On the Record

Greetings from Chicago and the American Bar Association’s Annual Meeting through a Maryland-focused lens!

First, just let me say, the public art and architecture is jaw-dropping, the deep-dish pizza is jaw-inspiring, and the water in Lake Michigan — well, I haven’t been in yet, but I hear it’s jaw-chilling, even in the height of summer.

Speaking of jawing, let me just give you a flavor for what’s on offer here.

One panel this morning – Hot Topics and Recent Developments in Public Corruption Investigations & Government Ethics – seemed particularly apt in light of the (re)indictments handed up this week in the Baltimore City Hall corruption cases.

Moderator Patrick M. Collins, who successfully prosecuted former Illinois Gov. George Ryan and was U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s corruption unit supervisor before going into private practice, kicked off the session with a video montage of seemingly endless local news coverage of the prosecution of this state’s notoriously corrupt politicos. It included a clip from The Daily Show in which host Jon Stewart, with statistical backing, claims a person is more likely to go to jail if he is an Illinois governor than if he is a murderer.

The ensuing discussion centered on the botched prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the recent high-profile cases here in Chicago and how prosecutors and judges should handle sticky issues like turning over Brady material and interaction with the media in such cases.

The panel unfortunately did not include any current prosecutors – the DoJ and Fitzgerald’s office were invited but declined – but nothing else about the panelists was wanting: Ed Genson, who represented Rod Blagojevich; Robert Cary, who represented Stevens; U.S. District Judges Paul L. Friedman (D.C.) and Amy St. Eve (Ill.); and Abner J. Mikva, the former five-term Congressman and D.C. Circuit Judge, were all in attendance. (Friedman and Mikva are shown in the photo above.)

Cary laid into the prosecutors from the DoJ’s public integrity unit for withholding exculpatory evidence in the Stevens case, and praised an FBI whistleblower, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the presiding judge, Emmett Sullivan, as heroes. That kicked off a debate on Brady v. Maryland.

“I don’t think prosecutors understand their Brady obligations,” Judge Friedman said. “Judges should not accept representations that, ‘We know our obligations and we’re meeting them.’”

Friedman went on to say that while the appellate standard might be whether the information is material, “it sure as hell shouldn’t be the standard the prosecutor applies.”

“That’s looking at it pretrial through the wrong end of the telescope,” he said, a stance with which Mikva seemed to agree.

Cary and Genson support going one step further: an open-file policy. And Judge St. Eve suggested the safest course of action is to ask the judge.

Mikva would also probably approve of at least one aspect of Maryland State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh’s conduct over the past few years in his pursuit of Baltimore Mayor Sheila A. Dixon, City Councilwoman Helen L. Holton and developers Ronald H. Lipscomb and John Paterakis. “I do not like…the prosecutor trying his case, and particularly tainting the jury pool, with a big press conference,” Mikva said, calling the prosecutor’s duty to inform the public “nonsense” given the presumptive openness of the courts. But, he admitted, “I’m not sure we can do anything about it.”

And as for the jury’s exposure to public information, all agreed that jurors conducting outside research is a big problem, especially in the age of the Internet, and that establishing a rapport with them that makes them feel invested in doing things right is the only way to check that tendency.

“Do you Twitter, Eddie?” Rollins quipped to his longtime rival.

“I don’t even know what that word means,” Genson responded to laughter.

What do you think these lawyers and judges would say about this year’s action in the City Hall cases?

– BRENDAN KEARNEY

Wednesday’s reindictment of Mayor Sheila A. Dixon is reinvigorating our interest in the fight between her lawyers and the state prosecutor over three grand jury subpoenas issued well after her first indictmen.

Even though the state prosecutor withdrew the post-indictment subpoenas shortly after her lawyers sought to quash them earlier this month, the presiding judge asked for more discussion of the issue.

And lawyers on both sides, none particularly shy, have obliged, poised to make pretrial hay of the controversy.

Last Monday, State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh said the public filing of Dixon’s motion to quash — to prevent two current city employees and one former city employee from offering testimony and evidence to the grand jury — was “in direct contravention” of the Maryland rules and that it could “inappropriately influence the potential jury pool and prospective jurors.” He promised to say more in a private hearing.

Dixon’s lawyers called Rohrbaugh’s two-page response “paltry” and accused the state prosecutor of blaming Dixon for his mistake.

“By withdrawing the subpoenas, the State impliedly admits that it abused the grand jury process by issuing them in the first place,”their motion reads. “Yet, in what can only be described as the height of irony, the State Prosecutor complains that the defendant has wrongfully exposed his abuse of process by filing her motion on the public record.”

“The grand jury is not the prosecutor’s private discovery cell, and he should not be permitted to undermine the integrity of the Court’s processes to his own advantage, nor hide behind the veil of grand jury secrecy for that purpose.”

Rohrbaugh argues it’s a moot point, but Dixon’s defense team thinks there might be “other potential similar violations.”

In light of yesterday’s reindictments, is the subpoena question even more moot, or even more relevant?

– BRENDAN KEARNEY

Once again, Miles & Stockbridge scored high in the American Lawyer’s survey of midlevel associate satisfaction. Last year, the firm placed second; this year, it’s fifth.

As a whole, though, associate morale nosedived this year, which is no surprise.

Current and former Miles lawyers: what is the firm doing that’s keeping its associates relatively happy?

I have a lot of fun browsing someecards.com, a goofy Web site with tongue-in-cheek cards for “when you care enough to hit ’send’.”

The site’s good about picking up on topical news and current events — in this today’s case, the administration of the bar exam.

My favorite of their offerings reads: “May passing the bar exam be the first step in a brilliant legal career that will be publicly shredded if you’re ever nominated to the Supreme Court.”

Another funny one: “Once you pass the bar exam, you may want to warn future clients that after a few drinks you’ll divulge anything to anybody.”

There are also slightly more risque wishes.

If you’re up for a short break from the grind, check them out; but you might want to send them via your personal account, eh?

This was my second year in a row reporting from the Baltimore Convention Center on the Maryland Bar Exam, and wow…what a scene.

Hundreds of fatigued test takers filed out at 5:00 p.m. Wednesday to family members and friends holding signs and handing out balloons and flowers to congratulate them for all of their hard work.

I talked to a number of test takers outside of the Convention Center, and the overriding themes of the day were relief and “what now?”

After all, this year is much different than previous years — these aspiring lawyers have intimidating job searches ahead of them.

Dhru Beeharilal and Elena Carney, both graduates of Suffolk University Law School in Boston, stood together with flowers in-hand, relieved that the exam was over. Both do not have jobs lined up and acknowledged that it will be a tough road ahead.

“I’m going to be jumping into the job pool, trying to learn how to swim,” said Beeharilal, who will be working for AT&T until he can find a job.

Jonathan Akchin, who graduated this year from the University of Maryland School of Law, said he was too busy studying for the bar to worry about the job search. He said he felt “physically sick” when he entered the test taking room Tuesday. But after he saw the first question was a Torts question, he settled down.

“It was built up to be a lot more terrifying that it was,” the 28-year-old Baltimore native said.

Since most of the legal employment-related news has been bad lately, what with all the layoffs and deferrments, I figured I’d share an e-mail I received recently about a job opening to add to the few but proud that are hiring.

The Homeless Persons Representation Project Inc. in Baltimore is looking for a director for its Pro Bono Program, which has seen the ranks of volunteers quadruple since 2007. HPRP runs a community-based intake program at local shelters and soup kitchens; specialized task forces that focus on legal issues affecting the state’s homeless population; and systemic advocacy projects where solutions to homelessness are pursued.

The organization is looking to expand its Pro Bono Program in Baltimore during the next three years. For more details, click here. 

With big firms shedding lawyers left and right, do you think the legal services field could be the route to go in these economic times?

We’ve got some updates to share on the Sheryl Robinson Wood story, courtesy of the two major Detroit newspapers. If you haven’t seen the story, Robinson Wood is a Baltimore Venable lawyer who had been working as an independent monitor overseeing the Detroit police department’s effort to comply with a consent decree. She resigned last week at the behest of the judge overseeing the case after he confronted her over text messages given to the judge by the Department of Justice showing Robinson Wood had inappropriate conversations and meetings with former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press report that city officials there are hopping mad and may pursue legal action to recoup some of the $10 million they’ve paid to Robinson Wood and her team over the years.

The Free Press says that, according to unnamed sources, the texts were “discreet” and “did not clearly show the pair were romantically involved.” The paper reports that “Hours before submitting a letter of resignation last week, Wood began making calls — to the department she had been monitoring for six years and to about a dozen staff members. She told them she was tired, burned out from the job and ready to move on to a new phase of her life, according to a source familiar with her last days at the post.”

The News quotes a law professor as saying that Robinson Wood “could face legal disciplinary action or criminal charges, which may lead to the city recouping some of the fees.” The News also has a city councilwoman saying that Kilpatrick lobbied heavily for Robinson Wood — then known as just Robinson — to get the monitor job.

Another councilwoman “likened Kilpatrick to Superman’s archenemy, Lex Luthor, repeatedly causing trouble for Detroit long after he left.”

Above the Law is reporting that DLA Piper will be inviting the 2009 summer associates who get job offers to come on board in January of 2011 rather than September of 2010. The firm will be encouraging the current summer associates to defer further, to January 2012.

The 2011 start date is not terribly surprising, given that last year’s crop of summer associates, who just graduated from law school in May, will not be starting until January 2010. It’s hard to imagine any firm in this economy wanting one big group of people to start in January and a second big group to start just eight months later.

The firm’s also going to wait on recruiting summers for 2010. DLA Piper will not do on-campus recruiting until November, after it sees what kind of response it gets from the 2009 summers who get offers. My guess? They’ll get a pretty darn good response, even with the 2011 or 2012 start date. In this law market, if you’re offered a job, any job, you take it. If it’s with one of the biggest firms in the world, so much the better.

ON THE COVER: Dealing with slow-paying clients — Lawyers see a rise in the percentage of past-due accounts.

University of Baltimore School of Law gets $500,000 in federal funds to expand its Truancy Court Program.

In Breaking News, a challenge to an Attorney Grievance Commission subpoena fails; a Bethesda family law firm breaks up; the Court of Appeals revives a $13 million verdict; and the top court says that a DNA testing law applies retroactively.

Read about a $64,000 damage award to a man who lost his house in a foreclosure rescue scheme and an Army captain who took $1.25 milion for car-crash injuries in Verdicts & Settlements.

 Jack L.B. Gohn writes about “advice of counsel” in The Big Picture.

Read about whether lawyers think Judge Sotomayor should become Justice Sotomayor in this week’s Interrogatory.

Stay up-to-date with our Legal Briefs and Law Digest, with cases from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court, Maryland.

For my story today about lawyers getting paid slowly or not at all, I spoke to Sonya Smith-Valentine, a Greenbelt consumer rights attorney. According to Smith-Valentine’s (admittedly unscientific) analysis of what kinds of cases she is working on now, the economy’s going to get a lot better in short order.

She said the type of work she gets at any given time serves as something of a leading indicator. When things are about to get bad, she starts seeing more clients who want to get debt collectors off their backs. When the economy is about to get better, she starts getting more people who need her to help them with credit issues; they are about to make a big purchase, such as a house or car, and want to get their credit in order.

“For awhile, all my calls have been about debt issues,” Smith-Valentine told me. “They’ve started to switch back to credit issues.”