On the Record

Del. Norman H. Conway, D-Wicomico and Worcester, readily admits he was the lawmaker who added language to the state’s budget requiring the Maryland Disability Law Center to submit financial documents before receiving funding. (The funding was untied from the reporting requirement in the final version of the budget passed by the General Assembly.)

MDLC was the only legal services organization targeted, raising alarms in the legal services community. Conway, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said MDLC was selected because he had not seen an audit from the organization recently. (Virginia Knowlton, MDLC’s executive director, has noted that her organization undergoes financial audits at both state and federal levels to receive grant money, and Conway has access to those.)

Conway also points out that the documentation requirement is not uncommon. ”Throughout the budget, you’ll see all types of reports that are requested from a list of organizations and state agencies,” he said.

Scanning through the budget (PDF), I discovered more than a dozen similar documentation requirements. The Maryland Higher Education Commission and the state’s historically black institutions, for example, have to submit a report showing the effectiveness of programs to increase graduation and retention rates before receiving $1.5 million for that purpose. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is asked to submit a report on the “proposed closing of state-operated beds” at the Walter P. Carter in Baltimore City before receiving $10 million. And the Maryland Insurance Administration is to report on “an agreed upon practice for forecasting and tracking the premium tax” before receiving $100,000.

An analyst with the Department of Legislative Services confirmed the frequent use of documentation requirements for funding, and said the unusual thing here is that MDLC succeeded in getting them untied .

Conway indicated that the selected organizations are not being accused of or being investigated for wrongdoing. Rather, it’s a way for the legislators to make sure state funds are being used appropriately, particularly in the current economic climate.

“I like to focus on what the activities are,” he said. “The committee needs to understand these different expenditures.”

Whatever Conway’s motives, MDLC and other legal services agencies see it as a shot across their bow, according to this commentary by Legal Aid’s Joe Surkiewicz. What do you think?

Friday was the American Bar Association’s annual Law Day. This year’s celebration was titled ”A Legacy of Liberty” and honors the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln.

Janet Stidman Eveleth of the Maryland State Bar Association wrote about Lincoln the lawyer in our paper. And at the Baltimore County Bar Association’s annual Law Day breakfast, keynote speaker Harry S. Johnson noted a Maryland legal connection to Lincoln.

Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus was challenged by Lt. John Merryman, a Maryland soldier arrested for helping escort Union troops out of the state in 1861. The case, Ex Parte Merryman, was heard and decided by another Marylander, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who was sitting in a lower federal district. Taney, in finding Lincoln’s decision unconstitutional, wrote in one of his most famous opinions not named Dred Scott:

I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers may thus upon any pretext or under any circumstances be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.

Spotted in Annapolis near the city dock:

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

I was a student at the University of Maryland a few years ago when “Deep Throat” was shown at the Hoff Theater on campus. While I was surprised 530 students attended (The Apex on South Broadway probably would kill for that kind of turnout), I didn’t think much else of it.

So when I read Hoff was going to screen another porn earlier last week, I wasn’t too shocked. But then a funny thing happened: the movie became a political cause in more ways than one. Legislators threatened to withhold funding from the university if the film went on as planned, and an on-campus political party hosted a screening of part of the film days before the Student Government Association election. Today, the state Senate thankfully rejected a silly budget amendment that would have withheld construction funds at state schools unless they developed a porn policy. Not since Mary Carey ran for governor of California have porn and politics been so closely tied together. 

As an alum, however, what bothers me most about this whole episdoe was the university’s decision to cancel the screening in the first place. The independent campus newspaper The Diamondback, in a spot-on editorial, summarized my feelings about university administrators:

They have encouraged short-sighted state legislators to make empty threats to meddle with the very information the university distributes. We simply don’t believe state legislators would shut down the most productive source of education, a gem of the state, because Hoff showed some bouncing breasts. But potentially worse, administrators have declared in unequivocal terms they don’t need student input before regulating the content supported by this university.

The apparent endgame to this is the University System of Maryland, which oversees the public institutions in the state, will now develop a porn policy for all state campuses. A USM official called the porn controversy a “tragedy.” I call it a self-inflicted wound.

The attorney-rating site Avvo.com now includes Maryland lawyers, a development I wrote about in today’s paper. I spent yesterday reporting the story, which included a fair bit of noodling around on the site. Here are a few things I noticed:

Peter Angelos, with a rating of 6.7 out of 10, is a merely “good” lawyer. Fellow toxic tort giant Peter T. Nicholl doesn’t even get a number rating.

Warren Brown? Margaret Mead? Billy Murphy? Gerry Martin? Ken Ravenell? These crimlaw big shots are rated “no concern,” meaning Avvo doesn’t have enough info on them to put together a numerical rating.

To be fair, at this point, less than 11 percent of the more than 32,000 Maryland lawyers listed on the site have been given a number rating.

Another observation: it looks like Avvo may be listing some big-firm types who do predominantly defense-side product liability litigation as “defective/dangerous products” lawyers, which to me would imply that they do plaintiff-side work.

All right, you’ve finished reading this blog post. Now go check your own rating. I know you’re going to do it, if you haven’t already.

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Ever wanted to publicly, but anonymously, praise or shred Maryland’s judges?

Move over sites like RateMyProfessors.com (and the professors’ response, rateyourstudents.blogspot.com) — The Robing Room has come to Maryland.

The 2-year-old site, which began as a venue for attorneys to rate federal judges, is now soliciting ratings of state judges. Since its inception, the site has logged 10,000 posts critiquing the nation’s roughly 1,100 federal judges, according to founder Nicholas G. Kaizer, a Manhattan litigator.

Kaizer, vice president of North Law Publishers Inc., of which the Web site is an affiliate, said he started with the big states, like California and New York. As a result of certain technical considerations, Maryland happens to be one of eight states — along with the District of Columbia — currently on the site.

The Robing Room will eventually have a site for each state’s judges and possibly a site for international judges as well, Kaizer said.

While most of Maryland’s federal judges have been rated and commented on — the district’s Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm has been rated the best judge in the country — the state judges’ rating page is empty.

Also, I wonder if the president in charge of filling U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte’s seat will take note of comments that call Grimm “the best man I know” and say he “deserves to be elevated.”

BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer

The New York Times has a piece today about how tough it is to transfer children removed from their homes in one state to relatives who live in another state.

The story is datelined Hyattsville and features five kids from Washington whose Maryland grandparents and aunt and uncle want to take them in. Because of the bureaucratic hurdles that accompany interstate transfers, the kids are in foster care, “where they could remain for months while their relatives wait for Washington and Maryland to make formal requests, home inspections and approvals,” the Times’ Erik Eckholm writes.

“From the kids’ point of view, it’s like they’re being punished,” the aunt, Mia Johnson, told the Times.

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

• Mandatory retirement ages for lawyers have lost favor with the ABA and many law firms, but as Danny Jacobs writes, performance-based retirement can bring its own set of problems. In a related story, the lawyer for a retired founder says his suit against his former partners is “just business,” but it feels personal to one of the men he mentored.

• Kathy Kelly Howard, lobbyist for property-owners’ rights, will be sworn in this week as president of the 23,000-member Maryland State Bar Association. Find out how she plans to use her year.

• The Court of Appeals heard argument Friday in two cases we’ve been following: A disciplinary matter against Lemon Law firm Kimmel & Silverman, and a zoning dispute between Loyola College in Maryland and North Baltimore County residents over the college’s plans for a retreat center in Parkton.

• A Frederick lawyer wins a round in his defamation suit over a blog post; and, in Verdicts & Settlements, a woman is ordered to repay $190,000 to her stepmother after her father dies.

• Leadership in Law honoree Mark Thomas, now a judge, talks about how being on the bench has literally given him a new perspective; Rommel Loria talks about the “low bono” green-card case he took for a Peruvian man after taking a class at Catholic Charities.

• The Editorial Advisory Board calls for more changes to Maryland’s foreclosure process; Wilhelm Joseph calls for more money for Legal Aid; and the woman at the center of a controversial child support ruling tells her side of the story in a letter to the editor.

Also, find legal briefs, “movers,” case digests, and summaries of the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit and the Office of Administrative Hearings opinions here.

As always, you can comment on any of these stories by responding to this blog. Or, if you’re in Ocean City for the MSBA’s annual meeting, stop by our booth and leave me a message!

BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor, Law

The trial of David Lee Miller, convicted Wednesday of killing Elizabeth Walters and their unborn child, was serious and emotional, with tears shed on the witness stand and in the gallery by family and friends on both sides.

But for a brief moment Wednesday morning there was laughter all around – thanks to Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Dana M. Levitz’s cassette tape recorder.

It happened as Levitz was near the end of instructing the jury. He had gone through the responsibilities of jurors and thoroughly reviewed and defined the charges Miller faced. The judge reassured the panel that he was following his longstanding practice of recording his instructions in case the jury wanted to hear them again while deliberating.

Just then Levitz, whose voice booms even when he’s not raising it, was stopped silent by a “click” that was audible in the back of the courtroom.

One side of his cassette was full.

The whole courtroom chuckled as a smiling Levitz flipped the tape and continued.

DANNY JACOBS, Legal Affairs Writer

Would-be lawyers in Maryland could be paying a lot more to take the bar exam, the Associated Press reports.

Tucked into S.B. 514, extending the lifespan of the State Board of Law Examiners, is a measure to raise the cap on the bar exam fee from $150 to $400.

“Fiery” debate on the bill will resume Thursday in the Senate, the AP said.

Opponents point out that most exam-takers are fresh out of school and don’t have hundreds of extra dollars lying around. Proponents counter that current fees don’t even cover expenses, leaving the General Fund on the hook for about $500,000 each year. Raising the fee to $325 could solve that, according to the fiscal note on the bill (PDF).

The unspoken argument, though, surely centers on what economists call inelasticity of demand. To wit: How high would fees have to go before lawyers-to-be would shake their heads, say “never mind” and walk away?

Considering all they’ve invested to get to that point — for most of them, roughly a quarter of their lives (four years of college, three of law school), not to mention tuition, books, room, board and an “interview suit” or two — I’m guessing they’ll come up with the extra coin somehow or other.

Whether that’s fair or not is another matter. What do you think?

BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law