# SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A20ab36755f5130f8 ## Record - **Collection:** Court rules - **Document type:** Court rule ## Text SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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. (c) Board “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 5 “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” 6 “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). 7 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. 8 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. 9 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 10 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. (c) When Disclosure Authorized 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; 11 (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; (C) the authority in another jurisdiction 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; 12 (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. 13 (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. 14 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. 15 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: 16 (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. (c) Minors 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: 17 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. 18 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. (c) Subsequent Application 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 19 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. (c) Purpose of 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 20 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: 21 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, (C) evaluate the applicant's character and fitness for 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 22 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. (c) Review by Court (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 23 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 24 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). (c) Time for Filing 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 25 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.” 26 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 27 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. (c) Verification of Legal Education 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 28 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 29 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). 30 (c) Time for Filing 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” 31 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 32 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 33 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 34 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. (c) Time for Filing (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 35 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 36 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. 37 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. He 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 38 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 39 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. A 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: 40 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. (c) Time Limitation for Taking Oath—Generally 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 41 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 42 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 43 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. (c) Practitioner of Law (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; (C) whose professional experience and 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 44 (C) any professional articles or treatises that the 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.” 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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. (c) Duty to Report IOLTA Participation (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 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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. (C) Disclosure of Administrative Suspension 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). 53 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. 54 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 55 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 56 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. 57 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 58 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 59 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. (c) Enforcement (1) Notice of Default 60 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 61 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 (C) post the Order on the Judiciary website. (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 62 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 63 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 64 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 65 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 66 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) 67 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 68 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. (c) Termination of Temporary Administrative 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 (C) if requested by the attorney, confirm that the 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 69 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 70 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. 71 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 ... (c) Termination of Temporary Administrative 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 72 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). 73 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. (c) Response Within 15 days after service of exceptions, recommendations, or a statement of costs, or any motion, the adverse party may file a response. 74 (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 19-7 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A20ab36755f5130f8. Public record. Not legal advice.