SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Minutes of a meeting of the Rules Committee held in Rooms

237-238 of the Maryland Judicial Center, 187 Harry S. Truman

Parkway, Annapolis, Maryland on Friday, March 21, 2025.

Members present:

Hon. Yvette M. Bryant, Chair

Hon. Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Vice

Chair

Hon. Vicki Ballou-Watts

Jamar R. Brown, Esq.

Hon. Catherine Chen

Julia Doyle, Esq.

Arthur J. Horne, Jr., Esq.

Hon. Karen R. Ketterman

Victor H. Laws, III, Esq.

Dawne D. Lindsey, Clerk

Bruce L. Marcus, Esq.

Stephen S. McCloskey, Esq.

Kathleen H. Meredith, Esq.

Judy Rupp, State Court

Administrator

Scott D. Shellenberger, Esq.

Gregory K. Wells, Esq.

Hon. Dorothy J. Wilson

Brian L. Zavin, Esq.

In attendance:

Sandra F. Haines, Esq., Reporter

Colby L. Schmidt, Esq., Deputy Reporter

Heather Cobun, Esq., Assistant Reporter

Meredith A. Drummond, Esq., Assistant Reporter

Hon. Anne K. Albright, Appellate Court of Maryland

Derek Bayne, Esq., Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Tanya Bernstein, Esq., Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Kendra Jolivet, Esq., Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Thomas DeGonia, Esq., Bar Counsel

Tamara Dowd, Esq., Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Greg Hilton, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court of Maryland

Missy Higdon, Executive Director, Client Protection Fund

Hon. John P. Morrissey, Chief Judge, District Court of Maryland

Gillian Tonkin, Esq., Staff Attorney to Chief Judge, District

Court

Pamela Ortiz, Esq., Director, Access to Justice

Rachel Konieczny, The Daily Record

Jeffrey Shipley, Esq., Director, Maryland State Board of Law

Examiners

The Chair convened the meeting.

She informed the Committee

that she was just notified of the passing of former Montgomery

County Circuit Court Judge William J. Rowan III.

She asked the

Committee to pause for a moment of silence for Judge Rowan in

recognition of his service to the Judiciary.

The Reporter said that several handout Rules were

circulated via email the previous day.

available from the Executive Aide.

Paper copies are

She said that the 224th

Report to the Supreme Court is in progress and will be filed

soon.

She advised that the meeting was being recorded for the

purpose of assisting with the preparation of meeting minutes and

that speaking will be treated as consent to being recorded.

She

also called for a motion to approve the minutes for the Friday,

January 10, 2025 meeting, which were circulated previously for

review.

A motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded, and

approved by consensus.

Agenda Item 1. Consideration of proposed Rules changes related

to implementation of NextGen Bar Exam.

Mr. Marcus said that Agenda Item 1 includes stylistic and

substantive changes to the Rules governing the Bar Exam in

anticipation of the implementation of the NextGen Bar Exam next

year.

He asked Jeffrey Shipley, Director of the State Board of

Law Examiners (“SBLE”), to present the proposed changes.

Mr. Shipley explained that the Supreme Court of Maryland in

2019 adopted the Uniform Bar Exam (“UBE”) and began using

materials drafted by the National Conference of Bar Examiners

(“NCBE”) for the July 2019 Bar Exam.

The UBE is part of a score

portability compact between participating states, allowing test

takers to transfer their scores without retaking the exam.

Individual state boards may establish a minimum qualifying score

in that state and a period for which a score is considered

valid.

Maryland, for example, permits a UBE score to be

transferred to Maryland within three years of taking the exam.

In addition, an applicant transferring a UBE score to Maryland

must complete the Character and Fitness process, among other

requirements.

Mr. Shipley informed the Committee that, in 2022, the NCBE

announced that it would be retiring the UBE and replacing it

with new, modern test materials:

the NextGen UBE.

The NextGen

UBE is designed to test the skills and knowledge that newly

admitted attorneys are expected to demonstrate.

The NextGen UBE

will be phased in between 2026 and 2028, with February 2028

being the last time a state may utilize the so-called “Legacy

UBE” and July 2028 being the first time all participating states

must begin using the NextGen UBE.

Mr. Shipley said that Maryland has opted to begin using the

NextGen UBE in July 2026, the first time it will be available.

A series of Rules changes are required to transition to the

NextGen UBE and phase out the Legacy UBE.

The changes will also

allow for the transfer of qualifying UBE scores to Maryland from

other states after Maryland begins using the NextGen UBE.

For

example, if an applicant takes the Legacy UBE in a state that

does not phase it out until after February 2028, that score will

be accepted in Maryland so long as it is no more than three

years old.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-101, Definitions, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 100 – STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS

AND CHARACTER COMMITTEES

AMEND Rule 19-101 by deleting “of the State of

Maryland” and adding “Maryland State” to section (c),

by deleting the provision pertaining to the

administrative office of the Board from section (e), by

adding a provision to section (e) and new subsections

(e)(1) and (e)(2) pertaining to when a document is

considered filed with the Board, by adding new section

(f) to define the term “Legacy UBE”, by adding new

section (j) to define the term “NextGen UBE”, by

making conforming amendments to section (m), by

adding new section (n) to define the term “Signed

Electronically”, by making conforming amendments to

section (q), by adding new section (r) to define the term

“UBE in Maryland”, by adding new section (t) to define

the term “UBE Transfer”, and by making stylistic

changes, as follows:

Rule 19-101. DEFINITIONS

In this Chapter and Chapter 200 of this Title, the

following definitions apply, except as expressly

otherwise provided or as necessary implication

requires:

(a) ADA

“ADA” means the Americans with Disabilities Act,

42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

(b) Applicant; Petitioner

“Applicant” means an individual who applies for

admission to the Bar of Maryland (1) pursuant to Rule

19-202, or (2) as a “petitioner” under Rule 19-216.

“Board” means the Maryland State Board of Law

Examiners of the State of Maryland.

(d) Court

“Court” means the Supreme Court of Maryland.

(e) Filed

“Filed” means received by the Board. in the

administrative office of the Board during normal

business hours. A document is considered filed when:

(1) the document and any required fee are

submitted electronically through the Board’s electronic

filing system; or

(2) the document and any required fee are received

by the Board in accordance with the Board’s written

policies and instructions.

(f) Legacy UBE

“Legacy UBE” means a Uniform Bar Examination

administered using NCBE’s Multistate Performance

Test (MPT), Multistate Essay Examination (MEE), and

Multistate Bar Examination (MBE).

(f)(g) Member of the Bar of a State

“Member of the Bar of a State” means an

individual who is unconditionally admitted to practice

law before the highest court of that state.

(g)(h) MPRE

“MPRE” means the Multistate Professional

Responsibility Examination published and

administered by NCBE.

(h)(i) NCBE

“NCBE” means the National Conference of Bar

Examiners.

(j) NextGen UBE

“NextGen UBE” means a Uniform Bar

Examination administered using NCBE’s NextGen Bar

Examination materials.

(i)(k) Oath

“Oath” means a declaration or affirmation made

under the penalties of perjury that a certain statement

of fact is true.

(j)(l) Qualifying MPRE score

“Qualifying MPRE score” means a score achieved

on the MPRE that meets or exceeds the minimum

passing score in Maryland established by Board rule

within the required time period established by Board

rule.

(k)(m) Qualifying UBE score

“Qualifying UBE score” means a score achieved

on the Legacy UBE or the NextGen UBE in a state that

administers the UBE that meets or exceeds the

minimum passing qualifying score in Maryland

established by Board rule within the required time

period established by Board rule.

(n) “Signed Electronically”

“Signed electronically” means a document that is

deemed to have an electronic signature when the

document includes:

(1) a name typed in the space where a signature

would otherwise appear, preceded by the characters

“/s/”;

(2) an electronic or scanned image of a signature

(l)(o) State

“State” means (1) a state, possession, territory, or

commonwealth of the United States or (2) the District

of Columbia.

(m)(p) Transmit

“Transmit” means to convey written material in a

manner reasonably calculated to cause the intended

recipient to receive it.

(n)(q) UBE

“UBE” means the Uniform Bar Examination,

published and a bar exam score portability compact

coordinated by the National Conference of Bar

Examiners.

(r) UBE in Maryland

“UBE in Maryland” means a UBE administered

by the State Board of Law Examiners.

(o)(s) UBE State

“UBE State” means a state participating in the

UBE to which or from which a qualifying UBE score

may be transferred.

(t) UBE Transfer

“UBE Transfer” means a bar application pathway

in this State based upon a qualifying UBE score

transferred from another UBE State.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland

(2016).

Rule 19-101 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

In order to facilitate the adoption of the NextGen

Bar Exam in July of 2026, the Attorneys and Judges

Subcommittee proposes amendments to the Title 19

Rules.

A housekeeping amendment is proposed to

section (c) of Rule 19-101 to correct the name of the

SBLE. The definition of “Filed” in section (e) is

proposed to be expanded to cover files received

electronically as well as in person at the SBLE offices.

New section (f) is proposed to introduce the term

“Legacy UBE” which covers the current existing UBE

bar examination. The definition “NextGen UBE” is

proposed as new section (j) and covers the new UBE

testing materials produced by the NCBE that will be

implemented in this State in the summer of 2026.

New section (n) is proposed to permit and define the

parameters of what an acceptable electronic signature

will be for the SBLE. Conforming amendments are

proposed to section (q) to conform the definition of

UBE to the changing procedures with the NCBE and

the NextGen UBE. New section (r) is proposed to

define the term “UBE in Maryland” as a UBE exam

administered in Maryland by the State Board of Law

Examiners. New section (t) is proposed to define the

term “UBE Transfer” as a bar application pathway in

this State that is based upon a qualifying UBE score

from another UBE State. Stylistic changes are also

proposed to this Rule.

Mr. Marcus said that there are a series of terminology

changes in Rule 19-101, many of which are clarifying amendments.

Other changes are more substantive.

For example, in section

(e), the definition of “filed” is altered to refer to a document

and any fee being submitted electronically to the SBLE or being

received by the SBLE in accordance with its policies for filing.

Mr. Marcus explained that the NextGen UBE will contemplate

electronic filing.

The Chair asked whether the second definition of “filed” in

subsection (e)(2) refers to paper documents received in the SBLE

office.

Mr. Shipley responded that the SBLE has an electronic

portal that allows applicants to generate an application, but

the application must be filed in paper, as of now.

He said

that, beginning in August 2025, the SBLE will accept

electronically filed applications; however, some items will

still be filed in paper because they cannot be filed

electronically.

He said that the proposed definition allows for

both methods of filing, as needed.

The Chair replied that she

agreed but wanted to be clear that subsection (e)(2) refers to a

paper document received by the SBLE office.

Ms. Meredith

pointed out that the inclusion of “in accordance with the

Board’s written policies and instructions” in subsection (e)(2)

may address this issue.

The Reporter asked whether the SBLE’s policies are

available online.

Mr. Shipley answered in the affirmative.

The

Reporter suggested adding “posted on the Board’s website” to the

end of subsection (e)(2).

A motion to make the change was made,

seconded, and approved by consensus.

Mr. Marcus asked if there was any other discussion on the

proposed amendments to Rule 19-101.

There being no further

motion to amend or reject the proposed amendments, Rule 19-101

was approved as amended.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-105, Confidentiality, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 100 – STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS

AND CHARACTER COMMITTEES

AMEND Rule 19-105 by adding the last four

numbers of an applicant’s SSN and information

concerning an applicant’s testing accommodations to

the list of information in subsection (c)(8) that may be

disclosed in certain situations, and by adding a

Committee note following subsection (c)(8), as follows:

RULE 19-105. CONFIDENTIALITY

(a) Proceedings Before Accommodations Review

Committee, Character Committee, or Board

Except as provided in sections (b), (c), and (d) of

this Rule, the proceedings before the Accommodations

Review Committee and its panels, a Character

Committee, and the Board, including related papers,

evidence, and information, are confidential and shall

not be open to public inspection or subject to court

process or compulsory disclosure.

(b) Right of Applicant

(1) Right to Attend Hearings and Inspect Papers

An applicant has the right to attend all hearings

before a panel of the Accommodations Review

Committee, a Character Committee, the Board, and

the Court pertaining to the application. Except as

provided in subsection (b)(2) of this Rule, and subject

to any protective order issued by a circuit court for

good cause on motion by the Board, an applicant has

the right to be informed of and inspect all papers,

evidence, and information received or considered by

the panel, Committee, or the Board pertaining to the

applicant.

Committee note: The intent of this subsection, with

the exceptions noted in subsection (b)(2), is to permit

inspection by the applicant of all information received

or considered by a Character Committee, the

Accommodations Review Committee, or the Board.

There may be information, however, such as

identifying information regarding a victim that is not

germane to any issue before those entities and that

should not be revealed. Shielding of such information

would have to be approved by a court.

(2) Exclusions

Subsection (b)(1) of this Rule does not apply to (A)

papers or evidence received, considered, or prepared

by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, a

Character Committee, or the Board if the Committee or

Board, without a hearing, recommends the applicant's

admission; (B) personal memoranda, notes, and work

product of members or staff of the National Conference

of Bar Examiners, a Character Committee, or the

Board; (C) correspondence between or among members

or staff of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, a

Character Committee, or the Board; or (D) an

applicant's bar examination grades and answers,

except as authorized in Rule 19-209.

The Board may disclose:

(1) to any person, statistical information that does

not reveal the identity of an individual applicant;

(2) to any person, the fact that an applicant has

passed the bar examination and the date of the

examination;

(3) to any person, if the applicant has consented in

writing, any material pertaining to the applicant that

the applicant would be entitled to inspect under

section (b) of this Rule;

(4) for use in a pending disability or disciplinary

proceeding against the applicant as an attorney or

judge, a pending proceeding for reinstatement of the

applicant as an attorney after suspension or

disbarment, or a pending proceeding for original

admission of the applicant to the Bar, any material

pertaining to an applicant requested by:

(A) a court of this State, another state, or the

United States;

(B) Bar Counsel, the Attorney Grievance

Commission, or the attorney disciplinary authority in

another state;

responsible for investigating the character and fitness

of an applicant for admission to the bar of that

jurisdiction, or

(D) Investigative Counsel, the Commission on

Judicial Disabilities, or the judicial disciplinary

authority in another jurisdiction;

Committee note: The term “jurisdiction” is used in

subsection (4)(C) and (D) because requests

occasionally are received from authorities in Canada or

other countries.

(5) any material pertaining to an applicant

requested by a judicial nominating commission or the

Governor of this or any other state, a committee of the

Senate of Maryland, the President of the United States,

or a committee of the United States Senate in

connection with an application by or nomination of the

applicant for judicial office;

(6) to a law school, the names of individuals who

graduated from that law school who took a bar

examination, whether they passed or failed the

examination, and the number of bar examination

attempts by each individual;

(7) to the Maryland State Bar Association and any

other bona fide bar association in the State of

Maryland, the name and address of an individual

recommended for bar admission pursuant to Rule 19211 or 19-216;

(8) to Bar admissions officials in any state and to

the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the

following information regarding applicants for

admission pursuant to Rule 19-202 or petitioners

pursuant to Rule 19-215: the applicant's name and

any aliases, applicant number, birthdate, NCBE

number, the last four digits of the applicant’s Social

Security Number, law school, date that a juris doctor

or equivalent degree was conferred, bar examination

raw and scaled scores, results and pass/fail status,

and the number of bar examination attempts, and a

summary of any ADA test accommodations granted to

an applicant and the conditions for which any such

accommodations were granted;

Committee note: Disclosure of information related to

ADA test accommodations is required for the NCBE to

configure the applicant’s electronic bar examination

materials and to provide the applicant with

appropriate test accommodations if the exam is

administered by a commercial test center.

(9) to any member of a Character Committee, the

report of any Character Committee or the Board

following a hearing on an application; and

(10) to the Child Support Enforcement

Administration, upon its request, the name, Social

Security number, and address of an individual who

has filed a petition for admission pursuant to Rule 19202 or a petition for admission pursuant to Rule 19216.

Unless information disclosed pursuant to

subsections (c)(4) and (5) of this Rule is disclosed with

the written consent of the applicant, an applicant shall

receive a copy of the information and may rebut, in

writing, any matter contained in it. Upon receipt of a

written rebuttal, the Board shall forward a copy to the

individual or entity to whom the information was

disclosed.

(d) Proceedings and Access to Records in the

Supreme Court

(1) Subject to reasonable regulation by the Supreme

Court, Bar Admission ceremonies shall be open.

(2) Unless the Court otherwise orders in a

particular case:

and

(A) hearings in the Supreme Court shall be open,

(B) if the Court conducts a hearing regarding a bar

applicant, any report by the Accommodations Review

Committee, a Character Committee, or the Board filed

with the Court, but no other part of the applicant's

record, shall be subject to public inspection.

(3) The Supreme Court may make any of the

disclosures that the Board may make pursuant to

section (c) of this Rule.

(4) Except as provided in subsections (d)(1), (2), and

(3) of this Rule or as otherwise required by law,

proceedings before the Supreme Court and the related

papers, evidence, and information are confidential and

shall not be open to public inspection or subject to

court process or compulsory disclosure.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 19 of

the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland

(2016).

Rule 19-105 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes conforming amendments to Subsection (c)(8)

of Rule 19-105 to conform this Rule to the

requirements of the NCBE for administering UBE

exams and the portability of UBE scores by adding

requirements that the applicant provide the last four

numbers of the applicant’s SSN and information

concerning an applicant’s testing accommodations to

the SBLE. A Committee note is also proposed

following subsection (c)(8) to provide an explanation as

to why testing accommodations are included as

requirements in this subsection. The NCBE requires

information about accommodations in order to ensure

the exams they provide to applicants follow approved

accommodations.

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed amendments to Rule 19-105

add provisions pertaining to applicants’ Social Security numbers

and any Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accommodations

for testing.

Mr. Shipley explained that the SBLE and NCBE

require applicants to disclose the last four digits of their

Social Security numbers so that both entities can confirm that

they are discussing the right applicant when transmitting

information.

Regarding ADA accommodations, Mr. Shipley said

that the NextGen UBE is completely computerized.

The NCBE will

give states the ability to administer the exam from a thirdparty test center when accommodations are granted.

When an

applicant has been granted an accommodation, whether it is extra

time, breaks, or a physical alteration to the test site, the

SBLE and NCBE must be able to share that information with the

test center to ensure that the accommodations are provided.

The

information shared will be a summary of the accommodations and

will only include medical information when it is directly

relevant to the accommodation required.

Mr. Laws asked the reasoning behind permitting the SBLE to

share ADA accommodation information with admissions officials in

another state.

He questioned whether one state’s accommodation

decision will influence another state.

Mr. Shipley responded

that the applicant must disclose what accommodations have been

granted in another jurisdiction.

To the extent that one state

would like additional information, this provision permits the

board officials to talk to each other without the applicant

acting as intermediary.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-105, the Rule was approved as presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-201, Eligibility for Admission

to the Maryland Bar by Uniform Bar Examination; Rule 19-202,

Application for Admission; Rule 19-203, Bar Examination; Rule

19-204, Character Review; Rule 19-206, Notice of Intent to Take

the UBE in Maryland; and Rule 19-207, Notice of Intent to

Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-201 by adding a provision to

section (a) of this Rule pertaining to UBE transfers, as

follows:

RULE 19-201. ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION TO THE

MARYLAND BAR BY UNIFORM BAR EXAMINATION

(a) General Requirements

Subject to section (b) of this Rule, in order to be

admitted to the Maryland Bar by the UBE in Maryland

or by UBE Transfer, an individual shall have:

(1) completed the pre-legal education necessary to

meet the minimum requirements for admission to a

law school approved by the American Bar Association;

(2) graduated with a juris doctor or equivalent

degree from a law school (A) located in a state and (B)

approved by the American Bar Association;

(3) achieved a qualifying UBE score;

(4) achieved a qualifying MPRE score;

(5) successfully completed the Maryland Law

Component; and

(6) established good moral character and fitness for

admission to the Bar.

(b) Waiver of Juris Doctor Requirements

The Board may waive the requirements of

subsection (a)(2) of this Rule for an applicant who (1)

has passed the bar examination of another state, is a

member in good standing of the Bar of that state, and

the Board finds is qualified by reason of education or

experience to take the bar examination; or (2) has

completed legal education in a jurisdiction that is not

defined as a state by Rule 19-101 (l) and has obtained

an additional degree from a law school approved by the

American Bar Association that meets the requirements

prescribed by the Board Rules.

If otherwise qualified, an applicant who is under

18 years of age is eligible to take the bar examination

but shall not be admitted to the Bar until 18 years of

age.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rules

3 and 4 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar

of Maryland (2016) and is in part new.

Rule 19-201 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes conforming amendments to section (a) of

Rule 19-201 in order to ensure that the Rule covers

qualifying UBE scores achieved by an applicant in

another UBE jurisdiction.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-202 by replacing “rejected” with

“denied” and “the” with “a” in section (c) of this Rule,

as follows:

RULE 19-202. APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION

(a) Contents of Application

An individual who seeks admission to the Bar of

Maryland pursuant to Rule 19-201 shall apply for

admission. The application for admission shall consist

of a completed Character Questionnaire filed pursuant

to Rule 19-205 and either (1) a Notice of Intent to Take

the UBE in Maryland pursuant to Rule 19-206 or (2) a

Notice of Intent to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score

pursuant to Rule 19-207.

(b) Withdrawal of Application

At any time, an applicant may withdraw an

application by filing with the Board written notice of

withdrawal. Where an individual has filed a character

questionnaire pursuant to Rule 19-205 (c) without

then filing a Notice of Intent pursuant to Rule 19-206

or Rule 19-207, withdrawal of the character

questionnaire pursuant to Rule 19-205 (f) shall

constitute withdrawal of the application. No fees will

be refunded.

Committee note: Withdrawal of an application

terminates all aspects of the admission process.

Compare to Rules 19-206(e) and 19-210(e), pertaining

to withdrawal of a Notice of Intent.

An applicant who reapplies for admission after an

earlier application has been withdrawn pursuant to

subsection (b) of this Rule or Rule 19-204 or has been

rejected denied pursuant to Rule 19-204 must retake

and pass the UBE in Maryland or transfer a thenqualifying UBE score, even if the applicant passed the

a bar examination in Maryland or transferred a

qualifying UBE score when the earlier application was

pending. If the applicant failed the examination when

the earlier application was pending, each failure shall

be counted under Rule 19-210.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rules

2 and 6(d) of the Rules Governing Admission to the

Bar of Maryland (2016) and is in part new.

Rule 19-202 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes non-substantive, housekeeping amendments

to section (c) of Rule 19-202 to replace “rejected” with

“denied” and “the” with “a.”

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-203 by deleting the provision in

section (a) written in the passive voice (a) and

replacing it with a similar provision in the active voice,

and by adding a Committee note following section (a)

providing information on the switch to the NextGen

UBE in this State.

RULE 19-203. BAR EXAMINATION

(a) Generally—UBE

The bar examination in Maryland shall consist of

the UBE. Maryland shall participate in the UBE.

Committee note: Prior to July 2026, the UBE in

Maryland utilized the Legacy UBE materials.

Beginning with the July 2026 administration, the UBE

in Maryland shall use the NextGen UBE materials.

(b) Scheduling

The Board shall schedule a UBE in Maryland

twice annually, once in February and once in July.

The examination shall be scheduled on two successive

days. The total duration of the examination shall be

not more than 12 hours nor less than nine hours,

unless extended at the applicant's request pursuant to

Rules 19-206 or 19-210. At least 30 days before a

scheduled examination, the Board shall post on the

Judiciary website notice of the dates, times, and place

or places of the examination.

The purpose of the bar examination is to enable

applicants to demonstrate their capacity to achieve

mastery of foundational legal doctrines, proficiency in

fundamental legal skills, and competence in applying

both to solve legal problems consistent with the

highest ethical standards. It is the policy of the Court

that no quota of successful applicants be set but that

each applicant be judged for fitness to be a member of

the Bar as demonstrated by the examination answers.

(d) Qualifying Score

By Board Rule, the Board shall establish the

qualifying UBE score.

(e) Voiding of Examination Results for Ineligibility

If an applicant who is determined by the Board

not to be eligible under Rule 19-201 takes an

examination, the applicant's Notice of Intent to Take

the UBE in Maryland shall be deemed invalid and the

applicant's examination results shall be voided. An

examination result that is voided for ineligibility shall

not be a valid UBE score for purposes of transfer to

another jurisdiction. No fees shall be refunded. The

Board shall notify the applicant that the examination

results have been voided and the reason for the

voiding.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule

19-206 (2018) and is in part new.

Rule 19-203 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes revisions to Section (a) of Rule 19-203 to

clarify that Maryland participates in the UBE and will

no longer be administering a bar exam using its own

examination materials. A Committee note is proposed

following section (a) to specify when the Legacy UBE

materials and the NextGen UBE materials will be used

during bar examinations in this State.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-204 by capitalizing “Character

Questionnaire” in subsection (a)(1) in each instance

where it is lower case, as follows:

RULE 19-204. CHARACTER REVIEW

(a) Investigation and Report of Character Committee

(1) On receipt of a completed character

questionnaire Character Questionnaire forwarded by

the Board pursuant to Rule 19-205 (d), the Character

Committee, in accordance with procedural guidelines

established by Board Rule, shall (A) interview the

applicant (B) consider the facts stated in the character

questionnaire Character Questionnaire and the

submissions made by the applicant's references, and

make any further investigation it finds necessary or

desirable, which may include verification of facts

asserted by the applicant or the applicant's references,

the practice of law, and (D) transmit to the Board a

report of its investigation and a recommendation as to

the approval or denial of the application for admission.

(2) If the Committee concludes that there may be

grounds for recommending denial of the application, it

shall notify the applicant in writing and schedule a

hearing. The hearing shall be recorded verbatim. The

applicant shall have the right to testify, to present

other testimony and evidence, and to be represented

by an attorney. The Committee shall prepare a report

and recommendation setting forth findings of fact on

which the recommendation is based and a statement

supporting the conclusion. A transcript of the hearing

shall be transmitted by the Committee to the Board

along with the Committee's report. The Committee

shall transmit a copy of its report to the applicant, and

a copy of the hearing transcript shall be furnished to

the applicant upon payment of reasonable costs.

(b) Hearing by Board

If the Board concludes after review of the

Character Committee's report and the transcript that

there may be grounds for recommending denial of the

application, it shall promptly afford the applicant the

opportunity for a hearing on the record made before

the Committee. In its discretion, the Board may

permit additional evidence to be submitted. If the

recommendation of the Board differs from the

recommendation of the Character Committee, the

Board shall prepare a report and recommendation

setting forth findings of fact on which the

recommendation is based and a statement supporting

the conclusion and shall transmit a copy of its report

and recommendation to the applicant and the

Committee. If the Board decides to recommend denial

of the application in its report to the Court, the Board

shall first give the applicant an opportunity to

withdraw the application pursuant to Rule 19-202 (b).

If the applicant withdraws the application, the Board

shall retain the records. If the applicant elects not to

withdraw the application, the Board shall transmit to

the Court a report of its proceedings and a

recommendation as to the approval or denial of the

application together with all papers relating to the

application.

(1) If the Court, after reviewing the report of the

Character Committee and any report of the Board,

believes there may be grounds to deny admission, the

Court shall order the applicant to appear for a hearing

and show cause why the application should not be

denied.

(2) If the Board recommends approval of the

application contrary to an adverse recommendation by

the Character Committee, within 30 days after the

filing of the Board's report, the Committee may file

with the Court exceptions to the Board's

recommendation. The Committee shall transmit

copies of its exceptions to the applicant and the Board.

(3) Proceedings in the Court under section (c) of this

Rule shall be on the record made before the Character

Committee and the Board. If the Court denies the

application, the Board shall retain the records.

(d) Burden of Proof

The applicant bears the burden of proving to the

Character Committee, the Board, and the Court the

applicant's good moral character and fitness for the

practice of law. Failure or refusal to answer fully and

candidly any question in the application or any

relevant question asked by a member of the Character

Committee, the Board, or the Court is sufficient cause

for a finding that the applicant has not met this

burden. Undocumented immigration status, in itself,

does not preclude admission to the Bar, provided that

the applicant otherwise has demonstrated good moral

character and fitness.

(e) Continuing Review

All applicants remain subject to further

Character Committee and Board review and report

until admitted to the Bar. The applicant shall be

under a continuing obligation to report to the Board

any material change in information previously

furnished.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 19-203

(2018).

Rule 19-204 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes non-substantive, housekeeping amendments

to Rule 19-204 to capitalize each lowercase instance of

“Character Questionnaire.”

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-205 by capitalizing “Character

Questionnaire” throughout this Rule in each instance

where it is lower case, as follows:

RULE 19-205. CHARACTER QUESTIONNAIRE

(a) Who May File

An individual who meets the requirements of

Rule 19-201(a)(1) may commence an application for

admission to the Bar of this State by filing with the

Board a completed Character Questionnaire and the

prescribed fee.

Cross reference: See Rule 19-206 (Notice of Intent to

Take the UBE in Maryland) and Rule 19-207 (Notice of

Intent to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score).

(b) Form of Questionnaire

(1) Generally

The character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire shall be on in a form prescribed by the

Board and shall be answered under oath. The

questionnaire Character Questionnaire shall elicit the

information the Board considers appropriate

concerning the applicant's character, education, and

eligibility to become an applicant and (A) require the

applicant to provide the applicant's Social Security

number, and (B) include an authorization to release

confidential information pertaining to the applicant's

character and fitness for the practice of law to a

Character Committee, the Board, and the Court.

(2) Pre-Legal Education

The character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire shall be accompanied by satisfactory

evidence that the applicant meets the pre-legal

education requirements of Rule 19-201 (a)(1).

The character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire shall be filed prior to or

contemporaneously with any Notice of Intent to Take

the UBE in Maryland pursuant to Rule 19-206 or any

Notice of Intent to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score

pursuant to Rule 19-207.

(d) Preliminary Determination of Eligibility

On receipt of a character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire, the Board shall determine whether the

applicant is eligible to file a character questionnaire

Character Questionnaire pursuant to section (a) of this

Rule. If the Board concludes that the requirements

have been met, it shall forward the character

questionnaire Character Questionnaire to a Character

Committee. If the Board concludes that the

requirements have not been met, it shall promptly

notify the applicant in writing.

(e) Updated Character Questionnaire

If a character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire has been pending for more than three

years since the date of the applicant's most recent

character questionnaire Character Questionnaire or

updated character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire, the applicant shall file with the Board

an updated character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire contemporaneously with filing any

Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in Maryland or any

Notice to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score. The

updated character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire shall be under oath, filed on the form

prescribed by the Board, and accompanied by the

prescribed fee.

(f) Withdrawal of Character Questionnaire

At any time, an applicant may withdraw a

character questionnaire Character Questionnaire by

filing with the Board written notice of withdrawal.

Withdrawing a character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire shall result in withdrawal of the

application for admission under Rule 19-202 (b). No

fees will be refunded.

Source: This Rule is new in part and derived from

former Rule 19-202 (2018) in part.

Rule 19-205 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes non-substantive, housekeeping amendments

to Rule 19-205 to capitalize each lowercase instance of

“Character Questionnaire.”

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-206 by replacing “on” with “in”

in subsection (a)(3), as follows:

RULE 19-206. NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE

UBE IN MARYLAND

(a) Filing

An applicant may file a Notice of Intent to Take

the UBE in Maryland if the applicant:

(1) meets the pre-legal educational requirements of

Rule 19-201 (a)(1);

(2) unless the requirements of Rule 19-201 (a)(2)

have been waived pursuant to Rule 19-201 (b), meets

the legal education requirements of Rule 19-201 (a)(2),

or will meet those requirements before the first day of

taking the UBE in Maryland; and

(3) contemporaneously files, or has previously filed,

a completed Character Questionnaire pursuant to Rule

19-205 that has not been withdrawn pursuant to Rule

19-205 (f), and the applicant has not withdrawn or

been denied admission pursuant to Rule 19-204.

The Notice of Intent shall be under oath, filed on in

the form prescribed by the Board, and accompanied by

the prescribed fee.

(b) Request for Test Accommodation

An applicant who seeks a test accommodation

under the ADA for the bar examination shall indicate

that request on the Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in

Maryland, and shall file with the Board an

“Accommodation Request” in a form prescribed by the

Board, together with the supporting documentation

that the Board requires. The form and documentation

shall be filed no later than the deadline established by

the Board for filing the Notice of Intent to Take the

UBE in Maryland. The Board may reject an

accommodation request that is (1) substantially

incomplete or (2) filed untimely. The Board shall notify

the applicant in writing of the basis of the rejection

and shall provide the applicant an opportunity to

correct any deficiencies in the accommodation request

before the filing deadline for the current examination

or, if the current deadline has passed, before the filing

deadline for the next administration of the

examination.

Committee note: An applicant who may need a test

accommodation is encouraged to file an

Accommodation Request as early as possible.

Cross reference: See Rule 19-208 for the procedure to

appeal a denial of a request for a test accommodation.

Unless the requirements of Rule 19-201 (a)(2)

have been waived pursuant to Rule 19-201 (b), the

applicant shall aver under oath that the applicant has

met, will meet, or will be unqualifiedly eligible to meet

those requirements prior to the first day of the

applicant taking the UBE in Maryland. No later than

the first day of July preceding an examination taken in

July or the first day of February preceding an

examination taken in February, the applicant shall

cause the Board to receive an official transcript or

other satisfactory evidence that reflects the date of the

award to the applicant of a qualifying law degree under

Rule 19- 201, unless the official transcript already is

on file with the Board's administrative office.

Committee note: “Other satisfactory evidence”

normally consists of a letter from the law school dean

or other authorized law school official certifying the

date of graduation or unqualified eligibility where the

law school transcript is unavailable, such as a late

graduation or a financial hold on the transcript.

(d) Time for Filing

An applicant who intends to take the UBE in

Maryland shall file the Notice of Intent to Take the

UBE by the appropriate deadline established by the

Board through its rule-making authority pursuant to

Rule 19-102 (c)(2). Upon written request of an

applicant and for good cause shown, the Board may

accept a Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in Maryland

filed after that deadline. If the Board rejects the Notice

of Intent to Take the UBE in Maryland for lack of good

cause for the untimeliness, the Board shall transmit

written notice of the rejection to the applicant. The

applicant may file an exception with the Court within

five business days after notice of the rejection is

transmitted.

(e) Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in

Maryland or Absence from Examination

If an applicant withdraws the Notice of Intent to

Take the UBE in Maryland or fails to attend and take

the examination, the examination fee shall not be

refunded. The Board may apply the examination fee to

a subsequent examination if the applicant establishes

good cause for the withdrawal or failure to attend.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 19-204

(2018).

Rule 19-206 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes a non-substantive, housekeeping

amendment to subsection (a)(2) of Rule 19-206 to

replace “on” with “in.”

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-207 by capitalizing “Character

Questionnaire” in subsection (a)(3) and by adding a

cross reference to Board Rule 5 following subsection

(a)(4), as follows:

RULE 19-207. NOTICE OF INTENT TO TRANSFER A

QUALIFYING UBE SCORE

(a) Filing

Beginning on July 1, 2019, an applicant may file

a Notice of Intent to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score if

the applicant:

(1) meets the pre-legal educational requirements of

Rule 19-201 (a) (1) to become admitted to the

Maryland Bar;

(2) unless the requirements of Rule 19-201 (a)(2)

have been waived pursuant to Rule 19-201 (b), meets

the legal education requirements of Rule 19-201 (a) (2);

(3) contemporaneously files or has previously filed a

completed character questionnaire Character

Questionnaire pursuant to Rule 19-205 that has not

been withdrawn pursuant to Rule 19-205 (f), and the

applicant has not withdrawn or been denied admission

pursuant to Rule 19-204; and

(4) has achieved a qualifying UBE score in another

UBE State.

The Notice of Intent shall be under oath, filed on the

form prescribed by the Board, and accompanied by the

prescribed fee.

Cross Reference: see Board Rule 5 for the definition of

a qualifying UBE score.

(b) Verification of Legal Education

The applicant shall cause the Board to receive an

official transcript that reflects the date of the award to

the applicant of a qualifying law degree under Rule 19201 (a) prior to or contemporaneously with filing the

Notice of Intent to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score,

unless the official transcript already is on file with the

Board or the applicant has received a waiver under

Rule 19-201 (b).

An applicant who intends to apply for admission

by transferring a qualifying UBE score shall file the

Notice of Intent to Transfer a Qualifying UBE Score no

later than the last day that the transferred score

constitutes a qualifying UBE score as defined by Board

Rule.

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 19-207 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes a non-substantive, housekeeping

amendment to subsection (a)(3) of Rule 19-207 to

capitalize the term “Character Questionnaire.” A cross

reference to Board Rule 5, which defines a qualifying

UBE score, is also proposed to be added following

subsection (a)(4).

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed amendments to Rule 19-201

add a clarification to section (a) pertaining to UBE transfers.

Ms. Drummond added that an additional conforming amendment is

needed in section (b).

be changed to (o).

The reference to Rule 19-101 (l) should

By consensus, the Committee approved the

conforming amendment.

Mr. Marcus said that Rule 19-202 contains technical

amendments, including changing “rejected” to “denied” in section

(c).

Rule 19-203 contains stylistic changes and a new Committee

note addressing the transition to NextGen UBE.

Rules 19-204 and

19-205 are amended to capitalize “Character Questionnaire”

throughout.

Rule 19-206 contains a technical amendment in

subsection (a)(3).

Rule 19-207 is amended to capitalize

“Character Questionnaire” and to add a cross reference to a

Board Rule that sets forth the definition of a qualifying score.

Mr. Shipley added that the substance of that Board Rule is not

changing; only the reference in the Rule is new.

By consensus, Rule 19-201 was approved as amended and Rules

19-202, 19-203, 19-204, 19-205, 19-206, and 19-207 were approved

as presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-209, Notice of Bar Examination

Grades and Review Procedure, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-209 by deleting the provisions

of section (b) that require the Board to establish

procedures and Rules to applicants that do not

achieve passing scores on the UBE and replacing those

provisions with provisions that require the Board to

provide information about how an applicant can

receive score information from the NCBE, and by

adding a Committee note following section (b), as

follows:

RULE 19-209. NOTICE OF BAR EXAMINATION

GRADES AND REVIEW PROCEDURE

(a) Notice of Grades; Alteration

Subject to Rule 19-203(e), the Board shall

transmit written notice of examination results to each

applicant who took the UBE in Maryland. The Board

shall determine the form and method of delivery of the

notice of results. Applicants, whether successful or

unsuccessful, shall be given their grades in the detail

the Board considers appropriate. Thereafter, the

Board may not alter any applicant's grades except

when necessary to correct a clerical error.

(b) Review Procedure

The Board, by Rule, shall establish a procedure

provide information on any procedures offered by the

NCBE by which unsuccessful applicants may obtain

any of their written examination materials made

available by the NCBE and request any review offered

by NCBE of their MBE scores the scoring of the

multiple-choice portions of their NextGen UBE

attempt.

Committee note: For bar examinations administered

prior to July 2026, the Board retained applicants’

written examination answers until one day after the

administration of the next bar examination and,

pursuant to Board Rule 8, provided a procedure for

applicants to request copies of their written answers

and to request that NCBE perform a review of their

MBE score sheet. Beginning in July 2026, all answers

on the NextGen bar examination will remain in the

custody of the NCBE and review of those answers is

subject to procedures to be established by the NCBE.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 19-207

(2018).

Rule 19-209 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes amending Section (b) of Rule 19-209 to

remove the requirement of the Board to establish by

Rule the procedure by which an applicant who does

not achieve a qualifying score on the UBE may obtain

a copy of the applicant’s test. This change is

necessary as the UBE exams will no longer be under

the custody and control of the Board after the NextGen

UBE exam goes live. These materials will be under the

control of the NCBE, and the Board’s role at this point

will be merely to provide applicants with information

on how to obtain copies from the NCBE. A Committee

note clarifying this change is proposed to be added

following section (b).

Mr. Shipley informed the Committee that the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-209 update provisions governing requests

by unsuccessful applicants to review their materials.

He said

that, currently, the SBLE is the repository of exam answers and

materials.

Unsuccessful applicants may ask to review copies of

their answers to identify where they fell short in preparation

to take the exam again.

Mr. Shipley explained that, after the

move to the NextGen UBE, NCBE will have these materials and will

be responsible for establishing request procedures.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-209, the Rule was approved as presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-210, Re-Examination After

Failure, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-210 by changing the dates in

section (c) from May 20 and December 20 to May 1

and December 1 to conform this Rule to revisions to

Rules 19-102 and 19-206 approved in the Rules Order

to the 222nd Report, by replacing the provisions of

section (d) with new language that extend the number

of attempts from three to five, by making conforming

amendments to the Committee note following section

(d), and by making stylistic changes, as follows:

RULE 19-210. RE-EXAMINATION AFTER FAILURE

(a) Notice of Intent to Take Another Scheduled UBE

in Maryland

An unsuccessful applicant may file another

Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in Maryland pursuant

to Rule 19-206. The Notice of Intent shall be on in the

form prescribed by the Board and shall be

accompanied by the required examination fee.

(b) Request for Test Accommodation

An applicant who seeks a test accommodation

under the ADA for the bar examination shall indicate

that request on the Notice of Intent and shall file an

Accommodation Request pursuant to Rule 19-206 (b).

Committee note: An applicant who may need a test

accommodation is encouraged to file an

Accommodation Request as early as possible.

Cross reference: See Rule 19-208 for the procedure to

appeal a denial of a request for a test accommodation.

(1) Generally

An applicant who intends to take the July

examination shall file a Notice of Intent to Take the

UBE in Maryland, together with the prescribed fee, no

later than the preceding May 201. An applicant who

intends to take the examination in February shall file

the Notice of Intent, together with the prescribed fee,

no later than the preceding December 201.

(2) Late filing

Upon written request of an applicant and for

good cause shown, the Board may accept a Notice of

Intent filed after that deadline. If the Board rejects the

Notice of Intent for lack of good cause for the

untimeliness, the Board shall transmit written notice

of the rejection to the applicant. The applicant may

file an exception with the Court within five business

days after notice of the rejection is transmitted.

(d) Three or More Failures in Maryland--Reexamination in Maryland Conditional Limitation on

Total Number of Attempts

In this section, “bar examination in Maryland”

includes the UBE in Maryland and a Maryland General

Bar Examination given prior to June 30, 2019. If an

applicant has failed three or more bar examinations in

Maryland, the Board may condition retaking of the bar

examination in Maryland on the successful completion

of specified additional study. An applicant who on five

separate occasions has taken a bar examination in

Maryland, a UBE in any State, or any combination

thereof and who has failed to earn a qualifying score

as defined by Board Rule in a single administration,

shall not be permitted to take a further examination in

Maryland, except that any applicant who has met or

exceeded this limitation on total number of attempts

by making 5 or more attempts in Maryland prior to

July 1, 2026 shall be permitted one additional attempt

in Maryland.

Committee note: Prior failures in Maryland do not

preclude the transfer of a qualifying UBE score to

Maryland pursuant to Rule 19-207. An applicant who

achieves a qualifying UBE score in another State on an

attempt that exceeds the limitation established by this

Rule is not precluded from transferring that qualifying

UBE score to Maryland pursuant to Rule 19-207. The

provision of one additional attempt in Maryland for

those making 5 or more prior attempts in Maryland is

intended to prevent this Rule from establishing an

absolute ex post facto prohibition on further attempts

by those who have made all or substantially all of their

prior attempts in Maryland.

(e) Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in

Maryland or Absence from Examination

If an applicant withdraws the Notice of Intent to

Take a Scheduled UBE in Maryland or fails to attend

and take the examination, the examination fee shall

not be refunded. The Board may apply the

examination fee to a subsequent examination if the

applicant establishes good cause for the withdrawal or

failure to attend.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule

19-208 (2018) and is in part new.

Rule 19-210 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes amendments to Rule 19-210 which will

eliminate an existing provision granting the Board

discretionary authority to condition re-taking of the

bar examination after three or more unsuccessful

attempts in Maryland on the successful completion of

specified additional study. The discretionary authority

provisions are replaced with a non-discretionary limit

of five attempts with a one-attempt exception for

individuals who have failed the bar exam five or more

times in Maryland prior to the enactment of the

amended Rule. The proposed revisions to section (d)

instituting a limit on attempts will address a recent

trend towards Maryland becoming a haven for testtakers who have been unable to pass the bar exam in

Washington, D.C., New York, and other jurisdictions

that have an existing limitation on attempts. These

test-takers are coming to Maryland in sufficient

numbers such that they present a significant

administrative burden on the SBLE. Conforming

amendments are also proposed to the Committee note

following section (d).

Mr. Marcus informed the Committee that the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-210 contain a substantive change impacting

how the SBLE handles repeat exam takers.

Mr. Shipley said that

the current Rule provides that, after three unsuccessful

attempts at the Bar Exam in Maryland, the SBLE may condition

additional testing attempts on “successful completion of

specified additional study.”

He explained that “additional

study” is vague and broadly applied.

In practice, there is no

limit on how many times an applicant may attempt the exam in

Maryland so long as the applicant undertakes some kind of

additional study.

He noted that the SBLE has struggled with

this issue for years.

Mr. Shipley said that a practical reality of the UBE and

score portability is that other states increasingly are adding

restrictions on repeat takers in their jurisdictions.

This

results in states with less strict caps, such as Maryland, being

attractive to applicants who want to continue attempting to pass

the exam.

Mr. Shipley pointed out that Washington, D.C. allows

only four attempts at its UBE; when individuals fail to pass

after four times there, many come to Maryland.

He added that

New York recently announced that after an individual fails to

pass the exam in that state four or more times, that individual

will not be allowed to sit for the July Bar Exam going forward;

the applicant may continue to attempt the exam in February.

said that approximately 11,000 applicants take the New York Bar

Exam in July, and 3,000 of them fail.

He told the Committee

that Maryland cannot absorb that volume of unsuccessful

applicants who may see Maryland as an alternative location to

continue taking the July Bar Exam.

He also said that there are

concerns that the NextGen UBE will lead to individuals who have

failed the UBE in the past trying one more time on the new exam.

Mr. Shipley said that intelligent people can sometimes

struggle to pass the exam, but Maryland’s current policies are

leading to the state becoming a haven for those who cannot pass

and refuse to give up.

The SBLE has been reluctant to place a

firm limit on the number of times an applicant may attempt the

exam, but the SBLE now is recommending in section (d) of Rule

19-210 that individuals be limited to five attempts.

This

limitation includes attempts at the UBE in Maryland or in any

other state.

There is a clause permitting an applicant one

attempt at the NextGen UBE after July 1, 2026 regardless of the

number of prior unsuccessful attempts.

Judge Wilson asked whether this proposed change in the

Rules would prevent an applicant from going to a UBE

jurisdiction without a cap and, if the applicant is ultimately

successful, transferring a score to Maryland.

that would be permissible.

Mr. Shipley said

Mr. Marcus commented that the

Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee approved this recommendation.

The Deputy Reporter informed the Committee that an

additional amendment is required in subsection (c)(1).

Mr.

Shipley said that he had noticed in reviewing the Rules for the

meeting that the subsection had not been updated when the filing

deadlines were relocated to a Board Rule in 2021.

(c)(1) still states the old deadlines.

Rule 19-210

He suggested that the

subsection be amended to conform with the language in Rule 19206 (d).

The Reporter said that Rule 19-210 (c)(1) refers to filing

both the Notice of Intent to Take the UBE in Maryland and the

prescribed fee, but Rule 19-206 (d) does not address the fee.

Mr. Shipley responded that the Board Rule addresses the fee.

motion to amend Rule 19-210 (c)(1) to conform it to Rule 19-206

(d) was made, seconded, and approved by consensus.

There being no further motion to amend or reject the

proposed amendments to Rule 19-210, the Rule was approved as

amended.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-214, Order of Admission; Time

Limitation, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

AMEND Rule 19-214 by adding a Committee

note following section (a) as follows:

RULE 19-214. ORDER OF ADMISSION; TIME

LIMITATION

(a) Order of Admission

When the Court has determined that an

applicant or petitioner is qualified to practice law and

is of good moral character, it shall enter an order

directing that the applicant be admitted to the Bar on

taking the oath required by law.

Committee note: Ordinarily, the Order of Ratification

following the Board’s report to the court, pursuant to

Md. Rules 19-211 and 19-216 serves as the Order of

Admission under this Rule. On those occasions when

the Court makes an individual admissions decision

pursuant to Md. Rule 19-204 or section (e) of this

Rule, the Court will issue a separate Order of

Admission.

(b) Administration of Oath

The oath shall be administered in open court,

using the language specified in Code, Business

Occupations and Professions Article, § 10-212. If

administered in Maryland, the oath shall be

administered by a justice of the Supreme Court or by

the Clerk of that Court. If administered outside of

Maryland, the oath shall be administered by a judge or

clerk of a court of record who is authorized to

administer oaths in the court where the administration

occurs.

Cross reference: See Code, Business Occupations and

Professions Article, § 10-212, requiring that the oath

be taken in open court.

An applicant or petitioner may not take the oath

of admission to the Bar later than 24 months after the

date that the Supreme Court ratified the Board's

report pursuant to Rule 19-211 or Rule 19-216 that

includes the applicant or petitioner.

(d) Extension

For good cause, the Board may extend the time

for taking the oath, but the applicant's or petitioner's

failure to take action to satisfy admission

requirements does not constitute good cause.

(e) Consequence of Failure to Take Oath Timely

(1) Applicant seeking admission under Rule 19-201

An applicant who seeks admission under Rule

19-201 but fails to take the oath within the required

time period and wishes to be admitted shall reapply for

admission and retake the bar examination or transfer

a qualifying UBE score and successfully re-complete

the Maryland Law Component, unless excused by the

Court.

(2) Petitioner seeking admission under Rule 19-215

A petitioner who seeks admission under Rule 19215 but fails to take the oath within the required time

period and wishes to be admitted shall reapply for

admission and successfully recomplete the Maryland

Law Component, unless excused by the Court.

Cross reference: See Code, Business Occupations and

Professions Article, § 10-212, for form of oath.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 12 of

the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland

(2016).

Rule 19-214 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes that a Committee note be added following

section (a) to clarify the circumstance in which an

individual Order of Admission will be issued by the

Supreme Court separate from an Order of Ratification

that serves as an Order of Admission pursuant to

Rules 19-211 and 19-216.

Mr. Marcus explained that Rule 19-214 is amended to add a

Committee note following section (a) addressing an order of

admission outside of scheduled admission ceremonies.

There

being no motion to amend or reject the proposed amendment to

Rule 19-214, it was approved as presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-215, Eligibility of Out-ofState Attorney for Admission without Examination, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

ADMISSION OF OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS

AMEND Rule 19-215 by deleting “under this

Rule” from section (a) of this Rule, by adding

provisions to section (a) pertaining to passing the UBE

in Maryland or transferring a qualifying score, and by

replacing “full time” with “full-time” in section (b), as

follows:

RULE 19-215. ELIGIBILITY OF OUT-OF-STATE

ATTORNEY FOR ADMISSION WITHOUT

EXAMINATION

(a) Generally

Beginning on July 1, 2019, an individual is

eligible for admission to the Bar of this State under

this Rule without passing the UBE in Maryland or

transferring a qualifying UBE score to Maryland if the

individual:

(1) is a member in good standing of the Bar of a

state;

(2) has passed a written bar examination in a state

or is admitted to a state bar by diploma privilege after

graduating from a law school accredited by the

American Bar Association;

(3) has the professional experience required by this

Rule; and

(4) possesses the good moral character and fitness

necessary for the practice of law.

(b) Required Professional Experience

The professional experience required for

admission under this Rule shall be on a full time fulltime basis as (1) a practitioner of law as provided in

section (c) of this Rule; (2) a teacher of law at a law

school accredited by the American Bar Association; (3)

a judge of a court of record in a state; or (4) a

combination thereof.

(1) Subject to subsections (c)(2) and (3) of this Rule,

a practitioner of law is an individual who has regularly

engaged in the authorized practice of law:

(A) in a state;

and

(B) as the principal means of earning a livelihood;

responsibilities have been sufficient to satisfy the

Board that the individual should be admitted under

this Rule and Rule 19-216.

(2) As evidence of the requisite professional

experience, for purposes of subsection (c)(1)(C) of this

Rule, the Board may consider, among other things:

(A) the extent of the individual's experience in the

practice of law;

(B) the individual's professional duties and

responsibilities, the extent of contacts with and

responsibility to clients or other beneficiaries of the

individual's professional skills, the extent of

professional contacts with practicing attorneys and

judges, and the individual's professional reputation

among those attorneys and judges; and

individual has written.

(3) The Board may consider, as the equivalent of

practice of law in a state, practice outside the United

States if the Board concludes that the nature of the

practice makes it the functional equivalent of practice

within a state.

(d) Duration of Professional Experience

An individual shall have the professional

experience required by section (b) of this Rule for (1) a

total of ten years, or (2) at least three of the five years

immediately preceding the filing of a petition pursuant

to Rule 19-216.

(e) Exceptional Cases

In exceptional cases, the Board may treat an

individual's actual experience, although not meeting

the literal requirements of subsection (c)(1) of this

Rule, as the equivalent of the professional experience

otherwise required by this Rule.

Source: This Rule is derived from sections (a) through

(e) of former Rule 13 of the Rules Governing Admission

to the Bar of Maryland (2016).

Rule 19-215 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes conforming amendments to section (a) of

Rule 19-215 to conform this Rule to the proposed

revisions to Rule 19-201 and 19-203. These

amendments clarify that an individual may be

admitted without taking the UBE or transferring a

qualifying UBE score to this State pursuant to the

provisions of this Rule. A house-keeping amendment

is also proposed in section (b) to correct “full time” to

“full-time.”

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed amendments to Rule 19-215

are conforming ones.

There being no motion to amend or reject

the proposed amendments to Rule 19-215, the Rule was approved as

presented.

Ms. Drummond commented that the conforming amendment to

change references to Rule 19-101 (l) to 19-101 (o) is also

needed in Rules 19-218 and 19-219.

make the change.

She said that staff will

By consensus, the Committee approved those

amendments.

Mr. Marcus thanked Mr. Shipley for his time and assistance

to the Committee.

Agenda Item 2. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19409 (Interest on Funds), Rule 19-503 (Reporting Pro Bono Legal

Service), and Rule 19-606 (Enforcement of Obligations).

Mr. Marcus said Supreme Court Clerk Gregory Hilton was

present to provide background and answer questions about Agenda

Item 2.

Mr. Hilton said that he, together with Access to

Justice Director Pamela Ortiz and Client Protection Fund

Executive Director Melissa Higdon, recommended a series of

amendments to the Rules impacting attorney reporting

requirements.

The proposed changes align the enforcement

procedures for attorneys who fail to complete the various

reporting requirements and “recertification” procedures for

those attorneys when they come into compliance.

Mr. Hilton

explained that attorneys are required to pay the annual Client

Protection Fund (“CPF”) Assessment; verify the attorney’s Social

Security number and, if applicable, Tax Identification Number;

report on pro bono activities; and report information about the

attorney’s Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”).

Currently, the Rules provide that an attorney who does not pay

the CPF assessment or report a TIN is subject to a “temporary

suspension,” while failure to file pro bono or IOLTA reports

results in “decertification.”

Mr. Hilton said that part of the proposed amendments is to

change the sanction for any failure to fulfill a reporting or

payment obligation to “administrative suspension.”

Mr. Marcus

said that changing the terminology should clarify the status of

attorneys who are not in compliance with the various

requirements.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-409, Interest on Funds, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 400 – ATTORNEY TRUST ACCOUNTS

AMEND Rule 19-409 by deleting an unnecessary

definition in section (a); by adding taglines to

subsections (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4); by revising

certain language in subsection (c)(1); by providing in

subsection (c)(2) that the State Court Administrator

sends notice regarding the IOLTA Compliance Report

through AIS; by adding provisions to subsection (c)(2)

regarding the form and content of the report; by

adding clarifying language to the end of subsection

(c)(3); by clarifying in subsection (c)(4) that each

attorney in active status shall file a report through

AIS; by reorganizing subsection (c)(5) as section (d) and

renumbering subsequent subsections; by providing in

subsection (d)(1) that the State Court Administrator

sends the Notice of Default and updating the

requirements for the notice; by deleting current

subsection (c)(5)(B); by providing in subsection (d)(2)

that the State Court Administrator sends the list of

defaulting attorneys to the Supreme Court and

updating the information contained in the list; by

deleting the requirement that a proposed order be

transmitted with the list of defaulting attorneys; by

replacing the entry of a decertification order pursuant

to subsection (d)(3) with the entry of an Administrative

Suspension Order for defaulting attorneys; by adding

language to subsection (d)(3) regarding the duties of

the Clerk upon entry of an Administrative Suspension

Order; by adding new subsection (d)(4) detailing the

effect of an Administrative Suspension Order; by

deleting former subsections (c)(5)(E), (c)(5)(F), and

(c)(5)(G); by adding new subsection (d)(5), with

subsections (d)(5)(A) through (d)(5)(C), addressing the

reinstatement process and the effect of terminating an

Administrative Suspension Order; by deleting current

subsection (c)(5)(H); by re-lettering current subsection

(c)(5)(I) as section (e); by updating an internal reference

in section (e); by adding a reference in section (e) to the

access Rules in Title 16, Chapter 900; by creating new

section (f) with the language of former subsection

(c)(5)(H), with amendments; and by making stylistic

changes, as follows:

Rule 19-409. INTEREST ON FUNDS

(a) Definition Definitions

In this Rule, (1) “AIS” means the Attorney

Information System created in Rule 19-801, and (2)

“AOC” means the Administrative Office of the Courts,

and (3) “Client Protection Fund” means the Client

Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland.

(b) Generally

Any interest paid on funds deposited in an

attorney trust account, after deducting service charges

and fees of the financial institution, shall be credited

and belong to the client or third person whose funds

are on deposit during the period the interest is earned,

except to the extent that interest is paid to the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation Fund as

authorized by law. The attorney or law firm shall have

no right or claim to the interest.

Cross reference: See Rule 19-411 (b)(1)(D) providing

that certain fees may not be deducted from interest

that otherwise would be payable to the Maryland Legal

Services Corporation Fund.

(1) Required as a Condition of Practice

As a condition precedent of continuing to the

practice of law in Maryland, each attorney admitted to

practice in Maryland shall report in accordance with

this Rule information concerning all IOLTA accounts.

(2) IOLTA Compliance Report

On or before July 10 of each year, AOC the State

Court Administrator shall send electronically to each

attorney on in active status a notice requiring the

attorney to complete through AIS an IOLTA

Compliance Report on or before September 10 of that

year. The report shall be in a form approved by the

State Court Administrator in consultation with the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation. The report shall

require, at a minimum, the disclosure of the name,

address, location, and account number of each IOLTA

account maintained by the attorney as of July 10 of

each year.

(3) Shared Law Firm IOLTA Accounts

If all IOLTA eligible trust funds of all attorneys in

a law firm are deposited in shared law firm IOLTA

accounts, the firm shall designate an attorney to be its

“IOLTA Reporting Attorney.” The Reporting Attorney

shall report on all law firm IOLTA accounts by

submitting one report listing the specific account

information for the firm with the Reporting Attorney's

signature. Each attorney at the law firm other than

the firm's IOLTA Reporting Attorney shall submit a

report that includes the attorney's name, law firm

address and phone number, and the name of the

IOLTA Reporting Attorney. The report of an attorney

other than the firm’s IOLTA Reporting Attorney need

not include account information for a shared law firm

IOLTA account.

(4) Filing Report Through AIS

On or before September 10 of each year, the

each attorney, through AIS, in active status shall file

electronically through AIS a completed IOLTA

Compliance Report with AOC.

(5)(d) Enforcement

(A)(1) Notice of Default

As soon as practicable after February 10 of

each year, AOC the State Court Administrator shall

send electronically notify each defaulting a Notice of

Default to each attorney of the attorney's failure who

has failed to file the required IOLTA Compliance

Report. The notice Notice of Default shall (i)(A) be on a

form approved by the State Court Administrator, (B)

state that the attorney has not filed the required IOLTA

Compliance Report, and (ii)(C) state that continued

failure to file the Report may cure the default will

result in the entry of an order by the Supreme Court

prohibiting administratively suspending the attorney

from practicing the practice of law in Maryland.

(B) Additional Discretionary Notice

In addition to the electronic notice, AOC may

give additional notice in other ways to defaulting

attorneys. This discretion shall be liberally construed

with respect to notices given in 2019.

(C)(2) List of Defaulting Attorneys

As soon as practicable after February 10 of

each year but no later than March 10, AOC the State

Court Administrator shall:

(i)(A) prepare, certify, and, transmit to the

Supreme Court a list that includes the name and,

unless the attorney has elected to keep the address

confidential, the address AIS number of each attorney

engaged in the practice of law who has failed to file the

IOLTA Compliance Report for the preceding reporting

period;

(ii) include with the list a proposed Decertification

Order stating the name and, unless the attorney has

elected to keep the address confidential, the address of

each attorney who has failed to file the IOLTA

Compliance Report; and

(iii)(B) at the request of the Court, furnish

additional information from its records or give further

notice to the defaulting attorneys.

(D) Decertification (3) Administrative Suspension

Order

If satisfied that AOC the State Court

Administrator has given the required notice Notice of

Default to the attorneys named in the proposed

decertification order on the list, the Supreme Court

shall enter a decertification order an Administrative

Suspension Order prohibiting each of them attorney in

default from practicing law in Maryland until such

time as a Recertification Order applicable to a listed

attorney is entered pursuant to subsection (c)(4)(F) of

this Rule. If the Court concludes that an attorney was

not given the required notice, it shall delete that

attorney's name from the proposed Order. The Clerk

of the Supreme Court shall (A) send electronically a

copy of the Order to each administratively suspended

attorney named in the order, (B) comply with Rule 19761, and (C) post the Order on the Judiciary website.

(4) Effect of Order

An attorney who has been sent a copy of the

Administrative Suspension Order and who has not

been restored to good standing may not practice law in

Maryland and shall comply with the requirements of

Rule 19-741 (b) and (c). In addition to any other

remedy or sanction allowed by law, an action for

contempt may be brought against an attorney who

practices law in violation of an Administrative

Suspension Order.

(E) Transmittal of Decertification Order

AOC shall transmit a copy of the decertification

order to each attorney named in the Order.

(F) Recertification; Reinstatement

If a decertified attorney thereafter files the

outstanding IOLTA Compliance Report, AOC shall

inform the Supreme Court and request the Court to

enter an order that recertifies the attorney and

terminates the decertification. Upon the entry of that

order, AOC promptly shall transmit confirmation to

the attorney. After an attorney is recertified, the fact

that the attorney had been decertified need not be

disclosed by the attorney in response to a request for

information as to whether the attorney has been the

subject of a disciplinary or remedial proceeding.

(G) Duty of Clerk of Supreme Court

Upon entry of each Decertification Order and

each Recertification Order entered pursuant to this

Rule, the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall comply

with Rule 19-761.

(5) Termination of Administrative Suspension

Order

(A) Notice to Supreme Court

If, after an administrative suspension under

this Rule, an attorney files the outstanding IOLTA

Compliance Report and the attorney is in compliance

with the requirements of Rules 19-503 and 19-605,

the State Court Administrator shall inform the

Supreme Court that the attorney is no longer in

default and request the Court to enter an order

terminating the attorney’s administrative suspension.

(B) Duty of Court

Upon receipt of the notice and request

provided for in subsection (d)(5)(A) of this Rule and

payment of any fee for reinstatement, the Supreme

Court shall enter an order terminating the

administrative suspension of the attorney and the

Clerk of the Court shall (A) send electronically a copy

of the Reinstatement Order to each attorney who has

been restored to good standing, (B) comply with Rule

19-761, and (C) post the Order on the Judiciary

website.

After an attorney’s administrative suspension

for failure to file an IOLTA Compliance Report has

been terminated, the attorney need not disclose the

administrative suspension in response to a request for

information as to whether the attorney has been the

subject of a disciplinary or remedial proceeding.

(H) Certain Information Furnished to the Maryland

Legal Services Corporation

AOC promptly shall submit to the Maryland

Legal Services Corporation the data from the IOLTA

Compliance Reports.

(I)(e) Confidentiality

Except as provided in subsections (c)(4)(H) and

(c)(4)(I) section (f) of this Rule, IOLTA Compliance

Reports are confidential and are not subject to

inspection or disclosure under Code, General

Provisions Article, § 4-301 or Title 16, Chapter 900 of

these Rules. Neither AIS nor AOC shall release those

Reports to any person, except as provided in this Rule

or upon order of the Supreme Court. Non-identifying

information and data contained in an attorney's IOLTA

Compliance Report are not confidential.

(f) Information Furnished to the Maryland Legal

Services Corporation

AOC promptly shall submit to the Maryland Legal

Services Corporation all information from the IOLTA

Compliance Reports.

Cross reference: See Code, Business Occupations and

Professions Article, § 10-103 10-303.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-608

(2016).

Rule 19-409 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Amendments to Rules 19-409, 19-503, and 19606 are proposed to streamline and update the Rules

regarding reporting requirements for attorneys

practicing law in Maryland. Attorneys in Maryland

must comply with four requirements to remain in good

standing: (1) pay the annual Client Protection Fund

(“CPF”) Assessment, including the portion of the

assessment that is paid to the Disciplinary Fund

pursuant to Rule 19-705, (2) verify the attorney’s SSN

and, if applicable, Tax Identification Number (“TIN”),

(3) report on pro bono activities, and (4) report

information about the attorney’s Interest on Lawyer

Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”). The Rules currently provide

that attorneys who fail to pay their CPF assessment or

report their TIN are subject to a temporary

suspension, while attorneys who fail to file pro bono or

IOLTA reports are only subject to decertification. Each

Rule also contains its own process for reinstatement

after the attorney cures the default.

After these reporting requirements were

implemented, there have been several changes in the

compliance process for attorneys. Most notably, the

process has been streamlined so that the CPF

assessment, TIN information, and reports are due at

the same time. Attorneys are also notified of the need

to complete these requirements in one combined

notice. Similarly, attorneys must complete all

requirements through the Attorney Information

System (“AIS”).

Proposed amendments to Rules 19-409, 19-503

and 19-606 were submitted to the Rules Committee for

consideration by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the

Executive Director of CPF, the Executive Director of

Maryland Legal Services Corporation (“MLSC”), and the

Director of Access to Justice. The proponents

recommended changes to reflect current practices,

apply the same status to all violations, follow the same

process for reinstatement after curing any default, and

correct some errors in the current Rules. The

proposed changes are intended to update and

streamline the attorney compliance process.

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee agrees

with the proponents of the amendments that a failure

to fulfill any of the four compliance requirements

should result in the same sanction, simplifying the

process and making it easier to use the same

reinstatement procedures when an attorney cures any

default. The Subcommittee believes that, while a

“suspension” is appropriate, the Rules should be clear

that the suspension is not the result of a disciplinary

proceeding for violation of the Maryland Attorneys’

Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, instead of

imposition of a “temporary suspension,” the proposed

amendments throughout all three Rules provide that

an attorney who fails to fulfill a reporting or payment

obligation now would be “administratively suspended.”

Several additional amendments are proposed in

Rule 19-409. Overall, Rules 19-409 and 19-503 are

restructured and reorganized to be more parallel.

In Rule 19-409, section (a) is amended to delete

an unnecessary definition. The term “Client Protection

Fund,” which had appeared in an earlier version of the

Rule, does not appear in the current version of the

Rule. Stylistic changes are also made to the tagline

and language of the section.

There are several stylistic changes throughout

Rule 19-409 (c), including the addition of taglines for

each subsection. Stylistic changes in subsection (c)(1)

note that reporting in accordance with the Rule is a

condition of continuing to practice law in Maryland.

In subsection (c)(2), a proposed amendment

requires the State Court Administrator to send the

notice of the reporting requirement to attorneys. The

notice previously was sent by the Administrative Office

of the Courts (“AOC”). Throughout the Rule,

references to the mailings and notices from the AOC

have been amended to be sent instead by the State

Court Administrator. Other new language in the

subsection notes that the IOLTA Compliance Report is

completed through AIS, and a new sentence provides

that the report is to be in a form approved by the State

Court Administrator, in consultation with the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation. Addition of the

phrase “at a minimum” in subsection (c)(2) clarifies

that the information listed in the section is the

minimum information that will be requested by the

report.

Furthermore, phrases are added to the last

sentence of Rule 19-409 (c)(3), making clear that an

attorney does not need to include account information

for a shared law firm IOLTA account, unless the

attorney serves as the firm’s IOLTA Reporting Attorney.

Current subsection (c)(4) of Rule 19-409 is amended to

clarify that attorneys in active status must file reports

through AIS.

Current subsection (c)(5) of Rule 19-409 is relettered as section (d). New section (d) concerns

enforcement of the requirement to file an IOLTA

Compliance Report. The revised organization better

parallels the sections used in Rule 19-503 concerning

reporting of pro bono activities. Subsections within

new section (d) are re-lettered or renumbered

accordingly.

In addition to several stylistic changes, new

language proposed in Rule 19-409 (d)(1) provides that

the State Court Administrator sends a Notice of

Default, and the Notice is to be on a form approved by

the State Court Administrator. Most notably, language

at the end of the subsection is changed to reflect that

the penalty for being in default is an administrative

suspension from the practice of law in Maryland.

Current subsection (c)(5)(B) is deleted, and

subsection (c)(5)(C) is relabeled as subsection (d)(2).

Amendments to subsection (d)(2) provide that the State

Court administrator transmits a list of defaulting

attorneys to the Supreme Court, including the

attorney’s name and AIS number. Attorneys’

addresses no longer are needed with the list because

addresses no longer are included in the Administrative

Suspension Order. Similarly, the requirement that a

proposed order be provided with the list is deleted

because, in current practice, the Supreme Court

prepares the order.

In amendments to renumbered subsection (d)(3),

a process is set forth for the Supreme Court to enter

an Administrative Suspension Order. New language at

the end of the section sets forth the obligations of the

Clerk of the Supreme Court, including sending a copy

of the Order to each suspended attorney electronically,

complying with Rule 19-761, and posting the Order on

the Judiciary’s website.

New subsection (d)(4) of Rule 19-409 sets forth

the effects of an Administrative Suspension Order,

making clear that an attorney who has been

administratively suspended may not practice law in

Maryland and must comply with Rule 19-741. This

language is taken from current Rule 19-606 (b)(3),

which sets forth the effect of a Temporary Suspension

Order for an attorney who fails to pay the CPF

assessment or provide TIN information.

Current subsections (c)(5)(E) through (c)(5)(G) of

Rule 19-409 are deleted as the process for

reinstatement after a default is now set forth in new

subsection (d)(5). Proposed subsection (d)(5)(A)

requires that the State Court Administrator notify the

Supreme Court when a default has been cured,

provided that the attorney is in compliance with other

reporting requirements. This notice includes a request

for reinstatement. Subsection (d)(5)(B) provides that

the Supreme Court terminates the administrative

suspension after receipt of notice from the State Court

Administrator and payment of any fee for

reinstatement. The subsection also sets forth the

obligation of the Clerk of the Supreme Court after an

attorney has been restored to good standing.

Proposed new subsection (d)(5)(C) states that an

attorney need not disclose an administrative

suspension for a failure to file an IOLTA Compliance

Report in response to a question of whether the

attorney has been the subject of a disciplinary or

remedial proceeding. In this manner, an

administrative suspension clearly differs from a

suspension for a violation of the Maryland Attorneys’

Rules of Professional Conduct.

The language in Rule 19-409 (c)(5)(H) is deleted,

and current subsection (c)(5)(I) is re-lettered as section

(e). An internal reference is updated in the section,

and a reference to the Rules concerning access to

judicial records is added.

New section (f) is created from the language of

former subsection (c)(5)(H), with changes. The word

“certain” is deleted from the tagline, and the language

is amended to state that MLSC receives “all

information” from the reports. MLSC has historically

been able to request paper copies of submitted IOLTA

Compliance Reports. Changes to Rule 19-409 in

2018, removing the reference to paper copies,

conformed the Rule to the implementation of AIS.

References to paper forms were removed because

reports now are filed through AIS. There is no

indication from the Rules history materials that the

change intended to alter the extent of the data

provided to MLSC. Accordingly, Rule 19-409 (f) is

amended to ensure that MLSC has access to

information in the IOLTA Compliance Reports as

intended by earlier versions of Rule 19-409.

Finally, a typographical error in the cross

reference at the end of the Rule is corrected to reflect

the appropriate statutory section.

Mr. Marcus explained that the proposed amendments to Rule

19-409, which governs IOLTA reporting, update various details

for the process of sending notices and developing forms.

The

penalty for being in default is now an administrative

suspension.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-409, the Rule was approved as presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-503, Reporting Pro Bono Legal

Service, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 500 – PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES

AMEND Rule 19-503 by adding a new tagline to

section (b); by creating new subsection (b)(1) with the

tagline and first sentence of current section (b), with

amendments; by creating new subsection (b)(2) using

language from current section (b), with amendments;

by providing that the State Court Administrator send

the Notice of Default and updating requirements for

the notice in subsection (c)(1); by deleting subsection

(c)(2); by providing in subsection (c)(2) that the State

Court Administrator send the list of defaulting

attorneys to the Supreme Court and updating the

information contained on the list; by deleting the

requirement that a proposed order be included with

the list of defaulting attorneys; by replacing the entry

of a decertification order pursuant to subsection (c)(3)

with entry of an Administrative Suspension Order for

defaulting attorneys; by adding language to subsection

(c)(3) regarding the duties of the Clerk upon entry of an

Administrative Suspension Order; by deleting former

subsection (c)(5); by adding subsection (c)(4) detailing

the effect of an Administrative Suspension Order; by

updating the tagline of renumbered subsection (c)(5);

by adding language to subsection (c)(5)(A) clarifying

when notice is sent to the Supreme Court after an

attorney has cured a default and requiring the State

Court Administrator to send the notice; by adding new

subsection (c)(5)(B) addressing the duty of the Court

after notice of a cured default; by updating the tagline

of, deleting certain language in, and adding language

to subsection (c)(5)(C) concerning disclosure of an

administrative suspension; by deleting former

subsection (c)(7); by creating new section (d) using the

language of current section (e), with amendments; by

re-lettering current section (d) as section (e); and by

making stylistic changes, as follows:

Rule 19-503. REPORTING PRO BONO LEGAL

SERVICE

(a) Definitions

In this Rule, (1) “AIS” means the Attorney

Information System, (2) “AOC” means the

Administrative Office of the Courts, and (3) “fiscal

year” means the 12-month period commencing on July

1 and ending the following June 30.

(b) Duty to Report Pro Bono Legal Service

(1) Required as a Condition of Practice

As a condition precedent to the practice of

continuing to practice law in Maryland, each attorney

admitted to practice in Maryland, by on or before

September 10 of each year and in accordance with this

Rule, each attorney in active status shall file

electronically, through AIS, a Pro Bono Legal Service

Report.

(2) Pro Bono Legal Service Report

On or before July 10 of each year, AOC the State

Court Administrator shall send electronically to each

attorney registered with in active status a notice

requiring the attorney to complete through AIS a Pro

Bono Legal Service Report on or before September 10

of that year. The report shall be in a form approved by

the State Court Administrator. The first notice to be

sent under this Rule shall be emailed to attorneys on

or before July 10, 2019 and shall require attorneys to

report information with respect to pro bono legal

service during the period January 1, 2018 through

June 30, 2019. This report shall be filed electronically

on or before September 10, 2019. Thereafter, the

Report shall include information with respect to pro

bono legal service during the preceding fiscal year.

Committee note: The purpose of pro bono legal service

reporting is to document the pro bono legal service

performed by attorneys in Maryland and determine the

effectiveness of the Local Pro Bono Action Plans, the

State Pro Bono Action Plan, the Rules in this Chapter,

and Rule 19-306.1 (6.1) of the Maryland Attorneys'

Rules of Professional Conduct.

(1) Notice of Default

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year, AOC the State Court Administrator shall send

electronically notify a Notice of Default to each

defaulting attorney of the attorney's failure who has

failed to file the Pro Bono Legal Service Report for the

preceding fiscal year. The notice Notice of Default

shall (A) be on a form approved by the State Court

Administrator, (B) state that the attorney has not filed

the Pro Bono Legal Service Report, and (B)(C) state

that continued failure to file the Report may cure the

default will result in the entry of an order by the

Supreme Court prohibiting administratively

suspending the attorney from practicing the practice of

law in Maryland.

(2) Additional Discretionary Notice of Default

In addition to the electronic notice, AOC may

give additional notice in other ways to defaulting

attorneys.

(3)(2) List of Defaulting Attorneys

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year but no later than March 10, AOC the State Court

Administrator shall:

(A) prepare, certify, and transmit to the Supreme

Court a list that includes the name and, unless the

attorney has elected to keep the address confidential,

the address AIS number of each attorney engaged in

the practice of law who has failed to file the Pro Bono

Legal Service Report for the preceding reporting period;

(B) include with the list a proposed Decertification

Order stating the name and, unless the attorney has

elected to keep the address confidential, the address of

each attorney who has failed to file the Pro Bono Legal

Service Report; and

(C)(B) at the request of the Court, furnish

additional information from its records or give further

notice to the defaulting attorneys.

(4) Decertification Order (3) Administrative

Suspension Order

If satisfied that AOC the State Court

Administrator has given the required notice Notice of

Default to the attorneys named in the proposed

Decertification Order on the list, the Supreme Court

shall enter a Decertification an Administrative

Suspension Order prohibiting each of them attorney in

default from practicing law in Maryland until such

time as a Recertification Order applicable to a listed

attorney is entered pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of this

Rule. If the Court concludes that an attorney was not

given the required notice, it shall delete that attorney's

name from the proposed Order. The Clerk of the

Supreme Court shall (A) send electronically a copy of

the Order to each administratively suspended attorney

named in the Order, (B) comply with Rule 19-761, and

(5) Transmittal of Decertification Order

AOC shall transmit a copy of the Decertification

Order to each attorney named in the Order.

(4) Effect of Order

An attorney who has been served with a copy of

the Administrative Suspension Order and who has not

been restored to good standing may not practice law in

Maryland and shall comply with the requirements of

Rule 19-741 (b) and (c). In addition to any other

remedy or sanction allowed by law, an action for

contempt may be brought against an attorney who

practices law in violation of an Administrative

Suspension Order.

(6) Recertification; Reinstatement (5) Termination of

Administrative Suspension Order

(A) Notice to Supreme Court

If, after an administrative suspension under

this Rule, a decertified an attorney thereafter files the

outstanding Pro Bono Legal Service Report and is in

compliance with the requirements of Rules 19-409 and

19-605, AOC the State Court Administrator shall

inform the Supreme Court that the attorney is no

longer in default and request the Court to enter an

order that recertifies the attorney and terminates the

decertification terminating the attorney’s

administrative suspension.

(B) Duty of Court

Upon receipt of the notice and request provided

for in subsection (c)(5)(A) of this Rule and payment of

any fee for reinstatement, the Supreme Court shall

enter an order terminating the administrative

suspension of the attorney and the Clerk of the Court

shall (A) send electronically a copy of the

reinstatement order to each attorney who has been

restored to good standing, (B) comply with Rule 19761, and (C) post the Order on the Judiciary website.

(B) Confirmation of Recertification (C) Disclosure of

Administrative Suspension

Upon entry of that order, AOC promptly shall

transmit confirmation to the attorney. After an

attorney is recertified, the fact that the attorney had

been decertified attorney’s administrative suspension

for failure to file a Pro Bono Legal Services Report has

been terminated, the attorney need not be disclosed by

the attorney disclose the administrative suspension in

response to a request for information as to whether the

attorney has been the subject of a disciplinary or

remedial proceeding.

(7) Duty of Clerk of Supreme Court

Upon entry of each Decertification Order and

each Recertification Order entered pursuant to this

Rule, the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall comply

with Rule 19-761.

(d) Confidentiality

Pro Bono Legal Service Reports are confidential

and are not subject to inspection or disclosure under

Code, General Provisions Article, § 4-301 or Title 16,

Chapter 900 of these Rules. Neither AIS nor AOC

shall release those Reports to any person, except as

provided in this Rule or upon order of the Supreme

Court. Non-identifying information and data

contained in an attorney's Pro Bono Legal Service

Report are not confidential.

(d)(e) Certain Information Furnished to the Standing

Committee on Pro Bono Legal Service

AOC promptly shall submit to the Standing

Committee on Pro Bono Legal Service a compilation of

non-identifying information and data from the Pro

Bono Legal Service Reports.

(e) Confidentiality

Pro Bono Legal Service Reports are confidential

and are not subject to inspection or disclosure under

Code, General Provisions Article, § 4-301. Neither AIS

nor AOC shall release those Reports to any person,

except as provided in this Rule or upon order of the

Supreme Court. Non-identifying information and data

contained in an attorney's Pro Bono Legal Service

Report are not confidential.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-903

(2016).

Rule 19-503 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Amendments are proposed to Rules 19-409, 19503, and 19-606 to streamline and update the Rules

regarding reporting requirements for attorneys

practicing law in Maryland. For further details, see

the Reporter’s note to Rule 19-409.

Several stylistic changes are proposed in Rule

19-503 (b). A new tagline is proposed and the current

language is divided into two sections. Changes to the

language in subsection (b)(1) provide that each

attorney in active status must file a Pro Bono Legal

Service Report to continue practicing law in Maryland.

In subsection (b)(2) of Rule 19-503, a proposed

amendment requires the State Court Administrator to

send the notice to attorneys of the reporting

requirement. The notice was previously sent by the

Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”). As in the

amendments to Rule 19-409, references to the

mailings and notices from the AOC are amended to be

sent instead by the State Court Administrator

throughout Rule 19-503. Additional language clarifies

that the report is to be in a form approved by the State

Court Administrator. The remaining language in the

section, addressing notices for the reporting period of

January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, no longer is

necessary and is proposed to be deleted.

In addition to several stylistic changes, new

language proposed in Rule 19-503 (c)(1) provides that

the State Court Administrator sends the Notice of

Default, and the notice is to be on a form approved by

the State Court Administrator. Most notably, language

at the end of the subsection is changed to reflect that

the penalty for being in default is an administrative

suspension from the practice of law in Maryland.

Current subsection (c)(2) is proposed to be

deleted, and subsection (c)(3) is relabeled as

subsection (c)(2). Amendments to renumbered

subsection (c)(2) provide that the State Court

administrator transmits a list of defaulting attorneys

to the Supreme Court, providing the attorney’s name

and AIS number. Attorneys’ addresses no longer are

needed because addresses are not included in the

Administrative Suspension Order. Similarly, the

requirement that a proposed order be provided with

the list is deleted because, in current practice, the

Supreme Court prepares the order.

In proposed amendments to renumbered

subsection (c)(3), a process is set forth for entry of an

Administrative Suspension Order. New language at

the end of the section sets forth the obligations of the

Clerk of the Supreme Court, including sending a copy

of the Order to each suspended attorney electronically,

complying with Rule 19-761, and posting the Order on

the Judiciary’s website.

Current subsection (c)(5) is proposed to be

deleted. The requirement that AOC transmit the order

is unnecessary because the Clerk of the Supreme

Court sends a copy of the order to the suspended

attorney pursuant to amended subsection (c)(3).

New subsection (c)(4) of Rule 19-503 sets forth

the effects of an Administrative Suspension Order,

making clear that an attorney who has been

administratively suspended may not practice law in

Maryland and must comply with Rule 19-741. This

language is taken from current Rule 19-606 (b)(3),

which sets forth the effect of a Temporary Suspension

Order for an attorney who fails to pay the CPF

assessment or provide TIN information.

Current subsection (c)(6) is renumbered as

subsection (c)(5) and sets forth a reinstatement

process, consistent with the process in the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-409. Proposed Rule 19-503

(c)(5)(A) requires that the State Court Administrator

notify the Supreme Court when a default has been

cured, provided that the attorney is in compliance with

other reporting requirements. This notice includes a

request for reinstatement. Subsection (c)(5)(B) states

that the Supreme Court terminates the administrative

suspension after receipt of notice from the State Court

Administrator and payment of any fee for

reinstatement. The subsection also sets forth the

obligation of the Clerk of the Supreme Court after an

attorney has been restored to good standing.

Proposed new subsection (c)(5)(C) states that an

attorney need not disclose an administrative

suspension for a failure to file a Pro Bono Legal

Services Report if asked whether the attorney has been

the subject of a disciplinary or remedial proceeding. In

this manner, an administrative suspension clearly

differs from a suspension for a violation of the

Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

Current subsection (c)(7) of Rule 19-503 is

proposed to be deleted as unnecessary. The

requirement that the Clerk of the Supreme Court

comply with Rule 19-761 is now included in

subsection (c)(5)(B).

New section (d) is created with the current

language of section (e), proposed to be deleted later in

the Rule. A reference to the Rules concerning access to

judicial records is added. Current section (d) is relettered as section (e).

Mr. Hilton explained that the proposed amendments to Rule

19-503 change the pro bono reporting process to align it with

the changes to Rule 19-409.

There being no motion to amend or

reject the proposed amendments to Rule 19-503, the Rule was

approved as presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-606, Enforcement of

Obligations, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 600 – CLIENT PROTECTION FUND

AMEND Rule 19-606 by replacing several terms

and phrases with updated language in subsection

(a)(1), by changing references to a temporary

suspension to an administrative suspension

throughout the Rule, by modifying language in section

(b) to reflect that the Fund provides the Court with a

list of defaulting attorneys and must provide additional

information or notice as directed by the Court, by

updating in subsection (b)(2) the duties of the Clerk

after entry of an Administrative Suspension Order, by

updating an internal reference in subsection (b)(3), by

deleting subsection (c)(1)(C), by requiring in subsection

(c)(2) that an attorney pay a fee for reinstatement, by

adding the duties of the Clerk after entry of an order

terminating a suspension in subsection (c)(2), by

adding new subsection (c)(3) addressing disclosure of

an administrative suspension, and by making stylistic

changes, as follows:

Rule 19-606. ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS

(a) Notice of Default

(1) Generally

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year, the Fund shall send electronically a Notice of

Default to each attorney who has (1) failed to pay in

full (A) the amount due as stated in the invoice, (B)

any penalty for late payment, or (C) any charge for a

dishonored check or money order, or (2) failed to

supply to the Fund a required social security number

or federal tax identification number or statement that

there is no such number.

(2) Form and Content

The Notice of Default shall (A) be on a form

created approved by the State Court Administrator and

approved by the Supreme Court, (B) identify the

nature of the default and the amount, if any, owed to

the Fund, and (C) warn state that failure to cure the

default will result in the entry of an order by the

Supreme Court prohibiting administratively

suspending the attorney from practicing the practice of

law in Maryland.

(b) Temporary Administrative Suspension

(1) Proposed Order List of Defaulting Attorneys

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year but no later than March 10, the Fund shall

transmit to the Supreme Court a proposed Temporary

Suspension Order stating the names and Fund

account numbers list that includes the name and AIS

number of those attorneys who failed to cure the

default stated in the Notice of Default. The At the

request of the Court, the Fund shall furnish to the

Court such additional information from its records as

the Court directs or give further notice to the

defaulting attorneys.

(2) Entry of Administrative Suspension Order

If satisfied that the Fund has given the required

Notice of Default to the attorneys named in the list, the

Supreme Court shall enter a Temporary an

Administrative Suspension Order prohibiting each of

the attorneys who are in default from practicing law in

Maryland. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall (A)

send electronically a copy of the Order to (A) each

administratively suspended attorney named in the

Order, (B) the clerks of the Appellate Court, each

circuit court, the District Court of Maryland, the

Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the U.S. District

Court for the District of Maryland and (B) comply with

Rule 19-761, and (C) post notice of the Order on the

Judiciary website.

(3) Effect of Order

An attorney who has been served with sent a

copy of the Temporary Administrative Suspension

Order and who has not been restored to good standing

may not practice law in Maryland and shall comply

with the requirements of Rule 19-741 (b) and (c) and

(d). In addition to any other remedy or sanction

allowed by law, an action for contempt may be brought

against an attorney who practices law in violation of a

Temporary Administrative Suspension Order.

Suspension Order

(1) Duty of Trustees

Upon receipt of the attorney's social security

number, federal tax identification number or

statement that the attorney has no such number, and

all amounts due by the attorney, including all related

costs prescribed by the Supreme Court or the trustees,

the trustees shall:

(A) remove the attorney's name from the list of

attorneys in default; and

(B) if a Temporary an Administrative Suspension

Order has been entered, inform the Supreme Court

that the social security number, federal tax

identification number or statement that the attorney

has no such number, and full payment have been

received and request the Court to enter an order

terminating the attorney's administrative suspension;

and

trustees have complied with the requirements of

subsections (c)(1)(A) and (B) of this Rule.

(2) Duty of Court

Upon receipt of the notice and request provided

for in subsection (c)(1)(B) of this Rule and payment of

any fee for reinstatement, the Supreme Court shall

enter an order terminating the temporary

administrative suspension of the attorney and the

Clerk of the Court shall (A) send electronically a copy

of the reinstatement order to each attorney who has

been restored to good standing, (B) comply with Rule

19-761, and (C) post notice of the Order on the

Judiciary website.

(3) Disclosure of Administrative Suspension

After an attorney’s administrative suspension for

failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 19-605

has been terminated, the attorney need not disclose

the administrative suspension in response to a request

for information as to whether the attorney has been

the subject of a disciplinary or remedial proceeding.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16811.6 (2016).

Rule 19-606 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Amendments are proposed to Rules 19-409, 19503, and 19-606 to streamline and update the Rules

regarding reporting requirements for attorneys

practicing law in Maryland. For further details, see

the Reporter’s note to Rule 19-409.

Rule 19-606 is structured differently than Rules

19-409 and 19-503, but many of the changes to

language appear throughout all three Rules. For

example, the sanction of administrative suspension is

imposed if an attorney fails to fulfill any reporting

requirement and the process for reinstatement is

consistent after curing a default for a failure to comply

with any requirement.

Stylistic changes in subsection (a)(2) replace the

term “created” with “approved” and “warn” with

“state.” Other changes to the language of subsection

(a)(2) mirror the language used in a notice of default

sent pursuant to Rules 19-409 or 19-503.

Proposed amendments to subsection (b)(1)

provide that the Fund is to transmit a list of defaulting

attorneys to the Supreme Court with the attorney’s

name and AIS number, instead of submitting a

proposed suspension order. In current practice, the

Supreme Court prepares the order. Attorneys’

addresses no longer are needed because they are not

included in the order. Clarifying language added to

the end of subsection (b)(1) requires the Fund to give

further notice to the defaulting attorneys if so

requested by the Court.

Proposed amendments to subsection (b)(2)

update the tagline and language to reflect that an

administrative suspension is the sanction for a

default. The subsection is updated to reflect the

obligations of the Clerk of the Supreme Court upon

entry of an Administration Suspension Order. Former

subsection (b)(2)(B), listing clerks to whom notice of

the order must be sent, has been updated to refer to

compliance with Rule 19-761. Rule 19-761 contains a

complete list of the entities that are to be notified upon

an attorney’s suspension.

An internal reference to certain sections of Rule

19-741 is corrected in subsection (b)(3).

Current subsection (c)(1)(C) is proposed to be

deleted to help streamline the reinstatement process,

consistent with Rules 19-409 and 19-503. Subsection

(c)(2) is amended to reflect that any fee for

reinstatement must be paid before the administrative

suspension is terminated. Proposed amendments also

set forth the duty of the Clerk upon termination of the

suspension, including electronically notifying the

attorney, complying with Rule 19-761 and posting the

order on the Judiciary website.

Proposed new subsection (c)(3) states that an

attorney need not disclose a terminated administrative

suspension for a failure to pay the CPF assessment or

provide TIN information if asked whether the attorney

has been the subject of a disciplinary or remedial

proceeding. In this manner, an administrative

suspension clearly differs from a suspension for a

violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of

Professional Conduct.

Mr. Marcus informed the Committee that a “handout” version

of Rule 19-606 (c)(2) was circulated prior to the meeting.

HANDOUT

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 600 – CLIENT PROTECTION FUND

Rule 19-606. ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS

...

Suspension Order

...

(2) Duty of Court

Upon receipt of the notice and request provided

for in subsection (c)(1)(B) of this Rule and payment of

any fee for reinstatement, and if the attorney is in

compliance with the requirements of Rules 19-409

and 19-503, the Supreme Court shall enter an order

terminating the temporary administrative suspension

of the attorney and the Clerk of the Court shall (A)

send electronically a copy of the reinstatement order to

each attorney who has been restored to good standing,

(B) comply with Rule 19-761, and (C) post notice of the

Order on the Judiciary website.

...

Mr. Marcus said that Rule 19-606 contains the enforcement

mechanism for attorneys who are not in compliance with certain

obligations administered by the Fund.

The proposed amendments

make terminology changes similar to those in Rule 19-409 and

Rule 19-503.

The amendment to Rule 19-606 updates the process

by which an attorney is placed on temporary suspension – now

administrative suspension – and how that suspension is

terminated.

The Reporter drew the Committee’s attention to the handout

version of subsection (c)(2), which adds a requirement that the

attorney be in compliance with all of the reporting and payment

requirements before the suspension may be terminated.

She

pointed out to Mr. Hilton that it could fall to him as Clerk of

the Supreme Court to verify with the Client Protection Fund and

the Administrative Office of the Courts that all of the various

requirements had been met before recommending the end of the

administrative suspension to the Court.

Mr. Hilton responded

that he currently does verify that all of the requirements have

been met and that updates to the Attorney Information System

will make this easier.

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed handout for Rule 19-606

will require a motion to approve.

A motion was made to approve

Rule 19-606 with the handout version of subsection (c)(2).

The

motion was seconded and approved by consensus.

Agenda Item 3. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19728 (Post-Hearing Proceedings).

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-728, Post-Hearing Proceedings,

for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 700 – DISCIPLINE, INACTIVE STATUS,

RESIGNATION

PROCEEDINGS ON PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY OR

REMEDIAL ACTION

AMEND Rule 19-728 by adding new subsection

(b)(4), pertaining to motions filed in the Supreme Court

after a disciplinary hearing, by adding motions to the

list of items in section (c) which require a response in

15 days, and by making stylistic changes, as follows:

Rule 19-728. POST-HEARING PROCEEDINGS

(a) Notice of the Filing of the Record

Upon receiving the record, the Clerk of the

Supreme Court shall notify the parties that the record

has been filed.

(b) Exceptions; Recommendations; Statement of

Costs Post Notice Filings

Within 30 days after service of the notice required

by section (a) of this Rule, each party may file (1)

exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the

hearing judge, (2) recommendations concerning the

appropriate disposition under Rule 19-740 (c), and (3)

a statement of costs to which the party may be entitled

under Rule 19-709; or (4) any motion.

Within 15 days after service of exceptions,

recommendations, or a statement of costs, or any

motion, the adverse party may file a response.

(d) Form

The parties shall file eight copies of any

exceptions, recommendations, and responses. The

copies shall conform to the requirements of Rule 8112.

(e) Proceedings in Supreme Court

Review in and disposition by the Supreme Court

are governed by Rule 19-740.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-758

(2016).

Rule 19-728 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

At the request of the Clerk of the Supreme

Court, sections (b) and (c) of this Rule are proposed to

be amended to clarify that the deadline to reply to a

motion during post-circuit court disciplinary hearings

is 15 days for post-hearing motions practice in the

Supreme Court. This matter was previously

considered by the Attorneys and Judges subcommittee

during its October 25, 2024 meeting, and staff was

directed to revise this Rule to provide for a 15 day

deadline.

Mr. Marcus informed the Committee that Supreme Court Clerk

Gregory Hilton requested a clarification in Rule 19-728, which

governs post-circuit court proceedings in attorney discipline

matters.

Mr. Hilton explained that there are sometimes motions

filed with the Supreme Court in attorney discipline cases, but

there is nothing in the Rule setting forth the time to respond

to those motions.

He said that he does not have a preference,

but suggested that either five days, the response time for

motions generally in the appellate courts under Rule 8-431 (b),

or 15 days, the response time in other portions of Title 19,

would be appropriate.

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

recommends 15 days.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-728, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 4. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 8111 (Designation of Parties; References).

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 8-111, Designation of

Parties; References, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 8-111 by deleting “or a final” and

“and Rule 8-204” from section (c), by moving “under

Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-103” from the

end of subsection (c)(1) to the beginning of subsection

(c)(1), and by adding a provision concerning a victim’s

right to appeal a final order to subsection (c)(1), as

follows:

Rule 8-111. DESIGNATION OF PARTIES;

REFERENCES

(a) Formal Designation

(1) No Prior Appellate Decision

When no prior appellate decision has been

rendered, the party first appealing the decision of the

trial court shall be designated the appellant and the

adverse party shall be designated the appellee. Unless

the Court orders otherwise, the opposing parties to a

subsequently filed appeal shall be designated the

cross-appellant and cross-appellee.

(2) Prior Appellate Decision

In an appeal to the Supreme Court from a

decision by the Appellate Court or by a circuit court

exercising appellate jurisdiction, the party seeking

review of the most recent decision shall be designated

the petitioner and the adverse party shall be

designated the respondent. Except as otherwise

specifically provided or necessarily implied, the term

“appellant” as used in the Rules in this Title shall

include a petitioner and the term “appellee” shall

include a respondent.

Cross reference: See Rule 8-305 for designation of

parties in cases certified pursuant to the Maryland

Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act.

(b) Alternative References

In the interest of clarity, the parties are

encouraged to use the designations used in the trial

court, the actual names of the parties, or descriptive

terms such as “employer,” “insured,” “seller,”

“husband,” and “wife” in papers filed with the Court

and in oral argument.

Although not a party to a criminal or juvenile

proceeding, a victim of a crime or a delinquent act or a

victim’s representative may: (1) under Code, Criminal

Procedure Article, § 11-103, file an application for

leave to appeal to the Appellate Court from an

interlocutory or a final order or appeal to the Appellate

Court of Maryland from a final order; under Code,

Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-103 and Rule 8-204;

or (2) participate in the same manner as a party

regarding the rights of the victim or victim’s

representative.

Cross reference: See Rule 1-326 for service and notice

to attorneys for victims and victims’ representatives

regarding the rights of victims and representatives.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is derived in part from former Rule 827 and

in part new.

Section (b) is derived from Fed. R. App. P. 28 (d).

Section (c) is new.

Rule 8-111 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Appellate Subcommittee proposes a

housekeeping amendment to conform section (c) of

Rule 8-111 to the current version of Code, Criminal

Procedure Article, § 11-103 (b), which was amended by

the General Assembly in 2013 to add a provision to

permit a victim to appeal a final order to the Appellate

Court of Maryland without filing a request for leave of

court to do so. Before this amendment, a victim was

required to file a request for leave of court to appeal

both an interlocutory order and a final order. This

housekeeping amendment will bring section (c) of this

Rule into conformity with the provisions of Code,

Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-103. It is also

proposed to delete the reference to Rule 8-204 from

subsection (c)(1). This is because its placement near

the citation to the Criminal Procedure Article was

viewed as potentially confusing and perhaps

misleading to an individual reading this Rule in that it

may be construed to require a victim to request leave

of court to appeal an order in which it may not be

required to do so.

Judge Nazarian informed the Committee that he was contacted

by a fellow Appellate Court judge’s senior law clerk who pointed

out that Rule 8-111 had not been updated to conform to a

statutory change impacting the ability of victims to appeal to

the Appellate Court from a final order.

The proposed amendments

to Rule 8-111 (c) conform the Rule to Code, Criminal Procedure

Article, § 11-103.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 8-111, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 5. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 8305 (Certification of Questions of Law to the Supreme Court).

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 8-305, Certification of

Questions of Law to the Supreme Court, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE

SUPREME COURT

AMEND Rule 8-305 by replacing “party” with

“parties,” “appellant” with “appellants,” and “original”

with “certification” in section (b), by deleting a

provision of section (b) pertaining to the filing fee for

docketing regular appeals, by adding a provision to

section (b) pertaining to electronic forwarding of

certification orders, by adding new subsection (c)(1)

pertaining to actions to be taken by the Supreme

Court, by adding new subsection (c)(2) pertaining to

the payment of fees, and by making stylistic changes,

as follows:

Rule 8-305. CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW

TO THE SUPREME COURT

(a) Certifying Court

“Certifying court” as used in this Rule means a

court authorized by Code, Courts Article, § 12-603 to

certify a question of law to the Supreme Court of

Maryland.

Committee note: Necessary implication requires that

the definition of “court” set forth in Rule 1-202 does

not apply in this Rule.

(b) Certification Order

(1) Generally

In disposing of an action pending before it, a

certifying court, on motion of any party or on its own

initiative, may submit to the Supreme Court a

question of law of this State, in accordance with the

Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law

Act, by filing a certification order.

(2) Contents of Order

The certification order shall be signed by a judge

of the certifying court and state the question of law

submitted, the relevant facts from which the question

arises, and the party parties who shall be treated as

the appellant appellants in the certification procedure.

(3) Transmittal of Order to Supreme Court

The original certification order shall be forwarded

to the Supreme Court by the clerk of the certifying

court under its official seal, together with the filing fee

for docketing regular appeals. By prior arrangement

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the certification

order may be forwarded through electronic mail or

other electronic means.

(1) Upon Receipt of Order by Supreme Court

Upon receipt of the certification order, the

Supreme Court will promptly consider whether to

accept or reject the certification.

(A) Order Rejected by Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court rejects the certification,

the Clerk shall send notice to the clerk of the certifying

court.

(B) Order Accepted by Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court accepts the certification,

the Clerk shall send notice of acceptance to the clerk

of the certifying court, docket the certification as a

miscellaneous matter, and send a copy of the notice

and a briefing schedule to the parties.

(2) Payment of Fees

Within fifteen days of the date on which the Clerk

sends notice of acceptance, the parties shall deposit

the filing fee for docketing an appeal with the Clerk of

the Supreme Court. Unless otherwise directed by the

certifying court, the parties shall each pay an equal

share of the filing fee. The obligation to pay the filing

fee may be enforced by the certifying court or by the

Supreme Court.

(3) Certification Order Equivalent of Transmission of

Record

The filing of the certification order in the

Supreme Court shall be the equivalent of the

transmission of a record on appeal. The Supreme

Court may request, in addition, all or any part of the

record before the certifying court. Upon request, the

certifying court shall file the original or a copy of the

parts of the record requested together with a

certificate, under the official seal of the certifying court

and signed by a judge or clerk of that court, stating

that the materials submitted are all the parts of the

record requested by the Supreme Court.

(d) Use of MDEC; Coordination with Certifying Court

(1) Use of MDEC During Pendency of Certification

The parties to the certified question will receive

notices, orders and other papers from the Supreme

Court and shall file all papers with the Supreme Court

through the MDEC system.

(2) Coordination with Certifying Court

By prior arrangement between the Clerk of the

Supreme Court and the clerk of the certifying court,

notices, correspondence, and other papers, including

the written opinion of the Supreme Court, may be

transmitted between the Supreme Court and the

certifying court through electronic mail or other

electronic means.

(d)(e) Decision by the Supreme Court

The written opinion of the Supreme Court stating

the law governing the question certified shall be sent

by the Clerk of the Supreme Court to the certifying

court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall certify,

under seal of the Court, that the opinion is in response

to the question of law of this State submitted by the

certifying court.

Cross reference: Code, Courts Article, §§ 12-601

through 12-609.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule

896 and is in part new.

Rule 8-305 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

By request of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of

Maryland, the Appellate Subcommittee proposes

revisions to Rule 8-305 to conform the Rule to the

provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding

between the U.S. District Court for the District of

Maryland and the Supreme Court of Maryland.

Judge Nazarian explained that Supreme Court Clerk Gregory

Hilton suggested amending Rule 8-305 to reflect the current

method of handling certified questions of law transmitted to the

Maryland Supreme Court from the federal courts.

Mr. Hilton

added that the Court has seen an uptick in certified questions,

and the changes should make the process faster.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 8-305, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 6. Consideration of proposed new Rule 8-306 (Direct

Appeal to the Supreme Court) and conforming amendments to Rule

8-301 (Method of Securing Review – the Supreme Court), Rule 8504 (Contents of Brief), and Rule 8-523 (Consideration on

Brief).

Judge Nazarian presented new Rule 8-306, Direct Appeal to

the Supreme Court, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT

AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE

SUPREME COURT

ADD new Rule 8-306, as follows:

Rule 8-306. DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME

COURT

(a) Generally

In any matter in which a direct appeal to the

Supreme Court is authorized by statute or other law,

and upon the filing of such an appeal, the Supreme

Court may direct the lower court promptly to transmit

the record and may take any of the following actions

allowed by law:

(1) Dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 8-602;

(2) Affirm the judgment that is the source of the

appeal;

(3) Vacate or reverse the judgment that is the source

of the appeal; or

(4) Remand the appeal to the lower court to modify

the judgment or for proceedings as directed by Order

of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may elect

to retain appellate jurisdiction over an appeal in an

Order directing a remand.

(b) Briefing; Oral Argument

(1) Briefing

After a review of the record, the Supreme Court

may direct the parties to brief the issues on appeal

pursuant to Rules 8-503 and 8-504. An Order from

the Supreme Court requiring briefs to be filed shall

establish a time that transcripts must be ordered by

the parties and submitted to the Court.

(2) Submit on Brief; Oral Argument

After briefing is completed pursuant to

subsection (b)(1) of this Rule, the Supreme Court may

decide the appeal based on the briefs submitted or

may schedule oral argument.

The Supreme Court, as authorized by statute,

other law, or on its own initiative, may expedite the

briefing, oral argument, and consideration of a direct

appeal considered under this Rule.

Cross reference: For examples of statutes that permit

direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland, see

Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-201 (Petition for

DNA Testing and Preservation of Scientific

Identification Evidence); Code, Election Law Article, §

5-305 (Petitions Challenging Residency of Candidate);

Code, Election Law Article, § 6-209 (Judicial Review);

Code, Election Law Article, § 6-210 (Schedule of

Process); Code, Election Law Article, § 9-209 (Judicial

Review of Ballot);Code, Election Law Article, § 12-203

(Appeal Proceedings); Code, Election Law Article, § 161004 (Injunction to Prohibit Violation of § 16-201 of

Election Law title); Code, Financial Institutions Article,

§ 9-712 (Pledge, transfer, or sale of assets); and Code,

Public Utilities Article, § 7-528 (Effective Date of

Qualified Rate Orders).

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 8-306 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

By request of the Chief Justice and the Clerk of

the Supreme Court of Maryland, new Rule 8-306 is

proposed to clarify the procedures that govern direct

appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland.

Judge Nazarian informed the Committee that proposed new

Rule 8-306 addresses a request from Chief Justice Fader.

The

Chief Justice had asked the Committee to consider establishing a

Rule governing direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

Judge

Nazarian explained that direct appeals are authorized by statute

and are very rare, applying in certain election cases, DNA

cases, and other specified areas of law.

The new Rule sets

forth the procedure for handling these cases in the Supreme

Court.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed new

Rule 8-306, it was approved as presented.

Judge Nazarian presented conforming amendments to Rule 8301, Method of Securing Review – the Supreme Court; Rule 8-504,

Contents of Brief; and Rule 8-523, Consideration on Brief, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE

SUPREME COURT

AMEND Rule 8-301 by adding a reference to

Rule 8-306 to section (b), by deleting “the other Rules

of this Title applicable to appeals” from section (b), and

by deleting the last sentence of section (b), as follows:

Rule 8-301. METHOD OF SECURING REVIEW – THE

SUPREME COURT

(a) Generally

Appellate review by the Supreme Court may be

obtained only:

(1) by direct appeal where allowed by law;

(2) pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certification

of Questions of Law Act;

(3) by writ of certiorari upon petition filed pursuant

to Rules 8-302 and 8-303; or

(4) by writ of certiorari issued on the Court's own

initiative.

Cross reference: For Code provisions governing direct

appeals to the Supreme Court, see Code, Election Law

Article, § 12-203 concerning appeals from circuit court

decisions regarding contested elections; Code, Election

Law Article, § 16-1004 concerning appeals from circuit

court decisions regarding injunctive relief sought for

certain violations of election law; and Code, Financial

Institutions Article, § 9-712(d)(2) concerning appeals

from circuit court decisions approving transfer of

assets of savings and loan associations. For the

Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law

Act, see Code, Courts Article, §§ 12-601 through 12613. For the authority of the Court to issue a writ of

certiorari on its own initiative, see Code, Courts

Article, § 12-201.

(b) Direct Appeals to Supreme Court

A direct appeal to the Supreme Court allowed by

law is governed by the other Rules of this Title

applicable to appeals, Rule 8-306, or by the law

authorizing the direct appeal. In the event of a

conflict, the law authorizing the direct appeal shall

prevail. Except as otherwise required by necessary

implication, references in those Rules to the Appellate

Court shall be regarded as references to the Supreme

Court.

Certification of questions of law to the Supreme

Court pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certification

of Questions of Law Act is governed by Rule 8-305.

Source: This Rule is in part derived from Rule 810

and in part new.

Rule 8-301 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

By request of the Chief Justice and the Clerk of

the Supreme Court of Maryland, new Rule 8-306 was

proposed to clarify the procedures that govern direct

appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland. Section (b)

of this Rule is proposed to be amended to conform this

Rule to the provisions of proposed new Rule 8-306.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE COURT OF

APPEALS AND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

Chapter 500 – RECORD EXTRACT, BRIEFS, AND

ARGUMENT

AMEND Rule 8-504 a conforming amendment

referencing new Rule 8-306 is proposed to be added to

subsection (a)(8) of this Rule, as follows:

Rule 8-504. CONTENTS OF BRIEF

(a) Contents

A brief shall comply with the requirements of

Rule 8-112 and include the following items in the

order listed:

(1) A table of contents and a table of citations of

cases, constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances,

rules, and regulations, with cases alphabetically

arranged. When a reported Maryland case is cited, the

citation shall include a reference to the official Report.

Cross reference: Citation of unreported opinions is

governed by Rule 1-104.

(2) A brief statement of the case, indicating the

nature of the case, the course of the proceedings, and

the disposition in the lower court, except that the

appellee's brief shall not contain a statement of the

case unless the appellee disagrees with the statement

in the appellant's brief.

(3) A statement of the questions presented,

separately numbered, indicating the legal propositions

involved and the questions of fact at issue expressed in

the terms and circumstances of the case without

unnecessary detail.

(4) A clear concise statement of the facts material to

a determination of the questions presented, except

that the appellee's brief shall contain a statement of

only those additional facts necessary to correct or

amplify the statement in the appellant's brief.

Reference shall be made to the pages of the record

extract or appendix supporting the assertions. If

pursuant to these rules or by leave of court a record

extract is not filed, reference shall be made to the

pages of the record or to the transcript of testimony as

contained in the record.

Cross reference: Rule 8-111 (b).

(5) A concise statement of the applicable standard of

review for each issue, which may appear in the

discussion of the issue or under a separate heading

placed before the argument.

(6) Argument in support of the party's position on

each issue.

(7) A short conclusion stating the precise relief

sought.

(8) In the Appellate Court, or on direct appeal to the

Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 8-306, a statement

as to whether the party filing the brief requests oral

argument.

(9) If the brief is prepared with proportionally

spaced type, a Certification of Word Count and

Compliance with Rule 8-112 substantially in the form

set forth in subsection (a)(9)(A) of this Rule. The party

or amicus curiae providing the certification may rely

on the word count of the word-processing system used

to prepare the brief.

(A) Form

A Certification of Word Count and Compliance

with Rule 8-112 shall be substantially in the following

form:

CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT AND

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 8-112

1. This brief contains _______________ words, excluding

the parts of the brief exempted from the word count by

Rule 8-503.

2. This brief complies with the requirements stated in

Rule 8-112.

(10) The citation and verbatim text of all pertinent

constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances, rules,

and regulations except that the appellee’s brief shall

contain only those not included in the appellant's

brief.

(11) Unless filed as a separate document, a

certificate of service in compliance with Rule 1-323.

Cross reference: For requirements concerning the

form of a brief, see Rule 8-112.

(b) Appendix

(1) Generally

Unless the material is included in the record

extract pursuant to Rule 8-501, the appellant shall

reproduce, as an appendix to the brief, the pertinent

part of every ruling, opinion, or jury instruction of

each lower court that deals with points raised by the

appellant on appeal. If the appellee believes that the

part reproduced by the appellant is inadequate, the

appellee shall reproduce, as an appendix to the

appellee's brief, any additional part of the instructions

or opinion believed necessary by the appellee.

(2) Appeals in Juvenile and Criminal Prosecution or

Conviction Cases

In an appeal from an order relating to a child

entered by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction or

an appendix required to be filed under seal as defined

in Rule 8-125 (b)(2), each appendix shall be filed as a

separate volume and, unless otherwise ordered by the

court, shall be filed under seal.

Cross reference: See Rules 8-121, 8-122, 8-123, and

8-124.

Committee note: Rule 8-501 (j) allows a party to

include in an appendix to a brief any material that

inadvertently was omitted from the record extract.

For noncompliance with this Rule, the appellate

court may dismiss the appeal or make any other

appropriate order with respect to the case, including

an order that an improperly prepared brief be

reproduced at the expense of the attorney for the party

for whom the brief was filed.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is derived from former Rules 831 c and d

and 1031 c 1 through 5 and d 1 through 5, with the

exception of subsection (a)(6) which is derived from

FRAP 28 (a)(5).

Section (b) is derived in part from Fed. R. App. P. 32

and former Rule 1031 c 6 and d 6, and is in part new.

Section (c) is derived from former Rules 831 g and

1031 f.

Rule 8-504 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

By request of the Chief Justice and the Clerk of

the Supreme Court of Maryland, new Rule 8-306 has

been proposed to clarify the procedures that govern

direct appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland. A

conforming amendment to subsection (a)(8) referencing

new Rule 8-306 is proposed.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 500 – RECORD EXTRACT, BRIEFS, AND

ARGUMENT

AMEND Rule 8-523 by adding a cross reference

to new Rule 8-306 following subsection (a)(2), as

follows:

RULE 8-523. CONSIDERATION ON BRIEF

(a) Submission on Brief by Party

(1) In the Appellate Court

In the Appellate Court, a party to a case the

Court has scheduled for argument may submit for

consideration on brief by filing a notice with the Clerk

at least ten days prior to argument. Before filing a

notice submitting on brief, a party shall attempt to

ascertain whether any other parties to the appeal also

will submit on brief and state the position of those

other parties in the notice. The Court may require oral

argument from either side or both sides,

notwithstanding the submission on brief.

(2) In the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court a party may not submit an

appeal for consideration on brief except with

permission of the Court. A request to submit on brief

shall be made in writing at least 15 days before

argument.

Cross reference: See Rule 8-306 (b)(2) for the

procedure governing submission on brief in direct

appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland.

(b) Directed by the Appellate Court

(1) When Directed

In the Appellate Court, if all the judges of the

panel to which an appeal has been assigned conclude,

after the filing of the appellant's brief, that oral

argument would not be of assistance to the Court

because of the nature of the questions raised, the

Court shall direct that the appeal be considered on

brief without oral argument. The Clerk shall promptly

mail notice to all parties that the Court has directed

consideration of the appeal on brief.

(2) Request for Oral Argument

If pursuant to subsection (1) of this section the

Court directs that an appeal be considered on brief

without oral argument, any party may file a request for

oral argument. The request shall be filed within ten

days after the later of (A) the date the Clerk mails the

notice required by subsection (1) of this section or (B)

the date the appellee's brief is filed. If the Court grants

the request for oral argument, the appeal shall be

assigned for argument pursuant to Rule 8-521.

Unless the Court specifies otherwise in its order

granting the request, oral argument shall be as

provided in Rule 8-522.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rules 846 d,

1047, and 1038.

Rule 8-523 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

By request of the Chief Justice and the Clerk of

the Supreme Court of Maryland, new Rule 8-306 has

been proposed to clarify the procedures that govern

direct appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland. A

cross reference to proposed new Rule 8-306 is

proposed to be added to this Rule following subsection

(a)(2).

Judge Nazarian also presented a handout of Rule 16-406,

Notice to the Appellate Court, for consideration.

HANDOUT

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 400 – CIRCUIT COURTS – CLERKS’

OFFICES

AMEND Rule 16-406 by revising the title of the

Rule, by adding new item (4) pertaining to a notice of

appeal filed in the Supreme Court, by adding “or the

Clerk of the Supreme Court, as appropriate” to the end

of the first sentence, by adding “[i]n the Appellate

Court” to the second sentence, and by making stylistic

changes, as follows:

Rule 16-406. NOTICE TO THE APPELLATE COURT

OR SUPREME COURT

Upon the filing of (1) a notice of appeal or application

for leave to appeal to the Appellate Court, (2) a timely

motion pursuant to Rule 2-532, 2-533, or 2-534 if filed

after the filing of a notice of appeal, or (3) an order

striking a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 8-203, or

(4) a notice of appeal, where permitted by law or Rule,

to the Supreme Court, the clerk of the circuit court

immediately shall send via the MDEC system a copy of

the paper filed to the Clerk of the Appellate Court or

the Clerk of the Supreme Court, as appropriate. If In

the Appellate Court, if a notice of appeal is

accompanied by a Civil Appeal Information Report

required by Rule 8-205, the Information Report shall

be transmitted in the same manner as with the notice

of appeal.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 16-309

(2016).

Rule 16-406 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Amendments are proposed to conform Rule 16406 to the provisions of proposed new Rule 8-306,

which pertains to direct appeals to the Supreme Court

of Maryland. New item (4) is proposed, which adds to

the list notices of appeal in direct appeals to the

Supreme Court. In addition, the Clerk of the Supreme

Court is added to the portion of the first sentence that

pertains to recipients of circuit court transmissions

required by the Rule. Because the proposed revision

expands the applicability of the Rule to the Supreme

Court from just the Appellate Court, an amendment is

added to the second sentence of the Rule to clarify that

the provision pertaining to Information Reports

remains applicable only to appeals in the Appellate

Court.

In the last sentence, an amendment replacing

“in the same manner as” with the word “with” is

stylistic, only.

Judge Nazarian informed the Committee that the various

conforming amendments, including one handout, require a motion

to approve because they were not discussed by the Appellate

Subcommittee.

A motion to approve the amendments to Rule 8-301,

Rule 8-504, Rule 8-523, and Rule 16-406 was made, seconded, and

approved by consensus.

Agenda Item 7. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 8503 (Style and Form of Briefs).

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 8-503, Style and Form of

Briefs, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 500 – RECORD EXTRACT, BRIEFS, AND

ARGUMENT

Amend Rule 8-503 by deleting the provision in

subsection (d)(4)(B) pertaining to word counts in

amicus briefs, by adding new subsection (d)(5)

pertaining to images included in briefs, and by adding

a cross reference to subsection (e)(4) of Rule 8-511

following subsection (d)(4)(B) of this Rule, as follows:

RULE 8-503. STYLE AND FORM OF BRIEFS

(a) Numbering of Pages; Binding

The pages of a brief shall be consecutively

numbered. The brief shall be securely bound along

the left margin.

(b) References

References (1) to the record extract, regardless of

whether the record extract is included as an

attachment to the appellant's brief or filed as a

separate volume, shall be indicated as (E .......), (2) to

any appendix to appellant's brief shall be indicated as

(App .......), (3) to an appendix to appellee's brief shall

be indicated as (Apx .......), and (4) to an appendix to a

reply brief shall be indicated as (Rep. App .......), and

(5) to an appendix to a cross-appellant’s reply brief

shall be indicated as (Cr. Apx …….). If the case falls

within an exception listed in Rule 8-501(b), references

to the transcript of testimony contained in the record

shall be indicated as (T .......) and other references to

the record shall be indicated as (R .......).

A brief shall have a back and cover of the

following color:

(1) In the Appellate Court

(A) appellant's brief--yellow;

(B) appellee's brief--green;

(D) amicus curiae brief--gray.;

(E) cross-appellant's reply brief--purple;

(F) briefs of incarcerated or institutionalized

parties who are self-represented--white.

(2) In the Supreme Court.

(A) appellant's brief--white;

(B) appellee's brief--blue;

(D) amicus curiae brief--gray;

(E) cross-appellant’s reply brief--orange.

The cover page shall contain the name of the appellate

court, the caption of the case on appeal, and the case

number on appeal, as well as the name, address,

telephone number, and e-mail address, if available, of

at least one attorney for a party represented by an

attorney or of the party if not represented by an

attorney. If the appeal is from a decision of a trial

court, the cover page shall also name the trial court

and each judge of that court whose ruling is at issue

in the appeal. The name typed or printed on the cover

constitutes a signature for purposes of Rule 1-311.

(d) Length

(1) Principal Briefs of Parties

Except as otherwise provided in section (e) of

this Rule or with permission of the Court, the principal

brief of an appellant or appellee shall not exceed 9,100

words in the Appellate Court or 13,000 words in the

Supreme Court. This limitation does not apply to (A)

the table of contents and citations required by Rule 8504 (a)(1); (B) the information required by Rule 8-504

(a)(10); or (C) a Certification of Word Count and

Compliance with Rule 8-112 required by Rule 8-504

(a)(9).

(2) Motion to Dismiss

Except with permission of the Court, any portion

of a party's brief pertaining to a motion to dismiss

shall not exceed an additional 2,600 words in the

Appellate Court or 6,500 words in the Supreme Court.

(3) Reply Brief

Any reply brief shall not exceed 3,900 words in

the Appellate Court or 6,500 words in the Supreme

Court.

(4) Amicus Curiae Brief

Except with the permission of the Court, an

amicus curiae brief:

(A) if filed in the Appellate Court, shall not exceed

3,900 words; and

(B) if filed in the Supreme Court, shall not exceed

6,500 words, except that an amicus curiae brief

supporting or opposing a petition for certiorari or other

extraordinary writ shall not exceed 3,900 words.

Cross reference: see Rule 8-511 (e)(4) for the word

limit that applies to an amicus curiae brief supporting

or opposing a petition for certiorari or other

extraordinary writ.

(5) Use of Images

Images should only be used in an appellate brief

for demonstrative purposes and not in such a manner

so as to avoid the word count limits contained in Rule

8-112.

(e) Briefs of Cross-Appellant and Cross-Appellee

In cases involving cross-appeals, the principal

brief filed by the appellee/cross-appellant shall not

exceed 13,000 words. The reply brief filed by the

appellant/cross-appellee shall not exceed (1) 13,000

words in the Supreme Court or (2) in the Appellate

Court (A) 9,100 words if no reply to the appellee's

answer is included or (B) 13,000 words if a reply is

included. The reply brief filed by the cross-appellant

shall not exceed 3,900 words in the Appellate Court or

6,500 words in the Supreme Court.

(f) Incorporation by Reference

In a case involving more than one appellant or

appellee, any appellant or appellee may adopt by

reference any part of the brief of another.

(g) Effect of Noncompliance

For noncompliance with this Rule, the appellate

court may dismiss the appeal or make any other

appropriate order with respect to the case, including

an order that an improperly prepared brief be

reproduced at the expense of the attorney for the party

for whom the brief was filed.

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is derived from former Rules 831 a and

1031 a.

Section (b) is derived from former Rules 831 a and

1031 a.

Section (c) is derived from former Rules 831 a and

1031 a.

Section (d) is in part derived from Rule 831 b and 1031

b and in part new.

Section (e) is new.

Section (f) is derived from Fed. R. App. P. 28(i).

Section (g) is derived from former Rules 831 g and

1031 f.

Rule 8-503 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Subsection (d)(4)(B) of Rule 8-503 is proposed to

be amended to correct an inconsistency between the

word count provisions of this subsection (3,900 words)

and the word count provisions in subsection (e)(4) of

Rule 8-511 (1,900 words). This is accomplished by

deleting the provision pertaining to word counts in

subsection (d)(4)(B) of this Rule and by adding a cross

reference to subsection (e)(4) of Rule 8-511 following

subsection (d)(4)(B) of this Rule.

New subsection (d)(5) is proposed to provide

guidance to the practitioner and the appellate bench

concerning the use of images in appellate briefs. An

image may be used in an appellate brief for

demonstrative purposes but may be used in such a

manner as to attempt to circumvent the word count

restrictions in Rule 8-112. The subcommittee

considered whether words contained in an image

should be included in the word count limit, but

ultimately settled on the suggested language in

proposed new subsection (d)(5) because current limits

in technology do not permit words contained in images

to be counted in an automated fashion as word counts

are in word-processed documents. As a result of this,

the subcommittee chose to emphasize the intended

use of the image and not merely the word count.

Judge Nazarian said that the amendments to Rule 8-503

resolve a conflict in the Rules governing amicus briefs and

clarify the applicability of the Rule to images used within

appellate briefs.

He explained that the Committee recently

consolidated the amicus brief provisions in Rule 8-511 but

neglected to conform the word limit provision in Rule 8-503

(d)(4)(B).

The proposed amendments delete the word count

provision for amicus briefs supporting or opposing a petition

for certiorari or extraordinary relief from Rule 8-503

(d)(4)(B).

A cross reference to Rule 8-511 (e)(4), which

contains the governing provision for these briefs, is added

following the subsection.

Judge Nazarian said that new subsection (d)(5) is

recommended by the Appellate Subcommittee to clarify the

applicability of the Rule’s word count provisions to images and

screenshots containing text, which some attorneys insert into

their briefs.

He said that appellate judges have noticed an

issue with attorneys using screenshots containing text in a

clear attempt to circumvent the word limits for briefs.

Parties

are permitted to rely on the word count of a word processor to

verify word counts, but these images are excluded from those

counts.

Judge Nazarian said that, in one egregious case in the

Appellate Court, there was so much text in images within a brief

that there was a 2,000-word difference when that text was

100

counted.

He noted that images can serve a demonstrative purpose

in a brief, but that they should not be used to circumvent word

count Rules.

Judge Ketterman pointed out that the second paragraph of

the Reporter’s note is missing the word “not” in the phrase “may

not be used in such a manner.”

The Deputy Reporter said that

will be corrected.

The Reporter commented that new subsection (d)(5) uses

“should not,” which goes against the style conventions of the

Rules.

She explained that the Rules never use “should” in the

body of a Rule; they use “shall.”

A motion to change “should”

to “shall” in subsection (d)(5) was made, seconded, and approved

by consensus.

There being no further motion to amend or reject Rule 8503, the Rule was approved as amended.

Agenda Item 8. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 8502 (Filing of Briefs), Rule 20-403 (Record Extract or

Appendix), and Rule 20-404 (Briefs).

Judge Nazarian presented Rule 8-502, Filing of Briefs, for

consideration.

101

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 500 – RECORD EXTRACT, BRIEFS, AND

ARGUMENT

AMEND Rule 8-502 by adding a reference to

subsection (a)(9) to the beginning of subsection (c)(1),

by replacing “eight” with “five” in subsection (c)(1), by

deleting “eight copies of each” from subsection (c)(1),

by deleting the last sentence in subsection (c)(1), by

replacing “two copies” with “one copy” in subsection

(c)(3), and by making stylistic changes as follows:

Rule 8-502. FILING OF BRIEFS

...

(1) Filing in Appellate Court

Unless filing an informal brief pursuant to

subsection (a)(9) of this Rule, In in an appeal

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.