Articles Posted in Maryland Legal News

The Maryland Court of Appeals underscored the scope of the “trial within a trial” doctrine in legal malpractice cases in Suder v. Whiteford, Taylor & Preston.

This is a trusts and estates case where the lawyer failed to timely file a request for an extension of time for his client to renounce her husband’s will (geez, that sounds bad) and elect her statutory share of her late husband’s estate which resulted in a financial loss for her. The law firm admitted legal malpractice but denied the malpractice caused the Plaintiff any injury. Plaintiff’s claim was eventually resolved in the underlying case.

Plaintiff’s legal malpractice lawyer made an interesting comment in Talbot County Circuit Court to the argument that legal malpractice did not cause the injury. First, the lawyer argued that the “case within a case” doctrine – the requirement of proving the underlying claim in a legal malpractice case – applies only when there was no resolution of the case that gave rise to the malpractice claim. Second, the Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the firm is limited to the defenses that had been raised by their client’s late husband’s son.

A teenage girl portrayed as a spoiled out-of-touch teen beauty queen on ABC’s “Wife Swap” filed a $100 million lawsuit against the network, alleging the show is a charade.

Really? Who would have imagined?

Obviously, this is the dictionary definition of a frivolous lawsuit on so many levels. It is obviously easy to blame the girl who said on the show that she feels “sorry for people that are not gorgeous people.” But, really, why was this suit filed? Dollars to donuts, it was because a lawyer wanted to get his/her name in the paper. In terms of public relations for lawyers, this is the kind of stuff that balances out in the public’s mind thousands of hours of charitable efforts and other good works that lawyers do.

This is your incredible story of the day and maybe the week:

The Baltimore Examiner has an interesting commentary on the appointment of newly appointed Anne Arundel County District Court Judge Thomas V. Miller III, who is the son of Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. The author’s question is essentially asking is whether “blatant nepotism” is a good thing. Isn’t it great to set up a straw man like that? How do you lose the argument when it is framed that way?

“I think he probably will be a good judge, but the appearances just don’t look right,” Harris said. Dr. Harris expressed his strong view by not voting. Brave. Reportedly, he was originally planning to express his opposition by shooting Mike Miller a sideways glare but chickened out.

Okay, I’m obviously making that up, but you get the point. The author is a Republican trying to make a point. The Republican hero of the article was Andy Harris, who did not even vote on Judge Miller’s confirmation. If Judge Miller’s qualifications were legitimately at issue, what would that say about the Republicans in the state senate who unanimously approved him?

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided this week in Benway v. Maryland Port Administration where a pro se Plaintiff raised an interesting yet still useless question: Is it an error to rule on a summary judgment motion filed after the scheduling order deadline?

The question is interesting because the current version of Maryland Rule 2-501 does not contain the phrase, “file at any time,” because amendments to the Rule in 2004 took the language out in light of the nearly universal use of scheduling orders. But, the question is ultimately just an academic exercise because if you win on “the motion was filed late” argument, you are still going to lose a directed verdict because the evidence never comes out better than “most favorable to the Plaintiff.” So Plaintiff’s winning this motion is only a temporary stay of execution.

The Maryland Daily Record reports today that an “extremely remorseful” circuit judge in Charles County would accept a public reprimand for deflating the tire of a woman improperly parked in a restricted area of the Charles County Courthouse, according to documents filed by his attorney with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities. The judge pleaded guilty last October to vehicle tampering, a misdemeanor. The judge paid a $500 fine and was ordered by Judge Robert C. Wilcox to “write a heartfelt letter of apology” to the tire deflator.

At this point, it seems like we are burning unnecessary tax dollars on further proceedings. The judge was thoroughly embarrassed and either (1) feels legitimate remorse and realizes he did the wrong thing or, (2) feels in his heart he did nothing wrong and that woman had it coming (which is obviously how he felt in the long moment that he had to make the decision). But, either way, and we will never know which, no one is suggesting is a removable offense. And he has already paid the price of national publicity. So let’s hope it is the former and move on.

Maryland Insurance Commissioner Ralph S. Tyler is stepping down early next year to become general counsel at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That is a big-time job.

Ralph has never turned down an invitation to speak at my insurance law class, and he just seems like a good guy. I have disagreed with some decisions that came from his office, but I think losing him is a blow to the Maryland Insurance Administration, both from the perspective of insurance companies and consumers/injury victims. This is probably the best compliment you can give an insurance commissioner.

The Senate Judiciary Committee just approved by a 16-3 vote Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to U.S. Supreme Court, setting up confirmation vote by the full U.S. Senate.

This is beyond a done deal. You can read the CNN article here.

The Maryland Daily Record has an article in its Maryland Lawyer section today underscoring what I think we already know: it is a tough legal market in 2009. This article focuses on the lack of associates making partner in Baltimore law firms.

Interesting, if you look at the numbers which the Daily Record provides with a cool chart, the number of people making partner has not gone down that dramatically. But what you don’t know is the number of these partners that are non-equity partners, which means you are an associate with the firm and you have been here a while, so we will call you partner, but you are not an actual shareholder in the firm. The non-equity partner trend has been huge over the last 10 years as big law firms join the rest of the world in running their business like a business. Of course, it also does not include the number of lawyers who made equity partner, but the firm is so under budget they would have made more as an associate.

Another thing in this article that really stood out to me: only ten lawyers in Piper DLA’s Baltimore office have made partner in the last four years. Over this same time period, the firm has added 237 partners to the firm. Yeah, Piper & Marbury came from Baltimore, but I guess Piper is long past its Maryland roots.