# MCR of America, Inc. v. Greene

> Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · November 26, 2002 · 148 Md. App. 91

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757142

## Case

- **Full name:** MCR OF AMERICA, INC., D/B/A Mortgage Credit Reports Inc. v. J. William GREENE
- **Court:** Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** November 26, 2002
- **Citations:** 148 Md. App. 91; 811 A.2d 331; 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 583; 2002 Md. App. LEXIS 197
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murphy
- **Judges:** Krauser, Murphy
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757142

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that courts should apply the “completely irrational standard” when reviewing an arbitrator’s construction of the parties’ “substantive contractual provisions”
- concluding that the terms "remedy” and "relief” were too vague to include punitive sanctions

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
MURPHY, Chief Judge.
While I concur in the judgment, I am concerned about parties to an arbitration proceeding conducted pursuant to an *122 agreement that does not expressly authorize the arbitrator to impose sanctions for conduct that a court could impose under Maryland Rule 1-341. Agreements to arbitrate are favored because all parties to a dispute can benefit from a properly conducted arbitration proceeding. Blitz v. Beth Isaac, 352 Md. 31 , 44 n. 13, 720 A.2d 912 (1998). Rambo tactics, however, are just as out of place in an arbitration proceeding as they are in a judicial proceeding.
The Court of Appeals has made it clear that the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC)have “the force of law,” Post v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142, 164 , 707 A.2d 806 (1998). I am therefore persuaded that, when the arbitration agreement does not authorize the arbitrator to impose sanctions on a lawyer who is “throughout the ... arbitration, ... obstructive, discouraging of the process of arbitration, [and whose] objections ... and ... examination of witnesses wasted considerable time and multiplied the costs of [the] proceedings,” Maryland law entitles the party who has been victimized by such misbehavior to assert a separate civil action, against the offending party and/or the attorney for the offending party, in order to recoup reasonable — but needlessly incurred — costs and counsel fees.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757142. Public record. Not legal advice.