vested in the Court of Appeals and Bar Counsel has discretion to determine whether an investigation is warranted? 2) Did the trial court err in vacating its prior order sealing the proceedings where Md. Rule 19-711 expressly provides that all attorney disciplinary complaints and investigations are confidential unless and until formal charges are brought against an attorney?

Attorney for Appellant: Michele J. McDonald
Attorney for Appellee: Ty Clevenger

AG Nos. 40 & 76 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Sperling, et al.

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia Lawless
Attorneys for Respondent: Craig Stephen Brodsky and George Samuel Mahaffey, Jr.

AG No. 4 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dana Paul

Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Dana Paul

No. 60 Albert Otto v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – On the question of applying the common law Rule of Completeness for single statements, did the lower courts err after Respondent submitted a paragraph-long snippet of a 13-page long jailhouse conversation as evidence of Petitioner’s consciousness of guilt when; (1) the trial court acknowledged there were “muddled” thoughts going to multiple motivations of Petitioner, yet refused to provide the jury any other context or part of the conversation due to Respondent’s objection, (2) the correct legal standard and presumption “universally conceded” under the common law is the rest of the conversation was out of fairness to be provided to the jury as requested by Petitioner, not the other way around, and (3) CSA acknowledges it may have disagreed with the narrow “subject” definition construed by the trial court, yet did not find any error in the trial court’s refusal to provide any part of the “remainder” to the jury?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Michael A. Wein and Andrew Vladimir Jezic
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer

AG No. 42 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Stephen Howard Sacks

Attorneys for Petitioner: Lydia Lawless and Ebtehaj Kalantar
Attorney for Respondent: Stephen Howard Sacks

JD No. 2  In the Matter of the Honorable Mary C. Reese

Attorneys for Petitioner: Kendra Randall Jolivet
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew Jay Graham