may-barrister-final-reduced by Zest Social Media Solutions

MAY 2012

PUBLISHED

VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2

QUARTERLY BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION

OF BALTIMORE CITY

PRODUCED BY ZEST SOCIAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

THE BALTIMORE BARRISTER Editor

Carrie McMahon Freeman Chair, News Journal Committee

Committee Members

Joshua H. Joseph Dean E. Merritt John H. Price, Jr. Katherine T. Sanzone, Executive Director Patricia A. DeGuilmi, Executive Assistant

Editorial Offices

The Bar Association of Baltimore City 111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627 Baltimore, MD 21202 410-539-5936 info@baltimorebar.org www.baltimorebar.org

The Bar Association of Baltimore City Executive Council

Adam Sean Cohen, President Andrew Radding, President-Elect Cynthia L. Leppert, Vice President Hon. Michael W. Reed, Treasurer Robert D. Anbinder, Secretary Jason T. Wasserman, Chair, Young Lawyers’ Division Rebecca B. Ripley, Chair-Elect, Young Lawyers’ Division Alan Abramowitz Arthur S. Alperstein Hon. Kendra Y. Ausby Charles M. Blomquist Sidney A. Butcher Joshua L. Caplan J. Allan Cohen Gregory P. Currey Hon. William M. Dunn Kristin P. Herber Katherine Kelly Howard Michael R. Hudak Marian C. Hwang Kelly Hughes Iverson Darren L. Kadish Hon. Joseph H.H. Kaplan Edwin L. Keating, III Gregory K. Kirby Dean E. Merritt Yoanna X. Moisides Todd M. Reinecker Brian J. Rudick Mark F. Scurti Hon. Lynn K. Stewart Avery B. Strachan Thomas J.S. Waxter, III Katherine T. Sanzone, Executive Director The Baltimore Barrister is a quarterly publication of The Bar Association of Baltimore City provided to its members at no cost as part of annual dues. Non-members subscriptions are available for $50 per year. The Bar Association of Baltimore City (“BABC”) presents the information contained in the Baltimore Barrister, as a service to our members, including members of the general public. While the information is about legal issues, it is not intended as legal advice or as a substitute for your own legal research and investigation or the particularized advice of your own counsel. Further, any practice tips or summaries of cases contained herein cannot be relied upon as being controlling authority. Any opinions express herein are solely those of the authors, and are not those of BABC. Finally, the articles contained herein are copyrighted, all rights, reserved by the respective authors and/or their law firms, companies or organizations. People seeking specific legal advice or assistance should contact an attorney, either by contacting the BABC Lawyer Referral Service or another source. BABC does not guarantee the accuracy of any of the information or forms presented herein. Similarly, we provide links to other sites that we believe may be useful or informative. These links to third party sites or information are not intended as, and should not be interpreted by you as constituting or implying our endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the third party information, products or services found there. We do not maintain or control those sites and, accordingly, make no guarantee concerning the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information found there. Further, the contents of advertisements are the responsibility of advertisers and do not represent any recommendation or endorsement by BABC. BABC may deny publishing any submission or advertisement, in its sole and absolute discretion. For information on submissions or advertising, call or email the editorial offices at 410-539-5936/ info@baltimorebar.org. Copyright © 2012 by The Bar Association of Baltimore City.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Table of Contents

Click on the article title to navigate directly to the page it is on.

Executive Director’s Report By Kathy Sanzone

President’s Letter By Adam Sean Cohen, Esq.

Around the Office

Black History Month Program Joint with the Library Company of the Baltimore Bar

Going Global

Senior Legal Services 20th Anniversary Celebration

Maryland State Bar Association Lawyer Assistance Program Wellness Tip Sheet

New Members: January-March 2012

Young Lawyers’ Division News

Calendar of Events

Announcements

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Revised Assignment of Judges

Adoption Subsidies & Child Support By Master William M. Dunn

Third Party Custody Clients

Senior Law Day 2012

17 21

By Hope Tipton, Esq.

Too Many Wrong Mistakes By Laurie M. Wasserman, Esq., Tydings & Rosenberg LLP

May, Should or Shall: What Does It Matter? By Master Theresa A. Furnari & Daniel Preston Dozier, Esq.

Member in the Spotlight

GPIL Awards Reception

By Family Division Master Anna R. Benshoof

Research and Practice Tips By Tom Martone & J.W. Bennett

By Adam Sean Cohen, Esq.

By Lisa Caplan, LCSW-C,CAC, Lawyer Assistance Program Counselor

By Matthew J. Youssef

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Executive Director’s Report By Kathy Sanzone

As our fiscal year nears its end, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our dedicated and hardworking staff who help carry out the mission of the BABC, as well as the vision of our leaders. Patty DeGuilmi, Executive Assistant Patty and I have worked together at the BABC for over three decades. Patty is a professional who does it all - membership support, committee support, YLD staff liaison. She is the bookkeeper. The engine that drives our partnership in the Circuit Court Pre-Trial Settlement Program. She is the person that greets you when you come to BABC headquarters for your attorney ID card. Patty’s contributions to the success of the Association’s programs and events are immeasurable. Thank you Patty for all that you do. You’re the consummate professional, my right hand, and we couldn’t do it without you! Alicia Gipe, Public Services Coordinator Alicia has been with the BABC since 2005. Her responsibilities include managing the Lawyer Referral and Information Service, the Fee Dispute Resolution Program, and Access to Justice (reduced fee legal services program). She has great vision and is truly dedicated to the success of the programs she oversees. In addition to her many BABC duties, Alicia is a student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Thank you Alicia for the great job that you do and for the lending hand you always give to Patty and me. You have a very bright future ahead of you! Ernestine Dock and Joy Siegel Paralegals, Lawyer Referral and Information Service Ernestine and Joy have both been with LRIS for over 20 years. They are the front line of the Service. It’s not easy spending 8 hours a day listening to the problems of individuals, but they

continue to do that in a professional and companionate manner day after day. The citizens of Baltimore and the BABC greatly appreciate their contributions to this important service and thank them for their years of dedicated service. Benjamin Grossman, Esq., Director Senior Legal Services Since joining Senior Legal Services just two years ago, Ben has secured additional funding for the program, increased our volunteer pool, increased direct legal services to seniors, and has brought awareness to seniors in need by reaching out to them at senior centers, churches, housing communities, etc. Ben has recruited many law student interns to assist with the program and has provided them with invaluable mentoring. Ben is well respected by the legal services community and we are so fortunate to have him lead this most important service that we provide to the public. Thank you Ben! Ranjit Doraiswamy Ranjid started his service at Senior Legal Services in 2011 as a volunteer. He is now a staff attorney for the Service. Ranjit’s professionalism and compassion for the clients he serves is quite evident. We enjoy Ranjit being part of our team at BABC! Jacquelyn Jones Jackie joined the BABC’s staff in 2010, serving as the Administrative Assistant to the Senior Legal Services Program. I am always amazed at Jackie’s compassion for the clients they serve. She is patient and kind, a true sign that she cares about Baltimore’s seniors. Thank you Jackie for your hard work and dedication. I would also like to thank Janel Southerland, our volunteer attorney at Legal Services to the Elderly. Your service has been invaluable – thank you! The staff of the BABC appreciates the opportunity to serve you, its members, and the community. When given the opportunity, be sure to thank them for their dedicated service.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

One-Million-Four-Hundred-Sixty-EightThousand-Eight-Hundred Seconds By Adam Sean Cohen, Esq.

As you read this, I am counting down the final 408 hours of my Presidency, which will end on May 30, 2012, at our 132nd Annual Meeting. I have decided to utilize this, my last publishing opportunity, to thank those individuals that have made this a successful and memorable bar year. Wishing that this experience would never end, I have converted the measly 408 hours remaining into seconds to assist with my denial that the end is truly near. Teamwork formed the foundation for the success of my bar year. I am humbled by the enormous sacrifices made, and contributions of, the following individuals: Katherine Sanzone, Executive Director and Patty DeGuilmi, Executive Assistant: There is not enough space available to articulate how appreciative I am of the support and expert guidance that you both provided during my Presidency. The Bar Association is lucky to have you both. Of all of the things I have experienced as President this term, working closely with the both of you is what I will miss the most. Alicia Gipe, Director of Public Services; Ernestine Dock and Joy A. Siegel, paralegals with Lawyer Referral and Information Service; Ben Grossman, Director of Senior Legal Services; Ranjit Doraiswamy, Staff Attorney, Senior Legal Services; and Jackie Jones, Administrative Assistant, Senior Legal Services. Tireless workers and unsung heroes of this organization, in my opinion. Day in and day out they eagerly deal with the public unintentionally creating an over abundance of goodwill for the Bar Association. Please know that your efforts are appreciated and needed.

Andrew Radding, our President-Elect; Cynthia L. Leppert, our Vice-President and incoming President-Elect; the Honorable Michael W. Reed, our Treasurer and incoming Vice-President; Robert D. Anbinder, our Secretary and incoming Treasurer; Jason T. Wasserman, Chair, Young Lawyers' Division; and Rebecca B. Ripley, Chair-Elect, Young Lawyers' Division. This special group provided me with the courage, confidence, and unique resources to effectively navigate through the still and unsteady waters I encountered. I am eternally grateful for your friendship, trust and encouragement. The members of my Executive Council: Alan Abramowitz , Chair, Alternative Dispute Resolution; the Honorable Judge Kendra Y. Ausby and Avery B. Strachan, Co-Chairs, Bench/Bar; the Honorable Michael W. Reed, Chair, Budget and Finance; Gregory K. Kirby and Marian C. Hwang, Co-Chairs, Continuing Legal Education and Events; Kelly Hughes Iverson , Chair, Judicial Selections; Todd M. Reinecker, Chair, Lawyer Referral and Information Service; Katherine Kelly Howard and Brian J. Rudick, Co-Chairs, Legislation; Andrew Radding, Chair, Long Range Planning; the Honorable William M. Dunn and Darren L. Kadish, Co-Chairs, Membership; Cynthia L. Leppert, Chair, Personnel; Kristin P. Herber and Yoanna X. Moisides, Co-Chairs, Pro Bono and Access to Legal Services; Edwin L. Keating, III, Chair, Professional Ethics; Dean Merritt, Chair, Technology; Arthur S. Alperstein, Charles M. Blomquist, Joshua L. Caplan, Gregory P. Currey, and the Honorable Joseph H.H. Kaplan, Elected Members; Sidney A. Butcher, J. Allan Cohen, and Mark F. Scurti, Members-at-Large; the Honorable Lynn K. Stewart, Immediate Past President; Michael R. Hudak, Young Lawyers' Division Treasurer; Thomas J.S. Waxter, III, ABA Delegate. With such a hard working and dedicated group, it is very easy to see why the Bar Association produced a tremendous amount of work product. I CONTINUED ON PAGE 6 5

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

will miss the opportunity to closely observe the blood, sweat, and tears resulting from your efforts. Each and every one of you already had my full respect, and now you have my eternal gratitude. Special Committees and Substantive Law Committees: Jeffrey M. Dier and Catherine C. Opel, Co-Chairs, Senior Legal Services; Andrew C. Cooper, Chair, Fee Dispute Resolution; the Honorable James F. Schneider, and Master William M. Dunn, Co-Chairs. Historical; Janine A. Scott, Chair, Government and Public Interest Lawyers; Carrie McMahon Freeman, Chair, News Journal; Thomas J.S. Waxter, III, Chair, Nominating; the Honorable Lynn K. Stewart, Chair, Past Presidents; Christopher R. West, Chair, Sponsorship; David Mcintosh Williams, Chair, Business Law; Margaret Mead and Dana Middleton, Co-Chairs, Criminal Law; Hope Tipton, Chair, Family Law; Anthony F. Vittoria, Chair, Federal Practice; and John H. Price, Jr. and John P. Rufe, Co-Chairs, Workers Compensation. It goes

without being said that your hard work and dedication has enhanced the experience of our membership. This organization has been solidified from the ground up, and our membership has been engaged and energized, as a result of your contributions. Lastly, I want to thank my wife, Surena, my three daughters, Kira, Tillula and Jacinda (born a few months ago in February), and my parents, J. Allan and Ina. Without question, I would not have been able to accomplish or assist in accomplishing anything as President without your support and understanding. All of you, without hesitation or complaint, picked up the business and family slack that I created by dedicating myself to the Bar Association. I love you all beyond words for allowing me, without regret, to fulfill this dream.

There is no disputing our ADR experience. (left to right) Paul Dorf, Andrew Radding, Carol G. Cooper, Michael G. Hendler and David B. Rudow.

The Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC ADR practice group, which includes a former Circuit Court judge, has in-depth experience in the resolution of individual and business disputes, and family law matters. Backed by extensive collaborative law, arbitration and mediation training, our attorneys are adept at problem-solving and reaching timely dispute resolutions. We bring real-world experience, integrity and professional values to every assignment.

Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC Attorneys At Law

7 Saint Paul Street Suite 600 Baltimore, MD 21202-1612

3201 Rogers Avenue Suite 301 Ellicott City, MD 21043

www.AdelbergRudow.com

Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC is a member of MSI, an international association of independent professional firms.

Baltimore: 410-539-5195 Howard County: 410-313-8342 Washington, D.C.: 301-596-1144

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Black History Month Program Joint with the Library Company of the Baltimore Bar February 23, 2012

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Adoption Subsidies & Child Support By Master William M. Dunn Circuit Court for Baltimore City; Family Law Master in Chancery

Many adoptive families in Maryland receive financial support from the State known as an adoption subsidy. In recent months family law list serves have been inundated with questions and comments regarding how Maryland courts ought to treat adoption subsidies within the context of a child support matter. Should the subsidy be treated as income to the custodial parent who receives the check each month, or should it be treated as income to the minor child? Should the non-custodial parent receive a dollar-for-dollar set off of his child support obligation (similar to social security disability payments) to account for the amount of the subsidy? Should the Courts ignore the subsidy altogether? Maybe the Courts ought to consider the amount of the subsidy, but only as a factor when considering deviating from the recommended child support amount? Unfortunately, one will find little guidance on how to answer these questions from the Maryland appellate courts, which have yet to address this important issue. Fortunately, a number of neighboring jurisdictions have given the issue considerable judicial attention, and those decisions, along with various state and federal child support and adoption statutes give local practitioners some essential guidance. Maryland adoption subsidies are largely a byproduct of federal legislation intended to promote and subsidize the adoption of children with special needs. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-272. Under the federal law, states that pay benefits to parents who adopt eligible children are reimbursed the cost of the subsidy. In Maryland, “subsidies” may include: money payments; medical care; medical assistance; or special services. Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-401 (2011). In order to qualify for any of these subsidies however, the local Department of Social Services must find that one or more of the following “special circumstances” apply to the adopted child: physical or mental disability; emotional disturbance; recognized high risk of physical or mental disease; age; sibling relationship; and racial or ethnic fac-

tors. Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-403 (2011). Once the adoptive family is approved for the subsidy in Maryland, the financial grant is subject to an annual reapplication, reevaluation, and reapproval [sic] process. Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-410(d) (2011). What the Maryland Code does not contemplate however, is the dissolution of the adoptive parents’ marital relationship, and the effect that both the termination of the marital bond and the award of the adoption subsidy have on the non-custodial parent’s child support obligation. A. Should an adoption subsidy be treated as income to the custodial parent when calculating child support guidelines? There has been at least one state court that has treated an adoption subsidy as income to the custodial parent. See, e.g. Hennessey-Martin v. Whitney, 151 N.H. 207, 855 A.2d 409 (2004). In HennesseyMartin, however, the New Hampshire court grounded its decision in the language of New Hampshire’s child support statute, which includes within the definition of a parent’s income any monies received from “other government programs.” Id. at 412. By contrast, Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law § 12-201 does not include such language. Because the Maryland child support statute does not include a provision that permits Courts to consider “other government programs” as income to the custodial parent, Maryland courts should refuse to follow the holding in Hennessey-Martin, and it should refuse to include adoption subsidies as “income” to the adoptive parent who receives the subsidy on behalf of the adoptive child. Moreover, treating the adoption subsidy as income to the custodial parent is problematic for another reason – it runs counter to the express language of Maryland’s Adoption Subsidy Act (hereinafter “the Act”). Section 5-408 (b) of the Act provides, “[a]n individual who has been approved by a child placement agency as an appropriate adoptive parent and who seeks to adopt an eligible child is eligible to receive a subsidy on behalf of the eligible child regardless of the individual’s income or other CONTINUED ON PAGE 9

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

eligibility factors.” (emphasis added). Unlike all other forms of income enumerated and defined in Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law § 12-201, the adoption subsidy is not received by the adoptive parents on their own behalf; rather, it is received on the adopted child’s behalf. In addition, the notion that the subsidy is directly attributable to the child is further supported by the fact that the minor child continues to receive the benefit even after the death of both adoptive parents. See Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law § 5-408 (c). Finally, treating adoption subsidies as income to the minor child aligns with the overwhelming majority of state court decisions, which hold that adoption subsidy payments are intended to benefit the adopted child and are therefore considered income to the child, not the parent. See, e.g., Hamblen v. Hamblen, 203 Ariz. 342, 54 P.3d 371 (Ct. App.2002) (“…[a]doptive parents are not recipients of Federal adoption assistance programs; rather, adoption assistance programs are made on the child’s behalf to meet his or her needs.” (quoting U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Child Welfare Policy Manual § 8.4B (2001)); In re the Marriage of Newberry v. Newberry, 346 Ill. App. 3d 526, 805 N.E.2d 640 (2004) (adoption subsidies are benefits belonging to the children); Strandberg v. Strandberg, 664 N.W.2d 887 (Minn. App. 2003) (same); Gambill v. Gambill, 137 P.3d 685, 690 (Okla.Cic.App.2006) (same); In re Paternity of M.L.B., 633 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind.Ct.App.1994 (foster care payments should be excluded from parental income)); Bryant v. Bryant, 218 S.W.3d 565 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) (same) (quoting In re the Marriage of Eric Dunkle and Michelle H. Valentine, 194 P.3d 462, 465 (2008) (adoption subsidies received by a parent are income of the children on whose behalf they are received, and not income of the parent). After determining that the adoption subsidy should be treated as the child’s income, courts must then decide whether to: (1) consider the child’s income as a direct set off to an award for child support; (2) ignore the child’s income completely when calculating child support; or (3) consider the child’s income as a reason for deviating from the recommended child support amount. An analysis of these three arguments leads to the conclusion that the last option is the most appropriate.

B. Should an adoption subsidy act as a direct set off to a non-custodial parent’s child support obligation? In Maryland, when a child receives a derivative social security benefit due to a parent’s disability, the amount of that benefit acts as a direct set off to the obligor’s child support obligation. So why not treat adoption subsidies in the same manner as disability subsidies? The reason Maryland courts should not treat the two benefits similarly is because Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 12-204(j), titled “Set off for third party payments,” states: …when a disability dependency benefit, a retirement dependency benefit, or other third party dependency benefit is paid to or for a child of an obligor who is disabled, retired, or is receiving benefits from any source as a result of a compensable claim, the amount of the compensation shall be set off against the child support obligation calculated using the guidelines. (emphasis added). Adoption subsidies are not one of the third party payments enumerated in the statute as a basis for applying a set off. If the Maryland Legislature intended adoption subsidies to act as such a set off, it could easily have stated so in the statute. To treat an adoption subsidy in the same manner as a wagebased social security benefit would be treating the adoption subsidy as income to a parent, rather than to a child. Unlike adoption subsidies, social security/retirement benefits paid to a child are directly attributable to the obligor. Put another way, but for the obligor’s receipt of the disability/retirement benefit, the minor child would not be entitled to the derivative benefit. By contrast, an adoption subsidy is solely attributable to the special circumstances of the adopted child, and should be considered the child’s sole income. Thus, Maryland courts should not provide a direct set off to a non-custodian’s child support obligation due to an adoption subsidy because such a benefit is not attributable to the obligor. C. Should an adoption subsidy be ignored when calculating child support? We now turn to the argument that Maryland courts should ignore the adoption subsidy altogether when calculating child support. Other than those payments specifically stated in Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 12-204(j), Maryland’s child support guideCONTINUED ON PAGE 10 9

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

lines do not permit the income received by a child to be considered in determining the basic child support obligation. Therefore adoption subsidies should be ignored when calculating the basic child support pursuant to the guidelines. (emphasis added). However, the Maryland Court of Appeals has previously held that although “initially [a child’s income] is not normally part of the calculation of the basic child support obligation,” it may be “a relevant consideration in departing from the guidelines.” See Drummond v. State of Maryland, t/u/o Shirley Drummond, 350 Md. 502, 714 A.2d 163 (1998). D. Should the Court consider an adoption subsidy as a basis to deviate from the recommended child support pursuant to the guidelines? Maryland courts are permitted to depart from the guidelines’ recommended child support amount when “the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.” Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 12-202(a)(2)(ii). There may be times that a Court could find that a child’s receipt of an adoption subsidy makes the recommended child support unjust and/or inappropriate. This approach is consistent with other states’ child support guidelines, which explicitly provide that a child’s income may be a factor in determining whether to deviate from the guidelines. See Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 32(A)(1)(d); Alaska Civ. R. 90.3(c); In re Guidelines for Child Support, 863 S.W.2d 291, 295 (1993); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.30(11)(b) (West 1997 & 1998 Supp.); Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 750, para. 5/505(a)(2)(a) (1993 & 1998 Supp.); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.211(3)(d) (Michie 1984 &1996 Supp.); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:315.7 (West 1991 &1997 Supp.); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 2007.3.D (West 1998); Michigan Child Support Formula Manual 4 (1998); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518.551(c) (2) (West 1990 &1998 Supp.); Miss. Code Ann. § 4319-103(b) (1993); Mont. Admin. R. 46.30.1543(1) (m); N.J. Ct. R., Appx. IX.21(l); N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 413.1(f)(1) (McKinney 1998); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.123(b)(3) (West 1996); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 659(a)(1) (1989 & 1997 Supp.); Va. Code Ann. § 20-108.1.B.9 (Michie 1995 &1998 Supp.); Wa. Rev. Code § 26.19.075(vii) (1994). Cf. Idaho R. Civ. Pro. 6(c)(6) Section 10(d)(1) (permitting examination of income of a child when parents' income exceeds $ 150,000) (citing Drummond, at 518). The decision to deviate from the recommended child support,

however, will always turn on the unique facts and circumstances of each and every individual case. There are several factors courts should consider in making a determination as to whether an adoption subsidy contributes to the unjustness and/or inappropriateness of the recommended child support obligation. First, courts should consider the eligibility requirement for an adoption subsidy as set out in Maryland’s Adoption Subsidy Act. The law states the eligibility for an adoption subsidy is dependant on the “child’s special circumstances, including: (1) physical or mental disability; (2) emotional disturbance; (3) recognized high risk of physical or mental disease; (4) age; (5) sibling relationship; and (6) racial or ethnic factors.” Md. Code Ann, Fam. Law § 5-403. Courts should attempt to determine which of the six factors contribute to the child’s receipt of the subsidy. If a minor child is awarded an adoption subsidy for any of the first three criteria for eligibility (physical or mental disability; emotional disturbance; or recognized high risk of physical or mental disease), the possibility that courts will deviate from guidelines should be slim, depending on the cost associated with the child’s particular disability, disturbance or disease. The reason deviation should be less likely in that event is because the first three eligibility requirements suggest that the basic cost of raising a child with such infirmities would be in excess of the basic needs already taken into consideration by the child support guidelines. On the other hand, when a minor child is awarded an adoption subsidy solely due to any of the three remaining criteria for eligibility (age; sibling relationship; or racial or ethnic factors), courts should consider the reasonableness and unfairness of the recommended child support more closely. The granting of an adoption subsidy due to any of these last three criteria is based more upon the child’s circumstances which make an adoption more difficult, rather than on circumstances which make raising the adoptive child more costly. Therefore, if a Maryland court is convinced, based on the assessment of the enumerated factors, that there are special circumstances in any given case that require a minor child to use his adoption subsidy for extraordinary expenses not considered in CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

the basic child support calculations, then a deviation from the guidelines should be less likely. If, however, the court is convinced that there are no special circumstances which require a minor child to spend his income on extraordinary expenses, then the Court should consider the child’s income as a factor which could diminish the basic needs of the child, and thus permit a downward deviation of the recommended child support. In summary, allowing courts to consider an adoption subsidy as income to a child, and in certain circumstances consider that fact as a reason to deviate from the guidelines, is the most equitable way

to consider an adoption subsidy when calculating child support. By doing so, courts are able to balance their desire to meet a child’s basic needs with a non-custodial parent’s need to meet his or her financial responsibilities. In some instances, such as when a non-custodial parent incurs additional expenses in order to maintain a better household for extended access, a downward deviation from guidelines may in fact be the most appropriate way to serve the best interest of an adopted child.

DOCU PRINT IMAGING,

INC.

Reproducing Today’s Documents Using Tomorrow’s Technology

We Are The Right Connection for Your Legal Needs

We can turn your office into a paperless environment.

DocuPrint Imaging, a Baltimore based business since 1982, specializes in doing work for the legal profession. Call us to quote your next project 410-561-4446. 1941 Greenspring Drive Timonium, MD 21093 410-561-4446 Fax: 410-561-3875 docuprint@cavtel.net

We print letterhead, envelopes, business cards, large size

court exhibits, forms and much more. Large volume document reproduction.

In Service

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Third Party Custody Clients: How to Assist Caregivers without Going to Court By Hope Tipton, Esq.

Nana-Mom has been raising her two grandchildren, Johnny and Suzie, full-time since Johnny was twoyears old and Suzie was eight-weeks old. Johnny and Suzie are now 10 years old and eight-years old, respectively, and attending a Baltimore City public school. Nana-Mom’s daughter was 17-years old when she had Johnny; Nana-Mom helped care for Johnny while her daughter was in school. Sadly, her daughter started hanging out with the wrong crowd at school, missing curfew and school, and using drugs. Despite Nana-Mom’s inquiries, her daughter denied using drugs and being pregnant. Suzie was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and addicted to drugs; Suzie spent eight weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit at The Johns Hopkins Children’s Center. After she gave birth to Suzie, Nana-Mom’s daughter agreed to go to Mountain Manor Treatment Center, but left the substance-abuse treatment facility soon after starting the program. Johnny and Suzie have different fathers; Johnny’s father was killed in a car accident when Johnny was four-years old; Suzie’s father is currently incarcerated for murder. Over the last eight-years, Nana-Mom’s daughter has “dropped-in” to see her children once or twice a year. Nana-Mom has been making all of the decisions, without any issues, regarding medical, school, and benefits for her grandchildren for the last eight years, despite not having a court order granting her physical and legal custody. However, Johnny’s pediatrician has recommended that he have his tonsils and adenoids removed and when Nana-Mom took Johnny in for his pre-surgery appointment, she was informed that she could not consent for the surgery, because she did not have any paperwork indicating that she could consent to medical procedures for Johnny. Nana-Mom has also run into obstacles at Suzie’s school; Suzie has been having academic and

behavior problems at school. Nana-Mom has asked Suzie’s school to evaluate Suzie for special education services, but the school principal has told her that the school cannot begin the process without permission from Nana-Mom’s daughter, despite the fact that Nana-Mom has been making Suzie’s educational decisions since she started at this school three years ago. Nana-Mom is not interested in going to court to pursue custody, because she hopes that her daughter will one day start caring for Johnny and Suzie. Nana-Mom comes to your office to discuss her options outside the court system. According to the 2010 census, the number of grandparents caring for grandchildren continues to rise— between 2001-2010, there has been almost a 19% increase of grandparents caring for their grandchildren. According to the 2010 census, there are nearly two million children under the age of 18 living in homes with a parent where a grandparent is the head of the household. Of those two million children, 918,453 children live in a home where the grandparent is solely responsible for the grandchildren living with them. According to the 2010, in Maryland, 112,017 children under the age of 18 live in homes with a parent where a grandparent is the head of the household. Of the 112,017 children, 45,026 children live in a home where the grandparent is solely responsible for the grandchildren living with them. According the 2010 census, in Baltimore City, 8,026 children are being solely raised by their grandparents. Interestingly, this is approximately a fifteen percent decrease from 2008, where there were 98,836 children living under the age of 18 in Maryland homes with a parent where a grandparent was the head of the household and of those children, 54,323 children live in a home where the grandparent was solely responsible for the grandchildren living with them. Despite the national trend, it appears that there is a decreasing trend of grandparents raising grandchildren in Maryland. CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

There are many hurdles, pitfalls, and impediments when a third party caregiver does not have a court order granting the caregiver physical and legal custody. The number one issue is the financial hardship of raising the children. Generally, caregivers providing care can only receive financial assistance through the public benefit system if the caregiver has been formally approved by the local Department of Social Services (DSS) and have a court order granting them physical custody. Because many of the caregivers do not have a court order granting them custody, it is increasingly difficult for the caregiver to receive public benefits on behalf of the children. Often times the biological parent is already receiving public benefits for the children and will not consent for custody, because it will stop the biological parent from receiving the particular public benefit. However, even those who are eligible for public benefits, such as Temporary Cash Assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (i.e. Food Stamps), Medical Assistance, child-care subsidies, and housing assistance, do not receive such assistance because they are not aware of their eligibility, do not want to be involved with DSS, have been erroneously denied the benefits, or do not want a “government handout”. Often times, there are tensions between the caregiver and the biological parent, especially if the biological parent is in-and-out of the child’s life. This can cause emotional, behavioral, and academic problems for the child because it often confuses the child as to who is the parental figure/decision-maker in his/her life. Because it creates an emotional roller-coaster for the child, this often spills over into his/her school performance causing academic and behavioral problems in school. Caregivers, without documented decision-making power, often face many barriers to getting a child mental health services, because most mental health outpatient facilities require some form of documentation granting the caregiver permission to enroll the child into therapy. There are many reasons why caregivers do not pursue custody through the court system. Many times, the caregiver cannot afford legal services and is not aware of the free legal service programs that may exist in their communities. Sometimes, as in the case with grandparent caregivers, the care-

giver is elderly and has health concerns, causing them to not have the energy for a custody battle or the court process. However, more often than not, caregivers are concerned with damaging their family unit by involving the court system or hope the biological parents will eventually return and assume the caregiver role for the children. Despite having this hope, as is Nana-Mom’s hope, many caregivers raise their grandchildren until they turn 18 years old with very little involvement from the biological parents. So how do we help potential clients, who are caring for children, but do not want to pursue custody through the court system? In Maryland, the most effective and easiest way is through the Informal Kinship Care (IKC) affidavit through the Department of Human Resources (DHR). IKC is a living arrangement in which a relative (blood or marriage) of a child, who is not in the care, custody, or guardianship of the local DSS, provides for the care and custody of the child due to a serious parental hardship. In order to be eligible for IKC, both parents must meet one of the following six hardships: (1) Death, (2) Military Assignment, (3) Serious Illness, (4) Substance Abuse, (5) Incarceration, and (6) Abandonment. If these requirements are met, then the relative caregiver completes the triplicate affidavit form (the triplicate affidavit must be used) and it is sent into DHR. DHR will time-date stamp the affidavit and return a portion of the affidavit to the caregiver. DHR does not conduct any form of home study or investigation of the caregiver nor does the caregiver receive any form of financial assistance through the IKC affidavit. The IKC affidavit is effective for one year and must be renewed annually. It allows the caregiver to consent to non-emergency medical treatment, mental health treatment at some medical institutions, school decisions, including enrollment and special education, and enroll the child for public benefits, if eligible. While some school systems require proof of the hardship, most agencies (medical, schools, and DSS) accept the IKC affidavit without any proof of the hardship. The benefit of IKC is that it does not require the biological parents to do anything nor are the biological parents terminating their parental rights. You can get IKC affidavits through DHR, the local health department and school systems. CONTINUED ON PAGE 14 13

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

IKC should not be confused with Kinship Care through the foster care system within DSS. In Maryland, kinship care must be considered first when out-of-home placement is sought under DSS’ care. There is mandatory notification of grandparents and other close relatives when a child enters foster care and an effort must be made to locate a grandparent or relative. With Kinship Care, a home study is completed of the relative’s home; the relative must go through child abuse and neglect clearance and a health check of relative; and fingerprinting of all adults in the home must be completed. DSS will also consider the relationship between the relative and biological parent and the relative’s ability to assist in reunification. The relative does not have the right to petition the court directly for Kinship Care. The goal of DSS is for reunification, but if this is not possible, the relative may be able to adopt the child if this is the desire. With Kinship Care, the caregiver receives a financial subsidy for each child under his/her care. However, if one of the hardships does not apply for IKC or the child is not in foster care to be eligible for Kinship Care, the biological parent can sign a Limited Power of Attorney for Children (POA) that would enable someone, other than the parent, to make decisions for the children. A POA allows someone else, not necessarily a relative, to make decisions, non-emergency medical, mental health, educational, public benefits, etc., for the children. The custodial biological parent must sign the POA and the document must be notarized. A caregiver may want to do this if the biological parents are in-and-out of the children’s life and available to sign the POA. A POA is a bit more formal than the notarized letter. Finally, another possible option for a caregiver is

Standby Guardianship. A standby guardian is a person appointed to care for a child if the child’s caretakers are physically or mentally incapable of doing so. Standby guardianship does not constitute custody; at anytime, the parent can revoke guardianship and there is no lose of parental rights. A standby guardianship can be accomplished either through a court order or by parental designation. The key differences between court order and parent designation is that with parental designation, there is no requirement that incapacitation of the biological parent be imminent and it only requires one parent’s signature (both parent’s signature is required before petitioning the court.) After discussing the options (Informal Kinship Care Affidavit, Kinship Care, Limited Power of Attorney for Children, and Standby Guardianship) with Nana-Mom, you decide that the Informal Kinship Care Affidavit is most appropriate for Nana-Mom to continue to make decisions for Johnny and Suzie, because each of the biological parents meet one of the hardships (death, incarceration, and substance abuse problem). Kinship Care is not appropriate because Johnny and Suzie are not in the foster care system and Nana-Mom does not want to contact Child Protective Services and involve DSS. The Limited Power of Attorney for Children and Standby Guardianship are not feasible for Nana-Mom because it requires the assistance of the biological parents and neither is available in her scenario. Therefore, you assist Nana-Mama with completing the Informal Kinship Care Affidavit, which will allow her to consent to Johnny’s surgery to remove his tonsils and adenoids and consent to the special education process for Suzie’s educational needs.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Senior Law Day 2012 April 21, 2012

CONTINUED ON PAGE 16 15

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Too Many Wrong Mistakes: What lawyers can learn from the “Dodgers Divorce” By Laurie M. Wasserman, Esq., Tydings & Rosenberg LLP

Marriage, money, and baseball have long proved to be strange bedfellows. Adding a postnuptial agreement to the mix makes a real recipe for disaster. The well-publicized California case of McCourt v. McCourt is dramatic proof that, to quote Yogi Berra (Baseball Hall of Fame 1973), it is possible to make “too many wrong mistakes.” “If you build it, he will come.” -The Voice, Field of Dreams (1989) In 1979, Baltimore native Jamie Luskin (daughter of former appliance store owner and self-proclaimed “Cheapest Guy in Town” Jack Luskin) married Boston native Frank McCourt. They lived in Boston and raised their four sons. Jamie, having a law degree from University of Maryland, and business degree from M.I.T, worked as real estate and (ironically) family law attorney, and Frank started his own commercial real-estate business, The McCourt Company. Jamie later joined The McCourt Company as her husband’s general counsel. The McCourts’ major projects included development of mixed-use waterfront property in South Boston and converting a defunct Penn Central railroad property into parking lots. The McCourts used their good fortune to purchase several homes throughout the country—including a $16 million dollar mansion in Brookline, Massachusetts, a $19.5 million dollar estate on Cape Cod and a $6 million dollar ski home in Vail. But, after a business creditor placed a lien on the McCourts’ Brookline home, they agreed to shelter their non-business assets by putting their homes into Jamie’s name only. Having amassed great wealth, the McCourts wanted to realize their dream of owning a sports team. Baseball was in Frank’s blood, as his grand-

father was part-owner of the Boston Braves. After several failed attempts to purchase a baseball franchise (specifically, the Boston Red Sox, the Anaheim Angels and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays), in 2004, the McCourts purchased the Los Angeles Dodgers from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. for $421 million. The franchise included the team, Dodger Stadium and 276 acres of land surrounding the stadium. Frank signed $119 million in personal guarantees to purchase the team and financed $125 million using a commercial property owed by The McCourt Company in Boston. Again, to protect their personal assets from business creditors, the Dodgers franchise was purchased in Frank’s name and the properties remained in Jamie’s name. Jamie was hired as the team’s CEO. “I guess some mistakes you never stop paying for.” -Roy Hobbs (played by Robert Redford), The Natural (1984) After the franchise was purchased, and before Frank and Jamie relocated from Boston to Los Angeles, they consulted with their joint estate planning attorney, Larry Silverstein, of Bingham McCutchen LLP in Boston. What followed can only be described as, to paraphrase what Branch Rickey once said about Leo “The Lip” Durocher (Baseball Hall of Fame 1967 and 1994, respectively), taking a bad situation and making it immediately worse. The problem here was that Silverstein was not a family law attorney, nor was he admitted to practice law in the State of California. Rather, he proclaimed to have “sufficient” understanding of California law. Nevertheless, with the assistance of an estate attorney at his firm’s California office, Silverstein preCONTINUED ON PAGE 18 17

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

pared a post-nuptial agreement and presented it to the parties for signature. There was no disclosure as to the values of the parties’ assets, nor did he ever ask the parties if they wished to alter their respective rights of equitable distribution under Massachusetts law by entering into the agreement. Eventually, Silverstein witnessed the parties as they executed three originals in Boston before they moved. Then, to be, in his own words, “super cautious,” he had the parties execute three more originals right after they settled into their home in California. So, at this point, there were six original signed versions of what was believed to be the same document. “Every 24 hours the world turns over on someone who was sitting on top of it." -George Lee “Sparky” Anderson, Baseball Hall of Fame 2000 The McCourts spent the next few years on a financial rollercoaster. They spent lavishly to maintain their powerful image, and carried a hefty payroll for the Dodgers. Their combined salaries were $7 million dollars, and they reportedly took $108 million dollars in personal distributions from the team in a period of 5 years, tax free. They were able to avoid paying taxes on the distributions because the team was operating at a loss. But, the spending took a toll, and mounting debt and rumors of Jamie’s infidelity put a strain on their high-profile marriage. On October 14, 2009, the parties announced that after 30 years of marriage they were separating. They assured the public that Jamie would stay on as the Dodgers’ CEO and turned the focus away from their divorce and onto the Dodgers’ playoff run. But on October 22, 2009, one day after the Dodgers were eliminated from the playoffs, Jamie was fired as CEO. Less than one week after her firing, Jamie filed for divorce, requesting that she be awarded half of the team, which she valued at an estimated $800 million dollars, and half of the couple’s other assets, which she believed to be worth at least $1.2 billion dollars. She also requested spousal support to cover her expenses, including multiple mortgages, a private jet, a full-time hair and makeup person, and a half-dozen country club memberships. Frank claimed he had little wealth due to the personal

and professional debts he carried. The parties also disagreed over ownership of the team—Frank said that the postnup made the Dodgers his sole property, while Jamie insisted she was an equal owner. While Jamie prepared to litigate the validity of the postnup, a judge awarded her $225,000 per month in temporary spousal support and $412,159 per month to pay the mortgages on the properties and all costs associated with seven homes. Even though he was saddled with a significant temporary alimony payment, Frank continued to make low-ball settlement offers to Jamie. Confident that the Court would find him to be the sole owner of the franchise, Frank reportedly offered to settle the divorce with Jamie by giving her all of parties’ properties, in addition to a cash payment between $35 and $40 million. Jamie turned down his settlement offer, claiming the postnup was invalid because she never intended to give up her right to half ownership of the Dodgers. “Been in this game one hundred years, but I see new ways to lose 'em I never knew existed before.” -Casey “The Old Perfessor” Stengel, Baseball Hall of Fame 1966 The first part of the divorce trial in August 2010 focused on the validity of the postnuptial agreement. Exhibit A, the last page of the postnup, listed all of the parties’ assets (although without their value) and how they were to be divided in the event of a divorce. All six originals of the postnup had Frank as the sole owner of the Dodgers. Jamie’s only defense was that she did not understand that she was giving up her right to the franchise when she signed the postnup—a tough argument to swallow considering her education and experience with complex agreements and business dealings. It appeared as if Jamie was going to lose her pursuit of the team. But, once Jamie’s forensic experts examined the six originals, they made a surprising discovery. In all six originals of the postnup, the parties’ signature page immediately proceeded Exhibit A. So, when the parties signed the postnup, there should have been indentations on Exhibit A from those signatures. The experts deterCONTINUED ON PAGE 19

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

mined that the Boston copies had indentations on Exhibit A, but the California copies did not. Silverstein was called to testify about this inconsistency and Jamie’s luck turned. Silverstein explained that after the California originals were signed, he noticed a small, but crucial, typo, in each of the California exhibits. Specifically, the three Boston exhibits stated that Frank was the sole owner of all property “including” the Dodgers franchise. But, the three California exhibits substituted the word “including” with “excluding.” Therefore, of the six originals, three had Frank owning the franchise solely and the other three had Frank owing the franchise equally with Jamie. After he discovered this mistake, Silverstein chose not to mention it to the McCourts. Instead, Silverstein, believing he had his clients’ “implicit permission” to act in such a manner, simply printed out three more copies of the Boston exhibit and swapped them with the incorrect California exhibits, bringing all six agreements into accord. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can’t get you off.” -William “Sport Shirt Bill” Veeck, Jr., Baseball Hall of Fame 1991 In a 100-page opinion#, Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon explained that the testimony in this matter “paints a picture of two people who had no involvement in the drafting or execution of the [agreement] and related documents and further that they so entrusted all maters regarding the [agreement] to their lawyers, that they did not closely read or did not read at all, the drafts or final copies of the various [agreements] in this case. This testimony…does not reconcile with the sophisticated business people who testified at the trial and who were well versed on all of the details of the issues and their very complex business affairs.”# The Court repeatedly commented that neither Frank or Jamie were credible witnesses in that regard. The Court also found that Silverstein’s actions, although “troubling” and without any “reasonable explanation,” were not enough to invalidate the agreement in and of itself, because Silverstein acted without the parties’ specific permission and after they already signed the agreement.

Nevertheless, because two materially different versions of the executed agreement existed, and neither side presented sufficient evidence indicating which of the two versions represented the parties’ true intent, there was no mutual assent or meeting of the minds when they executed the agreement. The postnuptial agreement was, therefore, invalid, and Jamie and Frank were equal owners of the Dodgers franchise under California’s community property laws.# “Most games are lost, not won.” -Casey Stengel (again) In June 2011, the Dodgers filed for bankruptcy protection just days before the team was expected to miss its payroll. Frank had tried to broker a deal with Fox Television which would have advanced him $385 million, but MLB Commission Bud Selig refused to approve the terms fearing that Frank would use about half of the money to settle his divorce. After months of high-stakes negotiations, in October 2011, the McCourts settled, with Jamie relinquishing her one-half interest in the Dodgers in exchange for Frank paying her a reported $130 million dollars. It is estimated that Frank and Jamie had the most expensive divorce in California history, collectively spending $20 million in legal fees. In other news, taking a cue from Yogi Berra who said: “I never said most of the things I said,” Silverstein’s firm filed a preemptive suit against Frank McCourt, seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for malpractice. That suit was dismissed for misuse of the state’s Declaratory Judgment Act.# A malpractice suit against Silverstein’s firm appears imminent. Finally, on March 27, 2012, Frank McCourt and the Dodgers officially announced an agreement under which the Guggenheim Baseball Management LLC (a partnership of several investors, including basketball legend Earvin “Magic” Johnson) will purchase the organization for the record price of $2 billion. Another group of affiliates, including Frank McCourt, will also purchase the property surrounding the stadium for an additional $150 million dollars. This historic deal will allow the Dodgers to reorganize and emerge from Chapter 11 and pay all of their creditors in full. CONTINUED ON PAGE 20 19

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

“It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.” -Earl Weaver, Former Orioles Manager and Baseball Hall of Fame 1996 The lesson from the McCourts’ divorce is that all attorneys who draft agreements—postnuptial or otherwise—need to carefully protect themselves and their clients. One small mistake can be extremely costly, as Frank McCourt and his lawyer have learned the hard way. There are several things lawyers can do to avoid the pitfalls. 1. Keep close watch on your drafts. This lesson has nothing to do with your fantasy baseball draft. Rather, it is very typical for agreements to go through several drafts before the final version is reached. Be sure to carefully label each draft, by version number and date. Make changes very clear, by using highlighting tools, Redline or good old fashioned handwriting. Do not make a change and expect the other side to find it by combing through the agreement line by line. 2. Review the agreement with a “fresh set of eyes.” After proofreading the same document many times, you can still miss a glaring error. It may help to step away from the document and come back to it on another date and time with “fresh eyes.” Try reading the sections from back to front or have someone else in the office proofread for you. That new perspective may make all the difference in the world. 3. Have the client review the agreement one more time in your presence. The law presumes that every person is capable of making a valid deed or contract. Rule 1.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct requires attorneys to adequately communicate information to our clients and explain the material risks and alternatives so that the client can give his or her informed consent. It is helpful that these conversations take place in a face-to-face setting and be documented in the case file. Meet with the client and go through the final version of the agreement one more time. Ask them if they have any

questions and make certain that you answer them. Essentially, voir dire your client in your office before he or she signs it. Keep in mind that a factor in the Court’s decision to invalidate the agreement was that both Frank and Jamie McCourt testified that they did not read the incorrect documents closely enough to ever detect the errors. 4. Have only one fully executed original agreement, with each page initialed. Unless there is a rule regarding the number of original agreements, it may be safest for there only to be one. Photocopies of it can still have the same force and effect as the original. Each page (including exhibits) should be numbered and initialed by both parties. 5. Always include a severability clause in your agreements. The provisions in an agreement can be severable from one another so that if one is deemed invalid, then the other provisions remain in full force and effect. In the McCourts’ case, the agreement contained such a clause, but the Court could not sever the contradicting exhibits without any evidence of what the parties’ true intentions were when they executed the agreement. 6. Admit when you made a mistake, or refrain from making it altogether. To quote Tim Robbins’ character, Ebby Calvin (“Nuke”) LaLoosh, from the famous baseball movie Bull Durham: “A good friend of mine used to say, 'This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.’ Think about that for a while.” The standard in practicing law, as well as in baseball, is not perfection. As members of the tribunal, we have an ethical responsibility to be candid in our representation. It is so basic but also bears repeating. Rather than trying to fix your mistake in an unethical manner, admit to it and try to make it right. Sometimes you’ll win and sometimes you’ll lose. And, if you are not familiar with an area of law, do not be afraid to turn down a case. As practitioners learn the hard way, sometimes the best cases are the ones that you do not take. I wonder if Larry Silverstein is thinking the same thing.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

May, Should or Shall: What Does It Matter? By Theresa A. Furnari, Family Division Master for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and Daniel Preston Dozier, Press, Potter & Dozier, LLC

May. Should. Shall. For many, the application of these words is unimportant. Not so for the legal community; the effect of these words can dictate standards of conduct, change the meaning of a contract and/or influence the outcome of a trial. Generally, “may” is discretionary. “Should” suggests encouraged but not required. And “shall” calls for mandatory action. For the ADR community and the Maryland Bar generally, these distinctions are particularly relevant when interpreting the obligation of attorneys to counsel their clients about the use of ADR. By way of background, in 2005 Maryland was one of 26 states to adopt almost verbatim the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Model Rule 2.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rule), concerns the advice a lawyer offers to a client. Specifically, the Rule provides that when offering advice to a client, “a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors that may be relevant to the client’s situation.” Rule 1.4 concerns what, when and how a lawyer communicates to a client. When initially adopted, comment 5 of Model Rule 2.1, read: “Similarly, when a matter is likely to involve litigation, it may be necessary under Rule 1.4 to inform the client of forms of dispute resolution that might constitute reasonable alternative to litigation.” (Emphasis added.) When some in the ADR community believed that this revision did not provide enough guidance to attorneys when advising clients about the availability of ADR and failed to promote greater use of ADR, comment 5 was revised in 2007 to read: “Similarly, when a matter is likely to involve litigation and, in the opinion of the lawyer, one or more forms of alternative dispute resolution

are reasonable alternatives to litigation, the lawyer should advise the client about those reasonable alternatives.” (Emphasis Added) Despite the fact that this revision fell short of the objective of mandating attorneys to advise their clients about the use of ADR, those who sought the change believed the revision was a good first step. Is it time to take another step forward and seek the mandatory language that eluded our grasp in 2007? There are already a handful of states that have adopted stronger language by replacing “may” with “should” or “shall.”1 The biggest hurdles to ‘shall’ -- then and now -- are twofold. One, there was the concern that imposing a mandatory duty could subject an attorney to discipline when the attorney may have had good reasons not to give the information to the client. Of equal or greater concern was the fear that revision of the rule could expose an attorney to a malpractice claim when the attorney failed to advise the client about the use of ADR. These concerns have not opened the flood gates of litigation as warned. While there have been a few recent cases in Maryland and elsewhere in which the use of ADR was at issue, those cases have generally been about confidentiality, not about attorney malpractice for failure to properly advise clients about the availability of ADR options. There is no reason why an attorney should not fully inform his/her client about all the possible courses of action he or she may pursue before resorting to litigation. In fact, as we all know, attorneys generally do advise clients about the various options and costs; failure to do so can, at the very least, lead to unhappy clients. Clients, not their attorneys make the major decisions about the case, obviously based on information from counsel. Resistance

applying

the

mandatory

lan-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 22 21

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

guage in the ethical standards may be rooted in a lack of understanding among some attorneys about the flexibility and variety of ADR sources and processes. However, until attorneys are able and willing to fully advise their client to the possible uses of ADR, Maryland will never have an informed client pool and attorneys will not have adequate knowledge about the procedural opportunities available when ADR is generally an option to consider. To change how attorneys advise their clients -- and most importantly to better serve clients -- Maryland attorneys should be required to advise their clients about the opportunities of ADR in appropriate circumstances. As ADR becomes more commonly used throughout the country, if Maryland attorneys fail to advise clients about the appropriate and relevant ADR op-

tions, they risk unhappy clients and the debate about may versus shall could become irrelevant. Clients will ‘vote with their feet’ and select attorneys who are familiar with ADR options. Footnotes: 1 See for example, Comment 1 to Rule 1.2 of the Virginia State Bar Professional Guidelines: “Within those limits, a client also has a right to consult with the lawyer about the means to be used in pursuing those objectives. In that context, a lawyer shall advise the client about the advantages, disadvantages, and availability of dispute resolution processes that might be appropriate in pursuing these objectives.”(Emphasis added) (http://www.vsb.org/pro-guidelines/index. php/rules/client-lawyer-relationshop/rule1-2/)

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

The Baltimore Barrister Spotlight On A Member Series By Master William M. Dunn

Master Anna Benshoof graduated with a B.A. in political science from The George Washington University in 1994 and with a J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law in 2000. She has been a Master in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City since July of 2009. Prior to her appointment, Master Benshoof worked for eleven years with the firm of Butler, McKeon & Associates, P.A. where she practiced exclusively in the area of family law. Master Benshoof is active in the Bar Association of Baltimore City, is a former chair of the Family Law Committee, and served for the past three years as co-chair of Baltimore City National Adoption Day event. Full Name: Anna R. Benshoof Hometown: Originally, Houston, Texas. Now, Baltimore City, Maryland. Undergrad: The George Washington University Law School: University of Baltimore School of Law Married: Yes Children: Just a furry one. Are you looking to expand your practice? Are you interested becoming involved with a public service?

Join the Lawyer Referral and Information Service

LRIS For more information visit www.baltimorebar.org/referral

Pets: A blind shih tzu we rescued 3 years ago named Squirt. Favorite restaurant: Tie – Bluegrass and Cinghiale If this were Sunday, what would you be doing?: Cooking for the week and/or doing home renovations. Favorite ice cream: Coffee with chocolate chunks Last book read: Blood, Bones & Butter: The Inadvertent Education of a Reluctant Chef If you had to leave your house (never to return) with only three items, what would you take?: My purse, my dog, and my KitchenAid mixer. Orioles or Ravens: I am prohibited from choosing because my husband represents the Maryland Stadium Authority. If you could live your life over, would you change anything?: I don’t know if I’d change anything, but I might do some things a little differently. Most famous person you met: Chuck Todd from NBC News, but it was well before he was famous. We went to college together and were founding fathers of our band fraternity, Kappa Kappa Psi. Any fears?: Heights.

Did you know that there is a FREE fee dispute resolution program?

If you are in need of Mediation or Arbitration Call The Bar Association of Baltimore City 410-539-5936, ext. 112.

LRIS is an ABA certified program, offered by The Bar Association of Baltimore City

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Government/Public Interest Lawyers Awards Reception April 17, 2012

CONTINUED ON PAGE 25 24

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

LexisNexis Research Tip By Tom Martone

LexisNexis Public Records provides attorneys and legal professionals access to a complete legal research solution for gathering intelligence to: Track down elusive parties; Uncover hidden assets; Verify certifications; Investigate criminal past; Review conflict of interest in business and personal relationships; Fact find legal status in Secretary of State and UCC filings LexisNexis Public Records for the most accurate and complete set of public records con-

tent available—covering more than 450 million unique individuals, 150 million unique businesses and 2,013 tax assessor counties. Beyond public sources, available content includes regulated data, private data and derived information that is not readily available from other providers. Tom Martone – 302.547.3473 or Tom.Martone@LexisNexis.com

Practice Tip

By J.W. Bennett, Librarian, Baltimore Bar Library

torney Fees and Expenses (Chapter 14); The Master System (Chapter 15); and the Rights of Unmarried Cohabitants (Chapter 18). There is also a chapter on Practice and Procedure (Chapter 19).

The Maryland statutory law pertaining to the family is contained in the Family Law Article. Set forth are laws on such matters such as Marriage (Title 2); Spouses (Title 4); Children (Title 5); Divorce (Title 7); Child Custody and Visitation (Title 9); Alimony (Title 11); and Child Support (Title 12). One can also get a glimpse of the past in the Family Law Article. Title 3 deals with “Breach of Promise to Marry and Alienation of Affections.” To save the curious the time of looking it up, breach of promise actions have been abolished save for pregnant plaintiffs (3-102), and actions for alienation of affections are in fact no more (3-103).

There are numerous other works dealing with Maryland family law, some believe it or not, better than others. Three that I would recommend are “Family Law Manual – Maryland” which sets forth the law pertaining to Alimony; Children; Contempt; Divorce; Procedure; Property Disposition; and Separation Agreements in a concise matter, setting forth cites and quotes for various propositions of law. “Maryland Divorce and Separation Law,” ninth edition is a thorough treatment of the law on the subject, and contains law, procedure and forms. With regard to forms “Maryland Family Law Forms” published in 2011 is an invaluable resource setting forth a myriad of material including pleadings, motions and practice forms.

“Fader’s Maryland Family Law,” now in its fifth edition, is everything a Maryland family law practitioner could want. In addition to material on divorce, alimony and child support there are chapters on matters such as the Uniform Acts (Chapter 8); Domestic Violence (Chapter 10); At-

In addition to the above materials there are numerous journals and law reviews on family law. Three of note are “Family Law Quarterly,” which, yes, is published four times a year, as well as the “Journal Of Law & Family Studies” and the “Journal Of The American Academy Of Matrimonial

As the stereotypical image of the family, i.e. the Cleavers or the Huxtables has receded into the past, the practice of family law, never easy to begin with, has become all the more challenging. Thankfully for family law practitioners there are many excellent resources to help them in their task.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 27 26

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Lawyers” both of which come out twice a year.

ing the FormFinder and AllForms databases.

All of the numerous sources mentioned in this article are available at the Baltimore Bar Library. Also available at the Bar Library is access to free and unlimited Westlaw and WestlawNext includ-

For more information about a Library membership telephone 410-727-0280 or e-mail the Library at jwbennett@barlib.org.

Around the Office

Congratulations to the following attorneys who were recently appointed to the Bench in Baltimore City: Jeffrey M. Geller, Circuit Court for Baltimore City; Rachel Elizabeth Cogen, Jennifer Etheridge, and Melissa Kaye Copeland, District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. Crosswhite, Limbrick & Sinclair, LLP, is pleased to announce that Heather R. Beygo has become a partner of the Firm and Emily Duvall Jolicoeur, former Law Clerk to the Honorable Judith C. Ensor, has joined the Firm as an Associate. The firm has moved to 25 Hooks Lane, Suite 310, Baltimore, Maryland 21208. Congratulations to the following BABC members who were honored on May 7 by The Daily Record as on one of Maryland’s Top 100 Women: Michele Bresnick Walsh; Mary Cina Chalawsky; Caroline D. Ciraolo; Diane D’Aiutolo Collins; Kristin P. Herber; Francie Spahn; Bonnie Sullivan; Angela WhittakerPion; and Linda S. Woolf. The Honorable Lynn K. Stewart, who has been named Top 100 three times, will be inducted in the Circle of Excellence. Oren D. Saltzman, a member of Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC, has been named the 2012 Maryland Attorney Advocate of the Year by the Baltimore district of the Small Business Administration. Harriet E. Cooperman, a partner in the firm of Saul Ewing, LLP, has become a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. The law firm Ober|Kaler recently announced that the firm's Project HEAL Pro Bono initiative was se-

lected as one of the American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA) Pro Bono Champions. Launched this year, the Pro Bono Champions program honors AHLA members who have contributed at least fifty hours per year to pro bono work in the health care field and provided services. Project HEAL is a nationally recognized medicallegal partnership that provides pro bono legal services for children and their families. In March 2010, Ober|Kaler became the first law firm to partner with Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service's Project HEAL at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center and the Kennedy Krieger Institute. Through the project, the firm provides legal assistance to children and their families on a variety of issues, including special education, housing-landlord/tenant, Social Security Income, guardianship and estate planning. Ober|Kaler's Project HEAL program is coordinated by associate Victoria Sulerzyski. Ms. Sulerzyski is joined by a team of Ober|Kaler lawyers who collectively spent nearly 400 hours providing healthrelated legal services to pro bono clients throughout the state of Maryland. CREATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS Mediation, Arbitration, and Other Dispute Resolution Services Throughout Maryland and D.C. Our retired judges and experienced attorneys serve as mediators and arbitrators for all types of disputes: * Domestic

* Commercial

* Employment

* Personal Injury

* Malpractice

* Construction

* Contracts

* Insurance

* Probate

* Real Estate

* I.P.

* Products Liability

(301) 977-8002

www.creativedisputeresolutions.com

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Going Global By Adam Sean Cohen, Esq.

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 in the Venable Moose Room of the Baltimore Bar Library, I, along with BABC Secretary Robert Anbinder, met with Morry Bailes, Vice President of The Law Society of South Australia, and his law partner, Tim White. The meeting was at the request of Mr. Bailes (who was in town for business) and the purpose was to have informal discussions surrounding various issues facing both our associations, including: Gov-

ernance Structures; Relationships between other State Bar associations; Ensuring relevance to members; Limitation of Liability; and Ethics in-

formation to members. It was humorous as Mr. Bailes and Mr. White first walked into the Moose room when they both paused, looked at each other, looked at the massive moose head, looked at each other again and in unison said “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, now we get it”. It was a good ice breaker for what ended up being a phenomenal meeting. We spoke at length about these issues and many other tangents regarding bar associations in general. We exchanged gifts and took numerous photographs to memorialize this global bar meeting. After the meeting, we had an opportunity to take our guests on a tour of the Mitchell Courthouse as well as a private tour of the Museum of Baltimore Legal History. They were very impressed with the Courthouse as well as the Museum and we were very proud to show it off. I came to the clear realization at the end of the meeting, that bar associations have the same benefits, significance, and issues, even across the globe. The people that join and govern these organizations, for the most part, have a great love for the legal profession and a desire to enhance it. Mr. Bailes and Mr. White were in Baltimore for business, but, it was a priority, after traveling 10,488 miles from Adelaide, South Australia, to obtain information to strengthen their organization back home. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for all of us and I am honored to have been a part of it. (originally published in the April City Bar Report)

Upcoming Issues of The Baltimore Barrister August 2012 – Solo and Small Firm Practice/General Practice Issues November 2012 – Criminal Law If you would like to submit articles, ads, or other information for any of the upcoming issues please contact ktsanzone@baltimorebar.org.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Senior Legal Services 20th Anniversary Celebration March 29, 2012

CONTINUED ON PAGE 30 29

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Maryland State Bar Association Lawyer Assistance Program Wellness Tip Sheet Lisa Caplan, LCSW-C,CAC, Lawyer Assistance Program Counselor

Attention Deficit Disorder is not just a problem in children

I often have lawyers come into my office laughing while telling me they think they have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Typically expressing that they have a hard time staying organized, focused, and on task. They are surprised when I tell them that adults can have ADD and that it is not just a problem that is exclusive to children. This tip sheet will hopefully shed some light on adult ADD. Attention deficit disorder can go undiagnosed in childhood. The child may have been able to compensate for his problems only to have difficulties as an adult when his responsibilities increased. When trying to balance, for example, a career, household, finances, and family, it becomes more difficult to organize, focus, stay on task and manage your stress. Juggling so many responsibilities is difficult for anyone, but especially challenging for someone with ADD. Adult ADD can present quite differently in adults and each adult can have very different symptoms. Often symptoms are overlooked because adults don’t typically present with hyperactivity that you see in children. Below is a list of adult ADD symptoms. Recognizing your symptoms is the first step in learning to manage them. You can have as few as one of the following symptoms and still have ADD. • Poor listening skills – having a hard time remembering conversations and following directions • “Zoning out” without realizing it, even in the middle of a conversation • Difficulty paying attention or focusing, such as when reading or listening to others • Struggling to complete tasks, even simple ones

• Unable to stay on task due to extreme distractibility • Tendency to overlook details, leading to errors or incomplete work • Focusing on a task to the extent of being oblivious to everything going on around you The good news is that adults with ADD typically are high energy, very creative, and think out-of the box. An adult with ADD needs to identify their strengths and create a work environment that supports them. There are many ways to assist someone with adult ADD. These include: • Education for yourself and family Support Groups • Counseling • Communication skills • Assertiveness skills • Time-management Skills • Problem-solving • Managing multiple demands and details If you would like further information on adult ADD please contact the Lawyer Assistance Program for free, confidential assistance at 410-685-7878 x3041 or 800-492-1964 x3041.

Choosing to be Resilient during Difficult Times What is Resilience? Resiliency is the ability to bounce back and recover from a change or hardship quickly without being overwhelmed or acting in harmful ways. Resilient people take charge of their lives and

CONTINUED ON PAGE 32 31

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

move forward quickly after a hardship. When a very resilient person experiences a traumatic life event they recover stronger, better, and wiser. Will you see yourself as a victim or will you be resilient? It is not the situation; rather how you react to a situation that will determine whether or not you feel like a victim. Research has shown that the least resilient people are those who believe their life is full of stress and blame the way they feel on that stress. They choose not to take an active role in their life and rather allow situations to take control of them and how they feel. Resilient individuals are resistant to stress. They are able to learn from difficult situations, adapt quickly to changing circumstances, and, therefore, come out of situations with more positive outcomes. They take a challenging life experience, learn from it, and see it as an opportunity to improve their life. Developing Resiliency Skills We are all born with the ability be resilient, but it is something that must be learned. When learning to be resilient it is important to focus on: •Maintaining a healthy and stable emotional and physical wellbeing. A strong wellbeing helps to keep your energy level up. • Focus on what you can change and on your problem solving skills. Research shows that if your focus is on what you can change rather than on how you feel it will lead to better resiliency. • Maintain strong self-confidence (not arrogance), inner strength, and self esteem. • The ability to turn a bad situation into a good situation. Try to see how the difficult situation can improve your life. Other helpful hints when faced with an adverse situation: Al Silbert, Ph. D., author of Resiliency wrote: • Your mind and habits will create either barriers or bridges to a better future. • Resiliency can’t be taught, but it can be learned. It comes from working to develop your unique combination of inborn abilities. • The struggle to bounce back and recover from

setbacks can lead to developing strengths and abilities that you didn’t know were possible. Call the Lawyer Assistance Program for free, confidential assistance and speak to a counselor at 410-685 7878 x 3041 or toll free at 800-4921964

Coping with Difficult People Everyone has someone in their life that is difficult. Difficult people we encounter may include clients, bosses, co-workers, family members, and people in our personal lives. It would be easy to say just remove yourself from the situation, but that’s not always possible. When dealing with difficult people, it is helpful to understand that there is a correlation between your mental and physical health and the people in your life. Studies have shown that positive, supportive relationships can be good for your mental and physical health. However, negative relationships cause a lot of stress and can actually be detrimental to your mental and physical health. It causes emotional wear and tear and therefore affects your physical wellbeing. So, how do you deal with these people? Difficult relationships are often due to the interactions between two people. It is usually caused by a pattern of communication that fuels the conflict. You can’t change or control someone else, but you can look at how you react to that person and your role in the relationship. Tips to help you cope with difficult people: •Have a positive attitude – start off each day, before you get out of bed, visualizing how you want your day to look and how you want your interactions with other people to be. For example, you have a meeting with a difficult client. Going into that meeting with a negative attitude will produce a negative outcome. Looking ahead and changing your reactions and communication, with that person, can result in a positive outcome. • Be calm– Getting upset just fuels the fire. When you remain calm, you can remain in control. CONTINUED ON PAGE 33

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

• Practice stress management – Deep breathing is a very easy technique to use, but you need to practice it to be able to use it when you need it. It goes like this – inhale through your nose for 5 seconds - tying to fill yourself with air from your toes up. Hold for 5 seconds. Exhale through your mouth or nose for 5 seconds. Repeat 2 more times. Put a sticky note where you feel stressed to remind you to breath. For example, if talking on the phone makes you anxious. Put a sticky note on your phone to remind you to breath. • Don’t take behavior personally – Behavior patterns begin in childhood and probably affect most of the people they have contact with. • Avoid “hot” topics – Keep conversations neutral. Don’t push someone’s buttons discussing topics you know they are passionate about. • Watch out for someone who is inconsistent – Someone who is nice to you but trashes other people, or who is short, rude or impatient is very likely someone you may not want to trust. This behavior is a red flag. This person can’t be trusted and can turn this behavior on you too. • Focus on the positive – This can be helpful especially when dealing with family, and can make the time together more enjoyable. • Get support – Rely on people who have proven that they are there for you. Talk to someone who you trust and who is a good listener to help you deal with your situation. Look at the pattern of your relationships and behavior and make sure you are choosing healthy people to be in your life. Don’t rely on someone who has let you down or causes a lot of drama and stress. • Let go – Don’t wait until you are so beaten down to make a change in your life. When you can, end relationships that are no longer healthy for you. If you don’t know how, ask for help. Learning to take care of yourself isn’t selfish; it’s how you stay healthy. If you can’t end the relationship, give yourself space when dealing with a difficult person and learn techniques to cope. Understanding different personalities can help you cope with difficult people in your life. Passive-Aggressive This is the person who is upset and angry but instead of expressing how they feel they let you know in a passive destructive way. For example someone is upset with you and instead of talk-

ing to you walks away without saying a word and doesn’t talk to you for the rest of the day or night. This person is passively resistant and negative to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. This behavior can manifest itself as helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, and sullenness. This is a very difficult person to deal with. The best way is to be calm and confront the behavior. Complainers This person is very fearful, insecure and has no faith in themselves or others. This person can bring down the morale of the entire office. Don’t try to convince them to be positive, you will only become exhausted. Instead, look at things objectively and share your optimistic point of view. Aggressive This is the person who may yell, be demanding, and expect people to run away from them or react with their own anger. Don’t fight or argue with this person, instead stand up to them by assertively expressing your ideas and views. Snipers These people are insecure and make themselves feel better by putting others down in subtle ways and by taking potshots. They may make comments, jokes, and give disapproving looks. They are trying to gain control. The best way to deal with this person is to ask a question to clarify their comment or behavior. For example, “Are you putting me down?” Usually they will try to put it off on you and say, “I’m just kidding.” Questioning this behavior will usually cut down on these kinds of attacks. Drama Everyone has problems and real issues in life, but this is the person who always makes an issue out of everything. At work they often have an excuse for why they can’t do what they need to. Everything, big and small, is an issue. This person will drain you of all your energy. The best way to deal with this person is to limit your time with them. Plan your interactions with them to have very clear, concise communication. Be assertive and set limits on how much drama you are willing to listen to. CONTINUED ON PAGE 34 33

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Silent People These are timid people who may ignore you, or respond by saying, “I don’t know”. The best way to deal with this person is to ask questions that don’t require a yes or no answer and then wait for a response. You may need to be assertive and ask them why they are not responding to your question.

Don’t give up on dealing with difficult people. It can take getting help to learn communication techniques and new ways of coping. Remember you can’t change someone else but you do have control over yourself and your choices. Call the Lawyer Assistance Program for free, confidential assistance at 410-685-7878 x3041

New Members: January-March 2012 Elizabeth Bayly Adam Beck Brian K. Bishop, Esq. Christina Boffen, Esq. Steven A. Book, Esq. Eric Brichto Gregory Bridges, Esq. Michael Cantor, Esq. Cheryl Chado, Esq. Rebecca J. Coleman, Esq. Reece Dameron, Esq. Anne E. Di Salvo, Esq. Jessica Earlbeck Jeremy Eldridge, Esq. Susan M. Euteneuer, Esq. Keith Ferguson, Jr. Tiffany Patrice Fountaine Rachel M. Goodman, Esq. Shawn R. Harby, Esq. Michael A. Harmon, Esq. J. Peter Haukebo, Esq. Stuart A. Hindman, Esq. Rachel Hirsch, Esq. Marc Hirschfeld, Esq. Michael Huber, Esq. Timothy M. Hurley, Esq. Stanton R. Johnson, Esq. Jamie Joshua, Esq. Conrad W. Judy, III, Esq. Master Andrea F. Kelly Melissa L. Kujda, Esq. Jay Lawlor, Esq.

Law Student Law Student Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Law Student Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Law Student Regular Member Regular Member Law Student Law Student Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member

Allison Rachel Levine, Esq. Katherine Levy, Esq. Leianne S. McEvoy, Esq. Pat McKevitt, Esq. Andrew Olen, Esq. Evonne Opoku Maliaka Stacey Phillip, Esq. Jessica Laine Phillips, Esq. Christopher Sean Pike, Esq. Divya Potdar Felichia Pride Heather A. Rice, Esq. Mario Richards Nathaniel Risch, Esq. Josh Shettle Andrew N. Sindler, Esq. David Michael Snyder, Esq. David Solan, Esq. Saleh Stevens, Esq. Jennifer Sullam, Esq. Matthew S. Tidball, Esq. Millicent Esther Tyler, Esq. Justin Wilkinson, Esq. Heather Williams, Esq. Danielle Williamson, Esq. Swapna Yeluri, Esq.

Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Law Student Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Law Student Law Student Regular Member Law Student Regular Member Law Student Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member Regular Member

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Young Lawyers’ Division News By Matthew J. Youssef, Communications Committee Chair

It has been an exciting year at for the Young Lawyers Division! Since the beginning of the term our membership has increased over 10%. This has been the result of the hard work of our membership committee and the encouragement of our existing members to bring their friends into the Bar Association. I am sure that the benefits of this year’s membership surge will last far beyond just this year and we hope to continue to see new faces at every single event! An example of our thriving membership drive was one of the spring’s most successful events, the Bond Street Social Networking and Happy Hour Event. For those who couldn’t make it we had a record breaking turnout and were honored that several members the judiciary could take the time to come out and socialize. For the members of the bench who were able to attend, thank you for your time and we hope to continue to see you at future events. The Public Educations Committee is starting to wind down its yearlong collaboration with Highlandtown Middle School after a hugely successful year working with the talented middle school students which has been doing a yearlong study of in People v. Woodson first conducting mock crime scene investigations in the fall and then a mock trial in the winter and spring. All year this committee and its volunteers have worked hard to create these remarkably successful educational opportunities for the students of Highlandtown and they have a lot to be proud of.

Our Breakfast with the Bench Series contintues to grow as well as YLD members continue to benefit from the thoughtful legal discussions and lectures held across the city each month. This year we hosted events with numerous members of the Baltimore City Circuit Court bench, The Honorable Shirley M. Watts, of the Court of Special Appeals and The Honorable Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Retired, Court of Appeals. We thank the many members of the bench who worked hard to continue to present valuable CLE to BABC members. Each month this year our events have become better and better attended due in part to the hard work of the committee members and volunteers but it has also reflected an increase in relevancy to our members lives. We are constantly looking for your input in how to better serve you so if you have ideas, want to get involved or just want to know what events are in coming up. Please feel free to contact me or any other member of the YLD Executive Council. I can be reached at mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com. You can also check us out on the Bar Association website, on facebook, twitter (@babcyld) and linkedin. While we are proud of the YLD accomplishments so far this year, we are not done. One of the year’s final events will be our final membership Happy Hour on June 7th. Please save the date and be on the lookout for more information!

This year we had the largest Annual Holiday Party for Children at the Maryland Science Center and a sold out Bar Association Holiday Party at Silo Point! Both events were filled with too many volunteers to mention, but we are grateful nonetheless for everyone who helped out.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Calendar Events Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Annual Meeting Hyatt Regency Baltimore 5:30 p.m. Monday, June 25, 2012 Baltimore Bar Foundation Annual Golf Outing Fundraiser County Club of Maryland 11:30 a.m.

Baltimore Social Calendar May 26, 2012 Brew at the Zoo

July 4, 2012 Baltimoreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s July 4th Celebration July 7, 2012 African American Festival July 13, 2012 Caribbean Carnival Festival July 14, 2012 Annapolis Irish Festival at Anne Arundel County Fair Grounds July 20, 2012 Artscape July 21, 2012 Polish Festival at the Maryland State Fair Grounds

May 27, 2012 Brew at the Zoo

July 22, 2012 Polish Festival at the Maryland State Fair Grounds

June 2, 2012 Great Grapes Wine & Food Festival at Oregon Ridge

July 27, 2012-August 5, 2012 Baltimore Restaurant Week

June 3, 2012 Federal Hill Jazz & Blues Wine & Art Festival

July 28, 2012 German Festival

June 9, 2012 Honfest Annapolis Arts & Crafts Festival at Navy-Marine Corps Stadium June 10, 2012 Honfest

July 29, 2012 German Festival

June 13, 2012 Star-Spangled Sailabration June 16, 2012 Gun Show at the Maryland State Fair Grounds June 17, 2012 Gun Show at the Maryland State Fair Grounds June 23, 2012 Latinofest at Patterson Park

August 4, 2012 International Festival at Poly Western High School

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

A lifetime of service… A tradition of excellence

Personal Insurance Retirement Plans Benefit Programs Family Business Consulting Investments Benefit Programs

Providing insurance and investment strategies since 1976 One East Pratt Street ·Suite 902·Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 539-2320 · www.franklinmorris.com Securities, investment advisory, and financial planning services are offered by qualified Registered Representatives of MML Investors Services, LLC, member SIPC. Supervisory office: 11350 McCormick Rd., Executive Plaza IV, Suite 200, Hunt Valley, MD 21031, 410-785-7654. FranklinMorris is not a subsidiary or affiliate of MML Investors Services, LLC or its affiliated companies. CRN201307-150363

Looking for ways to promote your Business or Practice? The recently revived Baltimore Barrister is a great opportunity to reach out to the Baltimore City legal community. The Bar Association of Baltimore City is offering members, firms, and businesses the opportunity to purchase print space that can be used for advertisements, promotions, and event announcements. “The Baltimore Barrister is made available both to the entire bar membership as well as various other members of the legal community,” said BABC Executive Director Kathy Sanzone. “It can be a great utility to deliver messages and increase recognition for any business, including both big and small law firms practices. The next issue is scheduled for publication in early August, 2012. The BABC accepts firm announcements; ads for mediation services; classified advertising for sale of items such as furnishing, autos, homes; employment opportunities, etc. For more information, contact Kathy Sanzone, Executive Director, The Bar Association of Baltimore City, at 410-539-5936, email ksanzone@baltimorebar.org.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

The Bar Association of Baltimore City 627 Courthouse East 111 N. Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-539-5936 Fax 410-685-3420 Email info@baltimorebar.org www.baltimorebar.org

TO:

MEMBERS OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE CITY

FROM:

ROBERT D. ANBINDER, ESQUIRE, SECRETARY

DATE:

April 20, 2012

RE:

BYLAW AMENDMENTS

The following amendments to the Bylaws of the Bar Association of Baltimore City were approved by the Association’s Executive Council at its meeting on January 18, 2012. [Brackets] indicate content deleted from the existing Bylaws. Content in bold and underlined indicates additions/changes to the Bylaws. Please indicate your support of, or opposition to, these proposed Amendments by returning the form below. ARTICLE VIII Committees Section 1. Standing Committees. The Association shall have the following thirteen (13) fourteen (14) standing committees: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n.

Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution; Committee on Bench/Bar; Committee on Budget and Finance, one of the members of which shall be the Treasurer of the Young Lawyers’ Division; Committee on Continuing Legal Education [and Events]; Committee on Events; Committee on Judicial Selections; Committee on Lawyer Referral and Information Service; Committee on Legislation; Committee on Long Range Planning, to be chaired by the President-Elect of the Association; Committee on Membership; Committee on Pro Bono and Access to Legal Services; Committee on Professional Ethics; Committee on Technology; and Committee on Personnel, to be chaired by the Vice President of the Association.

Explanation: With the increase of both educational seminars and special events, the Executive Council recommends reestablishing two separate committees. The Continuing Legal Education Committee would focus its efforts on planning the BABC’s substantive CLE programs and lectures. The Events Committee would focus its efforts on planning the BABC’s social events and special programs, including the Annual Meeting, Black History Month Program, and Crab Feast.

The Bar Association of Baltimore City Proposed Bylaw Amendments Approved by the Executive Council on January 18, 2012 I ___favor ___oppose amendments to Article VIII, Section 1. Name (please print)________________________________________________________________________ Signature________________________________________________________________________________ Please return ballot by email (info@baltimorebar.org), fax 410-685-3420, or by mail or in person to the Bar Association of Baltimore City, 111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627, Baltimore, MD 21202. Ballots must be received at Bar headquarters no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.

Dedicated to Equal Justice Under Law Since 1880

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

The Bar Association of Baltimore City 2012-2013 Committee Interest Form Membership alone in the BABC can be a meaningful and valuable contribution to the legal profession and the administration of justice in Baltimore City. Membership connects lawyers with each other, judges and the community; it also assists lawyers with legal practice issues. Membership also brings you the opportunity to participate in one or more of BABC’s committees listed below. Please consider joining in the Association’s committee work by indicating your committee preference below. Name_________________________________________Telephone_________________Fax___________________ Address______________________________________________E-mail___________________________________ STANDING COMMITTEES (Please number selections in order of preference) ______

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Promotes professional and public awareness of alternatives to judicial dispute resolution and in the implementation of a pre-judicial adjudication mediation program.

______

BENCH/BAR Working through a variety of subcommittees, this Committee maintains a dialogue between lawyers and judges in order to plan, promote, and implement the effective administration of justice in the courts.

______

BUDGET & FINANCE Assists the Association’s Executive Director and its Treasurer in the budgeting process, establishing policy concerning the finances of the Association, and plans for the financial stability of the Association.

______

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION Has responsibility for planning the legal educational programming.

______

EVENTS Has responsibility for planning the social events for the Association.

______

JUDICIAL SELECTIONS Reviews and evaluates candidates for appointment to judicial vacancies and submits its recommendations to the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Governor.

______

LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE Evaluates the policies, administration, publicity and effectiveness of the LRIS to insure that the public is well served and that the LRIS is beneficial to our members.

______

LEGISLATION Takes an active part in the legislative process through the review of pending legislation; the submission to the Association’s Executive Council for approval to take action on bills which most directly affect our members; and contact the members of the General Assembly when and where appropriate.

______

LONG RANGE PLANNING Reviews and evaluates the effectiveness and feasibility of the Association’s present programs and makes recommendations for future Association projects pursuant to its development of a strategic plan.

______

MEMBERSHIP Works to increase the Association's membership as well as to identify benefits and services which the Association may provide to its members.

______

PRO BONO AND ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES Seeks to carry forward our active commitment to insure that all persons have access to the courts. This committee will also focuses on the local pro bono plan for Baltimore City.

______

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Prepares advisory opinions for our members and evaluates proposed changes to the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as operates the Ethics Hotline.

______

TECHNOLOGY Is responsible for keeping members informed about technological development and upcoming trends, and assisting Bar headquarters in maintaining the Association’s website and in updating its technological needs. continued on reverse

CONTINUED ON PAGE 42 40

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

NAME______________________________________

SPECIAL COMMITTEES (Please number selections in order of preference) ______

ELDERLY LEGAL SERVICES Works with the Legal Services to the Elderly Program and provides assistance with various aspects of the Program, including volunteer recruitment, CLE programs, publicity, studies issues affecting the elderly population of Baltimore City, and recommends systemic change and effective advocacy for Baltimore City’s elderly population.

______

FEE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Has responsibility for assisting clients and attorneys who seek assistance through the Association’s voluntary Fee Dispute Resolution program.

______

GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS Addresses the special professional and career development needs of lawyers who work for federal, state, local government, or public interest law firms.

______

HISTORICAL Develops and maintains historical records of the Association, provides support for the Museum of Baltimore Legal History, and organizes the Annual Memorial Ceremony to pay tribute to members of the Baltimore Bar who died during the preceding year.

______

SPONSORSHIP Develops levels and benefits for the Association’s corporate and law firm sponsorship program and secures the Association’s sponsors.

______

NEWS JOURNAL The News Journal Committee is responsible for publication of the Association’s journal, the Baltimore Barrister, published quarterly.

SUBSTANTIVE LAW COMMITTEES (Please number selections in order of preference)

Substantive Law Committees provide a forum for networking with attorneys in same practice area. In addition, these committees provide education and review legislation relative to the respective practice area. ___ Criminal

____ Business

___ Family

___ Federal Practice

___ Worker's Compensation

The Association is considering adding additional committees. Please indicate if you would be interested in the following committees: ____Banking ____Commercial Litigation ____Consumer Law ____Disability Law ____Employment Law ____Estates & Trusts ____Intellectual Property Law ____Personal Injury Litigation ____Real Estate ____Taxation

Please return by May 23, 2012 to:

Is there a substantive committee you would like to see the BABC add in which you would participate? If so, please list here:___________________ ____________________________________

Andrew Radding, President-Elect The Bar Association of Baltimore City 111 North Calvert Street, Suite 627 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Fax to 410-685-3420, or email to info@baltimorebar.org

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Evidence Presentation Equipment Available Did you know……… The Circuit Court for Baltimore City has a limited supply of evidence presentation equipment available for rent at reasonable prices. Reserve yours today. Please visit the court’s website: http://www.baltocts.state.md.us/technology/evidencepresentation.htm to view the available equipment and to complete the reservation process. The equipment packages are listed below. Please call John Carter at 410-396-1760 if you have any questions.

Options: Pricing and Selection Option A- Document Camera, digital projector and/ or 100" screen. Location: All courtrooms in Mitchell Courthouse and Courthouse East, 1 per building Cost: $50 .00 per day Document camera $50.00 per day Digital projector $50.00 per day Screen

Option C - Evidence Presentation Podium with wireless integrated control, annotation, and LCD monitors. Minimal use is 3 days. Training is mandatory. Location: 2nd Floor Courthouse East Cost: $500 per day Option D - Evidence Presentation Podium with wireless integrated control, annotation, and LCD monitors. Minim al use is 3 days. Training is mandatory. Location: 4th floor Mitchell Courthouse Cost: $500 per day

Option B - 3M All-in-One 60" Digital Wall Display Boards. Minimal use is 2 days. Training is mandatory. Location: 1 unit in both Mitchell and East Courthouses Cost: $200 per day

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Special Thanks to BABCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Law Firm Sponsors

Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. Ober Kaler Grimes & Shriver Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl Gallagher Evelius & Jones, LLP Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP Gordon, Feinblatt Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. Semmes, Bowen & Semmes Wright, Constable & Skeen, L.L.P. Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC Ballard Spahr, LLP Baxter Baker Sidle Conn & Jones, P.A. The Law Offices of Frank F. Daily, P.A. Fedder & Garten, P.A. Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew, P.A. Gorman & Williams Hodes, Pessin & Katz, P.A. Kramon & Graham, P.A. Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC Saul Ewing LLP Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, P.A. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

For information about our sponsorship program, visit us at www.baltimorebar.org, email info@baltimorebar.org or call Bar headquarters at 410-539-5936.

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

The Bar Association of Baltimore City encourages its members to patronize the following businesses that generously support our organization. When you contact our sponsors, please mention this ad and that you are a member of the Bar Association of Baltimore City. PLATINUM SPONSORS Bar Association Insurance Agency, Inc. Computers & Communications Group, Inc. The Daily Record (Record Fax) Docu Print Imaging, Inc. Gore Brothers Reporting & Videoconferencing SILVER SPONSORS Creative Dispute Resolutions, LLC Ellin & Tucker, Chartered

IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Legal Images of Baltimore, LLC Multi-Specialty Health Care

Carol Morris Lou Moiani Suzanne Huettner Jennifer Crocetti Joseph Grabowski

410-539-2320 410-418-9699 410-752-3849 410539-3127 410-837-3027

Erik Johnson Steven Manekin, CPA R. Christopher Rosenthal, CPA/ABV, ASA Mike Tagliaferri Grant Ferreira Paula Peters

301-977-8002 410-727-5735

For information about Sponsorship Opportunities, call Bar Headquarter at 410-539-5936.

â&#x20AC;Š

410-752-4555 410-727-0505 443-983-4693

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

The Bar Association of Baltimore City Presents its 132nd Annual Meeting Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Hyatt Regency Baltimore 300 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. Cash Bar

6:30 p.m. Dinner Program

The Annual Meeting of the Bar Association of Baltimore City is held in conjunction with the Annual Meetings of the Young Lawyers’ Division and the Baltimore Bar Foundation, Inc. Guest Speaker

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein United States Attorney District of Maryland Installation of Officers The Bar Association of Baltimore City

Andrew Radding, President Cynthia L. Leppert, President-Elect Hon. Michael W. Reed, Vice President Robert D. Anbinder, Treasurer Gregory K. Kirby, Secretary Rebecca B. Ripley, Chair, YLD Gregory P. Currey, Chair-Elect, YLD Young Lawyers’ Division Rebecca B. Ripley, Chair Gregory P. Currey, Chair-Elect Michael R. Hudak, Treasurer Joshua L. Caplan, Secretary Baltimore Bar Foundation, Inc.

Hon. Michael W. Reed, President Robert D. Anbinder, Vice President Gregory K. Kirby, Treasurer Paul R. Kramer, Secretary Presentation to 50 Year Honorees represented by William R. Levasseur, Esquire Presentation of the Baltimore Bar Foundation Fellows Award to the Citizens Law Related Education Program of Maryland For tickets and information call 410-539-5936, or email info@baltimorebar.org. Register online at www.baltimorebar.org

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Revised Assignment of Judges January 2, 2012 through December 30, 2012 (Updated: November 29, 2011) Court

Assignment

Judge

CR/Chambers

Telephone

Admin

Judge At Large

Judge Marcella A. Holland, AJ

234E/208E

396-3836 & 3837

Part 1

Criminal

Judge Jeannie J. Hong

464M/462M

396-5140 & 5141

Part 2

Criminal

Judge David W. Young

227E/241E

396-5076 & 5077

Part 3

Civil

Judge W. Michel Pierson, JICC

528E/534E

396-4916 & 4917

Part 4

Criminal

Judge Emanuel Brown

215M/251M

396-1776 & 1777

Part 5

Domestic

Judge Yvette M. Bryant, JICFD

F-2E/126E

396-5102 & 5103

Part 6

Civil

Judge Edward R. K. Hargadon

330E/330E

396-5070 & 5071

Part 7

Criminal

Judge Pamela J. White

636M/636M

396-5056 & 5057

Part 8

Juvenile

Judge Stephen J. Sfekas

A3401 (C-2)

443-263-2796

Part 9

Criminal

Judge Wanda K. Heard

600M/642M

396-4918 & 4919

Part 10

Civil

Judge Stuart R. Berger

225E/209E

396-5008 & 5009

Part 11

Criminal

Judge Lynn K. Stewart

430E/430E

396-5052 & 5053

Part 12

Domestic

Judge Charles J. Peters

F-4E/124E

396-5080 & 5081

Part 13

Criminal

Judge Michael W. Reed

420M/424M

396-5060 & 5061

Part 14

Criminal

Judge Althea M. Handy

400M/466M

396-5054 & 5055

Part 15

Criminal

Judge George L. Russell, III

404E/406E

396-5062 &5063

Part 16

Criminal

Judge Timothy J. Doory

226M/228M

396-5112 & 5113

Part 17

Civil

Judge John Philip Miller

428M/426M

396-5066 & 5067

Part 18

Civil

Judge Martin P. Welch

228E/214 E

396-5082 & 5083

Part 19

Criminal

Judge Gale E. Rasin

509E/505E

396-5132 & 5133

Part 20

Civil

Judge Marcus Z. Shar

203M/245M

396-5100 & 5101

Part 21

Domestic

Judge Yolanda Tanner

F-1E/120E

396-5074 & 5075

Part 22

Civil

Judge Alfred Nance

556E/561E

396-4020 & 4021

Part 23

Criminal

Judge Audrey J. S. Carrion

201/205E

396-5130 & 5131

Part 24

Juvenile

Judge Kendra Y. Ausby

A3401 (C-3)

443-263-2799

Part 25

Juvenile

Judge Robert B. Kershaw, JICJ

A3401 (C-1)

443-263-2793

Part 26

Civil

Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill

113M/101M

396-6826 & 6843

Part 27

Criminal

Judge Sylvester Cox

231M/217M

545-3766 & 3767

Part 28

Civil

Judge Evelyn Omega Cannon

523E/531E

545-6235 & 6236

Part 29

At Large

Judge Marcella A. Holland, AJ

234E/208E

396-3836 & 3837 CONTINUED ON PAGE 47

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Part 30

Civil

Judge M Brooke Murdock

230E/252E

545-0115 & 0116

Part 31

Criminal

Judge Barry G. Williams, JICCr

540E/550E

545-3516 & 3517

Part 32

Criminal

Judge John Addison Howard

438M/436M

545-0887 & 0888

Part 33

Domestic

Judge Videtta A. Brown

F-3/122 E

410-361-9311&9312

Part 34

Vacant

Part 99

Visiting Judge

Judge Paul E. Alpert

255E

396-1119

Part 98

Visiting Judge

Judge Hilary Caplan

511M

396-4716 & 1187

Part 97

Visiting Judge

Judge David Ross

247E

545-3490

Part 96

Visiting Judge

Judge Dennis McHugh/L. Daniels

396-8057

Part 95

Criminal & Civil

Judge John M. Glynn

508E

396-8057

Part 94

Visiting Judge

Judge Carol E. Smith

247E

545-3490

Part 93

Visiting Judge

Judge John Carroll Byrnes

Visiting Judge

545-3423

Part 92

Visiting Judge

Judge Kathleen Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ferrall Friedman

253E

396-8057

Part 91

Vacant

Part 90

Visiting Judge

Judge Ellen M. Heller

Part 89

Visiting Judge

Judge Thomas J. S. Waxter

253

545-3490

Part 88

Visiting Judge

Judge A. Owen Hennegan, Jr.

247

396-8057

Part 87

Vacant

396-8057

Part 86

Visiting Judge

Judge Teaette Price

396-8057

Part 85

Visiting Judge

Judge Paul Smith

JJC

396-7361

Part 84

Visiting Judge

Judge Bonita J. Dancy

264E

443-263-8528

Part 83

Visiting Judge

Judge Joseph H. H. Kaplan

JJC

545-3491

Part 82

Visiting Judge

Judge Clifton J. Gordy

255E

396-8057

Part 81

Visiting Judge

Judge Joseph P. McCurdy

396-8057

Part 80

Vacant

396-8057

Are you looking to expand your practice? Are you interested becoming involved with a public service?

Join the Lawyer Referral and Information Service

LRIS For more information visit www.baltimorebar.org/referral

396-8057

Did you know that there is a FREE fee dispute resolution program?

If you are in need of Mediation or Arbitration Call The Bar Association of Baltimore City 410-539-5936, ext. 112.

LRIS is an ABA certified program, offered by The Bar Association of Baltimore City

BARRISTER: FAMILY LAW EDITION

Legal matters can be complex.

So can managing a law firm. We have a long and successful record as advisors to the law firm community, serving clients from start-ups, to large, regional firms. Find out how we can bring greater profitability to your firm.

C E R T I F I E D P U B L I C A C C O U N TA N T S A N D B U S I N E S S C O N S U LTA N T S 410-727-5735 ETNET.COM

BALTIMORE • WASHINGTON • FREDERICK • BELCAMP