Making The Voice of the Legal Profession Heard: Advocacy at Work
A Pillar of Justice: Celebrating the Tenure of Ward Coe
A Legacy of Giving, A Future of Impact: Celebrating 60 Years of the Maryland Bar Foundation
Detention and Bond in Immigration: How the Legal Landscape Has Changed in 2025
The Hidden Cost of Conflict: How Complex Cases Lose Value in Litigation
Get paid faster, control your finances, and stay compliant with 8am LawPay, trusted by 115k+ legal professionals.
Next-business-day deposits that keep cash flowing
True IOLTA protection built for law firms
Endorsed by all 50 state bars, the ABA, and 60+ specialty bars
Discover why thousands of bar members trust LawPay
8
54 Artificial Intelligence: Do I Need to Disclose My Client’s Use?
14 Making the Voice of the Legal Profession Heard: Advocacy at Work 90 Detention and Bond in Immigration: How the Legal Landscape Has Changed in 2025
MSBA UPDATES
4 President's Message
6 Recent Section Events
8 A Legacy of Giving, A Future of Impact: Celebrating 60 Years of the Maryland Bar Foundation
18 100% Law Firms
24 2025-2026 Sustaining Members
127 Staff Profile: Shanun M. Jones
128 Executive Director's Message: The Big Tent and the Bold Future
HEALTH AND WELLNESS
32 The Acceptable Addiction
INSIDE ANNAPOLIS
14 MSBA Day
20 Inside Annapolis: Legislation and Key Issues That Impact Your Practice
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES
54 Artificial Intelligence: Do I Need to Disclose My Client’s Use?
60 AI and the Future of Legal Work: Augmentation, Not Automation
CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
28 Judge Karla N. Smith
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
22 Closing the Justice Gap: Why Allied Legal Professionals Are a Natural Evolution for Maryland's Legal Landscape
34 Leveraging AI and Legal Tech to Bridge the Maryland Justice Gap
42 Commissioner Profile: Ward B. Coe, III
Member Spotlights
48 Rima Kikani
56 Matthew D. Kohel
68 Jennifer Cox
76 Gary C. Norman
125 In Memoriam: The Honorable John F. Fader, II
126 In Memoriam: James Lee Thompson
Publication Date: Spring 2026
Published quarterly by the Maryland State Bar Association, Inc.
520 W. Fayette St. Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Telephone: (410) 685-7878 (800) 492-1964
Website: www.msba.org
Executive Director: Anna Sholl
Managing Editor: Colleen Aracri
Advertising Sales: Association Media Group
Subscriptions: MSBA Members receive the digital edition of the Maryland Bar Journal as part of their annual membership. In addition, MSBA Members can opt to receive paper copies of the Maryland Bar Journal for an annual subscription cost of $10.
POSTMASTER: Send address change to THE MARYLAND BAR JOURNAL
520 W. Fayette St. Baltimore, MD 21201
The Maryland Bar Journal welcomes articles on topics of interest to Maryland attorneys. Proposed articles can be submitted through the MSBA website at msba.org/content-portal
Advertising: Advertising rates will be furnished upon request. All advertising is subject to approval by the Editorial Advisory Board.
Association Media Group 901 34th Avenue North, Suite 7064 St. Petersburg, FL 33734
Chad Slager Operations and Technology cslager@associationmediagroup.com
Member Content Committee
Corinne M. Pouliquen, Esq., Co-Chair Jessica Markham, Esq., Co-Chair
MSBA Officers (2025-2026)
President: Marisa Trasatti
President Elect: Natasha Dartigue
Secretary: Randolph Stuart Sergent
Treasurer: Natasha Marina Nazareth
Photography: Profile photographs provided by Travis Marshall Photography unless otherwise noted.
All writing submitted to the Maryland Bar Journal must be wholly original to the Author, not generated in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence tools, and reflect the Author’s own independent analysis and judgment. The use of AI-assisted tools limited to grammar, spelling, or formatting is permitted, provided they do not contribute substantive content.
Statements or opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Maryland State Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, the Editorial Board or staff. Publishing an advertisement does not imply endorsement of any product or service offered.
The editorial staff of the Maryland Bar Journal wishes to acknowledge and sincerely apologize for an error that appeared in Volume 7, Issue 2, published in Fall 2025.
In the article titled "A Look at MSBA's Executive Committee," we misidentified the professional background of Emily R. Greene.
Emily R. Greene, who represents the Young Lawyers Section as its chair, is a principal at Kramon & Graham, P.A. She has a varied background in commercial litigation, including shareholder and partnership disputes, personal injury matters, pre- and post- judgment collections matters, real estate and commercial lease disputes, and contract claims.
We regret the misattribution of her career history and are committed to ensuring the accuracy of our member profiles.
106 The Hidden Cost of Conflict: How Complex Cases Lose Value in Litigation
109 I Am Certain I’ve Felt This Uncertainty Before (And the Fourth Industrial Revolution)
112 Purpose Builds Stability: Lessons from a Mission-Driven Law Practice Focused on Client Education and Impact
120 Lawyering Through Emergencies
122 Tips for a Thriving Practice in This Economy
38 Reengineering UPL Legal Services Innovations Integrating Licensed Social Workers into Tiered Defense
44 Medicaid Asset Protection Trusts in Maryland: Why Attorneys Are Afraid— and Why They Shouldn’t Be
51 Fourth Amendment Showdown: The U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Geofence Warrants
62 The Power of Precision: Lessons from Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
66 Investigating & Litigating Dog Bite Cases in Maryland
71 U.S. District Court for Maryland Addresses Hallucinated Cases
74 Beyond the Battlefield: How Collaboration and Mediation Are Changing Divorce Practice
79 Beyond the Hype and Fear: Implementing Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice
85 Life Estate Deeds: A Probate Shortcut with Heirs’ Property Consequences: Practice Tips for Preventing Fragmented Ownership
90 Detention and Bond in Immigration: How the Legal Landscape Has Changed
94 Five Nightmare Scenarios: What Can Go Wrong with Business Succession in Estate Planning
98 AI Concerns Facing Maryland Lawyers in 2026 and Beyond
118 The Spilled Ink Rule: In This Economy, Avoid an Economy of Words
One of the highlights of this year’s event was the presentation of special recognition awards to key members of the General Assembly who have demonstrated exceptional commitment to strengthening Maryland’s justice system. These legislators have championed causes central to MSBA’s mission, including improving court efficiency, supporting legal aid funding, and modernizing statutes that impact practitioners and the public.
Each year, the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) hosts its annual MSBA Day—a signature event that embodies the association’s mission to advance the legal profession and promote access to justice for all Marylanders. This year’s MSBA Day was an inspiring demonstration of MSBA’s unified voice in action, bringing together lawyers from every corner of the state to engage directly with members of the General Assembly on key legislative issues affecting the judiciary, the practice of law, and the people we serve.
As President of the MSBA, I had the distinct honor of joining our delegation during this productive and energizing event in Annapolis. MSBA Day is always an opportunity to show the strength, credibility, and professionalism of Maryland’s legal community. It’s a day when we remind lawmakers that MSBA is more than an organization—it’s a trusted partner in shaping sound public policy grounded in fairness, access, and the rule of law. And this year did not disappoint. This is yet another reason why it is so critical to be part of this organization. Separate and apart from our ability to interact with legislators, bill stakeholders, namely the judiciary, and fellow Maryland lawyers, we enjoyed the fellowship of our colleagues, refreshing civil discourse, and honored several legislators with inaugural awards.
MSBA Legacy of Leadership Award Recipient:
Senator Christopher R. West
MSBA Legislative Champion Award Recipient:
Delegate J. Sandy Bartlett
MSBA Advocacy Visionary Award Recipient:
Senator William C. Smith, Jr.
MSBA Voice of Justice Award Recipient:
Delegate Nicole A. Williams
MSBA Rising Advocate Award Recipient:
Senator Dawn D. Gile
Presenting these awards was both a privilege and a heartfelt moment. It is important to celebrate those in public service who not only understand the vital role of promoting access to the courts and the rule of law but who, day in and day out, demonstrate civil discourse in their tireless work to ensure equal protection of the laws for the citizens of Maryland. These leaders serve as examples of how collaboration, bipartisanship, and professionalism between
the legal community and our elected officials can yield substantial benefits for all Maryland residents.
This year’s MSBA Day also afforded me the opportunity to provide testimony in support of several judiciary-related bills pending before the General Assembly. Testifying on behalf of MSBA was a profoundly rewarding experience. As president, I felt the collective expertise of our members behind me—attorneys, judges, and advocates who live the impact of legislation every day in courtrooms and communities across the state.
We were able to share not only our professional insights but also practical recommendations drawn from firsthand experience in Maryland’s justice system. Lawmakers responded positively to our analysis and welcomed our constructive input. The dialogue underscored MSBA’s reputation as a reliable resource for thoughtful, nonpartisan advice grounded in legal expertise.
Beyond formal testimony, MSBA Day provided invaluable opportunities for MSBA leaders, committee members, and staff to meet directly with legislators and their staff on a range of bills MSBA was supporting. These discussions were substantive, respectful, and forward-looking. Whether addressing issues of judicial security, business taxation, or access to justice, our message was consistent: MSBA supports legislation that enhances justice and strengthens both the legal profession and public confidence in the courts.
Many lawmakers expressed appreciation for MSBA’s engagement— not only for providing technical expertise on complex legal questions but for doing so in a spirit of cooperation and respect. These conversations often extend beyond a single session, laying the foundation for ongoing partnerships and future progress.
No account of this year’s MSBA Day would be complete without recognizing the extraordinary performance of MSBA’s staff. The seamless coordination of logistics, scheduling, legislative
tracking, and member engagement reflected months of diligent preparation by our very own Shaoli Sarkar. From arranging meetings across the State House complex to ensuring that participants had clear briefing materials and talking points, the day unfolded with impressive precision.
Our Government Relations team, in particular, deserves special recognition for its leadership and deep understanding of the legislative process. Their ability to anticipate developments, facilitate communication, and ensure that our positions were clearly articulated had a measurable impact on the day’s success. Every MSBA staff member involved showed an unwavering commitment to excellence and professionalism, exemplifying what it means to serve as the voice of Maryland’s legal community.
This year’s MSBA Day demonstrated, once again, that MSBA’s influence comes not from partisanship or political grandstanding, but from the credibility, knowledge, and integrity of its members and staff. Our collective efforts made a difference—helping legislators understand the real-world consequences of proposed laws, strengthening our relationships with state leaders, and reinforcing MSBA’s role as an indispensable advocate for good governance and justice.
As president, I left Annapolis deeply proud of our organization and inspired by the cooperation among our members, legislators, and staff. Lobby Day affirmed that when we engage thoughtfully and speak with one unified voice, MSBA can help shape a more efficient, equitable, and accessible justice system for all Marylanders.
The day was not just a showcase of advocacy—it was a celebration of collaboration and shared purpose. The 2026 MSBA Day was, in every sense, a command performance—an outstanding example of what happens when expertise, preparation, and passion come together in service of the public good.
Marisa A. Trasatti, President
The Family Law Section held its Beverly A. Groner Award Event on November 12, 2025. The award recognizes an attorney who has served the Maryland legal community through their dedication to the practice of family law, exemplifying the highest professional standards during a distinguished career.
Paul J. Reinstein was the recipient of the 2025 Beverly A. Groner Award.
MSBA continues to celebrate the milestones, advocacy, and leadership that define our vibrant legal community.
MSBA’s Business Law Section held their holiday section meeting at Miles & Stockbridge.
MSBA’s Young Lawyers Section Council Holiday dinner, during which they held a donation drive for Blossoms of Hope.
MSBA’s Taxation Section held it’s 23rd Annual Tax Professionals
Networking Night on November 5, 2025.
THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS!
GOLD SPONSORS
Frost Law
Law Offices of Beverly Winstead
Law Office of Gerald W. Kelly
Levin Gann PA
Levy, Mann, Caplan, Hermann, Schwartzberg, & Polashuk, LLP
McCauley Law Offices, PC
Rosen, Sapperstein & Friedlander, LLC
Royston, Mueller, McLean & Reid, LLP
Stein Sperling Bennett
De Jong Driscoll PC
Venable LLP
Whiteford Taylor Preston LLP
SILVER SPONSORS
Pontius Tax Law, PLLC
Longman & Van Grack, LLC
APRIL 24
Young Lawyers Section 35th Annual Charity Event
MAY 5
MBF Fellowship Series Networking Reception
MAY 14
Taxation Section Irving Shulbank Memorial Dinner
MAY 20
Estate & Trust Law Section
Annual Meeting
JUNE 11
Maryland Bar Foundation
Annual Meeting
REGISTER HERE: www.msba.org/MBF061126
JUNE 10–12
Legal Summit and Annual Meeting
ON OCTOBER 23, 2025, the Maryland legal community gathered for a historic milestone: the Maryland Bar Foundation (MBF) 60th Anniversary Gala. Held in partnership with the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA), the evening was more than a celebration of longevity; it was a powerful testament to six decades of commitment to integrity, justice, and service.
As the philanthropic arm of MSBA, MBF used this momentous occasion to reflect on 60 years of its legacy of giving while charting a course for continued impact.
Honoring a Remarkable Legacy
The evening opened with a cocktail reception where current Fellows, distinguished judges, and legal leaders mingled.
MBF President E. Regine Francois Williams, Esq., welcomed attendees with a message of profound appreciation for the visionaries who established MBF in 1965. She shared that for six decades, the Maryland Bar Foundation has stood as a beacon of integrity and service, emphasizing that the organization’s work continues to strengthen the honor of the legal profession.
Williams noted that the evening’s success was built upon the tireless work of several key groups. She first recognized the dedicated board of directors for their efforts in elevating MBF both behind the scenes and through the execution of the Gala. She then recognized the Gala Planning Committee, whose members brought the anniversary vision to life. Turning to history, President Williams also honored the many past-presidents and former board members in attendance, noting that these leaders laid the essential foundation for the organization’s current success. Finally, she expressed her gratitude to the
MSBA team for their partnership and to the many distinguished guests and members of the judiciary, whose presence emphasized the importance of MBF's work.
The state’s highest offices also officially recognized MBF’s impact. MBF’s Immediate Past President, Wm. Carl Isler, II, announced the receipt of a governor’s citation from Governor Wes Moore, which congratulated MBF for its unwavering commitment to justice. Gregory Yancy, chief of staff, Governor’s Office of Community Initiatives, presented the citation.
Additionally, MBF received a comptroller’s certificate from Brooke Lierman, honoring the MBF’s phenomenal financial support of nonprofits and its contributions to public legal understanding.
The Power of Philanthropy: Over $110,000 Raised
One of the most remarkable moments of the night came during the fundraising update. MBF raised over $62,000 through sponsorships, donations, and ticket sales. The funds will allow MBF to continue to provide grants to Maryland legal aid organizations.
A Partnership for Service and Justice
The deep-rooted connection between the two organizations was a central theme of the night. MSBA President Marisa Trasatti took
For 60 years, MBF has fulfilled that mandate by providing critical grants to legal aid organizations, funding law-related education, and recognizing leaders dedicated to public service.
the podium to express the association’s immense pride in being the parent organization of MBF. She reminded the audience that when MSBA founded MBF in 1965, the goal was clear: to foster the honor and integrity of the profession and to improve the administration of justice.
For 60 years, MBF has fulfilled that mandate by providing critical grants to legal aid organizations, funding law-related education, and recognizing leaders dedicated to public service. President Trasatti noted that the partnership between MSBA and MBF has never been stronger. She specifically thanked President Williams for her vision and determination, noting that under her leadership, MBF raised substantial funds to continue its positive impact in Maryland communities.
Trasatti congratulated MBF on its historic anniversary and noted MSBA looks forward to 60 more years of partnership.
Through grant funding, MBF has positively impacted thousands of individuals and communities throughout Maryland. MBF support has funded organizations large and small, including the Pro Bono Resource Center, Maryland Volunteer Legal Services, Community Legal Services, Maryland Youth & the Law, and so many more, touching every corner of our state.
The gala highlighted the tangible results of MBF’s extensive grantmaking history. Since 2000, MBF has distributed $904,599 across 269 grants to more than 40 organizations throughout the state.
Attendees saw firsthand how these dollars transform lives through innovative programs. For instance, with MBF funding, the Baltimore County Public Library launched the Mobile Library Law Center with the mission to provide complimentary legal services to underserved communities, becoming the first public library system in the country to run such a program. With this project, legal services available through the Lawyers in the Library program were taken into the community, addressing barriers to access and increasing knowledge of available services that can markedly improve lives.
MBF’s reach also extends to victim support and youth engagement. MBF proudly supported Maryland Crime Victims’Resource Center, Inc. (MCVRC) in their inaugural Make a Difference for Victims’ Rights 5k Walk and Resource Fair. This event honored, remembered, and paid respect to
The Gala also highlighted one of MBF’s other core missions: honoring members of Maryland’s legal community who embody the spirit of MBF's highest standards: honor, integrity, justice, and knowledge.
survivors and victims of all crimes. Because of the efforts of MCVRC, attendees of this event could help countless others by sharing what they learned and, in that regard, ensure that the funding provided by the Maryland Bar Foundation reached even further.
Another innovative program MBF proudly supported is Reading & Robes, which brings judges into classrooms to build positive relationships between the judiciary and the community.
Furthermore, MBF, the Maryland SPCA (MD SPCA), and the Baltimore County Department of Aging partnered to encourage mature adults to consider including a plan for their pets in their estate plans to help reduce the number of pets who become homeless when their caregivers pass away. With a grant from the Maryland Bar Foundation, the MD SPCA created a valuable resource guide that walks pet parents through planning for their pets’ future care.
The gala also highlighted one of MBF’s other core missions: honoring members of Maryland’s legal community who embody the MBF's highest standards: honor, integrity, justice, and knowledge.
Hon. Jon Cardin, Maryland Delegate for District 11, presented Richard H. Gibson, Jr. with the J. Joseph Curran, Jr. Public Service Award. Since 2007, MBF has presented the award to a government or public-interest lawyer known for selflessly serving the public good and advancing the goals of better government and higher societal standards. The award is named in honor of former Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. Gibson made history in 2019 as the first Black State’s Attorney for Howard County, Maryland, and was sworn in for his second term in early 2023. Licensed in both Maryland and New Jersey, he began his prosecutorial career in Prince George’s County, before joining the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office. There, he
advanced from the General Trial Division to the Homicide Division and ultimately became a team captain in the Major Investigations Unit (MIU), supervising cases against violent repeat offenders.
As State’s Attorney, Gibson has championed community safety, transparency, and accountability while implementing diversionary programs like L.E.A.D. and launching Maryland’s first statewide prosecutor academy. He has received the Criminal Justice Reform Award (2018), served as president of the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association (2021-2025), and is vice chair of the Police Training & Standards Commission (2023–present). He is also the Maryland chapter president of the National Black Prosecutors Association (2024–present) and a board member-at large of the National District Attorneys Association (2023–present).
The Honorable Dana Middleton of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City then presented Valda Ricks, Esq., with the Steven P. Lemmey Legal Excellence Award for the Advancement of Public Service Responsibility.
Ricks began her legal career as an intern at the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, progressing to law clerk, assistant public defender, and ultimately chief attorney. After 22 years with the Public Defender’s office, Ricks joined the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office as deputy of operations, overseeing various divisions including district courts, juvenile, central booking, misdemeanor jury trial, and specialty courts. Since January 2023, as a staff attorney at the Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland, she has represented tenants in Baltimore City and Baltimore County district courts.
Ricks is an active member of several bar associations, dedicated to community outreach, mentoring, and leadership. She has tutored students at Coppin State University and mentored law students and attorneys. Ricks has received numerous awards, in-
cluding the Margaret Brent/Juanita Jackson Mitchell Award, the Bar Association of Baltimore City Government & Public Interest Award, and multiple Maryland Daily Record awards, including the Lifetime Achievement Award.
The Honorable Judith C. Ensor was honored with the Award for the Advancement of Professional Competence, presented by the Honorable Monise Stephenson of the Circuit Court for Charles County.
Judge Ensor has served as an associate judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County since 2005. She was appointed to the Judicial Ethics Committee in 2019, serving as chair from 2024 to 2025, and was her court’s lead civil judge from 2016 to 2024. Currently, she chairs the Medical Malpractice Work Group of the Conference of Circuit Judges Committee on Complex Litigation.
Since 2017, Judge Ensor has mentored with the Maryland Mentor Program for New Trial Judges and has spoken at the new trial judges’ orientation and judicial college. Elected a fellow of the Maryland Bar Foundation in 2005, she was named an ASTAR Science and Technology Fellow in 2009. Judge Ensor is a member of The Daily Record’s Circle of Excellence, recognized as one of Maryland’s Top 100 Women in 2007, 2009, and 2011.
Deena Hausner, Director of the House of Ruth Maryland Domestic Violence Legal Clinic, presented Dorothy J. Lennig, Esq. with the award for the Advancement of the Rights of the Disadvantaged.
Lennig is the Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy (GOCPP), an agency coordinating and funding Maryland’s public safety strategy. She advocates for public safety and disburses over $300M in federal and state grants for public safety initiatives. Before leading GOCPP, Lennig served as executive director of the House of Ruth Legal Clinic for more than three decades, dedicating her career to supporting victims of violence and advocating for violence-reduction laws. At House of Ruth, she directed domestic violence litigation, was a lead legislative advocate, and served as vice-chair of the Governor’s Family Violence Council.
Lennig is a past chair of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Family and Juvenile Law Section Council, chaired the Baltimore City Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team, and co-chaired the Bar Association of Baltimore City’s Family Law Committee and its Task Force on the Effect of Domestic Violence on Children. Recognized as a public safety policy thought leader, Lennig advised Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and Gov. Moore’s transition teams on public safety.
Looking Toward the Next 60 Years
The evening culminated in a powerful keynote by Erek L. Barron, Esq. Barron currently serves as chair of the Crisis Management and Strategic Response Practice at Mintz Levin. There, he advises Fortune 500 companies, public institutions, and nonprofits on high-stakes litigation, investigations, and regulatory challenges.
Before entering private practice, Barron was the first African American United States Attorney for the District of Maryland (2021-2025). He led one of the nation’s most active federal offices, overseeing landmark prosecutions in violent crime, public corruption, national security, and civil rights. Under his leadership, the office established its first Civil Rights and Special Victims Section, prosecuted a major cryptocurrency fraud, and worked to reduce violent crime in Maryland.
His public service also includes time as a state delegate in the Maryland General Assembly, where he championed bipartisan reforms in criminal justice and health care.
His address served as a reminder that while much has been achieved, the evolving legal and societal challenges ahead require a steadfast dedication to the Rule of Law and the betterment of our communities.
The success of the 60th Anniversary Gala ensures that the Maryland Bar Foundation will continue to build its legacy of philanthropy and excellence, funding the next 60 years of impact for all Marylanders.
Anna S. Sholl, Esq., MSBA Executive Director ⋅ Assured Partners ⋅ Baird ⋅ Ballard Spahr ⋅ Burnett Injury Group, LLC. ⋅ Christopher Schaefer Clothier ⋅ Community Legal Services, Inc. ⋅ Davis, Agnor, Rapaport & Skalny, LLC ⋅ Dixon Turnbull ⋅ Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP ⋅ Gordon Feinblatt LLC ⋅ Gwen-Marie Davis Hicks, LLC ⋅ Hermina Law Group ⋅ Hon. Monise A. Stephenson, Circuit Court for Charles County ⋅ Hon. Pamela J. White, MSBA Past President (2001-2002) ⋅ Jeffrey Press, Inc. ⋅ Levin & Gann ⋅ Lewicky, O’Connor, Hunt & Meiser, LLC ⋅ Maryland Association for Justice ⋅ Maryland Legal Aid ⋅ McDonough Law ⋅ McLeod, Weschler & Yeager, P.C. ⋅ MHC HealthCare ⋅ Minnesota Lawyers Mutual ⋅ Monumental City Bar Association ⋅ Ogbuehi Omena Onwezi, LLC ⋅ Parker Counts ⋅ Raphael J. Santini PA ⋅ Robinson & Geraldo ⋅ Rosenberg Martin Greenberg ⋅ The Hill Law Group ⋅ Truist Bank ⋅ Vallet Advisors ⋅ Wallace Kleid Law, LLC ⋅ Wm. Carl Isler, II, Past MBF President (2024-2025) ⋅ Wright Esquire
ON FEBRUARY 19, 2026, THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION (MSBA) and the Maryland Access to Justice Commission (A2JC) convened in Annapolis for the 7th annual MSBA Day, giving MSBA members an audience with Maryland’s elected officials. As Maryland addresses a budget deficit, MSBA continues to advocate against any unreasonable taxes and fees, while also providing input and testimony on important legislation that protects the profession and the public.
MSBA President Marisa Trasatti thanked members for showing up to engage directly with the General Assembly on issues that impact the profession. She highlighted association priorities, including:
Promoting Maryland’s Business Economy: MSBA and A2JC support smart business policies that promote growth and innovation for law firms and legal services organizations, attracting new businesses and increasing state revenue. MSBA continues to oppose unreasonable taxes or fees on the legal profession.
Strengthening Court Security and Access: MSBA and A2JC prioritize legislation that strengthens protections for judges and attorneys who face a steady rise in attacks and threats, as well as strengthening the ability of Marylanders to access courts to protect themselves and their communities from harm and to exercise fundamental rights.
Safeguarding Civil Legal Aid
Organizations: MSBA and A2JC guard against threats to civil legal aid organizations to ensure that they can continue to serve communities, rather than meet unnecessary administrative burdens.
Upholding the Rule of Law and Administration of Justice : MSBA and A2JC are committed to supporting the U.S. Constitution and the fair administration of justice. Respect for due process protections, judicial oversight, and the separation of powers is the cornerstone of a predictable and fair society.
A2JC Chair Ward Coe discussed the need for ongoing support and funding for civil legal aid organizations to ensure that low-income Marylanders are able to access
legal assistance and protect their rights. District Court of Maryland Chief Judge John Morrissey discussed the ongoing need for legislation that enhances court security as threats continue across the state. He highlighted several 2026 legislative proposals that strengthen security for judges and attorneys:
• requiring local governments to make best efforts to meet minimum courtroom security guidelines,
• elevating penalties for making threats against certain state and local officials, deputy and assistant state’s attorneys, and assistant public defenders, and
• authorizing the Office of the State Prosecutor to investigate a threat made against a judge or judge-elect.
The highlight of the morning program was the presentation of the 2026 Advocacy Awards, recognizing legislators who have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the integrity of the legal system.
MSBA LEGISLATIVE CHAMPION AWARD:
Delegate Sandy Bartlett, for demonstrating exceptional leadership and unwavering commitment to the legal profession and the integrity of the justice system, for sponsorship of landmark legislation that offers systemic protections and improves justice outcomes, and for collaboration with MSBA in a variety of practice areas.
MSBA ADVOCACY VISIONARY AWARD:
Senator William Smith, Jr., for identifying emerging legal challenges and shaping the future of the law and meaningful systemic reforms, leading on legislation to protect the legal profession, and promoting legislation to modernize the Maryland court system.
MSBA LEGACY OF LEADERSHIP AWARD:
Senator Christopher West, for honoring his career-long dedication to MSBA, serving as an integral part of Maryland’s legal community, consistently sponsoring legislation of significance to Maryland attorneys and judges, and serving as a collaborative mentor to newer legislators.
MSBA RISING ADVOCATE AWARD:
Senator Dawn Gile, recognizing her growth into a leading voice for the legal community through initiative and knowledge of complex legal issues.
The highlight
of
the morning program was the presentation of the 2026 Advocacy Awards, recognizing legislators who have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the integrity of the legal system.
MSBA VOICE OF JUSTICE AWARD:
Delegate Nicole Williams, for her advocacy in civil legal aid and access to justice through sponsorship of legislation that ensures the legal system is accessible and equitable for all, and for vocalizing the attorney perspective and consequences of proposed laws.
Legislators shared their 2026 priorities, including access to justice, juvenile justice reform, immigration-protection bills, legal remedies for violations by federal agents, protecting personal information for elected officials, business regulation, and litigation financing. MSBA thanks the following member leaders and advocacy partners who shared advocacy guidance and issue briefings with attendees: David Cahn, Robyn Elliott, Charles (Trey) Hilberg, William O’Connell, and Meredith Girard.
The day concluded with impactful group meetings with legislators, during which members shared MSBA’s legislative priorities and discussed how MSBA can support the legislature in its work. Legislators mentioned the importance of hearing the real-world impact of proposed bills from attorneys. This opportunity to share stories and the attorney perspective helps shape reforms and outcomes as the General Assembly considers thousands of bills during the 90-day session. MSBA thanks members for their participation and strong voice in Annapolis, as we shape legislation that supports our profession, improves the practice of law, and safeguards access to justice.
100% OF THE LAWYERS at these Maryland law firms and branch offices renewed their MSBA memberships for the 2025-26 Bar year. MSBA is grateful for their commitment to MSBA’s leadership in the legal profession, Annapolis advocacy, and increasing access to justice in Maryland and beyond.
The firms listed here are 100% Law Firms as of March 1, 2026, when this issue went into production. Firms joining this list after that date will appear in the next issue, which will publish in August 2026. The 100% Law Firm program is available to Maryland law firms or branch offices with 10 or more attorneys. For more details please contact MSBA Director of Membership, Bob Bershad, at bob@msba.org or 443.703.3011.
Kevin Andrews KJA Law
Dov Apfel Levin & Perconti
Prof. Michael Bakhama Nusinov Smith, LLP
Joan Bondareff Blank Rome LLP
Benjamin Boscolo ChasenBoscolo Injury Lawyers
David Dix
David Lacki Lacki & Company LLC
Joseph Mitchell
Bryan Mobley Mobley & Brown LLP
Heather Mulloy
Natasha Nazareth
Nazareth Bonifacino Law Benefit LLC
Jennifer Obasi
Rafael Petrone Cole, Mink, & Fransella PLLC
Craig Grabo DuBoff & Associates Chartered
Craig Holcomb Holcomb & Straile LLC
Peter Holland Holland Law Firm PC
Katherine Howard Regional Management, Inc.
Jacob Keith
William Kiniry, III DLA Piper LLP
Lilah Rosenblum Lichtman & Rosenblum PLLC
Candice Spalding Spalding Law Group
John Warshawsky
David Wildberger Iliff, Meredith, Wildberger & Brennan, P.C
Sean Woolums College Living LLC
Haixia Yang
The members listed here are sustaining members as of March 1, 2026, when this issue went into production. For more details please contact MSBA Director of Membership, Bob Bershad, at bob@msba.org or 443.703.3011.
As the leading voice for Maryland’s legal community, MSBA is dedicated to advocating for the legal profession, providing comprehensive services and resources for our members, and championing the core values of a just and ethical legal system.
Sustaining members of the MSBA play a vital role in upholding and advancing our mission. Their support aids MSBA's efforts in promoting professionalism, fostering diversity in the legal profession, expanding access to justice, encouraging service to the public, and upholding respect for the rule of law. By investing in the MSBA, sustaining members directly contribute to the ongoing development and strength of the Maryland legal profession.
To become a sustaining member, please select this option when you renew your MSBA Membership. Thank you.
Lawmakers and advocates entered the 2026 Maryland legislative session facing a difficult financial picture yet again, with a $1.4 million budget deficit for fiscal year 2027. Projections show significant increases to the deficit over the next few years due to education funding mandates, rising health care costs, and impacts from federal actions. Legislative priorities in both chambers included affordability, protections for immigration enforcement, and juvenile justice reforms.
The session began with a shift in leadership in the House of Delegates. Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk succeeded Speaker Adrienne Jones, who resigned in December 2025 after serving as the first woman and the first African American to hold the role. Speaker Jones supported economic and social stability for Maryland throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritized education funding and environmental priorities, and championed social and reproductive rights. Speaker Peña-Melnyk was elected unanimously and is the first Afro-Latina to hold the position. Speaker Peña-Melnyk shifted leadership and membership of many committees and split the former Health and Government Operations Committee into two committees. She has focused on civility, collegiality, financial discipline, affordable health care, energy rates, and immigration policy.
MSBA reviewed and engaged on several bills throughout the session, with direct outreach to sponsors and advocates, committee testimony, public awareness, and with the essential support of our member attorneys serving on MSBA Sections and Committees.
MSBA reviewed and engaged on several bills throughout the session, with direct outreach to sponsors and advocates, committee testimony, public awareness, and with the essential support of our member attorneys serving on MSBA Sections and Committees.
Association priorities include:
Promoting court security and access;
Opposing taxes and fees on professional services and promoting smart business policies;
Safeguarding civil legal aid organizations; and,
Upholding the rule of law and administration of justice.
Below are some key bills introduced this session that impact the profession. MSBA will provide updated outcomes in a future issue as legislation is finalized and reviewed by the Governor.
Court Security—Minimum Standards:
The judiciary requested legislation to establish minimum adequate security standards for all courthouses in Maryland, requiring responsible security entities to make best efforts to have at least one security officer present in each courtroom for criminal, family, or juvenile matters, two officers for proceedings involving incarcerated individuals or those likely to be taken into custody, and one additional officer for every four or fewer courtrooms on each floor, with expanded requirements by 2029. (HB 492 and SB 544)
Investigation of Threats by Office of the State Prosecutor:
The judiciary requested a bill authorizing the Office of the State Prosecutor to investigate a threat made against a judge or judge-elect. (HB 1031 and SB 634)
Protecting Personal Information:
Legislators considered bills that would protect the personal information of public servants (including public-facing attorneys) and state elected officials, similar to the information privacy protections enacted in SB 575 in 2024 in honor of Judge Andrew Wilkinson. (SB 121 and SB 632)
Regulating Fees That Impact Attorneys:
In 2025, the State Archives proposed a new land records fee in 2025 that would have significantly increased costs for Maryland attorneys and clients accessing digital land records. MSBA successfully defeated the fee, and this year, legislators introduced bills that would require any fees established by the State Archives (including land records) to be established by regulation. MSBA supported the bill and continues to advocate to avoid unregulated and unreasonable fees that would affect our members. (HB 576 and SB 425)
Attracting Businesses to Maryland, Increasing State Revenue: MSBA, through its Business Law Section, developed and supported legislation that would allow for an expedited filing fee for certain business filings, to improve business efficiency, bring more business to the state, and increase revenue. (HB 1346 and SB 278)
Banning 287(g)
Agreements:
Lawmakers took up immigration enforcement early in the session. Governor Moore signed into law bills banning agreements between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. (HB 444 and SB 245)
Redistricting:
While the House approved a bill to redraw Maryland’s eight congressional districts after much floor debate, Senate President Ferguson indicated opposition to redistricting and did not take up the bill for debate.
(HB 488)
Violations of Constitutional Rights: Legislators debated a new legal pathway for individuals in Maryland to sue if they believe their constitutional rights have been violated by someone acting under the authority of law.
(HB 351 and SB 346)
MSBA encourages members to participate in advocacy efforts throughout the legislative session to ensure their voices are heard by the parties responsible for crafting the laws that affect their profession and, potentially, to impact how such legislation is drafted.
Youth Charging Reform: Legislators continued to promote systemic reforms to address juveniles. This year, they focused on directing juvenile cases to juvenile court rather than automatically charging them as adults, and on limiting juvenile contact with incarcerated adults in detention. (HB 409 and SB 323)
MSBA encourages members to participate in advocacy efforts throughout the legislative session to ensure their voices are heard by the parties responsible for crafting the laws that affect their profession and, potentially, to impact how such legislation is drafted. If you want to learn more about MSBA’s advocacy process and efforts, contact us at advocacy@msba.org or visit our advocacy page.
BY REENA SHAH, ESQ.
AS LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, we are intimately familiar with the complexities of the justice system and the profound impact that competent representation has on case outcomes. Yet, we are currently facing a stark reality: in roughly 75% of the 20 million civil cases filed in state courts across the United States each year, at least one side lacks a lawyer. In Maryland alone, this translates to approximately 571,343 civil cases annually where a party navigates a civil legal matter unrepresented.
The stakes in these cases are incredibly high. Navigating complex legal systems without representation means Marylanders may lose their homes, custody of their children, or access to life-saving public benefits. To address this growing crisis, the Innovations in Tiered Legal Services Task Force—a collaborative initiative between the Maryland Judiciary, the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA), and the Maryland Access to Justice Commission (A2JC)—has been rigorously examining how our state can meet the needs of those left behind by the current market.
To aid in this mission, the Task Force conducted a comprehensive 2025 audit on the current use of allied legal professionals in Maryland. The findings of this audit are illuminating, revealing that the use of allied legal professionals (ALPs) for legal advocacy and advice is already commonplace, highly effective, and poses absolutely no threat to the business of licensed attorneys.
The Access to Justice Reality in Maryland To understand why traditional law practice models cannot solely solve this crisis, we must look closely at the economic realities facing our state.
The American Bar Association (ABA) asserts that all individuals should be guaranteed a right to legal counsel in civil matters where physical liberty is at stake and in matters related to “basic human needs,” including shelter, sustenance, safety, health, and child custody. While defendants facing charges in Maryland’s criminal courts are universally entitled to an attorney, Maryland has recognized the need for counsel in a very limited number of civil proceedings. These limited areas include the potential for deprivation of housing (eviction defense cases), deprivation of parental rights (Children in Need of Assistance and Termination of Parental Rights cases), deprivation of liberty (civil contempt and involuntary commitment cases), and special education cases. Maryland currently falls far short of national standards of practice on civil access to justice.
The root of this issue is economic.
According to the United Way, 10% of Maryland households fall below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and another 29% fall below the ALICE threshold (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed). Combining the FPL and
ALICE populations means that 934,715 Maryland households fall below the ALICE threshold. Stated plainly, nearly 40% of all Marylanders cannot afford basic necessities, let alone a lawyer at market rate. As the United Way poignantly notes, “Households below the [ALICE] Threshold are forced to make impossible choices—like deciding whether to pay for utilities or a car repair, whether to buy food or fill a prescription.” For these families, a standard legal retainer is an absolute impossibility.
When these individuals face legal crises— such as the estimated 296,026 selfrepresented litigants who faced failureto-pay-rent cases in Maryland in Fiscal Year 2024—they are often forced to go it alone. Maryland currently falls far short of national standards of practice regarding civil access to justice, and there is an insufficient supply of attorneys who can meet this need.
ALPs: Already Here, Already Working
A common misconception is that allowing allied legal professionals to provide legal advice or representation is a radical, untested disruption that poses a risk to consumers. The Task Force’s recent audit proves the opposite: ALPs are already permitted to provide legal advice and representation across various venues in Maryland, and they do so effectively without disturbing existing legal efforts.
Many ALPs are permitted to practice independently within a specified practice area before a particular agency, and some are authorized to perform in-court representation.
Consider the Maryland District Courts, where the Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Code enumerates six exceptions allowing ALPs to represent parties. ALPs can represent certain small businesses in claims, county employees in grievance procedures, and common ownership communities in disputes. Furthermore, insurance companies may defend an insured through staff counsel, ALPs can represent landlords in summary ejectment proceedings, and tenants can be represented in summary ejectment or rent
ACCORDING TO THE UNITED WAY, 10% of Maryland households fall below the Federal Poverty Level AND ANOTHER 29% fall below the ALICE threshold (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed).
escrow proceedings by law students or properly supervised nonprofit employees.
The real-world impact of these authorized allied legal professionals is extraordinary. Take case-handling paralegals who represent Maryland Legal Aid clients in housing cases involving failure to pay rent, rent escrow, voucher terminations, and subsidized housing cases. They complete rigorous training before providing ALP assistance, working directly under agency attorneys, observing court procedures, and completing the same new-lawyer training as newly-barred attorneys. They resolve most cases through negotiation, taking the burden off the court system.
Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative agencies also rely heavily on ALPs. At the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), ALPs are authorized to represent parties in a broad array of matters. Before the Maryland Department of Labor, authorized ALPs
may represent claimants or employers in proceedings before a special examiner or the Board of Appeals. For example, a Maryland Legal Aid senior case-handling paralegal recently represented a man who was denied unemployment insurance benefits after leaving his job due to a progressively worsening chronic condition. The paralegal successfully appealed the case to the Board of Appeals, resulting in the client being awarded all his back pay.
ALPs also represent parties before the Maryland Tax Court, the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Maryland Insurance Administration, and the Office of the Attorney General’s Securities Division. In the vital area of special education advocacy, an April 2024 Maryland law established a program allowing eligible families to connect with experienced consultants, advocates, and attorneys to
While the statistics surrounding the access-tojustice gap are staggering, the real-world impact of Allied Legal Professionals (ALPs) is best understood through the lives they change.
help with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and school discipline issues.
Case Study: ALP in Action—Securing Safe Housing for a Domestic Violence Survivor
While the statistics surrounding the access-to-justice gap are staggering, the real-world impact of Allied Legal Professionals (ALPs) is best understood through the lives they change.
In August 2025, a senior case-handling paralegal with Maryland Legal Aid took on the case of a woman facing a notice to vacate her home. The client had resided in her unit for seven years, was raising four children with a fifth on the way, and was a domestic violence survivor with a pending Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) case.
The client’s situation was dire and complex. She had been targeted by other tenants who filed uncorroborated complaints against her. In response, she had called the police multiple times, secured peace orders against the harassing neighbors, and repeatedly reported the issues to her landlord. Compounding her distress, her abusive ex-partner—despite a valid protective order and a prior arrest on the property for abusing her—had recently moved in with a neighbor just a few units away.
Rather than assisting the survivor, the landlord served her with a notice to vacate.
Without legal representation, this mother likely would have lost her home and been forced into an even more dangerous situation. Instead, the ALP stepped in. At the formal hearing before the city Housing Authority, the Maryland Legal Aid case-handling
paralegal successfully argued the client’s case, resulting in the notice to vacate being rescinded and vital protective conditions being imposed.
The advocacy did not stop at the hearing. The paralegal also helped draft a comprehensive safety plan for both the client and the landlord to follow, and the residency of the abusive ex-partner is now actively being investigated.
This case powerfully illustrates the indispensable role of ALPs. By utilizing highly trained, non-lawyer advocates in administrative and housing hearings, Maryland can provide life-saving legal intervention to vulnerable citizens who would otherwise face the system completely alone.
This framework extends to the federal level as well, where at least 15 federal agencies have established ALP advocacy programs. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) contains general language recognizing the right of parties compelled to appear before an agency to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other qualified representatives. Today, at least 15 federal agencies have created ALP advocacy programs.
For taxpayers in Maryland, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) permits nonlawyer enrolled agents and certified public accountants (CPAs) to represent taxpayers in audits, appeals, and tax collection matters. As of August 2025, there were 63,399 active IRS enrolled agents in the U.S., who must pass comprehensive testing and complete continuous education. In 2024, IRS-funded low income taxpayer clinics (LITCs)—which include three in Maryland—helped correct more than $40 million in taxpayer liabilities nationwide, utilizing attorneys, CPAs, and enrolled agents.
Before the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), ALPs called eligible for direct pay non-attorneys (EDPNAs) are authorized to advise and assist claimants
By utilizing highly trained, non-lawyer advocates in administrative and housing hearings, Maryland can provide life-saving legal intervention to vulnerable citizens who would otherwise face the system completely alone.
throughout administrative processes. They must hold a bachelor’s degree, pass a rigorous examination, secure professional liability insurance, pass a background check, and adhere to the same Rules of Conduct as lawyers. A Maryland Legal Aid senior casehandling paralegal recently represented a woman who had been living with mental health diagnoses for 19 years and had been denied disability benefits because she could not navigate the SSA system alone. The paralegal gathered evidence and represented her at an administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing, securing a fully favorable decision.
Perhaps the most robust and heavily utilized ALP framework exists within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Established in 1958, the DOJ’s BIA recognition and accreditation program authorizes BIA-accredited representatives to represent people in immigration proceedings before immigration courts, the board of immigration appeals, and DHS. Individuals must establish broad knowledge and adequate experience in immigration law, and to be “fullyaccredited,” they must possess skills essential for effective litigation. There are currently 2,765 BIA-accredited representatives in the United States, with 34 BIA-recognized organizations operating in Maryland.
Yareli J. Urbina, managing paralegal for Amica Center for Immigrant Rights’ Detained Adult Program in Baltimore, is a fully accredited representative who manages a massive caseload. In one case, Urbina represented a client named “VCC” who was detained during a workplace ICE raid, separated from his pregnant U.S. citizen fiancée and children, and sent to Georgia. Urbina drafted a written motion for bond and successfully argued it before a judge, securing his release and family reunification. “The work that our fully accredited representatives do and their responsibilities are the same as that of
our attorneys,” Urbina notes, “For us, BIA representatives are extremely important because staff attorneys cannot keep up with the volume of cases we have.”
Crucially, in the immigration context, ALPs actually protect consumers from harm. Morgan Weibel of the Tahirih Justice Center notes that unauthorized “notarios”— individuals who falsely claim to be qualified to offer legal services—routinely victimize immigrants. Because immigration attorneys are rare and expensive, immigrants fall prey to these bad actors. By providing highly trained, regulated BIA-accredited representatives, Tahirih Justice Center offers a safe, reliable, and trustworthy alternative. Beyond these, ALPs advocate for clients before the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services (including Affordable Care Act Navigators), Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (via certified Housing Counselors), Department of the Interior, Veterans Affairs, the Patent and Trade Office, Department of Labor, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Both the White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable and the Administrative Conference of the United States have vigorously recommended expanding these ALP roles further to improve access to justice.
For private practitioners, the expansion of ALPs might initially prompt concerns regarding market competition. However, the data strongly suggests that ALPs serve a fundamentally different demographic. Tiered legal services are intentionally designed to serve specific populations that would otherwise go unserved or underserved, rather than detracting from
Maryland is not acting in a vacuum; we are part of an emerging national movement, led by state supreme courts, creating new tiers within the legal profession to help those who cannot afford an attorney.
licensed attorneys’ work. Legal practitioners (LPs) charge modest fees far below market rates, making them accessible to the ALICE population, who are completely priced out of traditional legal services.
Instead of cannibalizing business, ALPs actually support the broader legal ecosystem:
Relieving Systemic Burden:
In practice areas that currently permit ALP assistance, advocates note that this model successfully takes the burden off the courts and legal services providers.
High Quality, Lower Cost:
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) reports that well-trained ALPs are highly competent, produce satisfied clients, and provide high-quality services at roughly half the cost of attorneys.
Combatting Fraud:
In vulnerable communities, properly regulated ALPs provide a safe alternative to predatory actors, such as “notario” fraud in immigrant communities.
The National Movement Toward Tiered Services
Maryland is not acting in a vacuum; we are part of an emerging national movement, led by state supreme courts, creating new tiers within the legal profession to help those who cannot afford an attorney.
The Innovations Task Force is exploring distinct tiers of legal assistance. The first is LPs. Conceptually akin to nurse practitioners in the medical profession, LPs are trained, licensed, and regulated ALPs authorized to offer limited-scope legal services in designated areas of civil law. They must meet formal educational and experiential standards, pass examinations, and comply with ethical obligations. Seven states—Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, and Washington— have already issued court orders or passed legislation authorizing LPs.
The second tier involves community justice workers (CJWs), who are conceptually akin to community health workers. These are members of the community or professionals from other industries who have been
upskilled to provide civil legal aid and bring the law directly to where people are. The ABA has explicitly urged the highest state courts to study and adopt CJW programs to expand accessibility, affordability, and quality of civil legal services while protecting the public. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have already approved CJW enabling forms.
As Frontline Justice CEO Nikole Nelson observes, “There will never be enough lawyers to resolve all the legal problems that the community faces . . . Sometimes, community justice workers are more suitable to address cases than lawyers are. They are connected in ways that lawyers may not be.”
Finally, the Task Force is looking at legal technologies, recognizing that the growing access-to-justice crisis, coupled with the rapid pace of AI innovation, creates a unique opportunity for state courts to adopt regulatory reforms that support AI-fueled legal service delivery.
Currently, 14 states have passed or proposed rules for authorizing justice worker programs, and 20 others are actively developing them. Maryland is uniquely positioned to thoughtfully and securely join this vanguard.
Expanding the supply of legal helpers beyond attorneys is not a threat to our profession; it is a vital evolution necessary to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law. By embracing tiered legal services, we can protect the integrity of the courts, improve case outcomes for the most vulnerable, and ensure that the legal system works for everyone.
Jim Sandman, the former president of the Legal Services Corporation, has poignantly stated, “Expanding the supply of legal helpers beyond attorneys is critical. Providing access to justice for people who can’t afford lawyers requires new kinds of service providers, innovative delivery models, and the courage to pilot change.”
As legal professionals, we must have that courage. The integration of well-trained, highly regulated allied legal professionals elevates our entire justice system by ensuring that the fundamental right to legal assistance is a reality for all Marylanders, not just the wealthy few.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
“
It takes years to build a great reputation. It takes only moments to destroy a great reputation through unethical actions. No case is worth losing your reputation over.
ASSOCIATE JUDGE KARLA N. SMITH has built an impressive legal career spanning 35 years, from her early days as an assistant state’s attorney to her current position on the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. After years of dedicated public service as a prosecutor, she transitioned to the bench. Now, Judge Smith is preparing for her latest and most significant career change yet: being named the administrative judge for the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, effective March 2026. In this new leadership role, she is focused on honoring the court’s legacy by developing policies and systems that ensure efficient and equitable access to justice for the county’s diverse community.
What is the best piece of advice you have received from someone in the legal profession?
The best advice I ever received was that the most important thing I have as a lawyer is my reputation. It takes years to build a great reputation. It takes only moments to destroy a great reputation through unethical actions. No case is worth losing your reputation over.
What is your fondest memory of your legal career so far?
My fondest memory of my legal career is being sworn in as a judge in the presence of my family, friends, and the community. It was such an incredible moment for me, having my parents present and knowing that they never had that kind of opportunity, and having my three young sons participate and learn that there are no limits to what they can do in their lives.
How would you describe your career in three words?
Interesting, challenging, fulfilling
What are some accomplishments you’ve achieved during your career?
Instituting changes in policy and programs in the juvenile court with a mind toward reducing juvenile recidivism by reengaging youth in school and connecting them to services while they are on probation to the court.
Additionally, my work with problem-solving courts, specifically the adult drug court, has been rewarding because of the impact it has not only
on participants and their families but also on the community as a whole.
What professional accomplishment are you most proud of?
As a judge, my proudest accomplishment is creating a graduate social worker program in the juvenile court. I think the assignment of graduate social work students to youth with delinquency matters has been impactful, not just for the youth but for their families.
During my tenure as a prosecutor, my proudest accomplishment would be working with Governor O’Malley and Attorney General Anthony Brown (then lieutenant governor) to pass a criminal child neglect statute.
What makes you unique in your profession?
I am a homegrown Montgomery County girl. I have witnessed the county grow and change over the last few decades, from being largely homogeneous to one of the most diverse counties in the country.
What are the best skills you bring to your legal career?
I think I’ve always had the ability to look at the big picture, consider the implications of a decision, be decisive and direct, think outside the box, and multitask.
What do you enjoy most about your career?
No two days are ever the same. It is impossible to predict what is going to happen in the
courtroom, no matter how prepared you are or how many times you have heard the same types of cases. Additionally, I enjoy working with my colleagues, judiciary employees, and community partners to improve judicial processes and access to justice.
Describe your career trajectory. I was hired by Judge Andy Sonner (then the state’s attorney for Montgomery County) as a Sonner Scholar in 1996. Sonner Scholars were full-time assistant state’s attorneys (ASAs) who were paid $12,000 annually, received no benefits, and could not transition into full-time, permanent ASA jobs. I absolutely loved being an ASA, with the exception of the pay, the lack of benefits, and the lack of opportunity for permanency, obviously. After 10 months, then State’s Attorney Jack Johnson offered me a full-time ASA position in the Prince George’s County State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO), which I accepted. During the three years I was there, I moved quickly through the district court, juvenile, felony drugs, and eventually, sex crimes units. In 2000, I received a call from former Attorney General Doug Gansler (then the state’s attorney) asking me to “come home” to Montgomery County, which I was happy to do. I was promoted to the head of the Rockville felony team by AG Gansler and then, in 2005, the Chief of the Family Violence Division by State’s Attorney John McCarthy. I remained in the SAO until I was appointed to the bench.
How did your work as a prosecutor prepare you for the transition to the bench? As a prosecutor, you must be able to think quickly on your feet; issue spot within moments; listen and pay attention to details; be decisive; tell people things they do not necessarily want to hear while being professional and diplomatic; and work effectively with all different types of people. Being a judge requires all those same skills, except your role shifts from advocate to umpire.
Why did you want to become a judge? What are your priorities and challenges as a judge?
I was a public servant for my entire career before joining the bench. Becoming a judge allowed me to continue serving the public in a different manner.
Any suggestions for lawyers practicing in front of you?
I advise all young attorneys to protect their reputations by being prepared, submitting their best work, interacting with members of the bar, the bench, and the public in a professional and polite manner, and being ethical and honest.
You were recently named the Administrative Judge for the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, effective March 2026. What are your primary goals for the court’s administration and the “expeditious disposition of cases” as you step into this new leadership role?
Montgomery County historically has had excellent administrative judges who understood that the judiciary exists, in large part, to serve the community. One of the most important jobs of the administrative judge is to develop policies, procedures, and systems that aid in meeting the judiciary’s mission of ensuring access to justice for everyone, including moving cases through the court expeditiously while meting out sound, equitable dispositions. That requires an understanding of and interest in the community we serve, as well as a willingness, as necessary, to change our approach and focus based on the fluctuating needs of litigants and the community at large.
You have stated that you intend to honor the court’s legacy by ensuring “efficient and equitable access to justice.” What does “equitable access” look like in practice for the residents of Montgomery County today? Equitable access to justice requires recognizing that the court serves an extremely diverse community. Montgomery County is the largest county in the state, with over 1,000,000 residents. It is a majority-minority county, in which a little less than half of the households use a language other than English; about 7% of households are at or below the poverty line, in contrast with more than 30% earning $200,000 or more per year; and a significant number of residents rely solely on public transportation. Hence, in devising processes and systems within the courthouse, we must consider these factors and how they impact people’s access to justice.
How has the MSBA helped you in your legal career?
Having the opportunity to meet and fellowship with lawyers of varying ages and practice areas is invaluable to one’s growth as an attorney.
How do you spend your free time?
I enjoy walking my dogs, practicing yoga, working out, and reading. From February through May, I spend my free time watching my three sons play lacrosse.
What’s an interesting fact about you that no one would guess? I have terrible taste in movies. I will watch anything, including the entire John Wick series and the Madea series, and tell anyone who asks how excellent they are.
It is impossible to predict what is going to happen in the courtroom, no matter how prepared you are or how many times you have heard the same types of cases. “
BY A MARYLAND LAWYER
No one writes songs about it. You’ll never get jailed for using it. There’s no age limit for it, and everybody uses it. In fact, if you don’t use it, you’ll die. If it kills you, it will do it subtly, slowly, and legally, and you’ll be part of a legion of people who die from it without a thought that maybe it is serious compulsive behavior. How in the heck can food be an addiction?
Food becomes an addiction when its use gets warped, either by eating too much or too little, binging, starving, using laxatives, vomiting, or over-exercising—“compulsive food behaviors.” All of them are embarrassing, mind-numbing, and can wreak havoc on physical and mental health. I know because that’s what it did to me.
Before I tell my story, though, I’d like to share observations I’ve developed over the years about compulsive eaters. Many of us start at a very young age. It is often the first addiction to come and the last one to go. Many of us compulsively eat to address sexual abuse (if I’m fat, or if I’m so small I’ll disappear, maybe they’ll leave me alone), or to deal with the parent, spouse, or child who is using drugs or alcohol or is otherwise abusive. Some of us compulsively eat just to deal with all the normal stresses heaped upon us. We tend to be fixers, highly competent, dependable, rule followers, so it should be no surprise that we’d pick the “acceptable” addiction to cope.
This is especially true when the ramifications of the addictive behavior fall far less on others and more directly on our own bodies and our own mental health.
This addiction presents itself in many different forms. Some of us are addicted to certain foods, most commonly sugar and white flour. Some of us are not addicted to any specific food, but can’t stop eating once we start, or restrict and exercise compulsively. Some of us are obese. Some of us appear to be a healthy weight. Some of us are underweight. Many of us fluctuate between these three in the course of our addictive behavior. Some of us use laxatives or vomiting to control our weight.
My story is only one snapshot of the many ways this addiction manifests. I have been a compulsive eater for as long as I can remember and craved (and stole) sweet food from a very young age. I was a normal weight until I hit puberty, and then I only gained about 20 pounds. However, that is when the binging began. At the time, the other areas of my life were successful—I got good grades, was popular, played two musical instruments, had a boyfriend, and was class president. I looked normal, but I hated myself intensely. My binges were secretive and embarrassing. I didn’t want anyone to know that there was an area of my life that was completely out of control. I would starve myself and then binge—often eating whole bowls of sugar or entire cakes, or anything else I could get my hands on. As my food addiction
progressed, I became desperate enough to eat food with bugs in it, food out of trash cans, and frozen and expired food. I stole food. I gained more weight, although I never became obese. My health began to suffer as eating such large quantities at a time impacted my digestive tract. I contemplated suicide.
At the time (the late 1970s), I couldn’t find anyone to take my desperation seriously. Addictive food behaviors were not yet on most professionals’ radar screen, and often I was told just to use a little more “will power” or not to worry about it. Luckily, I stumbled upon an organization that understood and saved my life. I joined Overeaters Anonymous (OA), which is patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous and uses its same 12 Steps and 12 Traditions. While I have yet to put my decades-long membership at the top of any resume (and still choke on the words Overeaters Anonymous), I can’t deny its positive impact on my life. It taught me how to stop the binging, obtain a normal relationship with food, and deal with life in a way that didn’t require addictive behavior. I still work this program and am so grateful for it.
Although I will always be a fan and advocate of OA, today, there are many organizations that provide help for food addictions. Fortunately, it is recognized as a serious condition. The MSBA Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) can provide a guide to these.
1 Overeaters Anonymous, Inc., overeatersanonymous.org.
Do I eat when I’m not hungry, or not eat when my body needs nourishment?
Do I go on eating binges for no apparent reason, sometimes eating until I’m stuffed or even feel sick?
Do I have feelings of guilt, shame, or embarrassment about my weight or the way I eat?
Do I eat sensibly in front of others and then make up for it alone?
Is my eating affecting my health or the way I live my life?
When my emotions are intense—whether positive or negative—do I find myself reaching for food?
Do my eating behaviors make me or others unhappy?
Have I ever used laxatives, vomiting, diuretics, excessive exercise, or diet pills to try to control my weight?
Do I fast or severely restrict my food intake to control my weight?
Do I fantasize about how much better life would be if I were a different size or weight?
Do I need to chew or have something in my mouth all the time: food, gum, mints, candies, or beverages?
Have I ever eaten food that is burned, frozen, or spoiled, from containers in the grocery store, or out of the garbage?
Are there certain foods I can’t stop eating after having the first bite?
Have I lost weight with a diet or “period of control” only to be followed by bouts of uncontrolled eating and/or weight gain?
Do I spend too much time thinking about food, arguing with myself about whether or what to eat, planning the next diet or exercise cure, or counting calories?1
If you answered yes to many of these, you aren’t alone, and LAP can help.
BY COLLEEN M. ARACRI, ESQ.
THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE LEGAL NEEDS of Marylanders and the resources available to meet them presents a significant challenge. In Maryland, 10% of households live below the Federal Poverty Line.1 An additional 28% of Maryland households fall into the ALICE2 threshold, which means their earnings exceed the poverty line, but they do not make enough to survive and meet basic needs like food, shelter, and childcare, let alone hire legal counsel at market rates.
Data indicates that 74% of low-income households experienced at least one civil legal issue within the past year.3 While legal services organizations offer vital support to those in need, they are frequently restricted by limited funding and overwhelming caseloads. This scarcity creates a justice chasm where the vast majority of Marylanders, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, who face life-altering legal hurdles, such as evictions, debt collection, or family law disputes, must navigate a complex court system entirely on their own. Without the help of an attorney, these people often struggle to identify their rights or properly file the necessary documentation, leading to inequitable outcomes that perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
In Maryland, the Access to Justice Commission’s Data and Legal Technology Committee is exploring ways to use AI and legal technology to create efficiencies in organizational workflows, applications in service delivery, as well as direct-to-consumer use cases. Separately, but relatedly, the Innovations in Tiered Legal Services Task Force, a joint initiative of the judiciary, the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA), and the Maryland Access to Justice Commission (A2JC), is studying legal technology
In
Maryland, the Access to Justice Commission’s Data and Legal Technology Committee is exploring ways to use AI and legal technology to create efficiencies in organizational workflows, applications in service delivery, as well as direct-to-consumer use cases.
tools that could serve a swath of the population through TurboTax-like applications, which could give legal guidance and advice in relatively straightforward case-types.
In Maryland, like every other state, the demand for civil legal aid consistently exceeds the supply of attorneys. AI and other legal technology tools are emerging as resources to address this systemic failure. These tools serve as force multipliers, enabling civil legal aid organizations, their attorneys and staff, as well as pro bono attorneys, to reduce the time per case and help reach more clients.
For many legal aid organizations and pro bono volunteers, one obstacle to expanding services is the administrative tax, or the time-consuming processes of intake, eligibility screening, and basic factual inquiry. Technology can now streamline these entry points to ensure that limited human resources are reserved for complex legal analysis.
Maryland Legal Aid (MLA) recently announced the official launch of MLAGPT, a secure, internally managed generative artificial intelligence platform designed specifically to support civil legal services. The platform represents a significant step forward in how nonprofit legal organizations can responsibly integrate AI while protecting client confidentiality and strengthening access to justice.
MLAGPT is powered by LibreChat, a model-agnostic AI platform, and is self-hosted within MLA’s secure cloud environment. The system operates under formal business associate agreements with AI providers and a zero data retention policy, ensuring that client information is not stored or used to train external AI models. This privacyfirst infrastructure reflects MLA’s core commitment to safeguarding the sensitive information entrusted to it by low-income Marylanders.
“MLAGPT is not about replacing human judgment,” said Vicki Schultz, Executive Director of Maryland Legal Aid. “It is about equipping our advocates and staff with a secure tool that reduces administrative burden, improves efficiency, and allows us to focus more of our time on strategic advocacy and direct client support.”
Unlike general commercial AI tools, MLAGPT has been tailored to the specific needs of civil legal services organizations. Attorneys and paralegals can use the platform to draft client letters, summarize lengthy case
files, brainstorm legal arguments, and translate complex legal language into plain English for clients. Administrative and operations staff can generate internal communications, create training materials, summarize reports, and streamline documentation workflows.
The platform also includes custom “agents” built around recurring legal aid tasks, such as case summaries, rent ledger analysis, and referral support, promoting consistency
In Maryland, like every other state, the demand for civil legal aid consistently exceeds the supply of attorneys. AI and other legal technology tools are emerging as resources to address this systemic failure.
and quality across offices. By standardizing workflows and reducing repetitive drafting time, MLA expects staff to devote more energy to complex case strategy and client engagement.
AI intake platforms and answering services can be deployed to provide 24/7 initial screenings. Legal intake involves high volume, repetitive Q&A, and standard decision rules, which are conditions where AI can excel.4 A large language model (LLM) can be programmed to ask the same questions an intake worker would, in a conversational manner, and interpret the answers.5 For example, Legal Aid of North Carolina (LANC), the state’s largest nonprofit law firm that serves 300,000 people annually seeking help with issues such as domestic violence and unlawful eviction, is testing an AI-powered voice agent for initial intake that operates 24/7 in multiple languages, addressing accessibility challenges for clients in rural areas or those with transportation issues, as an example of innovative AI implementation.6 Similarly, the Law Center for Better Housing (LCBH) in Chicago employs an AI chatbot called Rentervention that uses an LLM to provide 24-hour access to justice for those who may have otherwise fallen into the justice gap.7 Of those who accessed
4 justiceinnovation.law.stanford.edu/legal-aid-intake-screening-ai/#the-use-case-ai-assisted-housing-intake
5 Id.
6 legalaidnc.org/2025/11/18/legal-aid-of-north-carolina-launches-lia-2-0-marking-a-new-era-in-accessible-ai-powered-legal-information/
7 medium.com/justice-rising/a-pathway-to-justice-ai-and-the-legal-aid-intake-problem-0af735b92f17
the Rentervention, 90% of their informational needs were addressed via engagement with the technology.8
Because LLMs can process natural language, an AI agent can understand a client’s narrative of their housing problem and spot relevant details or legal issues (e.g., identifying an illegal lockout vs. a formal eviction) to ask appropriate follow-ups.9 By qualifying financial eligibility and identifying the specific legal issue (e.g., a failure to pay rent vs. an illegal lockout) before a human advocate intervenes, these tools can greatly reduce staff administrative burden, allowing attorneys to redirect their focus to substantive issues.10
In some instances, attorneys who want to offer pro bono services are hesitant because they cannot find the right opportunity. Platforms like Paladin11 are utilizing AI to match an attorney’s specific practice area and geographic location with real-time needs from local legal services providers, potentially inspiring more attorneys to volunteer their legal services.
For self-represented litigants (SRLs), the complexity of Maryland’s court forms is a significant barrier to entry. To make legal aid more accessible, various nonprofits and judicial entities throughout the United States have launched free digital tools designed to help SRLs navigate complex court processes.
A2J Author12 is a software tool developed by CALI and the Center for Access to Justice & Technology at IIT Chicago-
8 Id.
9 Id.
Kent College of Law to deliver greater access to justice for self-represented litigants by enabling lawyers and law students to rapidly build user-friendly web-based document assembly tools called A2J Guided Interviews. These A2J Guided Interviews allow users to complete court documents by presenting a series of easy-to-understand questions while graphics virtually lead users along the path to the courthouse, where these documents can be filed. A2J Author can help self-represented litigants in a wide variety of legal matters, including filing for divorce, getting protection orders, answering debt collection suits, and modifying child support orders.
LawHelp Interactive13 is a non-profit tool managed by Pro Bono Net that helps SRLs prepare legal documents by answering simple, interview-style questions. It covers housing, family law, and debt issues, offering, for example, assistance with domestic violence protection orders. Legal service organizations can also use LawHelp Interactive to streamline their operations.
Another tool, Upsolve14 guides people through the bankruptcy process. Users begin by creating an account and completing a detailed questionnaire regarding their finances. After finishing a mandatory one-hour educational course, the platform’s software automatically generates the necessary court forms. The process concludes with a meeting between the user and a bankruptcy trustee; if the paperwork is in order, the user’s debt is typically canceled within a few months.
In the realm of housing, the Massachusetts Defense for
10 clemetrobar.org/?pg=CMBABlog&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=131708#:~:text=AI%20answering%20can%20staff%20Lawyer,Cambridge%20University%20Press%20&%20Assessment+1
11 joinpaladin.com/#:~:text=Who%20We%20ServePro%20Bono,on%20their%20interests%20and%20expertise.
12 a2jauthor.org, with graphics that virtually guide/, with graphics that virtually guide
13 lawhelpinteractive.org/Home/Organization
14 upsolve.org/home?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=branded&utm_term=upsolve&utm_content=home&utm_device=c&gad_ source=1&gad_campaignid=22580237179&gbraid=0AAAAArEQMegdEhJVEtPI4l7QCtvGbnmjQ&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_Pkw0rQTGc9lUFgwSECk7_ t7MzxdEuopijgyISvyLkTlFJpC2qcIZzRoCJvcQAvD_BwE
The rise of AI in Maryland’s legal practice has been met with clear guidance from the judiciary and the Bar.
Eviction15 (MADE) offers a lifeline to tenants facing eviction. Functioning like a virtual interview, the platform asks users for details about their living situation, their landlord, and the specific claims of their case. Based on these responses, MADE produces the seven essential legal documents required for a court hearing, which the tenant then signs and files.
Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit developed SOFIA16 (South Florida Interactive Access) to streamline family law matters like simple divorces and name changes. With SOFIA, people can request their simple divorce or adult name-change packet by email or online chat with a Self Help staff member, then they can register to use SOFIA, where an assisted document creator app will gather the information needed for the forms by asking them interactive questions online.
Multilingual AI translation tools are emerging as a potential solution to the linguistic barriers that often impede access to justice for Maryland’s diverse, multilingual population, as traditional human translation is expensive and often unavailable for emergency filings. Such tools are now being integrated into court websites and many legal aid portals.17
15 gbls.org/MADE
16 sofia.jud11.flcourts.org/
The rise of AI in Maryland’s legal practice has been met with clear guidance from the judiciary and the Bar. Every Maryland attorney using AI and legal technology tools must adhere to the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC):
Competence (Md. Rule 19-301.1):
As of the 2025–2026 bar year, technological competence is an explicit component of an attorney’s duty. Practitioners must understand the “risks and benefits associated with relevant technology.”
Confidentiality (Md. Rule 19-301.6): When using AI for pro bono intake, attorneys must ensure that client data is processed within a “closed” environment. Uploading sensitive client narratives to public, consumer-grade AI models without a “zero data retention” agreement may constitute a breach of confidentiality.
Supervision (Md. Rule 19-305.1 & 19-305.3):
The lawyer—not the clerk or the algorithm—is the ultimate guarantor of the filing. The failure to read the cases cited in a brief, regardless of how they were discovered, is unquestionably improper.
Technology will never replace the empathy, ethical judgment, or advocacy of a Maryland lawyer. It is, however, a tool that can help make significant strides towards reducing the justice gap. By embracing AI and legal technology tools to improve administrative efficiency, automate document preparation, and enhance language accessibility, Maryland can move closer to a system in which justice is not a luxury for the few but a reality for all.
17 getrobotsolutions.com/post/multilingual-a-i-bridging-the-access-to-justice-gap-in-modern-courts#:~:text=24/7%20Accessibility:%20A.I.,for%20court%20staff%20as%20well. ncsc.org/libraries/mozilla-pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https://www.ncsc.org/sites/default/files/media/document/NCSC%20Machine%20Translation%20Guide_0.pdf
BY SHAUNTIA’ D. WHITE
AS PART OF ITS COORDINATED STATEWIDE legal and social welfare initiatives, Maryland is advancing access to justice for underserved populations by deliberately reforming its legal service landscape.1 These efforts include the exploration of tiered practice models, modernization of unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules, and the expanded use of non-lawyer professionals, primarily—but not exclusively—within the civil justice system. At the same time, recent federal policy dialogues—while not altering licensure authority or scope of practice—have highlighted broader challenges in workforce credentialing and professional classification that disproportionately affect allied professions, including social work. Although social workers’ clinical licensure remains intact, many increasingly operate in court-adjacent and justice-involved roles that fall outside traditional clinical frameworks and lack corresponding legal recognition. This reality underscores the need for state-level innovation that can both expand access to justice and advance social workers’ professional standing through additional, legally cognizable credentials—such as Legal Paraprofessional (LP) licensure—without displacing or diluting existing clinical licensure.
This article, therefore, reconsiders traditional regulatory boundaries to address unmet legal needs by expanding tiered defense models. Drawing from comparative regulatory frameworks and empirical evidence from multiple jurisdictions, it demonstrates that properly supervised and regulated non-lawyer practice can improve access to justice without increasing harm, including in contexts beyond civil matters. The authorization of a limited, supervised pathway permitting licensed social workers to serve in narrowly scoped LP roles within a tiered defense system, particularly in criminal and juvenile matters, is not unprecedented. Such authorization would complement rather than displace the roles of existing attorneys,
paralegals, and community justice workers (CJWs), while expanding equitable access to justice and improving outcomes. This article argues that Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems present a parallel opportunity to formalize and strengthen interdisciplinary defense models that already rely heavily on social work expertise but lack corresponding legal authority by reforming UPL doctrine through affirmative authorization, defined scope, and judicial oversight.
Federal Context: Informative, Not Determinative
Federal policy under the one big beautiful bill and the Department of Education’s proposed redefinition of professional degrees threaten
The authorization of a limited, supervised pathway permitting licensed social workers to serve in narrowly scoped LP roles within a tiered defense system, particularly in criminal and juvenile matters, is not unprecedented.
the social work workforce that Maryland’s LP reforms rely on. Excluding social work and eliminating Graduate PLUS loans could affect 370,000 students and remove $8 billion in federal loans eligible for critical service professions, according to the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE).2 Maryland already faces substantial workforce shortages: projections indicate that by 2028, the state will need thousands of additional behavioral and social service workers, including more than 2,600 social workers and roughly 8,000 social and human service assistants by 2028, according to the data presented at November’s Workgroup for Social Work License Requirements.3 In January 2026 alone, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration terminated federal grant funding for the CSWE’s Minority Fellowship Program—a program that for more than 50 years has supported graduate training, mentorship, and workforce entry for social workers specializing in mental health and substance use treatment.4 Although this action does not alter state licensure authority, it underscores the growing instability of federal investment in the behavioral health workforce. Absent reliable access to affordable graduate education, and amid expanding reliance on diversion, treatmentbased dispositions, and interdisciplinary defense models, the pipeline of licensed professionals available to serve as supervised LPs may contract, undermining the staffing capacity needed to implement tiered diversion and defense initiatives effectively.
Although these federal efforts do not alter state licensure or the legal scope of practice, they expose systemic gaps in how interdisciplinary professional work is recognized and regulated. Maryland is uniquely positioned to address these gaps. The contrast is instructive: social work is regulated through graduated licensure pathways that formally integrate supervision and workforce alignment, while law continues to rely on the unauthorized practice of law doctrine despite increasing dependence on non-lawyer professionals in criminal
and juvenile systems. In this structure, social workers face a risk of professional erosion when performing legal-adjacent functions without formal authorization. LP licensure would instead formalize accountability, protect professional identity, and transform historically informal or peripheral roles into regulated participation within the justice system.
Critics may frame this proposal as a relaxation of professional regulation. In reality, it constitutes a deliberate reengineering of UPL. The Arizona Supreme Court’s licensed legal professional program and its broader access-to-legal services reform, codified in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §§ 7-210 and 7-211, provide persuasive regulatory precedent. Although Arizona has not fully integrated social workers into LP licensure, its rule explicitly authorizes limited legal practice by nonlawyers in criminal and juvenile matters under court authority, demonstrating that courts may safely expand professional roles without compromising ethical or competency standards, despite conservative critiques to the contrary. 5, 6
Maryland’s approach could differ in form but not in authority. Where Arizona relies on codified procedural specificity, Maryland historically employs a more flexible, equity-oriented regulatory framework, given its demographic diversity and persistent access-to-justice gaps.
The proposal to integrate social workers into LP pathways is grounded in function rather than professional preference. Social workers already operate across diversion, mitigation, compliance entry, and continuity of care systems, all domains that materially influence outcomes in plea-dominated criminal courts. Holistic defense models, such as those employed by The Bronx Defenders, embed social workers alongside attorneys in interdisciplinary teams. Evaluations show that holistic defense can
2 Council on Social Work Education, Education Department Definition Limits Access to Social Work Education (Nov. 12, 2025), cswe.org/news/newsroom/cswe-education-departmentdefinition-limits-access-to-social-work-education/.
3 Final-Meeting Packet-11-13-24.pdf
4 Council on Social Work Education, CSWE Statement Regarding Federal Cuts to Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs (Jan. 14, 2026), cswe.org/news/newsroom/cswe-statementregarding-federal-cuts-to-mental-health-and-substance-abuse-programs/
5 The Arizona Supreme Court’s Division of Licensing and Credentialing annually reports on access to legal services, consistently finding that expanding non-lawyer roles can address unmet legal needs when paired with structured regulation and supervision (Arizona Supreme Court, 2026). LPs in Arizona have been likened to nurse practitioners in the healthcare context: they expand service capacity, improve access, and relieve bottlenecks in the system, all while operating under professional oversight. Within this framework, paralegals retain a direct pathway to licensure focused on procedural and document-centered advocacy, preserving their essential role in supporting attorneys while distinguishing their responsibilities from those of social workers or other multidisciplinary practitioners.
6 According to the American Bar Association (2025), of jurisdictions who reconsidered traditional regulatory boundaries to address unmet legal needs, scholars have documented that non-lawyers legal services providers can improve access without increasing harm when properly supervised and regulated.
significantly reduce custodial sentences and overall incarceration days, even if the effects on conviction rates vary.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
In fiscal year 2018, the vast majority of sentencing events were resolved by plea agreements (including American Bar Association (ABA) and non-ABA pleas), reflecting the dominance of negotiated dispositions in Maryland’s criminal justice system. Statistically, more than four out of five felony convictions were obtained through guilty pleas, and negotiated agreements resolve an estimated 90% to 95% of all criminal cases, including a substantial proportion of misdemeanors, pursuant to Md. Rule 4-243.13 In such systems, the most consequential legal work often occurs upstream of adjudication, where client stability, understanding, and compliance determine both plea integrity and long-term outcomes.14
Arizona’s LP program offers a proven model for non-lawyers to practice task-limited, low-risk criminal law. LPs may prepare and sign legal documents, advise on rights and remedies, draft and file motions, and appear in court—but only in misdemeanor cases where incarceration is not at issue. Although Arizona permits unsupervised practice within scope, Maryland could require mandatory attorney supervision, avoiding dual-role confusion and reinforcing due process protections.15, 16, 17 By limiting practice to narrowly scoped criminal and juvenile matters and retaining judicial oversight,
Maryland can responsibly integrate social workers into tiered defense models, expanding access to justice while preserving both legal integrity and social work professionalism.
Institutionalizing Interdisciplinary Defense Within Maryland’s Criminal Justice Framework
Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems illustrate why limited, supervised LP authorization for licensed social workers is neither novel nor normatively disruptive. Competence to stand trial, defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States18 establishes a minimal constitutional floor, while Drope v. Missouri19 emphasizes contextual, fact-dependent evaluation. Maryland courts similarly stress individualization of mental health and mitigation evidence.20
The Maryland Rules of Criminal Procedure governing incompetence and criminal responsibility operationalize these constitutional principles. Yet, their application turns on psychosocial factors—addiction, trauma, cognitive impairment, and instability—that are not readily captured through legal inquiry alone. Maryland recorded more than 2,000 opioidrelated overdose deaths in 2025, conditions routinely impair comprehension and the voluntariness at critical stages of adjudication.21 These dynamics are amplified in juvenile proceedings, where developmental immaturity independently affects competence and dispositional outcomes.22
7 James M. Anderson et al., The Effects of Holistic Defense on Criminal Justice Outcomes, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 819 (2019) (finding that holistic defense reduces custodial sentences and overall incarceration days).
8 Mark W. Lipsey & Francis T. Cullen, The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Research Findings, in 34 Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 1 (Michael Tonry ed., 2007) (providing meta-analysis evidence on intervention effects and rearrest rates).
9 Steve Aos et al., Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (2006) (discussing intervention impacts, including on recidivism).
10 RAND Corp. & Univ. of Pa. Law Sch., Evaluating the Effect of Holistic Indigent Defense on Criminal Justice Outcomes (2018) (finding that holistic defense reduces the likelihood and length of custodial sentences and incarceration days without affecting conviction rates).
11 Mark W. Lipsey & Francis T. Cullen, The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Research Findings, in 34 Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 1 (Michael Tonry ed., 2007).
12 Steve Aos et al., Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (2006) (discussing intervention impacts, including on recidivism).
13 Md. State Comm’n on Crim. Sentencing Pol’y, Annual Report 2018 (2018), msccsp.org/Files/Reports/ar2018.pdf.
14 Law Review Committee, Maryland Criminal Procedure and Plea Bargaining Overview, 55 Law J. Md. 123 (2020), law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-special-appeals/2020/2094-18.html.
15 Am. Bar Ass’n, Nonlawyer Navigators in State Courts: An Emerging Consensus Workshop Materials (2019), americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/ejc/2019-workshops/ (discussing nonlawyer navigator programs in state courts).
16 Mary E. McClymont, Nonlawyer Navigators in State Courts: An Emerging Consensus (2019), srln.org/node/1403/reportnonlawyer-navigators-state-courts-emerging-consensusmcclymont-2019 (surveying nonlawyer navigator programs).
17 Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., Leveraging Navigator Programs to Assist Court Users (2025), ncsc.org/resources-courts/leveraging-navigator-programs-assist-court-users (providing an overview of court navigator programs and expansion).
18 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).
19 420 U.S. 162, 181 (1975).
20 State v. Kanaras, 357 Md. 170, 185–86 (1999).
21 Md. Dep’t of Health, Unintentional Drug- and Alcohol-Related Intoxication Deaths in Maryland, 2023 (2025), health.maryland.gov/vsa/Documents/Overdose/2023_IntoxAnnualReport_Final.pdf.
22 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569–70 (2005); J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 272 (2011).
Because effective assistance of counsel may require access to nonlegal expertise, formally authorizing and licensing social workers—already embedded in defense teams—to perform defined LP tasks under supervision aligns regulatory structure with constitutional practice.23
Conclusion
The question Maryland confronts is not whether social workers participate in criminal and juvenile defense systems—they already do—but whether the law will continue to rely on their expertise while withholding corresponding legal recognition, accountability, and regulatory coherence. As adjudication becomes increasingly plea-dominated and diversion-oriented, constitutional guarantees of competence, effective assistance, and voluntariness turn less on formal trial safeguards than on upstream decision-making shaped by psychosocial stability and interdisciplinary support. UPL doctrine has
not evolved alongside these shifts. Limited, supervised LP authorization offers a principled response: one that disciplines interdisciplinary participation, stabilizes defense infrastructure, and protects both clients and professionals. Maryland’s criminal and juvenile systems thus present not an outlier for access-tojustice reform, but its next logical domain.
23 In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Court recognized that due process may require
Shauntia’ White, LMSW, MLS, MS- LP Candidate, is a licensed social worker in Maryland, Arizona, and Washington, D.C., and will begin neuroscience credentialing and coursework this year. She is working towards becoming a licensed legal paraprofessional in Arizona, where she currently sits on the Nonlawyer Service Provider Board.
AS THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION (A2JC) prepares for the end of an era, we celebrate the remarkable career of the inimitable Ward Coe, who is concluding his tenure as our long-time chair. After a decade of service, Coe leaves behind a legacy defined by an unwavering commitment to the principle that legal representation is a fundamental right, not a luxury.
A dedication to increasing access to justice has always been a part of Coe’s practice. In fact, it began even before he formally entered the legal profession. While in law school, he volunteered with the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau (Maryland Legal Aid) and interned at the Office of Public Defender. After he graduated, the first federal case he worked on was an ACLU case in which he represented the United Farm Workers.
When A2JC became an independent entity in 2014, Michael Millemann, whom Coe met through Maryland Legal Aid, asked Coe to serve as chair, and Coe readily accepted.
To Coe, access to justice means, “we deliver on the promise that we make in the Pledge of Allegiance, that we have liberty and justice for all in this country.” He explained that access to justice demands that, “regardless of wealth or the various social categories that the powers that be put people into, everyone is informed enough to know that their legal rights are being violated and they have meaningful access to a system where they can be vindicated.”
“ Access to justice demands that, “regardless of wealth or the various social categories that the powers that be put people into, everyone is informed enough to know that their legal rights are being violated and they have meaningful access to a system where they can be vindicated.”
While meaningful access to courts means having legal representation, Coe noted that increasing access to justice requires a great deal of education, as “knowing your rights gives you the ability to stand up for them, especially when the government is the one depriving you of your rights and saying you don’t have them.”
Navigating Modern Challenges to the Rule of Law
As he reflected on current access to justice issues, Coe identified significant macro-level threats that extend beyond state borders. He views the current era as one where the Trump administration has conducted an “assault on human rights” and undermined the “concept of the rule of law” and the “independence of the judiciary.” For Coe, these are fundamental access to justice issues that demand a collective response: “It’s an access to justice issue for everyone across the country, and it’s something that everyone has to do something about. We all have to fight it.”
At the state level, Coe remains deeply concerned about the economic stability of the civil justice infrastructure. He notes that funding for legal service providers is often the first to be threatened. He also sees the threat to loan forgiveness programs, a vital lifeline for legal aid attorneys, as a serious issue. The expansion of the right to counsel in civil cases involving critical human needs is also critical, as Coe notes, “we don’t have justice if we don’t provide lawyers to folks to defend their rights.”
Coe noted that “a lot of people assume that the government gives you a lawyer if you need one or that legal aid or other legal service providers will always have the capacity to represent you,” which is not the case. As such, he believes we need to do a better job of educating people about access to justice issues.
When asked which initiative has most significantly impacted Maryland, Coe points to the Access to Counsel in Evictions (ACE) program. He describes this as an area of “critical human need” where the disparity in representation was once staggering. Before ACE, landlords typically had representation, while tenants did not, leading to a system where “a lot of people were evicted who should not have been.”
The results of the ACE program have been, in Coe’s words, “astonishing.” “The statistics show that... out of 88% of tenants who had filings against them who wanted to stay in their houses, 87% of them prevailed. That’s astonishing. It used to be that the rate of success was tiny.”
Coe argues that this success benefits the entire Maryland economy by preventing the “economic damage” and “disruption of lives” caused by homelessness. He believes this model should be expanded to other complex fields where unrepresented individuals face professional opposition, such as consumer debt, government benefits, and deportation defense. The stakes can be very high in these proceedings, and there are profoundly disparate impacts on minorities and women.
A Vision for Pro Bono and Beyond
Coe’s dedication to pro bono is inextricably linked to his long career at Gallagher LLP, where community involvement is a core cultural pillar. “It’s just part of what we do,” he explains, “I would have been a little uncomfortable if I wasn’t doing it.” His firm currently sees over 20 lawyers and paralegals handling immigration cases for the Tahirih Justice Center and Esperanza Center, work that Coe finds personally restorative, noting, “You meet people who are so heroic, so resourceful; they inspire you in your own lives. You want to help them.”
He views pro bono not just as a duty, but as a professional privilege: “My message to lawyers is, give it a try. Read the rule. Be inspired. I think you’ll find an element of your professional life really lit up by it.”
Even as technology and allied legal professionals emerge as new frontiers to close the justice gap, Coe insists that the human element remains paramount. He advocates a leadership style that “leads from the front,” where one does the work they advocate for while hiring and trusting great people, such as A2JC Executive Director Reena Shah, to execute the mission.
The Road Ahead: From Annapolis to the Himalayas
While stepping away from A2JC marks a conclusion of Coe’s formal chairmanship, he is far from slowing down. He plans to remain involved in the world of access to justice advocacy while continuing his adventurous travels with his wife, Christie. From sleeping in two-person tents at 16,000 feet in Bhutan to walking Abraham’s path in Jordan, Coe finds that the humanity he encounters abroad mirrors the resilience he sees in his clients.
“As amazing as all these places are, the most amazing part of it is the people you meet,” Coe reflects. Whether navigating the lava rock desert of Turkana, Kenya, or the complex corridors of the Maryland State House, Coe’s career has been a singular journey toward ensuring that every individual has the power to stand up for their rights. As he transitions to this next chapter, his message to the bar is clear: the pursuit of access to justice is a shared responsibility, and we all must take part in it.
BY EVAN H. FARR, ESQ.
MEDICAID ASSET PROTECTION TRUSTS (MAPTs) are rarely drafted in Maryland. Even among experienced elder law attorneys, MAPTs are often avoided, sidelined, or replaced with inferior “wait-and-see” strategies. Many Maryland elder law attorneys don’t even discuss these trusts with their clients, or, if they do, they scare their clients away from doing one because the attorney is scared to draft one and is scared Maryland Medicaid will accept one.
Estate planning attorneys avoid drafting MAPTs because they think this type of living trust lives only in the realm of elder law, when in fact a MAPT sits at the intersection of estate planning and elder law.
This widespread avoidance has nothing to do with the legality of MAPTs. It has everything to do with fear—fear of Maryland Medicaid, fear of scrutiny from the trust, and fear of getting it wrong.
That fear is misplaced. This author has drafted thousands of MAPTs across Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and this author is here to tell you that properlydrafted MAPTs work in Maryland, just as they work in every other state.
MAPTs are explicitly authorized under federal law and expressly recognized under Maryland law. Maryland is not hostile to MAPTs. Maryland is hostile only to sloppy drafting, retained access to principal, and attorneys who do not understand how Medicaid evaluates trusts.
Once that distinction is understood, the supposed “risk” of MAPTs in Maryland largely disappears.
The Federal Foundation Is Unambiguous MAPTs exist because smart attorneys created them, and Congress allows them. Many attorneys in many states over the years have attempted to draft MAPTs and failed spectacularly, leading to exceptional court cases that have allowed smart attorneys to perfect these types of living trusts.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA '93) codified the treatment of irrevocable trusts at 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(3)(B). That statute establishes the now-famous “any circumstances” test. If there are any circumstances under which the trust principal could be distributed to or for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant or the applicant’s spouse, the entire trust is a countable resource. If there are no such circumstances, the trust corpus is not a countable resource. Rather, transfers into the trust trigger the five-year Medicaid look-back.
This is not a loophole. It’s simply the law.
Congress could have prohibited irrevocable trusts entirely in 1993. It could’ve done so again in 2006 when it overhauled the Medicaid laws. It did not. Instead, it left in place a precise rule: no access to principal means no countable resource. Every MAPT that works anywhere in the country works because it satisfies this test.
Maryland Follows Federal Law
Maryland did not invent its own trust rules. The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 10.09.24.08-2(B)(5) tracks the federal statute closely. The regulatory language is dense and confusing, and it is often cited as a reason to avoid MAPTs. But regulations are not where Medicaid eligibility decisions are actually made.
In Maryland, the operative authority is the Maryland Medicaid Manual (the Manual). Caseworkers are trained
Even among experienced elder law attorneys, MAPTs are often avoided, sidelined, or replaced with inferior “wait-and-see” strategies.
on it. Eligibility determinations apply it. And the Manual does something crucial: it translates the federal “any circumstances” test into plain, functional language, in fact stronger language than most states have in their Medicaid manuals.
Maryland Medicaid manual § 800.15(G) states that when there are no circumstances under which payments may be made to or on behalf of the applicant, the trust is not an available resource. Instead, the transfer is treated as a disposal subject to penalty. The manual also correctly explains that later distributions from the trust to third-party beneficiaries do not create new transfer penalties.
Many attorneys in many states over the years have attempted to draft MAPTs and failed spectacularly, leading to exceptional court cases that have allowed smart attorneys to perfect these types of living trusts.
Maryland follows federal law here in that later distributions from a properly drafted MAPT are ignored.
This is where many attorneys get it wrong. They assume that any later trust activity somehow “reopens” the look-back. Maryland does not take that position—provided the trust was properly drafted in the first place.
The Real Problem: Drafting, Not Law
Maryland Medicaid is not hostile to MAPTs. It is hostile to trusts that fail the any-circumstances test—often in subtle ways.
Most estate planning attorneys are not trained to draft negative-power trusts. They draft for flexibility, not inaccessibility. Medicaid requires the opposite. The trust must be engineered so that the principal is unreachable by the settlor and the settlor’s spouse under all circumstances, not merely as a matter of intent.
This means far more than including a sentence that says “the settlor shall have no access to principal.”
A Maryland-compliant MAPT must prohibit:
Principal distributions to the settlor or spouse, directly or indirectly
Trustee powers to adjust between income and principal
Conversion to a total-return unitrust
Powers of substitution
Loans to the settlor or spouse
Any administrative discretion that could be construed as principal access
Many nationally marketed trust systems fail Maryland review because they leave one of these doors open. When attorneys see those trusts fail, they blame Maryland Medicaid—not the drafting.
Professional Responsibility: Is Silence About MAPTs Defensible?
There is also a serious professional responsibility question that deserves attention. When an attorney prepares a revocable living trust for a client age 75 or older—or for any person with a serious diagnosis such as Alzheimer’s disease or another neurodegenerative condition likely to lead towards nursing home care— without ever discussing the option of a Medicaid asset protection trust, it is fair to ask whether that attorney has truly rendered competent advice. A revocable living trust offers no asset protection, no Medicaid planning benefit, and no future flexibility if long-term care becomes necessary.
For an older or medically vulnerable client, the likelihood of needing long-term care is not theoretical. In fact, it’s not theoretical for most people because over 70% of your clients will need long-term care before they die, and 40% of your clients will spend their final months or years in a nursing home.
Failing even to raise MAPTs as a planning option— regardless of whether the client ultimately chooses one—risks reducing estate planning to probate avoidance alone, while ignoring the most financially catastrophic risk elders face. At minimum, informed consent requires that clients understand not only what a revocable trust does, but what it very deliberately does not do.
Creditor Protection Is Immediate—Medicaid Protection Is Timed
Another source of confusion is the difference between creditor protection and Medicaid eligibility.
Under Maryland’s enactment of UTC § 505(a)(2), assets transferred into a properly structured irrevocable trust are immediately protected from future general creditors. Lawsuits, divorces, and medical creditors arising after the transfer cannot reach the trust corpus.
Medicaid is different only in timing. Medicaid imposes a five-year look-back on transfers. That does not make the trust defective. It means the attorney must plan for the interim period—something experienced elder law attorneys already do in other contexts.
MAPTs are not “Medicaid-only” tools. They are lifetime asset protection trusts that qualify for Medicaid after the look-back period expires.
Retained Control Does Not Destroy Eligibility
Another persistent myth is that MAPTs require clients to “give up control.” In reality, a properly drafted MAPT allows significant retained control without violating Medicaid rules.
In Maryland, the settlor may:
Serve as trustee (for Medicaid purposes)
Retain the power to remove and replace trustees
Retain limited lifetime and testamentary powers of appointment to change beneficiaries
Retain the right to income, if desired
What the settlor may not retain is ANY access to principal. Control and access are not the same thing, just as control and ownership are different concepts. Confusing these two concepts is one of the main reasons attorneys unnecessarily avoid MAPTs.
Beneficiary Distributions
MAPTs almost always permit discretionary distributions of income and principal to beneficiaries, sometimes with oversight by an independent trust protector. These distributions allow families to respond to real-world needs during the look-back period.
Implications for Maryland Estate Planning and Elder Law Attorneys
MAPTs are not rare in Maryland because they are risky. They are rare because attorneys are afraid of Medicaid and unfamiliar with how Medicaid analyzes trusts. Federal law authorizes MAPTs. Maryland law recognizes them. The Maryland Medicaid Manual applies them. When a trust fails, it is almost always because it was drafted improperly, not because they don’t work when properly drafted.
Attorneys who draft living trusts must understand this distinction, because without it, the decision to avoid MAPTs is driven by fear rather than law.
Evan H. Farr, Esq. is a Certified Elder Law Attorney with offices in Maryland, Virginia, and DC. He is one of the foremost legal authorities in the country in the field of Medicaid Asset Protection, Veterans Asset Protection, and related trusts.
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
FOR RIMA KIKANI, the legal profession is more than a career—it is a family legacy.
An eighth-generation lawyer and now a partner at Tydings & Rosenberg LLP, Kikani has spent the last 11 years proving that professional excellence is built on a foundation of grit and an unwavering commitment to one’s goals.
In MSBA, she recently served as chair of the Young Lawyers Section and currently serves as vice chair of the Member Content Committee. Read on to learn more about Kikani and her practice.
What is the best piece of advice you have received from someone in the legal profession?
Your bosses (partners, supervisors, etc.) are your first clients. Treat them like you would a client (work ethic, work product, responsiveness, professionalism, etc.), make them look good (especially in front of the actual client), and you will go far.
What professional accomplishment are you most proud of?
Passing the Maryland bar and sustaining a competent practice. When I was in law school, I was diagnosed with a rare and life-threatening condition. When my physician ordered me into what ended up being life-saving surgery just days before my law school graduation (I obviously missed it), he said to me, “you’re just fighting the clock now.” Everyone thought I was insane for wanting to sit for the bar that July in between ongoing treatment, but I sat for it that same July, passed it, and have managed to practice law for the last 11 years. It’s not always easy juggling appointments, testing, procedures, and treatment with meetings, depositions, and deadlines, but I’ve been doing it for over a decade now and have tried my best to have a “normal” life. In the words of Lee Ann Womack, I’m proud I danced when I had the choice to sit it out, and no one would have blamed me for it.
What are the best skills you bring to your legal career?
My resilience. I am a unicorn when it comes to adapting and bouncing back from challenging experiences, stress, and other difficulties of the legal profession. We (understandably) lose a lot of people in this profession, but I have managed to build a unique ability that not only helps me balance all of my commitments but also helps me excel in the face of adversity.
What do you enjoy most about your career?
Making lives a little easier—which may sound odd to some people, given the nature of my practice. “Medical negligence” is an ominous term, and the rhetoric surrounding these cases often dehumanizes the individuals involved. What so many people fail to understand is that these providers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in training to help people, not hurt them. Like us lawyers with our cases, in their minds, the providers have done everything they could think of to help their patients and moved forward with the course of action they believe would yield the best results. So when the same providers are accused of hurting people instead of helping them, they do exactly what we do when someone accuses us of malpractice—overanalyze, lose sleep, don’t eat, worry, and obsess over the different scenarios—an attack on their professional license affects them the same way it would affect us or another professional. Although it sounds cliché,
“
Although it sounds cliché, I take pride in helping people who have dedicated their lives to helping others and making their lives a little easier, even though they have much more important things to do.
I take pride in helping people who have dedicated their lives to helping others and making their lives a little easier, even though they have much more important things to do.
Tell us a little bit about your current role.
I am a partner at Tydings & Rosenberg LLP, where I defend health care providers (doctors and hospitals) in medical negligence cases. I am also the immediate past-chair of the Young Lawyers Section and currently serve as the vice-chair of the Member Content Committee.
What are some of the challenges you face in your current role?
As nearly every lawyer will echo, we work tough hours, and work-life balance is a challenge. That becomes especially challenging given the nature of my practice and always trying to learn more medicine, juggling clients, bosses, opposing counsel, etc., holding leadership positions in bars and other organizations, trying to give a 100% at your job and building a business, and then on top of that, trying to balance family, friends, physical and mental health, and other nonprofessional commitments. Although this is a very common complaint among lawyers, we have normalized it so much that we underestimate just how much of a toll it takes on us.
How has MSBA helped you in your legal career?
The networking, connections, and opportunities that MSBA offers are invaluable. Since becoming more involved with the bar over the last eight to nine years, I have met hundreds of people who have become amazing mentors, referral sources, and friends. The MSBA also offers a remarkable opportunity to meet and work with people whom you would not routinely encounter—for example, I have presented on panels with
judges from the Supreme Court of Maryland and local politicians, connected over drinks and dinner with appellate judges I would never otherwise meet, had meetings with members of the U.S. Congress to advocate on issues affecting lawyers, and collaborated on policies, projects, and seminars with innumerable brilliant lawyers I would not have gotten the chance to know and learn from. I think that if utilized correctly, MSBA is an incomparable gateway to some of the best opportunities you can have in your career that allow you to grow both personally and professionally.
As the immediate past Chair of the Young Lawyers’ Section (YLS), what was your primary goal for the section, and how did that work shape your perspective on the future of the MSBA?
My primary goal was to increase active membership. Post-COVID, we have seen a decline in active involvement, especially among younger lawyers who are trying to balance
their careers, families, health, and other commitments. For example, the YLS has well over 1,000 members each year, but very few are actually involved in the section’s work or attend the numerous events organized by the council.
I think cultivating more engagement is vital because young lawyers are the literal and figurative future of MSBA. If we cannot keep them involved, in 20–30 years, we won’t have much of a bar left.
How do you spend your free time?
I am an excellent chef, so you will often find me in my kitchen cooking or baking something. I also love the beach.
BY PAMELA LANGHAM, ESQ.
THE UNITED STATES COURT SYSTEM has done its best to keep pace with the rapid evolution of digital technology when interpreting Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Fourth Amendment protections developed in an era of physical paper and tangible property often fit awkwardly with modern realities such as smartphones, cloud storage, location tracking, and mass data collection. Despite these challenges, the core principles of the Fourth Amendment remain unchanged.
On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review the constitutionality of geofence warrants, a controversial law enforcement tool. These warrants enable broad, location-based searches by collecting cell phone data from all devices within a defined geographic area, raising privacy concerns. At issue is whether such dragnet surveillance—often executed without individualized suspicion or probable cause—violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case will likely set boundaries for law enforcement’s use of technology in investigations, making it important for legal professionals to understand the nuances and implications.
Chatrie filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was granted. However, the Fourth Circuit ultimately upheld the district court’s ruling in April 2025. Chatrie then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case solely on the issue of whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Geofence Primer
Geofence warrants are used by law enforcement to identify suspects when the crime location is known, but the suspects’ identities are not. These warrants request judicial approval to access location data from services like Google’s location history, which logs cell phone locations every two minutes for users who opt in. Other companies, such as Apple, Lyft, Snapchat,
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case will likely set boundaries for law enforcement’s use of technology in investigations, making it important for legal professionals to understand the nuances and implications.
The case under review involves Okello Chatrie (Chatrie), who was indicted for a robbery in Virginia. Chatrie challenged the evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied his motion to suppress the evidence, citing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.1
Chatrie subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 141 months in prison. After losing his appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and Uber, also collect similar data, but Google is the most common recipient of geofence warrant requests. Google follows a three-step process to respond to these warrants. First, law enforcement provides specific geographical and temporal details of the crime, and Google searches its Sensorvault database, containing 592 million accounts, to identify anonymized device IDs within the specified area and timeframe. This data includes timestamps, latitude, longitude, geolocation sources, and confidence intervals. Next, law enforcement reviews the anonymized data and requests additional de-identified positional data for relevant devices.
Google requires law enforcement to narrow its focus before providing extended data to prevent overly broad searches. Finally, law enforcement requests user identity details, such as names and email addresses, for devices deemed pertinent to the investigation. This data enables further investigative actions, including tracking devices or issuing additional warrants.
While Google’s location data is highly accurate, pinpointing locations within 60 feet, or even specific building floors, it is not infallible. False positives can occur, implicating innocent individuals based on their location. However, false negatives are rare due to the data’s precision.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”2 The Fourth Amendment also provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”3 The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule allows evidence obtained through an unlawful search to be admissible if officers reasonably believed they were acting within their legal authority, such as when they rely on a search warrant later found to be legally defective. The illegally seized evidence may be admissible under this exception.
Even though the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found good faith in the application for and execution of the geofence warrant in Chatrie, it stated, “the court nonetheless strongly cautions that this exception may not carry the day in the future. This court will not simply rubber-stamp geofence warrants. If the Government is to continue to employ these warrants, it must take care to establish particularized probable cause.”
The Chatrie case stems from a robbery at a credit union in Virginia on May 20, 2019. Surveillance footage revealed that the suspect, later identified as Chatrie, carried a cell phone during the crime. After initial investigative efforts failed, law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant to access Google’s location data for all devices within a 150-meter radius (longer than 1.5 football fields) of the crime scene during the hour of the robbery.
Google followed its standard three-step process, providing anonymized data for 19 devices in the area. Law enforcement then requested expanded location data for nine of those devices
Geofence warrants are used by law enforcement to identify suspects when the crime location is known, but the suspects’ identities are not.
and ultimately sought identifying information for three accounts, including Chatrie’s. This data led to his arrest and subsequent conviction.
The constitutionality of geofence warrants has been debated in other courts. In 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in U.S. v. Smith that geofence warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, likening them to modern-day general warrants.4 Broadly speaking, general warrants are search or arrest warrants that do not specify exactly who or what is being sought or where the search will occur, effectively giving officials open-ended discretion. They are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they lack the required particularity and probable cause showing for specific places, persons, or things.
In Chatrie v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the constitutionality of geofence warrants, a surveillance technique that compels technology companies to disclose anonymized location data for all devices within a defined geographic area and time window. These broad sweeps of cell phone data by law enforcement from companies such as Google, Apple, and Uber can collect the date, time, and location of a potential criminal suspect within a specified range of a crime scene and have proven effective in identifying suspects, but also raise concerns about the privacy of innocent bystanders. The U.S. v. Smith decision, like Chatrie, highlights the growing legal scrutiny of geofence warrants. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chatrie will have far-reaching implications for privacy rights and law enforcement practices. Legal professionals should closely follow the case.
BY CHARLES MILLS, ESQ.
GENERATIVE AI (GENAI) is rapidly entering litigation, raising new discovery concerns. Artificial Intelligence’s (AI) contact with evidence can affect privilege, authenticity, and confidentiality. Maryland courts have not yet issued AI-specific discovery guidance, so the need to proactively understand how GenAI might impact litigation necessitates proactive measures.
GenAI and Its Artifacts: What Lawyers Should Know GenAI refers to AI systems that can create new content (text, images, audio, etc.) by learning patterns from existing data. There are three “AI artifacts” that become part of a client’s electronically stored information (ESI):
A prompt – the user’s input or query (e.g., “Summarize this deposition transcript in 200 words”).
An output – the AI’s generated response (e.g., a written summary of the transcript).
Prompt metadata/logs – behind the scenes, the system may record data about the interaction: the prompt text, the time, the user account, and even system parameters used. These logs can be akin to an AI “audit trail.”
These records can often include data that clients want to preserve, just like any other business records, as they provide deeper insight into an organization’s thought process and decision-making than similar ESI. Lawyers need to be familiar with the discoverability of such records so they can guide clients on updating internal retention policies to reflect these advancements.
A client’s use of GenAI in the ordinary course of business can become a part of discovery in litigation. Maryland litigators should be prepared to handle several issues unique to AI-generated ESI: what is discoverable, how to preserve it, and how to address relevance and privilege concerns.
Types of AI-generated material that may be discoverable:
GenAI outputs are generally discoverable within ordinary discovery constraints. For example, if a marketing team used an AI tool to draft product descriptions, those outputs are like any other corporate documents.
More novel are the prompts. Suppose an employee asked a GenAI tool to analyze a dataset and received an output that influenced a business decision now in dispute. Now, counsel requests the prompt. But not every AI prompt is relevant; many will be unrelated to the litigation. Lawyers will need to negotiate the scope so that fishing expeditions into a company’s AI use are avoided unless clearly tied to the case. One recent federal case highlights the care needed here. In Tremblay v. OpenAI, the defendant sought broad discovery of the plaintiffs’ ChatGPT prompts and account data from
their pre-suit testing of the AI. The court ultimately denied most of the requests to compel, noting counsel’s queries to test an AI were work product. The plaintiffs only had to produce the specific prompts and settings actually used and quoted in their complaint.
Preservation challenges:
Since GenAI artifacts may not be stored unless a user saves them, and some enterprise AI tools may not retain logs indefinitely, counsel must address preservation issues early. In practice, this means working closely with information technology (IT) to understand the applications your client is using and the saving mechanics of each. Failing to preserve an AI output that played a role in key decisions could risk spoliation.
data, and usage logs).” Establishing these terms ensures everyone is on the same page about the subject matter.
Confidentiality concerns:
Normally, a receiving party agrees not to disclose confidential materials to anyone beyond the litigation team. But if a lawyer uploads the other side’s confidential documents into a public AI service to summarize or analyze them, that could effectively disclose them to the AI provider, undermining the order. To prevent this, a protective order can state: “No party or counsel may input, upload, or expose another party’s Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information to any generative AI tool or service unless (a) the tool is an internal or securely hosted platform that does not disclose or use
Maryland courts have not yet issued AI-specific discovery guidance, so the need to proactively understand how GenAI might impact litigation necessitates proactive measures.
Relevance, proportionality, and scope:
Opposing counsel might overreach with discovery requests, such as “Produce all documents and communications involving Artificial Intelligence related to the case.” Such a request is likely overbroad on its face; not every use of GenAI will be relevant. For example, the fact that an employee used an AI writing assistant to polish grammar in an unrelated report should not open the door to examining every AI interaction that employee ever had. If a motion to compel arises over AI data, arguments can be made that the request is not proportional, given potentially massive volumes of irrelevant AI use. Proactive agreements in the ESI protocol can help here, too.
Protective Order and ESI Protocol Recommendations for AI
Lawyers can negotiate protective orders and ESI protocols before artifacts lead to disputes. Here are key clauses and considerations Maryland practitioners should consider adding:
Explicit definition of AI-related data can help clarify what constitutes “AI-Generated ESI” or “AI artifacts” in the agreement. For example, a definition might state: “‘AI-Generated Content’ means text, images, or other material created by a generative artificial intelligence tool, and ‘AI Metadata’ means information describing the use of such a tool (e.g., prompts, input data, output
inputs for any purpose outside this litigation, or (b) the producing party provides written consent.” Alternatively, a protective order can state that the receiving party will not utilize AI or machine learning tools on the producing party’s data without permission.
Conclusion
The rapid development of GenAI means attorneys must do what they can to keep up and be prepared for its introduction into their everyday practice. Building AI considerations into discovery practice is now part of competent representation. By understanding GenAI’s mechanics and outputs, counsel can better advise clients on preserving and producing this new form of ESI. As businesses continue to integrate generative AI and courts grapple with its fallout, proactive attorneys who are wellinformed about AI will be ready to ensure discovery remains fair, efficient, and protective of all parties’ rights in the age of AI.
Charles Mills is a federal judicial law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Martinsburg). He is admitted to Texas and has applied for admission to Maryland. He writes in his personal capacity; no pending matters are discussed.
Saul Ewing LLP
“The AI and Legal Technology Task Force (Task Force) has identified a clear shift in the legal field’s adoption of AI. Specifically, we are moving away from the era of “AI experimentation” and into an era of strategic integration.
MATT KOHEL is a commercial litigation and intellectual property attorney who advises companies on artificial intelligence (AI) governance, IP, and data privacy. Kohel has been selected as a Maryland Super Lawyer every year since 2021 and is a recognized leader and speaker on AI law and technology. He has served as chair of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) AI and Legal Technology Task Force since its inception in 2023.
Why did you enter the legal profession?
I was drawn to the law primarily because of the combination of the intellectual rigor of the profession and the practical role an attorney plays in a client’s success. At its core, being a lawyer is about being a problem solver and a partner to the client. I have found the challenge of turning legal insights into actionable business strategies to be incredibly rewarding.
Do you find time to relax and unwind?
In this job, you can get burned out quickly if you don’t build in downtime. For me, that usually means taking trips with my family where we can stay active. We’re big on nature and enjoy hiking, snorkeling, and other outdoor experiences that help me reset.
What is an interesting fact about you that no one would guess?
I’m a science nerd and curious person who likes to dig into how complex systems work, and I consider myself an astronomy and cosmology enthusiast. I am drawn to the unexplained questions about how the universe evolved and the relationship between the formation of the biggest structures in the universe and what’s happening in space on a much smaller level. It’s a hobby that helps me keep a healthy perspective.
What specific challenges or opportunities has the AI and Legal Technology Task Force identified so far in how AI is changing the way lawyers work?
The AI and Legal Technology Task Force (Task Force) has identified a clear shift in the legal field’s adoption of AI. Specifically, we are moving away from the era of “AI experimentation” and into an era of strategic integration.
The most immediate opportunity lies in enhanced client service. By leveraging AI, lawyers can provide more efficient, cost-effective results. Using AI for an investigative assessment, to stress-test an argument, or to surface obscure yet relevant patterns in a large volume of information enables deeper analysis from day one.
In addition, I view AI as a powerful tool for self-education. People are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) as new search engines, and they can help a
practitioner quickly get up to speed on a new niche or complex regulatory framework.
However, these opportunities come with a non-negotiable duty of technological competence and compliance with our ethical obligations. The Task Force projects were designed to address these challenges head-on. Attorneys must remain vigilant regarding hallucinations in court filings and other documents and rely on human-in-theloop verification. AI is not there to replace lawyers, but to assist us.
How is the Task Force approaching the balance between innovation and ethical responsibilities in legal practice as AI tools become more widespread?
The Task Force operates on the principle that innovation and ethics are not opposing forces. Instead, robust ethical frameworks enable safe innovation. We don’t want Maryland lawyers to avoid these tools out of fear, but rather to appreciate the risks and use AI tools responsibly.
To achieve this balance, our approach has been deeply practical. We started by analyzing generative AI’s capabilities against the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC). A cornerstone of our strategy was the creation of various template AI acceptable use policies for attorneys. We recognized that a solo practitioner in Hagerstown has different resources than a large firm or an in-house department. By providing modifiable templates, the Task Force endeavored to provide the “guardrails” so lawyers can incorporate AI into their practice smartly without compromising on their ethical duties. One of our goals is to help shift the conversation from whether to use AI to how an attorney can do so thoughtfully.
Describe the legal services you provide to help businesses navigate the legal aspects of implementing AI?
I find myself serving as a “utility player” for clients when it comes to AI. Because AI implementation is rarely a siloed legal issue, my practice covers the technology’s lifecycle for companies looking to deploy and develop AI tools. This can begin by evaluating the legal risk-reward profile of an AI tool and by establishing policies and training programs that ensure employees use it safely and in compliance.
Over the next several years, we will stop talking about AI in law as a separate category and simply view it as lawyering. We are past or at least at the end of the “early adopter” phase. In the future, lawyers’ use of AI will be as natural and expected as checking email on a smartphone. “
As these projects progress, I may step into a product counsel role. For companies building or customizing their own AI tools, I help them navigate the complex data flows required for model training and negotiate the technology agreements and licenses needed for a successful launch. This is where compliance matters, and where we advise on emerging regulatory concerns such as algorithmic discrimination, training data sources, and the explainability of AI’s output. Finally, I bridge the gap between innovation and risk management by advising on intellectual property and data privacy issues. My goal is to help organizations build a bridge between the technical potential of AI and the increasing and evolving demands of the legal and regulatory landscape.
Looking ahead, how do you envision the relationship between lawyers and AI evolving over the next decade?
Over the next several years, we will stop talking about AI in law as a separate category and simply view it as lawyering. We are past or at least at the end of the “early adopter” phase. In the future, lawyers’ use of AI will be as natural and expected as checking email on a smartphone.
MSBA's AI & Legal Technology Task Force is a national leader in the AI legal landscape, providing members with the insights and resources needed to navigate this evolving landscape including TEMPLATES FOR A LAW FIRM POLICY ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE You can access the templates and other AI resources at WWW.MSBA.ORG/AIHUB
I envision a future in which AI serves as a digital partner. For the next generation of lawyers, AI adoption is more than a convenience; it is a prerequisite for professional relevance. Young lawyers who embrace these tools early will have a distinct advantage. However, I believe the human element in lawyering will become increasingly valuable as AI adoption continues. In 10 years, the most successful lawyers won’t be those who can out-search an algorithm, but those who can best direct one to deliver robust and creative results for their clients. Only humans can determine whether an AI system’s output aligns with our client’s unique goals, the complexities that arise when the law is applied to real-world facts, and the impact the law has, not just on businesses, but on people’s lives.
BY MICHAEL C. MASCHKE, SHARON D. NELSON, ESQ., AND JOHN W. SIMEK
AI is not replacing lawyers because it cannot reliably perform the core work that defines the profession. Complex legal analysis requires context, experience, ethical judgment, and strategic reasoning.
EVERY FEW MONTHS, headlines claim that artificial intelligence (AI) will soon replace lawyers. However, the reality is more nuanced and intriguing. Despite significant progress, current AI systems still struggle with deep legal reasoning, judgment, and innovative problem-solving. They can summarize information, organize data, and draft documents, but they often struggle to think like a lawyer.
Meanwhile, law firms are heavily investing in AI leadership and infrastructure. They are hiring chief AI officers, bringing in technologists from outside the legal field, and creating dedicated AI teams. At first glance, this might seem like panic; in reality, it’s a strategic move.
These two trends aren’t at odds. Instead, they show where AI truly fits within legal practice today.
AI Is Not Replacing Lawyers
AI is not replacing lawyers because it cannot reliably perform the core work that defines the profession. Complex legal analysis requires context, experience, ethical judgment, and strategic reasoning. Even the most advanced models still hallucinate, misapply precedent, and fail when confronted with genuinely hard legal questions. That is not a recipe for trusted advocacy.
Most lawyers see this firsthand. AI can help review documents, draft outlines, or flag issues, but its output almost always requires significant human correction. Clients still expect their lawyers to explain risks, negotiate outcomes, persuade decision makers, and stand behind the advice they give. That responsibility has not changed.
So why are law firms racing to build AI capabilities?
Because while AI is not good enough to replace lawyers, it is already good enough to change how legal services are delivered. Firms that understand this are not trying to automate judgment. They are trying to remove friction.
Law firms are appointing AI leaders to incorporate tools into their workflows, set governance standards, train lawyers to use AI responsibly, and develop proprietary systems aligned with their legal practices. These roles focus on enhancing productivity, ensuring consistency, and maintaining competitive advantage, rather than mere experimentation. AI significantly reduces time spent on routine tasks such as research, discovery, document comparison, and initial drafts, allowing lawyers to dedicate more time to strategy, counseling, and advocacy. This results in faster turnaround times, better client experience, and improved profit margins. Some firms even permit associates to count AI training as part of their billable hours, highlighting AI literacy as a key aspect of professional competence. Lawyers who lack an understanding of these tools and their limitations will find it challenging to supervise their use effectively.
The Real Model: Co-Pilot, Not Replacement
The current reality is not about replacement. It is about partnership.
AI today functions more like a co-pilot (not to be confused with Microsoft’s Copilot AI product) than a decision-maker. It handles well-defined, repeatable tasks efficiently. Lawyers remain firmly in control of interpretation, judgment, and accountability. That division of labor is not a weakness. It is exactly how complex professional systems evolve.
The real risk for lawyers is not that AI will take their jobs. It is that other lawyers will use AI better than they do.
Competitive Risk, Not Job Panic
Companies that prioritize investment in leadership, governance, and training will advance more quickly, price projects more competitively, and produce more reliable results. Conversely, firms that dismiss AI as a mere trend or prohibit its use entirely risk lagging, not necessarily because machines are more intelligent, but because their competitors operate more efficiently.
Clients are already inquiring about AI in proposals and projects. They want assurance on confidentiality, output validation, and accountability. These questions are persistent and will become commonplace.
The Bottom Line
The future of legal work is not fully automated, nor is it unchanged. It is augmented.
Lawyers who understand AI’s strengths and limits will thrive. They will use technology to handle volume while reserving human expertise for the moments that matter most. Lawyers who ignore AI or fear it outright will find themselves explaining why routine work takes longer and costs more than it should.
AI is not coming for lawyers’ jobs. It is coming for inefficiency, complacency, and firms without a plan. And that is a much more uncomfortable reality.
Michael C. Maschke is the president and chief executive officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Maschke is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), an AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity, and digital forensics, and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association (ABA). He can be reached at mmaschke@senseient.com.
Sharon D. Nelson is the co-founder of and consultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. She is a past president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association, and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a coauthor of 18 books published by the ABA. snelson@senseient.com.
John W. Simek is the co-founder of and consultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He holds multiple technical certifications and is a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA. jsimek@senseient.com.
BY PAMELA LANGHAM, ESQ.
THE RECENT DECISION in Jabari Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.1 by the Supreme Court of Maryland underscores the critical importance of precise contract drafting and the nuanced interpretation of assignment clauses. This case centered on a dispute over whether Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (Santander), as the assignee of a retail installment sales contract (RISC), could enforce an arbitration agreement contained in a separate buyer’s order. The Supreme Court of Maryland’s ruling, which reversed the Appellate Court of Maryland’s decision, ultimately hinged on the restrictive language in the RISC’s integration clause. This outcome demonstrates how meticulously drafted contractual provisions determine the scope of rights transferred in an assignment, reinforcing the need for clarity in legal agreements.
In October 2015, Jabari Lyles (Lyles) purchased a vehicle from Deer Automotive Group, LLC (Deer Automotive). The transaction involved two key documents. The first was a purchase order (Buyer’s Order) containing a notice referencing a “separate arbitration agreement” that was supposedly incorporated by reference. It listed additional terms and conditions, including, among others, an irrevocable arbitration clause to settle “by binding arbitration” any controversy, claim, or dispute arising out of or relating to the purchase of the vehicle. The “separate arbitration agreement” was supposed to be attached to the Buyer’s Order, but Lyles claimed he never received a copy. The second document was an RISC, which outlined the financing terms but did not include an arbitration provision. The RISC was subsequently assigned to Santander. Lyles later filed a putative class action, alleging that Santander violated Maryland’s Credit Grantor Closed-End Credit Provisions by improperly charging and receiving convenience fees for the payments made on its loans. Two years later, Santander filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that it had the right to enforce the arbitration agreement referenced in the Buyer’s Order, even though the Buyer’s Order and the arbitration agreement were not explicitly assigned to Santander. Lyles opposed the motion, contending that he never signed or received a separate
Under § 3-207 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, a circuit court is solely responsible for deciding, without involving a jury, if an arbitration agreement exists for the particular dispute. A court must order arbitration if it finds that an arbitration agreement exists.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment, holding that Santander could not enforce the arbitration agreement against Lyles. The court first established that the arbitration clause—located in the Buyer’s Order only—was a binding obligation between Lyles and the dealership, Deer Automotive. The court then turned its attention to the interpretation of the contract language in the RISC. While the arbitration integration clause in the RISC defined the entire agreement between Deer Automotive and Lyles as the RISC and all other documents, including the Buyer’s Order, it contained a limiting provision regarding the assignee: “only this contract [the RISC] and the Addenda to this contract comprise the entire agreement between you and the assignee relating to this contract . . . “
Consequently, the RISC clearly defined the entire agreement between Lyles and Santander, as assignee, solely of the RISC and the addenda to the RISC, explicitly
This outcome demonstrates how meticulously drafted contractual provisions determine the scope of rights transferred in an assignment, reinforcing the need for clarity in legal agreements.
arbitration agreement referenced in the Buyer’s Order and that Santander, as assignee of only the RISC, could not enforce the separate provision in the Buyer’s Order.
The circuit court granted Santander’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the Buyer’s Order and RISC constituted a single contract and that Santander, as assignee, obtained the right to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Appellate Court of Maryland (Appellate Court) affirmed, holding that the Buyer’s Order and RISC constitute a single contract. Lyles then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.2
2 Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 700 F.3d 690 (4th Cir. 2012).
excluding all other documents, such as the Buyer’s Order containing the arbitration clause and agreement. Since the arbitration provisions were not included in the assignment, Santander lacked the authority to enforce them.
The court specifically rejected Santander’s position that the Buyer’s Order and RISC should be read together as a single contract, reasoning that such an interpretation would render the RISC integration clause meaningless, as the limited word “only” in the RISC’s integration clause would lose its significance. The court also distinguished this case from Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Santander could enforce an arbitration provision in a
The case demonstrates that specific language in contracts, particularly integration and assignment provisions, can significantly affect the outcome and the scope of each party’s rights and obligations.
Buyer’s Order. The court noted that the RISC in Rota-McLarty did not contain a provision that explicitly limited the scope of the assignment, as the RISC in the Lyles case did.
In summary, the court concluded that the arbitration agreement in the Buyer’s Order was not part of the assignment to Santander, and thus Santander could not enforce it.
Conclusion
This dispute between a vehicle purchaser and an assignee lender highlights the power of specific contractual language. The central issue, an assignee’s right to enforce an arbitration clause from a separate, unassigned document, was resolved by the precision of the integration and assignment clauses. The case demonstrates that specific language in contracts, particularly integration and assignment provisions, can significantly affect the outcome and the scope of each party’s rights and obligations. When contracts are assigned, the scope of the assignment is determined by the explicit language of the agreement. Not all rights and obligations under the original contract are automatically transferred to the assignee when there is conflicting language—stating otherwise. This case demonstrates the importance of attorneys carefully drafting assignment clauses to ensure clarity regarding the rights and obligations transferred. While Maryland law favors arbitration, this ruling shows that courts will not enforce arbitration agreements if the contract language fails to support their proper assignment and enforcement by a third party. Attorneys must carefully draft assignment clauses to ensure absolute clarity regarding the full extent of rights and obligations being transferred.
BY SAMANTHA DOS SANTOS, ESQ.
To effectively investigate and litigate dog bite cases in Maryland, it is essential to understand the evolving statutory landscape and its applicability under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 (2024) (hereinafter Cts. & Jud. Proc. § ___ ). Given Maryland’s application of strict liability, the facts of each dog bite case may be dispositive of liability, thereby necessitating a thorough intake process. As with other personal injury matters, it is critical to identify each tortfeasor, including, but not limited to, the dog owners and any potential corporate parties, such as a kennel or daycare business. It is also necessary to understand the scene of the dog bite, which may require a visit to take photographs and memorialize the conditions that allowed the subject dog to escape confinement or supervision. Early investment during the intake process yields more favorable outcomes in dog bite cases.
There are two statutory components to consider in dog bite cases during the intake process. First, there is a rebuttable presumption that a dog owner “knew or should have known” of their dog’s vicious propensities.1 Second, a dog owner is liable for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by their dog “while the dog is running at large” with enumerated exceptions.2 These exceptions apply if the injured person was (1) committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense; was (2) committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense; or was (3) teasing, tormenting, abusing, or provoking the dog.3 While these two components can be thoroughly addressed in litigation through the discovery process, early attention at intake can help determine whether the incident is viable to pursue. The next question is whether there is sufficient insurance coverage for the injuries sustained in the dog bite.
After evaluating the liability posture of the case and disposing of the applicability of the enumerated exceptions, the next step is to locate insurance coverage. For dog bite cases, insurance coverage is typically extended by renters or homeowners insurance, assuming there is no exemption or preclusion in the policy. Depending on where a dog bite occurs, identifying the dog owner’s residence and their status as a homeowner or renter may be simple or may require additional
1 Cts. & Jud. Proc., §3-1901(a)(1)
2 Cts. & Jud. Proc., §3-1901(c)
3 Cts. & Jud. Proc., §3-1901(c)(1-3)
There are two statutory components to consider in dog bite cases during the intake process.
investigation. If, for example, the injured party can identify the property from which a dog fled, a simple search of the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) will reveal the named owners of the property. Under these circumstances, there is likely to be active homeowners insurance coverage.
On the other hand, if a dog fled from an apartment complex or another type of rental property, it is more likely that the operative policy is a renters policy. In recent years, it has become increasingly more common to find lapsed renters insurance policies. In both cases, letters of representation are addressed to the dog owner in an attempt to obtain their insurance policies, although we are not always met with cooperation.
In the event that an initial letter of representation is ignored and insurance policies are not provided, dog bite cases proceed to litigation, and service of process is effectuated on the dog owner. Oftentimes, once a dog owner is served, they report the claim and turn over the complaint to their insurance company, which may encourage an amicable resolution. However, when a dog owner is served and fails to file a timely response, there is an immediate concern that the dog owner may lack proper coverage. At that time, there are other avenues to investigate coverage, such as issuing subpoenas to property owners and the corporate offices of apartment complexes, requesting proof of proper rental insurance for their tenants. While locating an active insurance policy better positions the claim for resolution, there may be a policy exclusion that prohibits dog ownership on the subject property. It is essential to read the policy language to ensure whether any claimed exclusions are being appropriately applied or whether any ambiguities in the policy language will need to be litigated as well.
As the case proceeds, liability may be determined by the simple fact that a subject dog was running “at large.” While some counties offer their own definition of “at large,” the analysis typically involves deciphering whether a dog was off-leash and outside the control of its owner. These fact patterns include a dog escaping from its yard due to unlocked or faulty gates or a dog running away from its owner during a purposefully unleashed walk. While there is some simplicity to determining whether a dog was at large, the enumerated exceptions cannot be overlooked and should be dispelled during litigation through requests for admissions, written discovery, and deposition testimony.
A dog owner must also contend with the rebuttable presumption that they knew of their dog’s vicious propensities. To get ahead of any attempts to rebut this presumption, information regarding prior attacks may be obtained through the Maryland Public
Information Act and simple online case searches. There may also be references to prior bites involving a subject dog through the animal control report or the transcript from an animal control hearing related to the disposition of a dog. Establishing prior notice of a dog’s vicious propensities strengthens the position of the case and weakens a dog owner’s ability to claim ignorance later.
There is some reluctance among personal injury attorneys to pursue dog bite cases due to potential uncertainty with insurance coverage and the rate at which these cases are litigated. However, there is an upside in potentially collecting from larger renters or homeowners policies in comparison to state-minimum automobile policies. There can also be serious injuries and significant medical expenses accumulated for addressing puncture wounds, stitches, vaccines, and surgical intervention. In these scenarios, medical illustrations and medical cost projections tend to be helpful and inexpensive tools in dog bite litigation to emphasize both the injuries sustained as well as the need for future procedures to address any scarring. While dog bite cases may require more investigation and a bit of niche knowledge, pursuing them can be both economical to a personal injury practice and helpful to keeping our community safe.
The decision to pursue dog bite cases invites an internal tug-of-war among some attorneys. While it may be instinctive to sympathize with a dog and its owner by characterizing a bite as a mere accident, pursuing these cases ensures that dog owners are held accountable for failing to monitor and address their dogs’ unsafe temperaments that pose a threat to the public. The companionship dogs provide generates a positive experience for many; however, holding irresponsible dog owners accountable for their failures in training and supervision remains essential. Both things can be true at the same time.
Samantha Dos Santos, Esq. joined Plaxen Adler Muncy, P.A. in Maryland in 2019 and was elevated to partner in 2024. Before joining the firm, Samantha worked as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Jeannie J. Hong in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. She attended George Washington University, where she played Division I Softball, and American University’s Washington College of Law, where she graduated cum laude. Samantha has been recognized as a Rising Star in both Maryland and Washington, D.C. and focuses her practice on personal injury matters.
JENNIFER FOX
From Litigator to In House Counsel for the Common Goal of the Closing Table
TRANSITIONING FROM a high-stakes litigation career to the entrepreneurial side of real estate is no small feat, but for Jennifer Fox, it was a move defined by growth, family, and a new kind of professional fulfillment.
After years of navigating the emotional complexities of family law, Fox’s career took an unexpected turn. While she reached the pinnacle of traditional practice by making partner at Blades & Rosenfeld, P.A. in 2020, a shifting perspective on work-life harmony led her to join the family business. Today, as an owner and settlement attorney at TS Executive Abstract Maryland Title in Lutherville, Fox has traded the billable hour for the common goal of the closing table. You can learn more about Fox and her career transition below.
Why did you enter the legal profession?
I was a psychology major at Virginia Tech and unsure of the exact next step I should take, so I applied to law school, as I knew this would open up so many doors for me. After attending law school at the University of Maryland, I was thrilled at the prospect of becoming a litigator, particularly in family law.
What is your fondest memory of your legal career so far?
My first job after law school was clerking for the Honorable Emory A. Plitt at the Circuit Court for Harford County. I always say it was the best job I ever had. Judge Plitt was a brilliant and kind wealth of knowledge, and it was fascinating to hear his take on the cases we were trying behind the scenes.
How would you describe your career in three words? Unexpected, collaborative, and meaningful.
What are some accomplishments you've achieved during your career?
I was recognized as a Leading Woman by the Daily Record in 2019, as well as a Rising Star among Maryland Super Lawyers on multiple occasions. I was thrilled to make partner in January 2020 at the last firm I worked at, Blades & Rosenfeld, P.A., as I joined a brilliant, hard-working group of professionals. I was given the Best Real Estate Attorney award by Baltimore Style Magazine in 2024.
“
Two things can be true— we can be grateful for where we have been, but also there can be something bigger and better out there for us. You don’t know unless you try!
What makes you unique in your profession?
I am the owner of our title company, yet still involved in every file that comes our way in a very hands-on way. I bring with me years of knowledge trying family law, real estate, and civil matters, and it has come in handy on pretty much a daily basis in closing real estate transactions.
What do you enjoy most about your career?
I love the people we work with every day. It has been very refreshing to all be working together toward a common goal after years of quite the opposite.
What does a day at work look like for you?
I run the day-to-day at our Greenspring Station office. We host real estate closings in our office, as well as around the state of Maryland. If I am not conducting a closing in or out of the office, I am working on reviewing titles, contracts, and/or speaking to clients multiple times a day.
What are your goals for yourself in this role?
I would love to continue to grow in the Maryland market and to challenge myself to step out of the minutiae of the day-to-day to oversee the operation in a more global fashion.
What are some of the challenges you face in your current role?
The clients in the title industry have deep-rooted relationships with their trusted title companies, and so we work very hard for them to give “the new girl in town” a shot and to show them the level of professionalism we can offer to them.
“ I have relied on the MSBA more in my less traditional legal career than when I was a litigator. I utilized the online resources and learned so much from the Real Property Section as I navigated my new day-to-day.
What advice do you have for other MSBA members who are seeking a career transition?
As I tell my kids, two things can be true—we can be grateful for where we have been, but also there can be something bigger and better out there for us. You don’t know unless you try!
Was there a specific moment when you realized your prior path no longer aligned with your goals, or was it a gradual shift over time?
As my children grew up, the way in which they needed me changed as well, and I knew that working with my family business would afford me the opportunity to work around my children’s schedules, even if I am working twice as hard.
What was the most difficult habit or mindset from your "old" career that you had to unlearn to be successful in your new role?
Billing my time! It took me months to get used to just doing my job, without keeping track of it!
Despite the change in industry or role, what core value or skill has remained constant throughout your entire professional life?
Honesty and trustworthiness. It has been so important to grow in my career, and how our family business has been so successful—we can be trusted.
How has the MSBA helped you in your legal career?
What is most interesting is that I have relied on the MSBA more in my less traditional legal career than when I was a litigator. I utilized the online resources and learned so much from the Real Property Section as I navigated my new day-to-day. Not to mention the Maryland Lawyers’ Manual has come in handy on many occasions when trying to track down legal counsel for national banks involved in our foreclosure matters!
How do you spend your free time?
I spend my free time running my three kids around from school to sports and everywhere in between, and there is nowhere I would rather be. I enjoy exercising, and we love visiting our favorite beach, Sea Isle City.
Who is someone you admire, and why?
I admire my mom and brother, who paved the way for me to join our family title company. My mom started the company on a real leap of faith when I was in middle school. My brother also left his traditional day job to join the company and has gotten us where we are today.
BY PAMELA LANGHAM, ESQ.
Hallucinated cases are “inaccurate depictions of information from AI models that suffer from incomplete, biased, or otherwise flawed training data.”
RECENT RULINGS FROM the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland have spotlighted a serious concern in legal practice: the submission of court filings permeated with fabricated or “hallucinated” cases and citations, generated by generative artificial intelligence (AI). In two separate matters, although involving the same lawyer, the court confronted legal pleadings in which counsel relied on non-existent authorities cited in the court filings, raising serious questions about diligence, ethics, and the integration of AI technologies into legal research and drafting. These incidents underscore the reality that lawyers continue to rely on AI technology without independently verifying its output. Lawyers and legal teams navigating AI technology should take note.
Hallucinated cases are “inaccurate depictions of information from AI models that suffer from incomplete, biased, or otherwise flawed training data.”1 These “hallucinations” are a travesty in the legal profession. They mislead the court and opposing counsel, waste judicial resources, and undermine the credibility of the legal profession. Across the nation,
lawyers have faced sanctions for submitting legal pleadings containing fabricated cases and citations. For instance, in a widely publicized and well-known case in New York, Mata v. Avianca , attorneys and their law firm were sanctioned after filing pleadings containing AI-generated hallucinated cases. Others have followed. These incidents highlight the risks of uncritical reliance on AI tools in legal practice.
In Lafferty v. Theiss, 2 the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against a police officer and other government entities, alleging violations of civil rights through the use of excessive force and battery. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Subsequently, the plaintiffs submitted a memorandum in opposition, to which the defendants replied.
In their reply memorandum, the defendants raised concerns regarding misquotations and mischaracterizations of case law within the plaintiffs’ response. On May 12, 2025, the court issued an order requiring plaintiffs’ counsel to address these allegations. In compliance, plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to the order on May 26, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged the citation errors, issued an apology to both the court and opposing counsel, and formally withdrew the inaccurate quotations and mischaracterizations.
Furthermore, plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed that the response memorandum had been prepared exclusively with the assistance of AI tools, without conducting an independent review to verify the accuracy of the information, as mandated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) before signing the pleading.
Plaintiff’s counsel further represented that both counsel and the firm had taken concrete steps to prevent overreliance on AI in future pleadings. To avoid recurrence of the errors, the firm instituted several protocols. First, every quotation or parenthetical citation must now be substantiated by a PDF copy of the underlying judicial opinion, which is to be downloaded and thoroughly reviewed by the attorney responsible for the pleading. Additional measures include requiring each checker to independently verify all citations and quotations before filing, confirming the accuracy of citations through Shepardizing or KeyCite, retaining the verified authorities for potential court review, and mandating a secondary audit of all filings by another member of the firm to ensure citation accuracy.
2 Lafferty v. Theiss et al, No. 1:2024cv02642 - Document 29 (D. Md. 2025).
3 Neal et al v. Frayer et al, No. 8:2024cv00778 - Document 31 (D. Md. 2025).
Finally, counsel expressed a willingness to submit sworn declarations, participate in a Rule 11 conference, or take any further action deemed appropriate by the court.
The court entered an order on August 4, 2025, and acknowledged plaintiff’s counsel’s response to the order regarding the inaccuracy of the legal citations. Without commenting further on the inaccurate citations or plaintiff’s counsel’s explanations, the court proceeded to write an opinion granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
In Neal v. Frayer, 3 plaintiffs sued Officer Frayer and other defendants for multiple torts, including excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Frayer and another defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motions on March 26, 2025. In the written opinion filed on November 17, 2025, granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the court addressed the issue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for submitting a response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with inaccurate legal citations. The court identified several instances where plaintiffs’ counsel cited cases that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. For example, plaintiffs’ counsel cited “Brown v. Daniel Realty Co., 922 A.2d 1146, 1155-56 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007).” The citation appended to the Brown case is incorrect. Furthermore, an Appellate Court of Maryland opinion similar to the one cited does not stand for the proposition that the plaintiff cited to support his position. The court suspected that AI technology was used to produce the erroneous citations, as it found similar errors when testing several AI tools.
The court noted that plaintiff’s counsel had faced similar errors in a separate case, Lafferty v. Theiss. Despite the mistakes and errors in plaintiff’s counsel’s response in the Neal case, the court decided not to issue a show cause order or impose sanctions, citing counsel’s prior assurances in the Lafferty case that corrective measures had been implemented at his firm to prevent future errors. Notably, the court observed that plaintiff’s opposition to one of the defendant’s motions for summary judgment was filed on March 26, 2025—the exact date that plaintiff’s counsel filed his response to Judge Gallagher’s order in Lafferty, representing that his firm had implemented protocols to ensure that Rule 11 standards were met before filing future pleadings.
The court commented:
Though, unfortunately, counsel did not take the opportunity to revisit filings in other cases, to ensure that the same errors that plagued the filings in Lafferty were not present in other cases, the court assumes that the erroneous citations offered in Plaintiffs’ opposition here were a result of the prior practices detailed in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s response to Judge Gallagher’s order, and thus have been properly addressed by the steps noted in the response filed in Lafferty
While the court in Neal acknowledged the seriousness of the errors and the potential harm caused by inaccurate citations, it refrained from taking further action due to counsel’s prior corrective steps and assurance given to Judge Gallagher in the Lafferty case. However, the court warned that similar mistakes in future filings could result in sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
The Lafferty and Neal decisions serve as critical reminders of the potential pitfalls of relying on AI technology for legal research and drafting. While this great new technology can enhance efficiency, it is not infallible. It can and will produce “hallucinated” cases or inaccurate citations that undermine the credibility of legal arguments and the lawyers who file AI’s outputs without independently verifying the accuracy. Rigorous standards of verification and due diligence, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, should be observed. Lawyers also need to understand that the accuracy of legal filings cannot be delegated to AI or junior associates without proper oversight. By implementing robust protocols and exercising caution when using AI technology, legal professionals can harness its benefits while safeguarding the integrity of their practice and avoiding sanctions. The lessons from these decisions underscore the need for a balanced approach to integrating AI into the practice of law—one that prioritizes verification, accountability, and ethical conduct. A misuse of AI can greatly impair your reputation and impact your career. AN OVERVIEW OF ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ATTORNEY USE OF GENERATIVE
BY KAYLA S. VOSSLER, ESQ.
Divorce has long been viewed as an adversarial process.
For many families, there’s an idea of “winning.” Yet as family lawyers often remind clients, there are no true winners or losers in family law. The litigation path can deepen wounds that are already difficult to heal. For many families, these processes provide a more constructive and empowering way to navigate separation, one that emphasizes control, transparency, and long-term stability over courtroom battles.
In traditional litigation, the process is inherently adversarial, structured around a plaintiff and a defendant, with each side arguing against the other as the court assigns responsibility, divides property, and issues orders.
In the collaborative process and mediation, the focus shifts to problem-solving. The question becomes not “Who is right?” but “What will work for this family moving forward?” This reframing can completely transform how clients experience divorce.
The collaborative process is a team-based approach in which both parties are represented by attorneys who have been collaboratively trained and agree to work together outside of court. The parties may also engage financial professionals and mental health coaches to provide education, clarity, and emotional support. The result is a process that helps clients make informed, sustainable decisions rather than reactive ones.
Mediation, while structurally different, shares many of the same principles. A neutral mediator facilitates conversation, helps identify priorities, and supports the parties in finding mutually acceptable solutions. Even when mediation does not resolve every issue, it often narrows disputes and promotes understanding, saving time, cost, and stress.
Both the collaborative process and mediation encourage transparency, accountability, and self-determination. Clients often find that they emerge not only with a settlement agreement but with a greater sense of ownership over the outcome. For parents, this can mean smoother co-parenting relationships and less conflict for their children.
These processes also reduce the emotional and financial toll of divorce. Avoiding court allows families to preserve resources and privacy while maintaining more flexible timelines. For many, it is also the first opportunity to communicate directly and productively after months or years of conflict.
In traditional litigation, the process is inherently adversarial, structured around a plaintiff and a defendant, with each side arguing against the other as the court assigns responsibility, divides property, and issues orders. In the collaborative process and mediation, the focus shifts to problem-solving.
As attorneys, our role in these processes is not diminished; it evolves. Instead of adversaries, we become advisors, educators, and problem-solvers. We help clients identify their priorities, understand their options, and evaluate proposals in the context of their long-term goals. This approach requires preparation, creativity, and empathy. It asks us to listen as much as we advocate, to think holistically, and to help clients define success in terms of stability and dignity rather than division.
The collaborative process and mediation are not right for every situation. But for many families, they provide a path that feels more humane and less destructive. They give clients the space to make reasoned decisions, the support to manage the emotions that accompany divorce, and the opportunity to rebuild a foundation of trust for the future. As the practice of family law continues to evolve, these models remind us that resolving conflict does not have to mean deepening it. When handled thoughtfully, divorce can be not only an end, but the beginning of a new chapter written with intention, clarity, and respect.
Kayla S. Vossler is an associate attorney at Burr Law Firm, where she practices family law with a focus on divorce, custody, and financial matters. She is trained in mediation, parent coordination, and the collaborative process, and is committed to helping families resolve disputes in a more constructive, client-centered way. She is admitted to practice in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Texas.
GARY C. NORMAN
“
Days do exist where I wish I were not a blind person and pariah to law firms, enjoying a standard career. I then recall the amazing, special opportunities I have met.
FOR GARY C. NORMAN, the law is not just a profession, it is a vessel for history, service, and resilience. Recently retired after a distinguished 25-year career at the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Norman has navigated the legal landscape as a “living historian,” blending complex health care law with a deep-rooted commitment to public service.
As a blind attorney, Norman’s career has been anything but traditional. From serving as a visiting professor at the Robert J. Dole Institute for Politics to his current role as an adjunct professor and chair of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) ADR Section, he has consistently blazed trails. You can learn more about Norman and his non-traditional legal career below.
Why did you enter the legal profession?
As someone who continuously loves all aspects of the past, from archaeology to folklore, I originally contemplated a career as a Ph.D. historian and adviser. As a history major at Wright State University and someone recently inducted into a history honors society, I reflected that a Ph.D. could be an uncertain path to a paying job. So, I viewed obtaining a JD as a way to remain a living historian, but one that would set me on a path practically focused on service.
What is the best piece of advice you have received from someone in the legal profession?
Stoicism, resilience, and health are key. Fortunately, from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, where I obtained my JD and now teach, to the LLM I obtained at Washington College of Law while working full-time at CMS, I have been blessed with coaches or mentors who have invested their time and commitment. They either shaped how I view myself or how I view the role of the law and the lawyer. Namely, I recognize David Roth, Esq. (RIP) who I worked under and who established a nonprofit law firm, retired Associate Professor Lazarus, Esq. of Cleveland-Marshall who remains my intellectual and teaching mentor, and retired Professor and Director Parver, Esq. who established the Healthcare Law Program at Washington College of Law. David, a boxing coach, often called me a champion.
What is your fondest memory of your legal career so far?
Days do exist where I wish I were not a blind person and pariah to law firms, enjoying a standard career. I then recall the amazing, special opportunities I have met. This includes 2015, when I served as a visiting professor at the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics in Kansas. The Institute could have selected anyone, more famous for sure, but it selected me to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended.
What makes you unique in your profession?
I am often the sole guide dog handler in a room of influence. When I retired from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in May 2025, I was the last service animal handler working in the
building. While being a lawyer with a disability may come with its rock star status on occasion, it also comes with great responsibility. God knows it has taken the past 51 years to arrive at this level of self-acceptance and a sense of duty.
What are the best skills you bring to your legal career?
Because I had to collaborate with many diverse people during the 1990s, before screen readers were robustly in place, and continue to do so in addressing my inevitable screen-reader troubles (sorry, my former assistant at the agency), I possess what can be a hackneyed word: people skills. I am also significantly, if ironically, a great listener, who can synthesize copious amounts of data. In addition, I am a gifted writer, whose voice reflects deep reading and education.
What advice would you give to law students or young professionals considering an alternative career path?
As a person with a rare genetic disorder, who the law considers to be disabled and who identifies as such, I have enjoyed and navigated a different path, often succeeding notably but sometimes stumbling. Whether receiving acclaim or facing bias and barriers, I can say that the Grand Architect has blessed me with a fruitful, yet nontraditional, law career. For most people who have barriers, law practice will not be a Model T assembly line from law school to a large law firm. As I coach and mentor my law students or other people with disabilities, this is okay, if not even better, because lawyers with disabilities are destined often for a different path and one of true service to the people.
Describe a memorable MSBA event or product that has had an impact on you personally or professionally.
When I served as chair of the Animal Law Section from 2009–2010, I, in partnership with the section’s team, organized an innovative, non-partisan symposium on animal law. This product ran across future chairs of the section and for a total of five such symposia. As a follow-up to the effort to publish the proceedings, I co-founded a nonpartisan law and policy journal. I currently serve as chair of the ADR Section, having co-hosted a dialogue process on the Eastern Shore with positive responses that the legal community and ADR field felt like the MSBA was on the Shores for the first time.
What is an interesting fact about you that no one would guess?
I am an avid reader and patron of bookstores or libraries. To many people, in or out of the MSBA, but notably to lawyers, reading is only a visual exercise. To disabuse them of this foolishness, reading falls into three or four categories: auditory, or visual, or what I think is amazing, tactile—as in Braille. As a shareholder of the Library Company of Philadelphia, my third guide dog, my wife, and I once had a private tour of the Braille collections from one of its past exhibits, the oldest set of historic Braille materials in the United States.
BY ADAM M. SPENCE, ESQ. AND NICOLE L. BUSTARD
“The question facing attorneys is no longer whether they should use AI, but how to do so safely, responsibly, and ethically.”
Nevertheless, AI’s value to lawyers and their clients, to expanded access to justice, and to the legal profession can no longer be ignored.
With the recent explosion in the use of artificial intelligence with the release and development of large language learning models such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Co-Pilot, society at large, including lawyers, has entered into a new technological age.1 Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not mere hype, but rather a new era for the legal profession, defined by dramatically improved productivity on drafting pleadings, managing document reviews, strategizing cases, and optimizing workflows. The changes to the legal profession brought by AI are arguably poised to surpass even those brought by the internet.
These changes do not come without concern or risk. Due to the relative newness of AI and its rapid pace of development, it is challenging for attorneys not only to understand AI but also to use it confidently without misstep. Such missteps have been showcased in recent media reports about attorneys who submitted AI-generated briefs filled with inaccurate facts or completely fabricated citations, leading to public embarrassment, judicial rebukes, and damaged reputations. Indeed, just months ago, in October 2025, an attorney was referred to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission after submitting a brief to the Appellate Court of Maryland containing eleven hallucinated case citations, completely made up by ChatGPT.2
Nevertheless, AI’s value to lawyers and their clients, to expanded access to justice, and to the legal profession can no longer be ignored. The question facing attorneys is no longer whether they should use AI, but how to do so safely, responsibly and ethically
The ethical and practical framework for answering that question is more straightforward than many attorneys might assume. While ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI extend beyond simply ensuring correct case citations, they are not novel. Chief among these ethics concerns are the professional obligations of competency, judgment, and protection of client confidentiality, obligations that have always governed attorney conduct regardless of the technology used. Because the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) regulate attorney conduct rather than specific tools, an attorney may use AI so long as its use complies with the rules governing competence, independent judgment, confidentiality, and supervision.
This article outlines the ethical concerns presented by AI use, explains how modern AI platforms have developed to address them, and provides several steps for law firms to implement AI safely, responsibly, and ethically.
Competence, Hallucinations, and the Dangers of the AI Siren
In its Formal Opinion 512 on AI3, the ABA began by noting that attorneys have a responsibility to provide competent representation to their client under Model Rule 1.1 (MRPC 19-301.1). Competence requires attorneys to apply “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation,” as well as to understand “the benefits and risks associated with the technologies used to deliver legal services to clients.” The ABA stated that attaining this competence can be achieved by attorneys either by acquiring a reasonable understanding themselves or by drawing on the expertise of others who can provide guidance. The ABA added that technological competence is not a “static undertaking,” but requires attorneys to stay educated about changes in the law and its practice, including remaining knowledgeable about the continuing “benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Thus, to use AI competently, attorneys must be familiar with the technology and its limitations.
To that end, generative AI systems can assist with drafting, summarization, organization, and research by predicting language based on patterns in large datasets. These systems generate responses through prediction rather than
1 For definition of Large Language Models and background on how they work, see: Core Stryker, “What are Large Language Models (LLMs)?”, IBM Think, last accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/large-language-models. For information on history of AI, see: B.J. Copeland, “History of Artificial Intelligence (AI)”, Britannica, November 7, 2025, last accessed December 2, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-artificial-intelligence. may
2 See Chukwuemeka Mezu v. Kristen Mezu, 267 Md.App. 354, 346 A.3d 181 (2025). See also, Pamela Langham, “Maryland Lawyer Referred to Attorney Grievance Commission for Citing Fake AI Cases” MSBA, November 3, 2025, https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Maryland_Lawyer_Referred_to_Attorney_Grievance_ Commission_for_Citing_Fake%20AI_Cases.aspx.
3 ABA Comm. On Pro. Ethics & Grievances, Formal Op. 512 (2024).
comprehension or verification of underlying facts or legal authority.4 Because AI models predict rather than think, they sometimes produce inaccurate information or entirely fabricated content, a phenomenon commonly referred to as “hallucinations.” This is because predictive AI does not independently assess accuracy, truth, or legal relevance, and may further miss nuances, context, or arguments that can be developed by trained and experienced attorneys. Any review of nationwide news headlines reveals that many attorneys have already been caught using hallucinated cases in their briefs and motions.
Surprisingly, many of these case filings containing hallucinated case law come not from young, untrained attorneys, but rather from high-level, experienced lawyers who know how to write, cite, and argue the law well. This is because AI is an excellent writer—expertly mimicking legal writing and citations while simultaneously weaving them almost flawlessly into wellcrafted arguments. This writing style is not surprising, as AI models, even non-legal ones, have been trained in countless books, treatises, case law, and other legal writing. AI models
presented, can readily mislead users into trusting its accuracy and lulling them into complacency, just as the sirens of legend tricked sailors into jumping from their ships onto lethal, rocky shores.
AI’s siren song is particularly dangerous for attorneys, largely because it reinforces the ideas that they input into the system without correcting false information or challenging any fallacious reasoning. This may mislead attorneys into overestimating the strength of their legal arguments and theories, or into relying on incorrect facts or law. The AI siren is also dangerous because the tone and quality of its writing make it appear that nothing is wrong, even though there may be hallucinated citations, arguments, and quotes cleverly spliced and written within.
Fully understanding this limitation of AI, and its attendant siren song, is critical to an attorney’s competent and ethical use of AI. It is far too easy for attorneys in our fast-paced world, with all its competing demands, to be lulled into complacency regarding the dangers caused by AI’s siren song and simply overlook hallucinations. Attorneys must recognize the potential for hallucinations and carefully verify any AI-generated work
Because AI models predict rather than think, they sometimes produce inaccurate information or entirely fabricated content, a phenomenon commonly referred to as “hallucinations.”
then present such output in confident, positive tones, which can mislead the user into believing that the information provided is entirely accurate. The models are also charismatic and friendly, which can quickly establish a trusting relationship with the user that makes the user unlikely to challenge the model’s outputs.5
The coupling of AI’s confident, friendly tone with its wellwritten, well-reasoned output creates what is aptly described as “AI’s siren song.” AI’s well-written output, confidently
product, treating it as preliminary rather than authoritative. In practice, AI output should be treated much like the work of a young, inexperienced associate: useful but requiring independent legal review, refinement, and the exercise of professional judgment before it is relied upon. This review must include not only verification of legal citations and assumptions but also the application of independent judgment to ensure that the work product is appropriate, complete, and responsive to the matter at hand. Such vigilance is critical for attorneys to avoid the perils of AI.
4 Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is now being used to require the AI to fetch citations and verify the response before responding. Currently, RAG has not fully overcome the inaccuracies that can occur with AI, but it is providing both improvements and links for further verification of responses.
5 Such misplaced trust can even lead to a condition known as “AI Psychosis.” Many people who have mental health issues, such as delusional or disorganized thinking, have experienced worsened or heightened symptoms after using AI—largely because the models reinforce, rather than challenge, the user’s thinking. For more information on this “AI Psychosis,” see: Marlynn Wel, “The Emerging Problem of ‘AI Psychosis,’” Psychology Today, last Updated November 27, 2025, last accessed January 8, 2026, https://www. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/tthen availableemerginghe-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis
Attorneys should also make reasonable efforts to ensure that their staff do not fall victim to hallucinations and AI’s siren song. Pursuant to Md. Rule 19-305.3, a supervising attorney must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has measures in place providing assurances that a non-lawyer’s conduct is compatible with the attorney’s professional obligations. In the context of generative AI, the duty of supervision requires attorneys to ensure that paralegals, legal assistants, and other staff use AI tools in a manner consistent with ethical and professional standards. Appropriate supervision should include restricting AI use to approved platforms that meet the firm’s confidentiality and security standards, vigilant review of AI-assisted work product, and adherence to internal policies governing permissible uses of AI, particularly regarding accuracy and professional judgment.
and AI
Implicit in any attorney’s understanding of the risks associated with AI is that the attorney must maintain client confidentiality under Md. Rule 19-301.6 (ABA Model Rule 1.6). Until recently, many AI platforms did not ensure the confidentiality of user input, since much of that input was used to train and refine these newly developing AI models. This “self-learning” feature of AI models was of particular concern for attorneys, largely because it could result in the inadvertent disclosure of client information.
As noted by the ABA in its July 2024 opinion, the “selflearning” AI tools then available posed a serious risk of disclosure and a violation of the attorney-client privilege. This is because, as self-learning AI generated a prediction,
it would then compare both the prompt and its prediction to the existing dataset, allowing for further model finetuning. Because the input became a part of the dataset used to generate new predictions, any confidential information input into an AI model may be “later revealed in response to prompts by lawyers working on other matters, who then share that output with other clients, file with the court, or otherwise disclose it.” Due to these confidentiality concerns, the ABA ultimately concluded that using self-learning AI platforms constituted a breach of an attorney’s confidentiality obligation.
The AI landscape has notably changed since the ABA’s analysis in July 2024—there are now many more service-tier options to ensure the confidentiality of input data 6 Most current AI platforms now offer business- and enterpriselevel plans that explicitly exclude user data from model training, addressing the core issue of the ABA’s earlier confidentiality concerns. These newer offerings implement explicit data-use agreements, ensure data encryption at rest and in transit, and provide for the deletion of data after a specified period. Examples of representative offerings include ChatGPT business, which is compliant with several regulatory guidelines on data security and privacy, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation; California’s Consumer Privacy Act; and Cloud Security Alliance Security, Trust & Assurance Registry.7 Other similar, confidential, and secure offerings include Google’s Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot, and Anthropic’s Claude. Indeed, many of the above confidential AI tools that do not use data for model training are now recommended for use by attorneys on the
6 Different platforms have rolled out confidential service tiers starting in late 2023 and continuing through 2025. Following later than other similar
announced confidential service tiers on January 1, 2026.
7 "Enterprise privacy at OpenAI,” OpenAI, last accessed November 18, 2025, openai.com/enterprise-privacy/ ; “Think Bigger: How Small Teams Win with ChatGPT,” OpenAI, last accessed November 18, 2025, cdn.openai.com/business-guides-and-resources/how-small-teams-win-with-chatgpt.pdf
Maryland State Bar Association's (MSBA) website, through its online AI Insights and Resources Hub, courtesy of MSBA’s AI Task Force.8
Given the heightened data privacy and security measures, combined with the relatively low cost of these paid tiers, attorneys may use paid versions of these general AI tools while still ensuring client confidentiality. But even with paid plans, attorneys must still ensure that the service tier for the selected AI Platform specifically excludes using client data for model-training, as some lower paid tiers still use data for model-training 9 There is also a growing number of AI models designed specifically for the legal field and its confidentiality obligations, including Westlaw and NexisLexis. These models not only provide enhanced data security but are also designed for legal-specific tasks such as research, legal writing, and case analysis.
Regardless of the AI platform chosen, there may be particular cases or information where additional precautions or complete avoidance of AI is necessary. Such cases may involve highly confidential information, trade secret information, or high-profile celebrities, where there is a high risk of targeted hacking. Accordingly, attorneys should determine, for each case, whether AI is appropriate before deciding which model to use.
While attorneys can avoid common AI pitfalls by independently verifying all AI-generated content and making reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with their professional responsibilities, they can also take additional steps at a firm-wide level to implement generative AI responsibly.
First, firms should identify and approve appropriate AI platforms before permitting any AI use for work product. Firms should evaluate and select AI tools based on their confidentiality protections, data-use policies, security safeguards, and alignment with professional responsibility obligations. This helps to ensure consistency, reduce risk, and provide a clear baseline for ethical compliance for any AI use across the firm.
Second, firms should consider adopting a written AI policy. This policy should identify approved AI tools, appropriate uses for these tools (such as drafting, summarization, and research), and prohibited uses (such as when highly sensitive information is involved or a task requires critical, complex legal judgment). The policy should also
Fully understanding this limitation of AI, and its attendant siren song, is critical to an attorney’s competent and ethical use of AI.
establish expectations for verification, review, and ethical compliance. By establishing a clear policy, firms can provide guidance to attorneys and staff and emphasize the due diligence and accountability necessary for the use of AI.
Third, attorneys and staff should receive training and continued education on the use of generative AI. Initial training should include instruction on both ethical obligations and practical uses, such as effective prompt drafting, iterative refinement of outputs, and rigorous citation checking, verification, and review. In addition, training should prepare attorneys and staff to communicate appropriately with clients about AI, including how AI is used, its limitations, and how professional judgment and oversight are maintained. Continuing education should include CLE programs, bar association resources, industry publications, and vendorprovided materials. Given the rapid pace of technological change, continuing education should be periodic and sustained rather than episodic, serving not only to track evolving ethical guidance but also to identify new and improved applications of AI in legal practice.
Fourth, firms should maintain supervision and accountability mechanisms consistent with Md. Rule 19-305.3. Attorneys should ensure that both lawyers and staff use only approved platforms and adhere to firm AI policies. Ongoing supervision should reinforce vigilance, including reminders to avoid unauthorized tools, to review AI-assisted work carefully, and to remain alert to evolving risks and guidance. Even modest supervisory measures can help ensure that AI use remains consistent with professional obligations and client interests.
Finally, attorneys should foster a culture of responsible innovation within their firms. Experimentation with new technology can and should be encouraged, but it should remain deliberate, documented, and subject to review, all
8 “AI Insights & Resources HUB,” MSBA, last updated July 16, 2025, last accessed November 18, 2025, www.msba.org/site/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/ AI-Insights-Resources-HUB.aspx?hkey=16802e5d-9b7e-458f-9ac9-f06be4bc65a9
9 Attorneys must also be aware of any changes to the privacy standards or procedures for each tier. For example, Claude Pro and Max formerly agreed not to use any user data for training; however, starting in October 2025 users had to manually opt out of user data for training. “Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy,” Anthropic, August 28, 2025, https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms. Claude for Work was not affected and remained confidential.
In the context of generative AI, the duty of supervision requires attorneys to ensure that paralegals, legal assistants, and other staff use AI tools in a manner consistent with ethical and professional standards.
within the bounds of professional and ethical standards. AI should be presented and used as a tool that enhances competence and efficiency, not as a substitute for professional judgment or human oversight. When firms establish this kind of culture, ethical and effective use of generative AI becomes a natural extension of sound legal practice rather than an exception requiring special justification.10
Looking Ahead: AI as a Partner in Competence and Client Value Generative artificial intelligence is neither a passing trend nor an existential threat to the legal profession. As with prior technological shifts, its impact depends not on the tool itself, but on how attorneys choose to understand and use it. While ethical concerns surrounding AI are real and demand careful attention, they do not require a categorical rejection of AI; rather, they call for informed, deliberate adoption grounded in existing professional responsibility rules.
When used thoughtfully and with appropriate safeguards, generative AI can serve as a powerful complement to legal judgment, improving efficiency in drafting, research, discovery review, and administrative work while preserving the attorney’s central role as the ultimate decision-maker. Responsible use of AI can reduce costs, improve consistency and quality, and expand access to legal services, all without compromising ethical standards.
By understanding its capabilities and limitations, selecting appropriate tools, and maintaining independent judgment and ethical oversight, attorneys can ensure that AI strengthens rather than undermines the profession’s core commitments to competence, integrity, and client service.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent official guidance, binding authority, or the position of the Maryland State Bar Association or any other organization. Readers should not rely on this article as a substitute for independent legal research or consultation with a qualified attorney regarding specific situations or ethical obligations.
Adam M. Spence, Esq., is principal of Spence Law Group in Towson, focusing on trust and estate litigation. Over his 30-year career, he has become a recognized voice on legal ethics and technology. He currently serves on the MSBA AI Task Force and previously served on an MSBA Task Force that secured passage of Maryland’s Statute Against Financial Exploitation.
Nicole L. Bustard is a paralegal at Spence Law Group in Towson, where she focuses on writing, researching, and supporting the firm’s litigation services. She graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in History and Classical Studies in May 2024. She plans to start law school in the fall of 2026.
BY SHAKISHA A. MORGAN, ESQ.
I met a potential client named Brandy, a 50-something-year-old woman seeking probate advice regarding her mother’s home. For years, Brandy had been living with her mother, paying all the bills, and serving as her mother’s primary caregiver. The demands of caregiving had unfortunately strained Brandy’s relationship with her sister, who was much less involved in their mother’s affairs. Nearly two decades before Brandy’s mother passed, she signed a life estate deed leaving her home to Brandy and her sister. However, Brandy’s mother did not complete any further estate planning, leaving no will when she passed away. To complicate matters, Brandy’s sister passed away two years before their mother died. When Brandy tried to get control of her mother’s assets after she died, her sole goal was to ensure she could keep the family home because she could not afford to move. During my deed search, I found that the life estate deed granted the mother’s house to Brandy and her sister without a designation for joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. As such, Brandy and her sister’s
As Maryland considers (and reconsiders) adopting transfer-ondeath deeds, we, as practitioners, must evaluate our continued reliance on life estate deeds and consider the risks they pose when clients are not fully advised.
estate were tenants in common, and Brandy was now an owner of heirs’ property. This situation was also compounded by the fact that Brandy’s sister (survived by a husband and children) died intestate.
Brandy’s case is not uncommon. In my practice, I have encountered several individuals and families who were either unaware that the property they lived in was classified as heirs’ property, knew that the property title had not been legally transferred, but were confused about the consequences of an unclear title, or did not have the financial resources or familial support to navigate the process of clearing title. While these cases have involved some level of estate planning, such as a life estate deed, it seems that practitioners, clients, and heirs were operating under different assumptions about what the deed accomplished and its legal and practical consequences.
Life estate deeds remain a commonly used probate-avoidance tool in Maryland, particularly for homeowners seeking a lowcost solution. As Maryland considers (and reconsiders) adopting transfer-on-death deeds, we, as practitioners, must evaluate our continued reliance on life estate deeds and consider the risks they pose when clients are not fully advised. While life estate deeds can be effective in certain circumstances, we must be diligent in ensuring that their use does not create outcomes contrary to our client’s intent. This is especially relevant considering the possible unintended creation of heirs’ property, as was the case with Brandy’s mother.
Heirs’ property is typically created when a homeowner dies intestate, and their heirs inherit an undivided interest in the property as tenants in common. While intestate succession laws were created for this specific scenario, heirs’ property is the most unstable form of tenancy in common, putting wealth accumulation, family relationships, and housing security at the greatest risk.
By its nature, tenancy in common allows two or more persons to hold title to real estate in a manner that vests each “owner” with an undivided interest in the property. Each heir has the right to possess (i.e., right to use and enjoy) the entire parcel of property (hence, their undivided interest), but their ownership interests are only fractional shares of a whole parcel of land. Tenants in common do not share ownership of the entire parcel of land, nor do they receive the right of survivorship. Moreover, tenancy in common can vary: the tenants may hold equal shares or unequal shares. Tenancy in common interests are transferable, devisable, and descendible. Rather than consolidate property interests (as in a joint tenancy), tenancy in common property fractions upon the death of each interest holder. Simply put, tenants in common are multiple “owners” of real property that is not physically divided, with each owner holding their share until required (by agreement, operation of law, or other legal means) to part with it.
Though property ownership typically represents the single greatest economic asset for low and middle-income families, heirs’ property continues to be a very common form of family property ownership among socioeconomically disadvantaged and historically marginalized communities. In fact, the
Federation of Southern Cooperatives estimates that 60% of Black-owned land in the United States is held as heirs’ property.1 This exacerbates the glaring wealth gap that persists in the United States, where new research highlights that the modern racial wealth gap is growing despite increases in Black wealth. From 2019 to 2022, the most recent years in which the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances collected household wealth data, the mean gap in net worth between Black and white households grew from $841,900 to $1.15 million—a 38% increase2. Property ownership and inheritance should be a wealth accumulation tool, but the existence of heirs’ property greatly diminishes that desired return. When life estate deeds are used without comprehensive counseling, they frequently result in heirs’ property. In a common scenario, you will have a parent who deeds a life estate to themselves with the remainder to multiple adult children. The attorney who prepares the deed fails to include survivorship language or governance provisions in the planning, and then one or more of the remaindermen later dies intestate, divorces, incurs debts, or moves out of state. At the life tenant’s death, the property does not pass cleanly as intended. Instead, it turns into undivided interests among multiple heirs, and often across multiple generations. This results in fractional interests that multiply over time (because life and death continue to happen) when left unresolved. For clients who prepare life estate deeds with the intention of providing stability, preserving family, or transferring wealth, this outcome is devastating.
This problem with heirs’ property reflects both client misunderstanding and insufficient counseling at the time of drafting and execution. Often, clients are ignorant of what happens if a remainderman predeceases the client, the impact of creditor or divorce exposure of remaindermen, and why they still need a comprehensive estate plan that aligns with their goals.
Probate avoidance is a necessary function of estate planning, but it cannot become the only objective. We must ensure that our clients’ long-term ownership goals are reflected in our practice.
If Maryland adopts transfer-on-death deeds, it will likely reduce reliance on life estate deeds. However, it does not diminish the need for practitioners to know when and how to use them, and to inform clients fully of the benefits and risks.
1 www.federation.coop/land-retention
When used without proper counseling, life estate deeds can create heirs’ property, family conflict, and preventable loss of generational wealth. Maryland practitioners must resist the urge to simplify complex ownership issues and instead focus on aligning estate planning tools with client intent.
Heirs’ property is typically created when a homeowner dies intestate, and their heirs inherit an undivided interest in the property as tenants in common.
Do not treat life estate deeds as a default tool.
A life estate deed should be a deliberate choice, not a default. These deeds are often selected reflexively to avoid probate without evaluating whether they advance the client’s broader goals. If those goals include family harmony, flexibility, or asset protection, a life estate deed may be the wrong choice.
Going forward, require yourself to share and document at least one alternative planning option with the client before proceeding with a life estate deed.
Before drafting a life estate deed, practitioners should address how many remaindermen will take title, whether survivorship is intended, what happens if a remainderman dies first, what the client intends for the remaindermen to do with the property, and what the client’s tolerance for future family conflict is. If the client is unable to address these considerations, further conversation and planning are required. Clients must be well informed.
Going forward, prepare a mandatory pre-draft counseling checklist to be used by all the attorneys in your practice. Store the completed checklist in your client’s file.
2 Aditya Aladangady et al., Greater Wealth, Greater Uncertainty: Changes in Racial Inequality in the Survey of Consumer Finances, FEDS Notes (Oct. 18, 2023), federalreserve.gov/ econres/notes/feds-notes/greater-wealth-greater-uncertainty-changes-in-racial-inequality-in-the-survey-of-consumer-finances-20231018.html.
Probate avoidance is a necessary function of estate planning, but it cannot become the only objective. We must ensure that our clients’ long-term ownership goals are reflected in our practice.
If using a life estate deed, draft with precision.
When a life estate deed is appropriate, consider the following:
• Name remaindermen specifically, instead of using class gifts;
• Use survivorship language when it is consistent with the client’s intent;
• Prepare an aligned, full estate plan (powers of attorney and will or trust) or ensure the client has one already in addition to the life estate deed; and
• Document the counseling that you provide, including the heirs’ property risk.
Going forward, use a standardized life estate deed template that you can use intentionally, not mechanically.
Discuss alternatives, even if the client declines.
Practitioners should at least discuss revocable living trusts with successor provisions for real property, other forms of tenancy if applicable, transfer-on-death deed options if enacted, and incremental planning that preserves flexibility. These discussions should be memorialized as it is good practice and excellent risk management.
Going forward, prepare a one-page alternatives summary and have clients sign an acknowledgment if they choose the life estate deed instead.
Address governance.
Because life estate deeds address ownership—but not management, conflict resolution, or exit strategies (if there are no rights of survivorship)—discuss what the client’s desires are related to their heirs’ governance of the property.
Going forward, consider having your client explicitly state in writing their desires on dispute resolution and buyout options.
Morgan, Esq. is a learner, strategist, and connector with over a decade of legal experience. An educator at heart, Morgan is affectionately known as The Legacy Counselor™, and she is the Principal Attorney of The Morgan Firm, LLC.
BY MAX A. O’GRADY, ESQ., AND ROBERTO N. ALLEN, ESQ.
In 2025, there were more people in immigration detention than ever before, hitting a high of 68,400 detainees as of December 14, 2025.1 It is no secret that an aggressive detention and deportation policy is at the forefront of the current administration’s immigration agenda.2 Navigating and understanding these complex, fast-changing policies has become the day-to-day job of immigration lawyers, who must follow the bouncing ball to do the best they can for their clients in an intense, adversarial political climate.
Shifting Legal Interpretations at the Board of Immigration Appeals
Until May 15, 2025, virtually all noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection and who were later detained by immigration officials elsewhere within the United States were subject to discretionary detention under Section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).3 This meant they could apply to be released on bond or conditional parole (i.e., release on one’s own recognizance).4 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)5 has held for decades that noncitizens detained by immigration officials inside the United States are eligible to seek release on bond.6 Applying for release on bond has been a long-standing, regular practice of immigration attorneys for decades. In an immigration bond hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) is responsible for reviewing the equities of the noncitizen’s situation in exercising their discretion to decide whether the noncitizen should be released and the amount of the bond, if any.7
This paradigm shifted radically in May 2025, starting with the BIA case Matter of Q. Li 8 In that case, a Chinese national entered the United States by crossing the southern border without inspection or admission.9 Immigration officials briefly detained her at the border before releasing her on humanitarian parole.10 Two years later, now inside the United States, she was detained
again by immigration officials.11 While detained, she moved for release on an immigration bond.12
At the noncitizen’s bond hearing, the IJ crafted the novel legal interpretation that she was not eligible for release on bond under Section 236 of the INA because she had never been admitted to the United States.13 On appeal, the BIA agreed, holding that because the noncitizen had not been admitted, she remained an “alien seeking admission” and was therefore detained under Section 235 of the INA14 rather than Section 236.15 Under Section 235, there is no provision for release on bond.16 This quickly became the official policy of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which released an internal memo on July 8, 2025, explicitly adopting this legal interpretation.17 On September 5, 2025, the BIA decided Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 18 holding conclusively that under the INA, “Immigration Judges lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond to aliens . . . who are present in the United States without admission.”
As the BIA itself recognized in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, this incredibly broad, sweeping decision toppled decades of precedent and long-standing practice.19 IJ’s began refusing to hold bond hearings for noncitizens without admission due to a lack of jurisdiction, citing Matter of Yajure-Hurtado in their determination that the noncitizen was detained under Section 235 rather than Section 236 of the INA, and was therefore ineligible for release on bond.20
1 Number of People in ICE Detention Hits Record High, Data Shows, Guardian (Dec. 22, 2025), www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/ice-detentions-record immigration#:~:text=The%20 number%20of%20people%20in,held%20more%20than%2068%2C400%20people.
2 Id.
3 8 U.S.C. § 1226. There are criminal restrictions on a noncitizen’s eligibility to apply for release on bond, id. § 1226(c), which are beyond the scope of this Article.
4 See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 281 (2018) (referring to the “default rule” that aliens who are “already in the country” when they get detained may apply for release on bond); Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., Practice Advisory: Seeking Bond Hearings for Maldonado Bautista Class Members—Those Who Entered Without Inspection and Are Subject to Yajure-Hurtado 1–2 (Dec. 3, 2025), www.nwirp.org/uploads/2025/Maldonado%20Bautista%20Practice%20Advisory_12%203%202025.pdf.
5 The Department of Justice controls the immigration court system through its component branch, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0. The BIA is the appellate administrative tribunal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1, while the Immigration Courts serve as trial-level courts. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.9.
6 See, e.g., Matter of Patel, 15 I. & N. Dec. 666, 667 (BIA 1976), superseded by statute on other grounds, IIRIRA of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 100 Stat. 3009-585, as recognized in Matter of Valdez-Valdez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 703, 706–07 (BIA 1997); Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (citations omitted) (establishing a nine-factor test for eligibility for release on bond), abrogated on other grounds by Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 38–39 (1st Cir. 2021); Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 747, 747 (BIA 2023).
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19.
8 29 I. & N. Dec. 66 (BIA 2025).
9 Id. at 67.
10 See id. Humanitarian parole is one mechanism that immigration officers may use to permit a foreign national to enter the United States, but it is not an admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 70–71.
14 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
15 Matter of Q. Li, 29 I. & N. Dec. at 70.
16 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
17 ICE Memo: Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applications for Admission, Am. Immigr. Lawyers Ass’n (July 8, 2025), https://www.aila.org/ice-memo-interim-guidanceregarding-detention-authority-for-applications-for-admission.
18 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 225 (BIA 2025), vacated by, Maldonado-Bautista v. Santacruz, Jr., No. 25-cv-01873, Dkt. No. 116 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-7958 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).
19 See id. at 226.
20 See Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., supra note 4, at 1–2.
Since Matter of Yajure-Hurtado remains good law, practitioners in Maryland must continue relying on federal habeas orders to force EOIR to give their clients a bond hearing.
The Removal Defense Bar’s Response: Writ of Habeas Corpus
With no other option for freeing their clients from detention, the removal defense bar began petitioning the federal courts for writs of habeas corpus, a procedural mechanism usually associated with criminal detainees.21 Due to the prior availability of a bond hearing for virtually all immigration detainees, up until now, the writ of habeas corpus has had a smaller role in immigration practice.22
Now that IJ’s had shut the door on bond hearings, denying across the board that they had any jurisdiction to conduct the hearing under Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, immigration lawyers were frequently petitioning for writs of habeas corpus as soon as their clients got detained.23 In Maryland, United States District Court judges have largely granted these writs and ordering the government to give the noncitizen a fair bond hearing.24 In all of these decisions, the district court judges held that, consistent with long-standing precedent and practice, noncitizens who had not yet been admitted to the United States but who were detained while “already present in the United States” were subject to the “default rule” 25 of detention under Section 236 of the INA,26 and were therefore eligible to request release on bond. The federal judges were following the common sense principle that because these individuals were detained once inside the United States, they were no longer actively “seeking admission,” i.e., a lawful entry into the United States.27 As such, they were not subject to mandatory detention under Section 235 of the INA,28 but rather discretionary detention under Section 236, and therefore must be given a bond hearing.29
21 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255; see also Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., supra note 4.
The “Bond Eligible Class”: Maldonado-Bautista v. Santacruz, Jr.
On November 25, 2025, from what started as a habeas corpus case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a “nationwide class of noncitizens who are in immigration detention and being denied access to a bond hearing based on the government’s allegation that they entered the United States without admission or inspection”30 in Maldonado-Bautista v. Santacruz, Jr.31 The “Bond Eligible Class” is defined as follows: All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b) (1), or § 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination.32
The court granted declaratory relief to the entire class, holding that class members are detained under Section 236 of the INA33 and are therefore eligible to apply for release on bond.34 On December 18, 2025, the court entered an Amended Order and Final Judgment in the case, declaring again that the Bond Eligible Class members must be given bond hearings, as well as vacating the July 2025 ICE policy35 that all noncitizens who have not been admitted are subject to mandatory detention.36 The court held that because the conclusion in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado is irreconcilable with the statutory language, that case is “no longer controlling.”37 Despite these clear federal court orders, the government instructed IJ’s not to honor
22 Habeas petitions in the immigration context have long been used only for noncitizens who are detained post-removal order, a subject which is beyond the scope of this Article. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
23 See George Tzamaras & Belle Woods, Am. Immigr. Lawyer’s Ass’n, AILA: BIA’s Decision Ignores Decades of Precedent, Stripping Immigration Judges of Bond Authority (Sept. 8, 2025), www. aila.org/bia-s-decision-ignores-decades-of-precedent-stripping-immigration-judges-of-bond-authority.
24 See, e.g., Ulloa-Orellana v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-00592 (D. Md. Feb. 18, 2026); Lopez-Lopez v. Noem, No. 26-00008 (D. Md. Jan. 30, 2026); Villanueva-Funes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03860 (D. Md. Jan. 13, 2026); Alarcon v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03605 (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2025); Hernandez-Lugo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03434, Dkt. No. 15 at *1 (D. Md. Nov. 25, 2025); Velasquez v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3215 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2025); Leal-Hernandez v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02428 (D. Md. Aug. 24, 2025). But see Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, Dkt. No. 213-1 at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that any noncitizen who has not been admitted to the United States is detained under Section 235 of the INA and is therefore ineligible for release on bond).
25 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018).
26 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
27 See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A).
28 Id. § 1225.
29 Id. § 1226; see Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., supra note 4, at 2.
30 Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., supra note 4, at 1.
31 No. 25-cv-01873 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-7958 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025), Dkt. No. 82.
32 Id. at Dkt. No. 93, *4. The requirement in section (2) speaks only to the instant detention, from which the noncitizen is seeking release. Therefore, a noncitizen who was detained upon first arrival to the United States, subsequently released, then detained again once already inside the United States, so long as they meet the other requirements, would be a member of the Bond Eligible Class. See Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., supra note 4, at 4.
33 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
34 Maldonado-Bautista, No. 25-cv-01873, Dkt. No. 93 at *46.
35 See supra note 17.
36 Maldonado-Bautista, No. 25-cv-01873, Dkt. No. 94 at *2.
37 Id. at Dkt. No. 93, *20.
the judgment in Maldonado-Bautista, and that Matter of YajureHurtado still controlled.38 The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2025, at which time the order was not stayed.
A Short-Lived Win for the Removal Defense Bar: Judicial Vacatur of Matter of Yajure-Hurtado
By late January 2026, when it became clear that the government did not intend to follow the court’s order and continued to deny bond based on Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, the petitioners moved to enforce the judgment. On February 18, 2026, the judge granted that motion and vacated Matter of Yajure-Hurtado under the Administrative Procedure Act.39 In so doing, with citations to Marbury v. Madison40 and to the Federalist Papers on the point of separation of powers, U.S. District Judge Sykes emphatically scorned the government defendants for their recalcitrance towards the judiciary and for “choos[ing] to privilege an executive interpretation of law over the judiciary’s.”41
The victory for the removal defense bar was short-lived. On March 6, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the order vacating Matter of Yajure-Hurtado “is temporarily stayed pending a ruling on the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.”42 In addition, the Ninth Circuit stayed the order certifying the Bond Eligible Class for all federal districts other than the Central District of California.43 Therefore, Yajure-Hurtado is controlling law for the moment in Maryland. The pendulum appears to have swung back in favor of the government’s harsh detention policy for now. The battle is far from over. The removal defense bar continues to push for the rule of law and to ensure that detained immigrants are treated fairly and are afforded due process.
WHAT PRACTITIONERS SHOULD EXPECT MOVING FORWARD
As of March 16, 2026, the principal case in Maldonado-Bautista is still on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, as is the judicial vacatur. The reader is advised to update the research on this point or to contact the authors, as Maldonado-Bautista and similar cases are moving so quickly that some of the information may be outdated by the time this article goes to print.
38 See Nw. Immigrant Rts. Project, et al., supra note 4, at 4.
39 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559.
40 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803).
41 Maldonado-Bautista, No. 25-cv-01873, Dkt. No. 116 at *16.
42 Maldonado-Bautista, No. 26-1044, Dkt. No. 5.1 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026).
43 Id.
44 See Mendez-Trigueros v. Guadian, No. 26-cv-00205, Dkt. No. 13 at *3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2026) (finding that the noncitizen was impermissibly denied bond based on a capricious determination that he was a flight risk and ordering that the government either immediately release the noncitizen or provide him a fair bond hearing).
It is a virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to decide these monumental issues, regardless of the ultimate result in the Ninth Circuit appeal. Since Matter of Yajure-Hurtado remains good law, practitioners in Maryland must continue relying on federal habeas orders to force EOIR to give their clients a bond hearing. When their client then has their bond hearing, practitioners should be prepared for the government to push back particularly on the flight risk factor to deny them bond. If the Immigration Judge were then to deny bond on a baseless finding that the noncitizen is a flight risk, the practitioner should go back to the habeas court and file a motion for an order to show cause as to why the noncitizen should be found ineligible for release on bond.44
Until this issue of whether noncitizens detained inside the United States are eligible for bond is resolved, it is crucial for the practitioner to file a habeas case as soon as their client gets detained, before even filing for release on bond, to ensure that a federal judge is overseeing the detention and that a fair bond hearing is indeed held.
The law is constantly changing, and the whole legal system is constantly in flux. Right now, for immigrants and immigration lawyers alike, it feels very much like we are in an uphill battle that is becoming ever more difficult. Despite all this, it is crucial that practitioners maintain motivation and the will to fight for the rule of law and to zealously advocate for their detained immigrant clients.
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful and insightful contributions of Daniel Smulow, Esq., Senior Counsel and Director of Federal Litigation at Griffith Immigration Law, Baltimore Immigration Judge 2023–2025.
Max A. O’Grady, Esq., graduated from Maryland Carey Law in May 2024, where he served as the executive articles editor for Volume 83 of the Maryland Law Review He is an associate attorney at Witherup Allen Law, LLC, in Burtonsville, where his practice areas include immigration law and bankruptcy.
Roberto N. Allen, Esq., is a 1997 graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law. He is the managing partner of Witherup Allen Law, LLC, where he practices immigration, bankruptcy, and employment law.
BY PATRICK M. KLEMZ, ESQ.
IN THE FINAL SEASON OF the HBO series Succession, family drama ensues when someone finds an undated will signed by conservative news mogul and patriarch Logan Roy, naming his son Kendall as the CEO upon Logan’s death. Obviously, this is fantasy. Dated or undated, a will has no direct legal bearing on who has the authority to run a corporation. While probate could shift the balance of stock ownership in time, nothing would change immediately. The owners of the controlling interest directly, or indirectly through a board of directors, appoint the new manager of the business.
The mundane truth is that public corporations have comprehensively documented succession plans and procedures, leaving no room for HBO-style drama, and closely held businesses often have no plan at all. This is backwards. Managing owners of a closely held business have more reason, not less, to plan for their own demise and incapacity because the ownership base, like the shareholders in a public corporation, may not be organized or informed enough to act.
Below are five business disasters that can unfold when the manager of a closely held business dies having failed to plan for their succession.
Sadly, this is the most common scenario with single member limited liability companies or S corporations managed by a single member-manager or shareholderofficer. That person did not store records in an organized fashion or may not have kept management records at all. After they die, the heirs find statements for the operating account and possibly investment accounts holding the capital reserves. Then, one of the heirs, having been appointed personal representative (PR) by the court, goes to the bank with the letters of administration, believing they can transfer the funds to the estate account to pay the mortgage and taxes on the house left to the heirs.
Yet, what does the bank say? That the PR does not have authority granted by the corporation or LLC to transact with the bank. Only the hermit holds that authority according to the bank’s records. The heirs then decide to authorize one amongst them
Managing owners of a closely held business have more reason, not less, to plan for their own demise and incapacity because the ownership base, like the shareholders in a public corporation, may not be organized or informed enough to act.
When a prospective client calls with an estate for a small business owner born before World War II, a worrisome scenario emerges. It typically goes like this: The mogul sets up a business and it is wildly successful, so he sets up another and another. By the time of the mogul’s death, he is the operator of five or six similar businesses, perhaps established in different states. During his lifetime, the mogul treated the operating accounts of the business as his personal property and commingled funds. The mogul signed licensing or profit-sharing agreements between the multiple businesses and signed the deals on behalf of both. The mogul issued salaries to himself or family members with no regard for the value of the services furnished (if any).
This type of self-serving behavior was par for the course with businessmen of older generations. Today, courts label businesses operated in such a manner as shams and may allow creditors to reach the owner’s personal assets. Corporations and other limited liability entities protect the private assets of the owners, but only if those assets are separately held and managed with fairness and fidelity to the entity. In truth, a lot of bad behavior by a manager can be remedied while the manager is still in the picture. However, if the mogul dies unexpectedly, their PR may have to contend with aggressive creditors or an upset family member who received a piece of one of the businesses long ago.
to serve as the new bank signatory, pursuant to the business’s organizational documents. But where are the organizational documents? On file with the state? Which state? The state where the hermit died? The state where the hermit lived in 1977? Delaware or Wyoming because of their favorable laws? Florida because that is where the hermit planned to retire? The heirs must spend time and money to bring the chaos under control. The hermit entrepreneur could have handed his heirs a successful business, but, because of poor record keeping and organization, they instead inherited a headache.
Imagine a construction firm doing asbestos removal on a college campus over the summer when the owner passes away. The banks freeze the firm’s operating accounts until a new officer can be appointed, which cannot happen until the PR receives letters of administration from the court. Suddenly it is late August. The school wants to open the building, but it looks like a mess and might even be too dangerous for occupants. The PR might not be able to step in even if they possessed the training and knowledge to do so. For example, the banks typically will not accept the court’s letters of administration as adequate authorization to add the PR as the signatory to the business operating account. Often, they want a new banking resolution, as mentioned above. If the PR cannot write checks or direct deposits, she cannot borrow money or collect on accounts receivable, cannot pay employees or subcontractors, cannot purchase bonds, supplies, or materiel. The PR is stuck.
The following is a true practice anecdote documented in lengthy federal court proceedings. An American arms contractor executed a large contract with a foreign sovereign in late 2004. The foreign sovereign refused to make payments required under the contract, so the owner went driving through a war zone to demand the payment of funds. En route, somebody shot up his car, killing the owner and one of his employees. (Draw your own conclusion about who ordered the hit—nobody has ever been
charged in the murders, but one Iraqi official was convicted in absentia for corruption relating to the same arms contract). The business tried to carry on, but ultimately failed to complete the contract. Nobody else could really get the foreign sovereign to release the capital needed to move forward and both sides claimed breach of contract. 20 years later, the matter is still not fully resolved.
Sibling rivalries account for most probate disputes and business partners make for the worst “frenemies.” For example, picture three brothers who never liked each other, but inherited the family business because the patriarch of the family had illusions about them working well together. The oldest brother dies without a will and his shares go to his two children under the Maryland intestacy rules. The youngest brother then dies with a will that names his wife as PR and leaves her everything. Now she is stuck with 1/3 of the stock and cannot exercise any control under the bylaws. The surviving middle brother hated the younger brother because he got equal interest in the business from their father, even though he was never involved in the business except in board matters, and refuses to give his widow anything but the most basic information about the affairs of the business. Meanwhile, the children of the oldest brother, happy to remain passive investors and traveling abroad, cannot be bothered to attend a shareholder meeting.
So what can the wife do? Does she sue her brother-in-law to make him buy out her interest in the company? Does she continue to trust someone who hated her dead husband to do right by her in distributing the business’s income going forward? And, even before all that, how does she tell the probate court how much the stock is worth when her brotherin-law will not furnish her with information except the bare minimum guaranteed to minority shareholders. She is stuck because her husband did not account for the pettiness of his older brother before he died.
Elder exploitation, sadly, happens all the time. Both the District of Columbia and Maryland have robust laws to prevent elder exploitation that are easy to apply when the elderly person has clearly become incapacitated or their free will negated by pressure or subtle coercion— the legal doctrine of “undue influence.” But more typically that is not the case. Perhaps the elderly person just really likes their younger partner. They know they have more money than they can easily spend in their remaining lifetime, so why not have a little help spending it?
The most important resources to assess in business succession planning are the people already involved.
The business succession problem arises in this scenario when the elderly person loses the ability to run a complex business operation and their dubious partner steps in to take over, which never goes well. The values of the officious intermeddler might not match those of the organization. The partners or family members may not like the officious intermeddler to begin with because of their own judgments about the appropriateness of the relationship. This type of situation can easily be avoided if the owner realizes ahead of time that dying at his desk is not a realistic plan. If they do not select a successor and properly prepare the successor before losing the ability to lead, an unprepared successor might run the business into ruin.
Conclusion
Most would agree that spending a lifetime to build a business only for it to fall apart soon after your death makes no sense. Unfortunately, a business that has value as a going concern can lose that value very quickly through the mismanagement of successors. Sometimes the best option is to sell the majority interest to a proven manager who then will keep generating income for the heirs and minority shareholders. Or an independent trustee of the stock can keep a family successor manager from making everyone in the family a victim of their bad business sense. Or perhaps the best choice is to divide up the enterprise and leave each heir responsible for their own success or failure (although this did not work out well for Alexander the Great or Charlemagne).
In truth, no universal answer avails itself. The only sound course for the owner is to recognize that their leadership will eventually fail, which is often the hardest step, and to make a plan that takes full stock of the available resources. The most important resources to assess in business succession planning are the people already involved. Knowing what they can and cannot do will likely make the difference between carrying on a successful legacy or creating a business succession nightmare.
M. Klemz, Esq. is an estates and trusts and business attorney with the Rockville, Maryland law firm Miller, Miller & Canby.
Competitive pricing for firms of all sizes, even solos
Bundled services so your firm can keep its focus on the success of the practice
No cost to your firm allowing you to manage plan expenses
BY NICHOLAS PROY, ESQ.
Why this matters in Maryland (and why now)
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have gone from a novelty to a tool lawyers use daily. AI tools can draft text that looks professional, produce citations that look right (often even formatted correctly), and answer questions with a confidence that can feel like competence. The problem is that “fluent” isn’t the same as “accurate,” and the ethical and procedural consequences of AI inaccuracies fall on the lawyer. If you’ve tried various AI tools, you already know how convincing they can sound. The question is what happens when that confidence is misplaced.
Maryland lawyers don’t need to fear AI tools. But we do need to treat them as what they are: powerful drafting tools that can produce
Maryland lawyers don’t need to fear AI tools. But we do need to treat them as what they are: powerful drafting tools that can produce “hallucinations” and false authority, so you need a verification habit.
“hallucinations” and false authority, so you need a verification habit.
When does AI-assisted work become “your” work?
AI tools can produce polished text (and even software, discussed below) without traditional drafting. For lawyers, this raises two issues: (1) competence and whether a “prompt-and-paste” workflow satisfies the standard of care; and (2) authorship and whether an AI-assisted work product crosses the threshold into human authorship for purposes of copyright and related IP protections. This isn’t just an academic debate either. This affects everything from how a firm protects its own writing to how lawyers counsel clients who procure software or other creative deliverables.
I treat AI like what it is: very fast drafting assistants that sometimes just make things up out of thin air. I don’t assume AI is right all of the time.
Either way, the point is the same: A straight “prompt-andpaste” approach is hard to justify as competent lawyering. If you can’t explain why it’s reliable or what you did to check it, then you’re outsourcing your professional judgment to a machine.
The baseline in Maryland: the duties don’t change, but your workflow has to adapt
The Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) AI and Legal Technology Task Force recently published An Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies (The Overview). The Overview’s message is simple: generative AI can assist lawyers, but these tools introduce unique risks, such as hallucinations, biased outputs, and overreliance. Lawyers must use these tools in a manner consistent with the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
While The Overview is advisory, it expressly warns that it may become outdated. So, I treat it as a checklist instead of a permission slip. The core Maryland obligations implicated by generative AI use map cleanly onto day-to-day law practice:
COMPETENCE: Md. Rule 19-301.1 requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. In practice, that means understanding the tool’s capabilities and limits, and validating what you rely on.
DILIGENCE: Md. Rule 19-301.3 requires acting with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing
a client. In practice, that means using AI to support timely, careful work without cutting corners on verification.
SUPERVISION: If a nonattorney assistant is involved, the supervising lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the assistant’s conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s professional responsibilities. The same supervision logic applies to AI-assisted work product.
CONFIDENTIALITY: AI tools licensed by third parties can introduce disclosure risk. You must take measures to prevent exposure of confidential information.
CANDOR AND ACCURACY: If AI drafting leads to false or inaccurate information in a filing, you now have a professional responsibility issue, and not simply a “tech glitch.”
FEES AND CLIENT COMMUNICATION: If AI increases efficiency, fees must reflect the time actually required. The Overview is clear that lawyers cannot charge hourly for time saved by AI.
This is where AI stops being theoretical. “Reasonable” has to show up as something you actually do, every time. So, what does “reasonable” actually look like in practice? That’s where a verification procedure helps.
A practical trust-but-verify workflow
I treat AI like what it is: very fast drafting assistants that sometimes just make things up out of thin air. I don’t assume AI is right all of the time. Either way, I’m still responsible for: (1) deciding what to use, (2) verifying it, and (3) signing it.
Here are the steps I follow when I use AI:
Decide what kind of task this is before I even open the AI chat window. Some uses are low-risk (such as document formatting and tone checks), some are medium-risk (such as summaries and issuespotting), and some are high-risk (such as research, filings, and advice). The higher the stakes, the tighter I keep the prompts, and the heavier the verification.
Don’t read AI outputs as persuasive prose. Instead, turn the output into a checklist of claims. AI can sound convincing at the paragraph level, which is exactly why verification is easier when I break the output into discrete, testable claims. I literally break it into: (1) what it says the law is, (2) what it says the facts are, and (3) what it’s telling me to do next. My job is to verify claims, not to admire AI’s prose.
Do a quick “how could this be wrong?” pass. Before I pull sources, I’ll run a structured “stress test” prompt to force the model to surface uncertainty. One trick I use: ask the AI to list its assertions, then give me the best counterargument or the missing facts that would change the answer. If done well, this should produce an honest map of where the model is guessing and where my verification effort should focus.
The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that copyright protects only material that is the product of human creativity, and that works containing AI-generated material may be registrable only for the human-authored elements (with the AI-generated portions excluded).
I’ll run the prompt through twice (ideally with a different tool or a fresh session). If the two AI runs agree, fantastic, but I’ll still manually verify. If they don’t agree, that’s my cue to stop debating the chatbot and go straight to primary sources. To keep the second run independent, I won’t paste the first answer verbatim. Instead, I’ll re-ask the question from scratch. Then I’ll ask the second model to identify missing authority, hidden assumptions, and likely hallucinations, and to resolve discrepancies by consulting the record (statutes, cases, rules, and transcripts), not by “voting” between models.
I treat AI as a starting point, not as my only research. If I’m going to cite it, I’ll pull it and read it (whatever the “it” is). I pull statutes and rules from official sources and read the underlying authorities before citing them. I’ll retrieve cases from trusted databases, read the relevant portions, and confirm that each authority supports the exact proposition asserted. This isn’t optional for me because it ties directly to competence and to the signature-certification logic reflected in Md. Rule 1-311(b).
I keep at least a short note in the file about what was asked, what was used, and what was verified. I’m not creating a dossier, but documenting just enough to be able to retrace my steps later. This is less about defending my AI use and more about demonstrating reasonable diligence.
Once you’ve got a workflow you trust, two other issues show up fast: (1) who owns the output; and (2) how you keep client information out of the wrong hands (confidentiality).
Authorship and IP: “human authorship” still matters for copyright protection
There’s an IP angle too; it’s not just how AI raises ethical issues. Interestingly, AI raises authorship issues. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that copyright protects only material that is the product of human creativity, and that works containing AI-generated material may be registrable only for the humanauthored elements (with the AI-generated portions excluded).
The D.C. Circuit reinforced this stance in Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025), which affirmed the denial of a copyright registration for a work described as “autonomously generated by AI” on the ground that the Copyright Act requires human authorship. The Copyright Office’s 2025 report on copyrightability adds a practical point for everyday users: with generally available generative AI, prompts alone don’t provide sufficient control over the expressive elements of an output that’s required for copyright registration.
This has a substantial impact on intellectual property practices because “ownership” questions surface quickly when a client expects an exclusive asset, such as software, documentation, training materials, marketing copies, or other deliverables. If the most valuable portion of the deliverable is largely AI-generated (with minimal human expressive control), the client’s copyright leverage may be thinner than they assume, and contract terms become even more important. Indemnification clauses regarding AI-generated IP may be a good negotiation point.
A quick IP checklist for AI-assisted deliverables
● Identify what is AI-generated versus what is human-authored, and document the human contribution (editing, selection, arrangement, and original expressive inputs).
● If copyright protection matters, do more than prompt: exercise creative control through revision, curation, and arrangement, and keep a record of that work.
● For client software procurement (or outsourced development), ask about AI use in the development pipeline, and negotiate provenance representations, open-source compliance, IP warranties/indemnities, and clear ownership/assignment language.
● Where copyright protection is uncertain, strengthen contractual protections: confidentiality, access controls, and license terms that don’t depend solely on statutory exclusivity.
Confidentiality: the easiest way to create a preventable mess
In The Overview, confidentiality is treated as especially important when using third-party AI providers. Prompts and outputs can expose client information to unauthorized parties.
Two practical rules reduce most risk. My default is simple: no client names or
secrets in generalpurpose tools. If you cannot explain where the data goes, who can see it, and how it’s retained, don’t put confidential facts into the prompt. Second, abstract the facts and use placeholders. When you want drafting help, you often don’t need client names, specific dates, or unique identifying facts. Instead, use placeholders and describe the issue at a higher level.
Even if you strip names, distinctive facts can still identify the client. That’s an important reminder because “anonymizing” by removing the client’s name isn’t always enough if the fact pattern is distinctive enough.
Supervision: if your staff uses AI, you still own the result Md. Rule 19-305.3(b) requires that a lawyer with direct supervisory authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure a nonattorney’s conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s obligations.
For AI, the supervision translation is practical: if your staff uses AI in drafting or research, define what is permitted, what is prohibited, and what must be verified by a lawyer. And if AI is used to generate a first draft of a filing, the lawyer must still read and verify what is filed, particularly citations and any quoted propositions.
In short, you can delegate drafting and research, but you cannot delegate professional responsibility.
Candor and “citation laundering”: the risk is being wrong without realizing it
The most common AI failure mode in legal writing isn’t “bad analysis.” Think of this as a false, but plausible-sounding, authority where a citation looks accurate. However, the underlying case may not exist, or it’s a real case that’s cited for a proposition it doesn’t support.
The Overview warns attorneys to be sensitive to plausible-sounding assertions that lack legal or factual grounding when using AI for research or drafting. This is a core principle of our “candor toward the tribunal” obligations under Md. Rule 19-303.3.
Luckily, the fix for this is straightforward: implement a “no cite without manual read” rule. If it appears in a filing, someone (preferably the signing lawyer) has pulled the primary sources and confirmed their accuracy. This isn’t perfectionism—it’s basic risk control.
You
should understand the tool, guard client data, communicate appropriately, adjust fees to reflect efficiency, and verify AI-assisted work. Mezu puts real consequences behind the same theme. If hallucinations make it into a brief or other filing, especially citations, the court will treat it as a lawyer problem and not an AI problem.
Fees: if AI saves time, billing has to reflect it
Fees should reflect the time actually required, consistent with The Overview’s interpretation of Md. Rule 19-301.5, which requires attorneys to adjust their fees to reflect AI efficiencies. The Overview ties fees to time actually required, warns against billing for time AI saved, and allows AI tool costs to be billed like other expenses with client consent.
Practically, this points to two best practices:
1. Pay attention to when AI materially reduces the time it takes to complete a task. Make sure your billing reflects what actually happened, not a pre-AI estimate of effort.
2. If you intend to pass along AI-related tool costs to a client, treat that like any other third-party expense. Disclose the costs up front, explain how they will be charged, and obtain the client’s informed consent in advance.
This is one area where a short paragraph in your engagement letter may prevent future disputes.
Bottom line: AI can help, but it can’t be a substitute for your judgment
This developing landscape isn’t a reason to avoid AI. Just don’t outsource your judgment to a system.
The MSBA’s guidance is consistent with this. You should understand the tool, guard client data, communicate
appropriately, adjust fees to reflect efficiency, and verify AIassisted work. If hallucinations make it into a brief or other filing, especially citations, the court will treat it as a lawyer problem and not an AI problem.
A lawyer who uses AI with verification habits isn’t taking reckless shortcuts. They are adopting a tool responsibly, much as they would any other productivity or research technology. The core habits are familiar: read what you cite, verify what you assert, protect what must remain confidential, and bill honestly. AI doesn’t change our core duties, but it does change the ways we can fail at them, unless we change our workflows.
Nicholas Proy, Esq., is a solo practitioner in Carroll County, Maryland, and is admitted to practice law in Maryland and Pennsylvania. His practice focuses on estate planning, estate administration, and small business law. He earned his B.A. in intelligence studies from Mercyhurst University and his J.D. from the University of Maryland Carey School of Law (Maryland Carey Law). He also holds multiple CompTIA A+, Network+, Security+, and Server+ computer certifications. He is a proud member of the MSBA and has previously published works in the Maryland Bar Journal and 2600: The Hacker Quarterly
BY THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J. FINIFTER
The author serves as a judge in Maryland. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and are intended for educational purposes.
Introduction
Litigation is often described as a search for justice, but for parties entangled in complex disputes, it can also become a slow erosion of value—financial, relational, and human.
Early in my judicial career, I presided over two related cases involving principals of a closely held company who litigated for nearly a decade over a multifaceted business dispute. Their bench trial spanned 15 days over three weeks and required a special auditor as well as accountants for each side. By the time the matter concluded post-trial motions, appellate review, and eventual settlement, the combined professional fees were likely astronomical.
This experience highlights a broader reality in complex litigation: the longer disputes persist, the more value can be lost even before a decision is rendered.
Each layer of factual development—— multiple parties, voluminous discovery, overlapping expert analyses——adds both time and expense.
In financially intricate cases—such as partnership dissolutions, contract disputes, or family property divisions—time is rarely neutral. In cases involving complex financial arrangements, even a short delay can materially affect the economic value at stake—as assets depreciate, opportunities are missed, and costs accumulate—a truth apparent to anyone who has traced how these burdens compound over time.
The longer a dispute lingers, the more the underlying subject matter—whether a business, real estate, or investment—can lose value. In such settings, delay is not merely procedural; it is a silent and compounding adversary.
As disputes grow in complexity, so too do their costs. Each layer of factual development—multiple parties, voluminous discovery, overlapping expert analyses— adds both time and expense. Cases involving expert witnesses whose opinions depend on ongoing fact discovery are particularly vulnerable: new evidence often requires further review, supplemental opinions, and additional preparation on both sides before the matter is trial-ready.
These dynamics create an almost gravitational pull toward delay. The more intricate the factual matrix, the greater the administrative and professional friction. It is within this tangle that efficiency—both procedural and strategic—can preserve or destroy the very value the parties seek to vindicate.
Beyond financial consequences, conflict exacts an emotional cost that is often underestimated. Parties commonly begin litigation believing that a judicial determination will bring closure, only to encounter prolonged stress, uncertainty, and fatigue as the process unfolds. Even experienced litigants can find it difficult to make sound decisions when anxiety and attrition take hold.
Heightened tension is particularly pronounced when meaningful discussions between the parties or counsel are deferred. This can exacerbate stress, impair judgment, and complicate decision-making, demonstrating that the hidden costs of litigation extend beyond financial loss to the very human dimensions of dispute.
If delay and complexity erode value, efficiency restores it. Courts, counsel, and litigants alike share a stake in processes that move cases forward with clarity and purpose. Timely scheduling orders, disciplined discovery, and realistic trial dates can convert uncertainty into structure—an essential antidote to the entropy of prolonged litigation.
In recent years, virtual and online platforms have shown notable promise in advancing these goals. When feasible, remote scheduling conferences and motions hearings can conserve resources for all involved, reducing travel and waiting time while maintaining procedural integrity. These modest efficiencies, multiplied across a docket, can make a significant difference in both cost and morale.
Procedural efficiency is not merely an administrative virtue; it is a form of respect for the parties, for their resources, and for the judicial process itself.
Litigation, at its best, resolves disputes through the structured application of law to fact. Yet resolution is not always synonymous with judgment. Some disputes, particularly those burdened by complexity or emotion, achieve truer closure through dialogue than decree.
Litigation, at its best, resolves disputes through the structured application of law to fact. Yet resolution is not always synonymous with judgment. Some disputes, particularly those burdened by complexity or emotion, achieve truer closure through dialogue than decree.
In my experience—and that of many of my colleagues—when parties are given the opportunity to confer before testimony begins, they often discover a path to narrow the issues or resolve the case entirely. These moments remind us that resolution is not always the product of persuasion, but of perspective.
The judicial process exists to serve justice, not inertia. When participants—whether judges, lawyers, or litigants—engage with that spirit of resolution, the system fulfills its highest purpose: not merely to decide, but to restore.
The visible costs of litigation are easy to calculate, but the hidden ones—time lost, relationships frayed, opportunities foregone—often are not. By acknowledging the full spectrum of costs, judges, counsel, and litigants can approach disputes more strategically and preserve value in ways that extend beyond the courtroom.
The Honorable Michael J. Finifter is the chief judge of the Baltimore County Circuit Court and Maryland’s Third Judicial Circuit. He has served as a designated judge for Maryland’s Business and Technology Case-Management Program since 2002. A former certified public accountant, he holds an LL.M. in taxation and has taught as adjunct faculty at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
BY I. DEANDREI DRUMMOND, ESQ., AIGP, CIPM (IAPP), CIPP/US
The world stands on the threshold of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), an era defined by the convergence of digital, physical, and biological technologies.
threshold of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), an era defined by the convergence of digital, physical, and biological technologies. Artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, quantum computing, and data analytics are reshaping how organizations operate, how decisions are made, and how risks are managed.1 For the legal profession, this revolution represents both an existential challenge and a generational opportunity. Lawyers must adapt to new tools, new client expectations, and new categories of risk. Those who embrace technological fluency, ethical foresight, and data-driven strategy will become indispensable partners in a rapidly transforming economy.
But this is nothing new. We have been here before.
Those of us entering mid-life (or deeply immersed in it) have lived legal careers shaped by constant change. When I entered college in 1992, I had a word processor. When I graduated, I carried a laptop. In fact, my class at Wake Forest was the last not required to have a laptop upon entry. The 1990s and 2000s marked the end of the Third Industrial Revolution, a period defined by the rise of automation and the integration of computer technology.
In law school, we used books for legal research. We were taught to Shepardize cases using printed volumes. Yet, we were introduced early to Westlaw and Lexis and given free login
The term "Fourth Industrial Revolution" was coined by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum. It describes a period in which emerging technologies blur the boundaries between the physical, digital, and biological worlds.
credentials. I am confident that my generation bridged the gap between book-based research and internet-based legal research. Similarly, my first law firm had a law library and a librarian, though by the time I graduated, most of my research was done using Westlaw or Lexis.
When I entered the legal profession in 1999, I joined a local firm. I had heard stories about the struggles law graduates faced during the recession of 1990–91.2 But this was the dotcom era. Wall Street bulls were running, and it was a great time to be a corporate and securities attorney. That excitement ended abruptly in 2000. On March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ Composite Index peaked; by October 2002, it had fallen 77%.3 The legal market was crushed.4 Young associates were nervous. Transformation and uncertainty had already impacted my career.
The term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” was coined by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum. It describes a period in which emerging technologies blur the boundaries between the physical, digital, and biological worlds.
Unlike previous industrial shifts, the 4IR is characterized by velocity, scope, and systems impact. It is not one technology but the convergence of many:
Artificial intelligence and machine learning; The Internet of Things (IoT) and smart devices; Robotics and automation; Blockchain and digital identity; Biotechnology and human augmentation; and Quantum computing and advanced analytics.
1 mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-are-industry-4-0-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-and-4ir#/ 2 bls.gov/opub/mlr/1994/06/art1full.pdf#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20recession%20officially%20started%20in,downturn%20was%20mild%20compared%20to%20previous%20 contractions
3 sofi.com/learn/content/tech-bubble/#:~:text=The%20tech%2Dheavy%20Nasdaq%20index,to%20its%20peak%20until%202015. https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/history/ moments/2000-dot-com-bubble
4 wired.com/2003/02/tech-bust-takes-toll-on-lawyers/#:~:text=The%20shutdowns%20come%20as%20firms,Attorney%20Placement%20in%20Palo%20Alto
A substantial share of large law firm leaders expect generative AI to reduce billable hours, yet only a small minority report changing or planning to change billing practices.
pricing model, will create immediate margin pressure. If lawyers complete more work in fewer hours, clients will demand lower bills or push back against time entries that feel inflated relative to perceived effort.
Even when demand remains strong, the “hours per matter” denominator falls, threatening revenue unless firms raise rates, shift to value-based pricing, or expand volume.
These technologies are transforming industries at an exponential pace, challenging regulatory frameworks and redefining the role of legal professionals.
The first impacts of technological convergence are just beginning to be felt, and they will be profound. We are already seeing legal processes automated. AI-driven systems increasingly handle routine tasks once performed by junior lawyers and paralegals. Contract review and analysis tools can extract and flag key risks in seconds. Legal research platforms powered by generative AI can draft memos, summarize cases, and suggest strategies. E-discovery tools use predictive coding to sort through massive datasets with high accuracy.
Are you getting nervous? What does this mean for your job? What is the result? The billable hour model is under threat. Lawyers will be required to deliver sound legal judgment, not just documents. You will be needed to analyze and explain the results of your algorithmic tool. You are safe as long as you adapt.
Clients already use AI and believe they can resolve simple legal problems themselves. They expect their lawyers, whether inhouse or at a firm, to leverage technology for efficiency, and they expect that efficiency to be reflected in the bottom line.
There is a simple economic logic at the heart of the 4IR: when technology reduces the time needed to produce an output, prices should fall. Legal work has historically been priced by effort, reflected in the billable-hour model. Generative AI and automation change that calculus.
Industry surveys reflect this tension. A substantial share of large law firm leaders expect generative AI to reduce billable hours, yet only a small minority report changing or planning to change billing practices. That combination, less time spent but the same
Taken together, the 4IR points to a legal market that can continue to grow. Routine work will likely become cheaper, while premium advisory and tech-enabled delivery become more profitable. Alternative legal service providers and managed services will capture a larger share of standardized work. Firms that modernize pricing and operations will protect margins; firms that cling to labor-intensive models will face increasing pressure.
The profession’s economic future is not simply “good” or “bad.” Those who treat AI as a tool for faster billing may struggle. Lawyers who treat it as a platform for new products, better client outcomes, and operational excellence are likely to thrive. In the Fourth Industrial Revolution, quality legal work will still matter, but the economic rules for capturing its value are being rewritten.
It would be malpractice not to mention the risks and obligations presented by AI. The American Bar Association (ABA) requires lawyers to maintain “technological competence” as part of their ethical duty.5 We must understand how AI tools operate, the risks they introduce, and their implications for confidentiality and client trust. Local, state, and federal regulations will also be impacted by our use of AI and automated decision-making technologies.
Irvin DeAndrei (Dee) Drummond is a global legal and data privacy executive with more than 20 years of multinational experience advising organizations on corporate strategy, regulatory compliance, AI governance, and enterprise risk. He serves on multiple boards, including McDonogh School and the Association of Corporate Counsel (Baltimore Chapter) and is the chair of the MSBA Business Law Section. Drummond is also certified as an Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional (AIGP), a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM), and a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals.
LESSONS FROM A MISSION-DRIVEN LAW PRACTICE FOCUSED ON CLIENT EDUCATION AND IMPACT
NOT COME FROM CHASING THE
OR THE NEWEST TRENDS. IT COMES FROM
OFFERING CLARITY, AND STAYING RELEVANT TO THE CLIENTS WE SERVE.
BY ELSA W. SMITH, ESQ.
In times of economic uncertainty, many law practices feel tempted to scale back or stick with familiar routines. Thriving practices understand a deeper truth: stability does not come from chasing the loudest channels or the newest trends. It comes from engendering trust, offering clarity, and staying relevant to the clients we serve.
For those of us devoted to purpose-driven work— educating clients to understand their options, protect their families, and plan for the future—this approach remains the most sustainable way to maintain a modern law practice amid economic uncertainty, anchored in service to others.
From the perspective of a purpose-driven boutique estate planning firm—where “purpose” defines why we do the work and “mission-driven engagement” describes how we put that purpose into action—this article explores what “alternative marketing” really means, why client education has become an essential anchor for modern law practices, and how purpose-led initiatives—such as my podcast Wills, Women & Wealth—bring these principles to life. Along the way, I’ll share practical takeaways for building stability and resilience in your own practice. To begin, it helps to pause and consider what we mean by “alternative marketing” in the context of a modern law practice.
The phrase “alternative marketing” naturally prompts a question: alternative to what? Traditionally, law firms relied on television commercials, referral networks, newspaper ads, billboards, local directories, or brochures. While effective in their time, these methods offered limited ways to educate or engage clients beyond transactional interactions.
Newer approaches—podcasts, videos, blogs, webinars, and social media—are often labeled “alternative” because they fall outside traditional channels. While some social media
emphasize clicks, likes, or purely sales-driven promotion, purpose-driven use can transcend these metrics. At their core, these tools provide mission-centered engagement: offering clarity, answering questions, and reinforcing credibility through consistent, meaningful communication rather than flashy advertising or gimmicks.
Podcasts, for example, allow for in-depth conversations on my practice area of estate planning, equipping listeners with knowledge they might not otherwise receive. Shortform videos and social media posts offer practical tips, demystify legal processes, and showcase a firm’s values in action. When approached intentionally, these tools become extensions of the lawyer’s role as educator and trusted adviser, rather than conventional marketing.
Framing these efforts as mission-driven engagement shifts the conversation. The question is no longer whether a firm is “marketing enough,” but whether it is effectively fulfilling its purpose: serving clients with clarity, relevance, and integrity. In this way, what is often called “alternative marketing” becomes a natural, sustainable path to strengthening a law practice in today’s evolving professional landscape. As Simon Sinek has observed, “People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.”1
For many clients—particularly women—estate planning is deeply personal, rooted in lived realities and closely tied to autonomy, responsibility, and long-term security. Many arrive feeling under-informed, excluded from prior financial decision-making, or unsure what questions to ask. In this context, education is not a marketing tactic; it establishes trust. As Stephen R. Covey observed, trust is “the glue of life” and the foundation of effective communication.
Client education builds trust. When individuals understand why certain documents matter, how decisions affect their families, and what options exist, they can participate fully
1 Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action (2009).
in estate planning. This sense of agency is especially important for women, who statistically live longer, are more likely to manage estates alone later in life, and often serve as caregivers across generations. Education meets clients where they are and fosters collaboration rather than transactional relationships.
A purpose-centered approach prioritizes clarity over complexity and relevance over volume. It focuses on answering real questions in plain language, addressing misconceptions, and acknowledging both emotional and legal realities. Over time, this approach transforms the attorney–client relationship from a one-time transaction into an ongoing, trust-based partnership. As Maya Angelou observed, “People will never forget how you made them feel.” Purpose-driven client education does just that—it empowers individuals, fosters collaboration, and deepens relationships over time.
From a practice perspective, education-centered engagement strengthens stability. Informed clients tend to be decisive, aligned with their plans, and confident in the guidance received. They return for updates, refer others, and see their attorney as a longterm adviser—once established, confidence compounds. Growth follows naturally when client education anchors the practice, grounded in shared values, sustained by reliability, and resilient even in uncertain economic times.
ELSA W. SMITH
Wills, Women & Wealth, a podcast hosted by me, evolved from Women Winning Wednesdays, a weekly Facebook Live series addressing practical estate planning questions. From the outset, the goal was not marketing, but education—empowering women to understand their options, ask informed questions, and take control of decisions shaping their families’ futures. Women were, and remain, at the center of this work. As an attorney of Afro-Cuban
A
CLARITY OVER COMPLEXITY AND RELEVANCE OVER VOLUME. IT FOCUSES ON ANSWERING REAL QUESTIONS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, ADDRESSING
descent, it was also important to me to normalize the presence of women of color in the estate planning space and to communicate that estate planning is for us, too. Representation matters—seeing someone who looks like you guiding these important decisions reinforces that everyone has the right to understand, protect, and plan for their family’s future.
After approximately one year, maintaining weekly live episodes became unsustainable. Toward the end of 2024, I made the deliberate decision to pause the series and reassess how best to continue the mission without compromising quality or the firm’s operations. As former IBM CEO Ginni Rometty observed, “Growth and comfort do not coexist.” That pause required courage, but it also created the space to step back, reflect, and redesign the approach.
Professionals often feel bound by the momentum of established routines, reluctant to change course even as circumstances evolve. Yet a thoughtful recalibration, instead of constant output, can be exactly what is needed to serve clients effectively and strengthen a practice.
The result was Wills, Women & Wealth, a pre-recorded podcast available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. Moving from live broadcasts to a controlled format allowed for longer, more in-depth conversations and a more sustainable production schedule. This shift illustrates a central principle of purpose-driven engagement: the tool should serve the mission, not dictate it.
Women who engage with the podcast now arrive at consultations better informed and more confident, leading to richer and more collaborative conversations. While women remain the largest audience segment, the podcast resonates broadly, providing value to anyone navigating estate planning. During periods of economic uncertainty, this form of purposeful outreach has provided stability by prioritizing intention over constant activity.
Ultimately, the evolution from Women Winning Wednesdays to Wills, Women & Wealth underscores a key lesson: reinvention is not a departure from purpose, but an extension of it. Centering clients, pausing when necessary, and shaping platforms to serve the mission deepen trust, reinforce credibility, and support longterm professional sustainability.
Purpose may anchor a modern law practice, but execution is the sail. Stability, especially in uncertain times, requires responsiveness, reflection, and intentional action. Client needs, technology, and economic conditions are constantly evolving. Practices grounded in education and reliability must periodically assess which approaches—and which tools—continue to serve clients effectively. Innovation is not novelty; it is relevance, ensuring communication remains clear, accessible, and aligned with client realities.
PROFESSIONALS OFTEN FEEL BOUND BY THE MOMENTUM OF ESTABLISHED ROUTINES, RELUCTANT TO CHANGE COURSE EVEN AS CIRCUMSTANCES EVOLVE. YET A THOUGHTFUL RECALIBRATION, INSTEAD OF CONSTANT OUTPUT, CAN BE EXACTLY WHAT IS NEEDED TO SERVE CLIENTS EFFECTIVELY AND STRENGTHEN A PRACTICE.
Complacency is a subtle risk. Once a strategy works, familiar rhythms can feel comfortable, yet comfort should not be confused with sustainability. Practices that endure remain curious. They reassess, ask difficult questions, and stay willing to learn—about emerging technologies, changing client expectations, and new ways to deliver clarity—before circumstances demand change. Clarity of purpose also requires resisting constant comparison. Observing other firms can be instructive, but imitation without intention erodes focus. Technology, like marketing, should never dictate direction. Strength comes from remaining resolute in the work you set out to do and selecting tools that support that mission, not distract from it.
This work is especially challenging in solo and small law firm settings, where time, staffing, and resources are limited. Balancing client service, operations, and thoughtful engagement can feel overwhelming. Yet in these environments, clarity of purpose matters most. Filtering decisions—including whether to adopt or discard a technology—through a clear mission helps prioritize effort, remain responsive to clients, and prevent burnout.
Purpose-driven engagement requires discipline, creativity, and commitment without exhaustion. That balance must be recalibrated over time. Recession proofing a law practice is less about insulating against change and more about building the capacity to adapt thoughtfully, learn continuously, and evolve without losing direction.
RECESSION PROOFING A LAW PRACTICE IS LESS ABOUT INSULATING AGAINST CHANGE AND MORE ABOUT BUILDING THE CAPACITY TO ADAPT THOUGHTFULLY, LEARN CONTINUOUSLY, AND EVOLVE WITHOUT LOSING DIRECTION.
Several principles emerge for sustaining purpose-driven law practices:
PURPOSE BEFORE PLATFORM.
Purpose provides continuity; tools, technologies, and channels evolve to serve the mission.
EDUCATION OVER PROMOTION.
Clients seek understanding, not advertising.
SPEAK TO SOMEONE, NOT EVERYONE.
Focused communication fosters meaningful engagement and builds trust.
Economic uncertainty challenges every law practice, inviting reflection not only on what we do, but also on why we do it. Stability does not come from louder messaging or constant visibility; it is built through purpose, sustained by credibility, and reinforced through clarity and relevance.
As an estate planning attorney, this work is part of the legacy I am building. I find profound fulfillment in watching clients grow confident and empowered as they gain clarity about their options and responsibilities. Estate planning transforms families’ understanding, conversations, and decisions—providing clarity and long-term security beyond the documents themselves. That
STABILITY IS INTENTIONAL.
It is not achieved by doing more or being everywhere. It is built by showing up with purpose, offering clarity, and allowing relationships to develop over time.
CONFIDENCE COMPOUNDS.
Consistency, clarity, and thoughtful execution deepen relationships and sustain practices.
is the mission: not accumulating likes or clicks, but supporting individuals and families as they move, step by step, toward greater understanding and agency. Over time, these moments compound, strengthening both the families we serve and the practices that support them.
This work requires effort, reflection, and a willingness to evolve— especially in solo or small practices. Yet it offers a resilience no strategy or platform alone can provide. When purpose anchors the practice and execution remains intentional, law practices navigate uncertainty with clarity and confidence, guided not by trends but by a clear sense of direction—and sustained by the lasting impact on the people they serve.
ELSA W. SMITH, Esq. is the founder and managing attorney of the Law Offices of Elsa W. Smith, LLC, a boutique estate planning firm based in Annapolis, Maryland, serving clients across the state. The firm is dedicated to empowering women—and all clients—through education, guidance, and purposedriven legal services.
BY IRWIN KRAMER, ESQ.
Q.
Whenever my client gets a bill, he calls to question each of my time entries, keeping me on the phone for 30 to 45 minutes each time. May I bill him for this time?
A.
That depends on whether the call is limited to dollars-and-cents discussions or veers into more substantive issues. But billing for billing questions is as close as you can come to inviting grievances.
LIKE IT OR NOT, our clients have every right to question the charges on their invoices. In this economy, they would be foolish not to. When times are tough, many clients get tough with their lawyers. They read each invoice line by line, questioning items that seem excessive or ambiguous.
While we must respond promptly and reasonably to client inquiries, this professional duty does not ordinarily entitle us to bill for the time spent justifying our fees. Time spent preparing invoices, explaining charges, or following up on past-due bills is generally treated as office overhead.
Yet not every call framed as a billing inquiry is entirely about the money. These questions often mask deeper anxieties about the future of a case, particularly for clients who have not previously engaged a lawyer. Even when fees are discussed at the outset, the arrival of a bill brings a sobering reality to the experience. Often, clients express frustration with the legal process or fear of mounting expenses. What may easily devolve into a billing dispute may actually be an opportunity to refine objectives and adopt a strategy that better aligns with the client’s needs.
Naturally, it is better to preempt complaints by minimizing uncomfortable questions before they arise. In my office, we do so by following what I call the “Spilled Ink Rule.” Invoices must show our effort. The more time we bill for a task, the more ink we need to spill describing it. A few words may suffice for a tenth of an hour, but may be entirely inadequate as the clock continues to tick. In this economy, an “economy of words” is not a virtue.
Our invoices should explain in detail what we did and why it took that amount of time. Rather than a cryptic 2.7-hour entry for “reviewing transactional documents,” describe the specific categories of records, the
issues analyzed, and perhaps even the number of pages read. Let the client see the complexity of the task through the description.
Regardless of how we describe the entry, our client should see our effort on the invoice itself, rather than wondering, “What took so long?” Ironically, the more ink we spill, the more transparent the billing process becomes.
Yet, even the best invoice may prompt questions. Before returning the call, review the bill carefully—even if you already approved the pre-bill—and refresh your familiarity with the matter. Clients expect us to be fully conversant with their files no matter how many other clients we serve. A lack of familiarity with their particular matter will be held against you. Demonstrating a command of the details goes a long way toward defusing tension, corroborating your attention to the case, and increasing the client’s confidence in your work as counsel.
No matter how much you dislike these conversations, return the call promptly. Clients dislike unanswered calls under any circumstances, but delays are especially corrosive when a client is already brooding over a bill.
Professionalism matters. How we handle these questions matters more than the answers we provide. Billing inquiries should never be met with irritation or defensiveness. We must avoid saying anything that might dissuade a client from asking questions about their bill. Our primary job is to listen.
When billing inquiries shift toward strategy, case objectives, or complex budgeting, the conversation may cross
the line into billable legal work. While you may diplomatically advise the client that billing will resume for this substantive analysis, tread carefully. Charging a frustrated client for a call they believed was “off the clock” can create more relational damage than the fee is worth. To resolve this ambiguity, address the distinction between administrative forecasting and billable strategy in your retainer agreement or, at the very least, educate the client on these boundaries and confirm the understanding in writing before the next invoice arrives.
Handled correctly, billing questions provide an opportunity to demonstrate strategic judgment, value, and professionalism. If the invoice shows the work and we show patience, many concerns will resolve themselves.
In this economy, billing questions are inevitable. How we respond to them— and how clearly we explain our work before the question is ever asked—may matter more than the numbers at the bottom of the page.
Irwin Kramer has devoted a significant portion of his practice to the defense of his fellow attorneys in disciplinary matters and regularly counsels law firms on ethical duties, client relations, and practice management. Mr. Kramer regularly addresses these issues on his blog, The Lawyer’s Lawyer, at https://attorneygrievances.com.
BY ELIZABETH KEYES, ESQ.
Lawyers know too well how emergencies arise and call out for our attention, time, and energy: an impending foreclosure crisis, conditions in prisons at the height of COVID, devastation following a natural disaster, and the need for large-scale deportation defense in 2025. The ideals that drove so many of us to careers in law call us to do this work, and also make it enormously difficult to manage the level of need that emergencies create.
An enormous body of scholarly and practical work addresses how to do “crisis lawyering,” but far less attention has been given to how we decide whether and when to do such lawyering. My longtime colleague, Sabrina Balgamwalla and I explored this question in the unique, particularly constrained environment of law school clinics. Here, I offer a few ideas that may resonate beyond that specific context, certainly for those working at legal services organizations where sharply diminished budgets create significant constraints, but also for lawyers in private practice whose work equally responds to crises and who face the comparably hard constraints of time and energy. The goal here is not to dissuade people from doing the hard and necessary work—not at all—but rather to think about how best to fit into the work that needs to be done, so that the work is done well and we sustain ourselves in the doing of it.
Three intersecting phenomena matter to understanding all this. First: the profound lack of access to justice in our many legal systems, where people cannot afford representation, and cannot find pro bono representation. Second: the prevalence of “crises.” Our experience as immigration lawyers is perhaps an extreme one, but we have experienced virtually nonstop “emergencies” since 2014: the large number of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S. border (2014); the “Muslim ban” (2017); separation of families at the border (2018); the remain-in-Mexico policy with attendant humanitarian horrors at the Southern border (2019); the use of COVID to close down the border for asylum-seekers under Title 42 (2020); the need to protect Afghans in the wake of a disorderly U.S. departure (2021); the escalation of deportations under President Trump (2025). When everything is an emergency, the importance of an emergency—and the power of it to summon heroic
responses from the bar—diminishes dramatically. Third: our own personal limitations. In our longer work, we share our stories of the toll taken by our endless efforts to rise to each occasion, and in such experiences, we know we are not alone. We therefore designed a set of prompts and questions to help lawyers reflect on their choices. A first critical piece is about our own goals and motivations. Often, the goals are
When everything is an emergency, the importance of an emergency— and the power of it to summon heroic responses from the bar— diminishes dramatically.
idealistic and laudable, but we also criticize (humorously, we hope) our own grandiosity about being able to solve the world’s problems singlehandedly. We also recognize how we personally benefit from doing this work. (Again with humor: The time I had my library fines waived when I started to explain in 2017 that I was an immigration lawyer was a small but mighty example of this.) A certain mindfulness of our own tendencies and character helps us be more clear-eyed as we answer the following questions:
Lawyers are apt to take humble Md. Rule 19-301.1 (competence) a bit for granted. And yet, the reports from the Attorney Grievance Commission should motivate us all to think of it often. In the context of an emergency response, competence certainly includes subject-matter experience but can also encompass knowledge of specific processes, institutions, and relationships. We can become competent in subject matter through study and training. In many situations, we can also find mentors to help us understand the idiosyncratic institutions and processes that affect lawyering—or simply support the work of lead lawyers in areas new to us. Organizations like the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, the Pro Bono Resource Center, and the many nonprofits seeking volunteers through the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, as well as professional bar associations and committees, make this training and mentorship possible. If we are contemplating helping in an emergency, thinking through what it takes to be competent and finding the means to do so are critical first steps.
Here, we could think of capacity in terms of our time, energy, and health, as well as our duties to existing clients. We can consider reprioritizing or delegating some of our obligations, or decide that, for a certain period of time, we can put in longer hours, and so forth. (When an emergency is truly short-term, that expansion of capacity is absolutely on the table. When it becomes months and years, most of us realize we are less infinite than we hoped.) A different way of framing this question is “what might I be giving up by taking on this work?” So much is to be gained from meaningful involvement in work we are passionate about—and this question helps us be slightly more complete and intentional by reminding us of what we already have.
We often want to be the best and most valuable at so many things, and this question helps us focus on where we are the best fit. Alternative framings of the question: Is someone else better positioned to be of use? Are my skills more valuable somewhere else? Right now, I have a tremendous amount of immigration expertise, which is in high demand. I could certainly take on many client cases—but so could others who would do so to build their own capacity (force multipliers) while I advise and train. My “fit” right now is better with training and community education.
Although neither my colleague nor I is Jewish, we both draw inspiration from the idea of Tikkum Olam (repairing the world) and from this rabbinical quote, which has many different attributions: “You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.” We take heart in being members of legal communities that never abandon the work, and we hope that this brief essay helps you think well about how you are part of the work as well.
Elizabeth Keyes is associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She directed the school’s Immigrant Rights Clinic for a decade and has been involved in immigration and immigrant rights for more than 20 years.
THE LEGAL PROFESSION CONTINUES to adapt to a changing economic climate. To provide insight into managing a law practice in a shifting economy, we spoke with several firm owners and principals who shared their strategies for maintaining growth and reducing overhead.
Meet the Contributors
NAKIA GRAY, ESQ.: Gray is a Maryland-based attorney and strategic legal adviser, and the founder of Locked & Lawyered, a boutique business and intellectual property firm. She offers services as fractional IP counsel, business succession, and estate planning for modern entrepreneurs.
MICHAEL J. BRAMNICK, ESQ.: Bramnick has been practicing law for nearly 20 years and focuses on all aspects of civil litigation. He formed his own law practice, Bramnick Law, LLC, in 2013, which became Bramnick Creed, LLC in 2019 with the addition of Joseph Creed as partner.
SAMANTHA P. RODIER, ESQ.: Rodier is an attorney with Rodier Family Law, P.A., based in Bel Air, Maryland, She is the Family Law Section representative of the MSBA Board of Governors and a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML).
JEREMY D. RACHLIN, ESQ.: Rachlin is a principal and shareholder at Bulman, Dunie, Burke & Feld, Chtd. in Bethesda, and is in charge of the firm’s estate and trust practice group. Rachlin was a 2022 Bar Fellow of the Maryland Bar Foundation.
JAMAAL (“JAY”) W. STAFFORD, ESQ.: Stafford is the founder and managing attorney of The Law Firm of J.W. Stafford, LLC, located in Columbia, Maryland. His firm specializes in defending professional licenses and handling complex employment law matters.
BARBARA ZEKTICK, ESQ.: Zektick is the president of Zektick + Company, a law and government relations consulting firm that bridges the gaps between the public and private sectors. Zektick is also a member of MSBA’s Environment and Energy Law Committee.
Nakia Gray emphasizes that growth is often a better solution than mere frugality:
“One of the most effective ways to save money in your practice is to focus on increasing organic visibility. Be active in your bar association, create valuable content on social media,
and develop a signature talk or educational series that positions you as the go-to expert. These approaches cost little to nothing but can drive steady referrals. Also, cancel those unused subscriptions. You’d be surprised how much you’re spending on tools you don’t actually use. Finally, focus your energy on income-generating activities. Growth will fix more than frugality ever could.”
Jamaal Stafford suggests that the “best way to solve this problem is to generate more revenue,” specifically through better financial management:
“The solo attorney does that by not accumulating accounts receivable with clients who are not replenishing the trust account or are slow to pay. In short, this is the principle of addition by subtraction.”
Barbara Zektick shares how she adapted her business model to the current economy:
“My government relations law practice has taken a toll as the current state of the economy drains state coffers. With less state spending, there’s less state lobbying. I’ve reevaluated my space needs and downsized my office, cut administrative expenses, and certain software to save money. I’ve also broadened my service offerings and client and case types to appeal to a wider market.”
Michael Bramnick focuses on the role of integrated platforms: “We use technology and specialized vendor services to operate efficiently. Our practice management software is cost-effective and provides document management, secure messaging, automated drafting, and integrated time, billing, and credit card processing. It also connects seamlessly with a variety of related platforms to support document production and organization, mailing, e-filing, and other features that enhance efficiency and help reduce overhead.”
Samantha Rodier highlights the long-term benefits of going paperless and investing in management:
“Shifting to as paperless a model as a firm can tolerate, to eliminate or significantly reduce the costs of supplies (paper, ink, etc.) and offsite storage, etc. Utilizing cloud-based storage through Clio or another provider to cut down on the expense of storing large quantities of electronic copies of client-provided documents and data. Performing a careful cost-benefit analysis of any existing or potential new marketing endeavors, and negotiating multi-year contracts for the same, which could enable you to lock in rates that will not increase for a set period of time. Finally, although it may seem counterintuitive, investing resources in necessary personnel, hiring a firm administrator, for example, who can handle non-billable tasks relating to the management and operations of the firm, should enable the attorneys to maximize their actual time practicing law and, as a result, making more money.”
Jeremy Rachlin notes a shift toward more conservative operating costs following the pandemic:
“The past year has certainly been a turbulent time, but fortunately not nearly as scary as I remember the law firm economic climate as a young associate during the Great Recession of 2007–2008 or as a new equity partner in the spring and summer of 2020. Coming out of the pandemic, while we still invest in talent, we have generally been more conservative and judicious when it comes to operating costs. For example, we have cut back significantly on hard copies of treatises and rules volumes. Whereas once each attorney had their own volume of the annotated rules, we now have a few
There are a variety of ways a law firm can save money, including periodically reviewing and cancelling unused subscriptions, taking advantage of hybrid or remote arrangements to save money on office space, and adopting electronic files.
shared hardbound volumes because all attorneys have access through our Lexis subscription.
We’ve also cut down on office spending on coffee (shocking for a law firm). Each employee is eligible for reimbursement for an Unlimited Sip Club Membership at Panera Bread, as we have a Panera just around the corner from our office. Our staff appreciates the added perk of free Panera drinks 24/7, and we appreciate not spending as much on Keurig pods!”
Jamaal Stafford also lists practical operational changes:
“There are a variety of ways a law firm can save money, including periodically reviewing and cancelling unused subscriptions, taking advantage of hybrid or remote arrangements to save money on office space, and adopting electronic files.”
“
Even in “retirement,” Judge Fader’s commitment to the law never wavered. He served as a Senior Judge for over 20 years, continuing to settle cases and mentor younger generations of lawyers and jurists.
THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
MOURNS the loss of the Honorable John F. Fader, II, a titan of the state’s judiciary whose profound influence on family law and tireless dedication to the bench spanned more than four decades. Judge Fader passed away on January 22, 2026.
Born in Baltimore in 1941, John Fader II was the first in his family to attend college. His professional journey was unique, beginning not in a courtroom but in a pharmacy. He earned his Bachelor of Science from the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy in 1963. It was during this time that he discovered a passion for the law through a pharmacy-law course, leading him to enroll in the University of Maryland School of Law’s night program while continuing to work as a pharmacist on weekends.
After graduating and being admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1968, he practiced in Towson before being appointed to the District Court of Maryland in 1977. In 1982, Governor Harry Hughes appointed him to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, where he served with distinction for 21 years, including a tenure as Chief Judge from 2002 until his official retirement in 2003.
Judge Fader was revered for his monumental contributions to family law. He was an original co-author of Maryland Family Law , which was eventually renamed Fader’s Maryland Family Law in his honor. His work earned him the Maryland State Bar Association’s prestigious Beverly A. Groner Family Law Award in 2003.
Even in “retirement,” Judge Fader’s commitment to the law never wavered. He served as a Senior Judge for over 20 years, continuing to settle cases and mentor younger generations of lawyers and jurists. His enduring impact was formally recognized as recently as 2024, when the Maryland Judicial Council awarded him the 2024 Senior Judge Award for his continued significant contributions to the judiciary.
Beyond his written work and his time on the bench, Judge Fader was a devoted educator. He served as adjunct faculty at both the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and the University of Baltimore School of Law. He was known for bringing real-world wisdom into the classroom, often joking that he was “hired to inject 26 years of experience on the bench to students.”
Maryland lost a brilliant legal mind and a compassionate public servant. As his colleagues often noted, he did not just practice law; he was truly “in love with a mistress known as the law,” constantly seeking to resolve matters with fairness and precision.
“Throughout his career, Thompson strove to improve and elevate the profession.
James “Jim” Thompson passed away on December 27, 2025. He was 84.
Thompson earned a Bachelor of Arts from Yale University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.
He began his legal career in 1966 as a judge advocate general (JAG) Officer in the United States Marine Corps. In 1970, Thompson joined the law firm of Miller, Miller & Canby, where he spent his entire legal career.
Thompson was an active MSBA member and served as MSBA president during the 1999–2000 bar year. In 2018, MSBA selected Thompson as the Senior Lawyer of the Year. He participated in numerous MSBA professional excursions and also mentored new attorneys through the Young Lawyers Section.
Known as a formidable trial attorney, Thompson was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1986, an organization that recognizes only the top 1% of trial lawyers in Maryland. He was also a proud early member of the Owners’ Counsel of America, a national organization of preeminent eminent domain attorneys.
Throughout his career, Thompson strove to improve and elevate the profession. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and contributed to the Designated Conciliator Program in Montgomery County. Additionally, Thompson provided pro bono legal advice in his community and served as chair of the Lawyers’ Division for the United Way of Montgomery County.
Thompson was widely respected for his courtesy, integrity, and unwavering professionalism, as evidenced by his receipt of the Century of Service Award, which recognized one of the 32 most influential legal figures in Montgomery County during the 20th century.
Thompson will be remembered for his staunch advocacy and tireless commitment to the legal profession in Maryland.
Since 2023, Shanun Jones has served as the Maryland State Bar Association's (MSBA) project and governance administrator. In this role, she helps MSBA bridge the gap between strategy and execution. You can learn more about Jones and her work at MSBA below.
Tell us a little about yourself.
I’m a proud Prince George’s County native who now calls Columbia, Maryland, home, where I live with my husband, our five children, and our two dogs. I’m a graduate of the University of Maryland Global Campus, and my career journey has been shaped by a deep appreciation for community, service, and thoughtful leadership.
Professionally, I’m a project and governance professional at MSBA, where I manage complex, cross-functional initiatives that support the organization’s mission and the legal community it serves. I specialize in bringing structure to complex work, aligning diverse teams, and turning big ideas into actionable outcomes. At the heart of everything I do is a commitment to clarity, collaboration, and creating systems that help people succeed.
Tell us a little about your career. Any highlights?
Nearly 10 years ago, I made a deliberate career pivot into project management, earning my PMP certification and committing to building the skills needed to lead complex work. Within a year of that transition, I successfully broke into the marketing and tech space, where I managed projects that required adaptability, structure, and strong cross-functional collaboration. One of the highlights of my career has been creating and leading workstreams that supported multicultural and international teams, ensuring clarity, alignment, and shared success across diverse perspectives.
What did you do before you joined the MSBA?
Before joining MBSA, I held the role of global quality project manager supporting
international clients in the pharmaceutical industry, where I coordinated complex projects across time zones, cultures, and stakeholders. The role strengthened my ability to manage high-stakes initiatives and communicate clearly across teams. The experience gave me a global perspective and a strong foundation that I bring into my work at MSBA today.
Tell us about your role at MSBA. In my role as project manager at MSBA, I serve as a central connector across teams, helping ensure that large initiatives move forward smoothly and strategically. I manage projects from planning through execution, coordinate timelines and stakeholders, and work closely with marketing, membership, CLE, publications, and leadership to keep everyone aligned.
A big part of my role is bringing structure to complex work, translating goals into actionable plans, tracking progress, and anticipating risks before they become obstacles. Ultimately, my job is to make it easier for teams to focus on their expertise while I help keep the big picture moving forward.
What’s your favorite part of your job?
My favorite part of my job is seeing complex ideas turn into real outcomes. I love bringing people together, aligning moving parts, and watching initiatives go from concept to completion in ways that truly support the organization's mission.
What is an interesting fact about you that we wouldn’t find on your resume?
I’m deeply motivated by service. I specialize in creating inclusive spaces where support and empowerment intersect. I believe that
My favorite part of my job is seeing complex ideas turn into real outcomes.
when people feel supported, they become empowered to reach their full potential.
What do you do to de-stress or unwind?
To me, unplugging is a practice, not just an idea. I find my balance in small, intentional moments: hiking or biking through Columbia’s beautiful trails, getting lost in music, or diving into a craft project with my kids. By carving out this space to recharge, I’m able to bring my full energy to everything I do.
T
hey say the only constant in the legal profession is change, but as we move through 2026, the “change” part of that equation is moving at a clip that would make a seasoned litigator’s head spin.
Whether you are navigating the complexities of a solo practice, serving the public interest, or managing a high-stakes team at a large firm, one thing remains certain: The Maryland State Bar Association is your home base. We aren’t just a professional association; we are a collective, a brain trust, and occasionally, a very necessary support group.
While you’re busy drafting motions and counseling clients, our Laws Committee and advocacy team have been living in the hallways of Annapolis. We’ve spent the latest session ensuring that the “lawyer’s perspective” isn’t just an afterthought in new legislation.
From protecting law firms from taxation and unreasonable fees to advocating for judicial resources that keep our courtrooms safe and our dockets moving, we are your front line. We do the heavy lifting in the policy trenches so you can focus on the practice of law, knowing your interests and those of your clients are being fiercely defended.
THE EXISTENTIAL DREAD
I know what you’re thinking: Is a robot going to write my next brief? Probably not well (yet). However, the “AI Revolution” is no longer a futuristic concept—it’s sitting on your desktop.
To help you navigate this, we’ve launched the MSBA AI Resource Center. We’ve moved past the “What is ChatGPT?” phase and into practical, ethics-focused applications. We provide: Vetted Toolkits: To help you distinguish between a productivity booster and a malpractice trap.
Ethical Guidelines: To keep you in the know on ethical issues as they evolve.
Prompt Engineering for Lawyers: Because how you ask is just as important as what you ask.
With the assistance of our AI & Legal Technology Task Force, we are also working hard to bring our members a comprehensive AI Certification Course for attorneys. Look for the release in June 2026.
In an era of increasingly polarized rhetoric, MSBA remains a steady hand. We believe that a fair, independent judiciary and the impartial administration of justice are the bedrock of our society. When those foundations are challenged, MSBA speaks up, not as a political entity, but as a guardian of the legal system we all swore to uphold.
I often hear from members who wonder if MSBA is right for them, and the answer is always a resounding “Yes!” We are a broad coalition, and every seat at the table is vital.
Solos: You are the backbone of the Maryland bar. We provide the infrastructure, practice management tools, and the camaraderie you might miss from a larger office.
Government Attorneys: Your work is a public service, and we are working to ensure you have the specialized CLEs and networking tracks that reflect your unique challenges and career paths.
Public Interest Advocates: You are the conscience of our profession. We know the weight of the “justice gap” can be heavy; MSBA offers peer support, wellness resources, and systemic advocacy to help ensure your passion for the public good doesn’t lead to burnout.
In-House Counsel: You’ve traded the billable hour for the boardroom, but that doesn’t mean you have to work in a vacuum. We offer a community of fellow in-house peers to discuss risk management, vendor oversight, and the transition from “outside counsel” to “strategic partner.”
Large Firm Attorneys: You need a space to connect outside of the pressure cooker. Our sections offer high-level policy discussions and leadership opportunities that go beyond the demands of your specific practice group.
We are stronger when our membership reflects the full spectrum of our profession. We provide the “Big Tent”—you just need to walk in.
I look forward to seeing you at our upcoming events, or perhaps over a spirited (but professional) debate in one of our Section discussion lists. In the meantime, keep fighting the good fight. We’ve got your back.
Anna Sholl, Executive Director
ABA Retirement Funds
PAGE 97
Baltimore Orioles PAGE 31
First Maryland Disability Trust PAGE 50
LawPay/MyCase
COVER The McCammon Group BACK COVER Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company PAGE 41
OVC Lawyer Marketing PAGE 65
USI Affinity PAGE 129
