SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Minutes of a meeting of the Rules Committee held in Rooms

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

Parkway, Annapolis, Maryland on Thursday, June 25, 2026.

Members present:

Hon. Yvette M. Bryant, Chair

Hon. Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Vice

Chair

Del. J. Sandy Bartlett

Hon. John A. Bielec

James M. Brault, Esq.

Hon. Catherine Chen

Hon. Yolanda L. Curtin

Julia Doyle, Esq.

Richard Gibson, Jr., Esq.

Monica Garcia Harms, 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.

Judy Rupp, State Court

Administrator

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

Thomas DeGonia II, Esq., Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance

Commission

Tamara Dowd, Esq., Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Robert Enten, Esq.

Christopher Flohr, Esq.

Katherine Gillespie, Esq., Deputy Legal & Advocacy Director,

Maryland Legal Aid

Sharon Goldsmith, Pro Bono Legal Resource Center of Maryland

Kendra Jolivet, Esq., Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Marianne Lee, Esq., Executive Counsel and Director, Attorney

Grievance Commission

Shaoli Sarkar, Esq., Maryland State Bar Association (“MSBA”)

May-Lis Manley, Esq., Chair, MSBA Elder Law and Disability

Rights Section

Jayna Peterson, Esq.

Leslie A. Pladna, Esq.

Lisa Sarro, Esq., Director of Litigation & Advocacy, Community

Legal Services of Prince George’s County

Vicki Schultz, Esq., Executive Director, Maryland Legal Aid

Brian D. Shefferman, Esq., Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’

Association

Hon. Michael W. Siri, Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal

Service

Bud Stephen Tayman, Esq., MSBA Consumer Bankruptcy Section

Brian Tucci, Esq., Chair, MSBA Consumer Bankruptcy Section

The Chair convened the meeting.

The Reporter advised that the meeting would be recorded for

the purpose of assisting with the preparation of meeting minutes

and that speaking will be treated as consent to being recorded.

The Reporter informed the Committee that a draft of the May

2026 meeting minutes was sent to members for review prior to the

meeting.

A motion to approve the May 2026 minutes was made,

seconded, and approved by consensus.

The Chair informed the Committee that Agenda Item 4

contains a proposed amendment to Rule 20-109 to permit attorneys

other than the attorney of record to have remote access to

publicly available case records.

She informed all present that

the discussion about expanding remote access to case records

will be limited to the proposal regarding attorneys on the

agenda today and any further expansion will require more

discussion and research.

She announced that she will be

appointing a special subcommittee to study remote electronic

access and related public access issues.

She noted that the

issues are complex and involve what the MDEC system can do, how

clerks handle records, and other considerations that the

Committee is not prepared to address at this time.

The Chair

thanked the public and members of the Bar for their patience as

the Committee takes on these questions.

Agenda Item 1. Reconsideration of proposed amendments to Rule

1-202 (Definitions) and Rule 16-903 (Definitions).

The Vice Chair presented Rule 1-202, Definitions, and Rule

16-903, Definitions, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 200 – CONSTRUCTION, INTERPRETATION,

AND DEFINITIONS

AMEND Rule 1-202 by adding new subsection

(bb) defining “seal”; by re-lettering current subsections

(bb) and (cc) as (cc) and (dd), respectively; by adding

new subsection (ee) defining “shield”; by re-lettering

current subsections (dd) through (gg) as (ff) through

(ii), respectfully; by updating an internal reference in

the cross reference following re-lettered subsection

(cc); and by making stylistic changes, as follows:

RULE 1-202. DEFINITIONS

In these rules Rules the following definitions apply

except as expressly otherwise provided or as necessary

implication requires:

∙∙∙

(aa) Return

“Return” means a report of action taken to serve

or effectuate process.

(bb) Seal

“Seal” means to restrict access to a judicial

record, as defined in Rule 16-903, to persons

authorized by written order of the court and to

authorized Judiciary personnel as required to perform

official duties.

(bb)(cc) Senior Judge; Senior Justice

“Senior Judge” means: (1) in Rules 16-103 and

16-601, an incumbent judge with the longest

continuous period of incumbency on the court on

which the judge serves, and (2) in all other Rules, an

individual who (A) once served as a judge on the

District Court, a circuit court, or an appellate court of

this State, (B) retired from that office voluntarily or by

operation of law by reason of age, and (C) has been

approved for recall to sit as a judge pursuant to Md.

Constitution, Art. IV, § 3A and Code, Courts Article, 1302. “Senior Justice” means a Senior Judge who has

been designated to sit on the Supreme Court of

Maryland in a case or other judicial matter pending

before that Court.

Cross reference: For a use of the term “senior judge”

consistent with the definition in Rule 1-202 (aa)(1) 1202 (cc)(1), see Md. Constitution, Art. IV, § 18 (b)(5).

(cc)(dd) Sheriff

“Sheriff” means the sheriff or a deputy sheriff of

the county in which the proceedings are taken, any

elisor appointed to perform the duties of the sheriff,

and, with respect to the District Court, any court

constable.

(ee) Shield

“Shield” means to render a judicial record, as

defined in Rule 16-903, or a specified portion of a

judicial record unavailable for public inspection in

accordance with a Rule or other law or by order of a

court.

Committee note: Shielded case records are accessible

by parties and attorneys of record unless restricted by

statute, by Rule, or as otherwise ordered by the court.

Cross reference: See Title 16, Chapter 900 for Rules

governing public access to judicial records.

∙∙∙

(dd)(ff) Subpoena

∙∙∙

(ee)(gg) Summons

∙∙∙

(ff)(hh) Warrant; Arrest Warrant; Bench Warrant;

Search Warrant

∙∙∙

(gg)(ii) Writ

∙∙∙

Source: This Rule is derived as follows:

Section (a) is derived from former Rule 5 a.

Section (b) is derived from former Rule 5 c.

Section (c) is new.

Section (d) is derived from former Rule 5 aa.

Section (e) is derived from former Rule 5 e.

Section (f) is derived from former Rule 5 f.

Section (g) is derived from former Rule 5 g.

Section (h) is derived from former Rule 5 h.

Section (i) is new.

Section (j) is new.

Section (k) is derived from former Rule 5 m.

Section (l) is new.

Section (m) is new.

Section (n) is derived from former Rule 5 r.

Section (o) is derived from former Rule 5 n.

Section (p) is derived from former Rule 5 o.

Section (q) is new.

Section (r) is new.

Section (s) is new.

Section (t) is derived from the last sentence of former

Rule 5 v.

Section (u) is new.

Section (v) is derived from former Rule 5 q.

Section (w) is new and adopts the concept of federal

practice set forth in the 1963 version of Fed. R. Civ. P.

7 (a).

Section (x) is derived from former Rule 5 w.

Section (y) is derived from former Rule 5 y.

Section (z) is derived from former Rule 5 z.

Section (aa) is new.

Section (bb) is new.

Section (bb)(cc) is new.

Section (cc)(dd) is derived from former Rule 5 cc.

Section (ee) is new.

Section (dd)(ff) is derived from former Rule 5 ee.

Section (ee)(gg) is new.

Section (ff)(hh) is derived in part from former Rule 702

h and M.D.R. 702 m and is in part new.

Section (gg)(ii) is derived from former Rule 5 ff.

Rule 1-202 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 1-202 add two

new definitions impacting access to judicial records:

“seal” and “shield.”

In December 2023, Rules Committee staff

submitted to the General Court Administration

Subcommittee the question of whether terms

impacting party and public access to court records,

such as “shield” and “seal,” should be defined in Rule

1-202. Although the two terms are distinct, they

sometimes are used interchangeably by the public –

and even by attorneys and judges – when referring to

restrictions on access to court records. The

memorandum to the Subcommittee was accompanied

by a compilation of excerpts showing where the terms

appeared in the Rules at the time. The issue was

referred to the Major Projects Committee, which, in

turn, referred the matter to the Judicial Council’s

Judicial Transparency and Access Workgroup. Rules

Committee staff aided that workgroup at the request of

its chair.

The Judicial Transparency and Access

Workgroup issued its report on December 5, 2024.

One of its recommendations was to review the use of

the terms “shield,” “seal,” and “confidential” in the

Maryland Rules for 1) possible definitions and 2)

consistent usage. In 2025, the Major Projects

Committee formed a “Workgroup on Shielding, Sealing,

and Confidentiality of Court Records within the

Maryland Rules” (“the MPC Workgroup”) to review the

Rules, recommend possible definitions, and identify

any inconsistent use of terminology.

Rules Committee staff served on the MPC

Workgroup and assisted with compiling terms for

review, determining which terms were appropriate for

definition, drafting proposed definitions, and reviewing

the Rules for conforming amendments. The MPC

Workgroup issued its report to the Major Projects

Committee, which approved it for referral to the Rules

Committee.

The 2026 Report of the MPC Workgroup on

Shielding, Sealing, and Confidentiality of Court

Records within the Maryland Rules recommended:

1) Defining the terms “shield” and “seal” in Rule 1202. “Confidential” is not recommended for

definition because its use is broader and its

meaning is context-dependent.

2) Making clarifying amendments throughout the

Rules to conform with the proposed definitions.

The MPC Workgroup proposed that “seal” should

mean “to restrict access to a judicial record to persons

authorized by written order of the court and to

authorized Judiciary personnel as required to perform

official duties.” This definition is in line with

document security types used in MDEC, where sealed

documents are accessible only by a judge “to

determine whether access should be allowed or other

articulable reason that requires access” and by

designated staff for the purpose of managing records

designated as sealed.

This proposed definition is more expansive than

the historic understanding of the word “seal.” To seal

a court record has meant to place the document(s) in a

sealed envelope “fastened up in any manner so as to

be closed against inspection of the contents,” SEALED,

Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 1968). Rules

Committee staff proposed an alternate definition where

“seal” would mean “to enter a court order that

prohibits access to a judicial record by anyone except

upon further order of the court.” The MPC Workgroup

chose not to recommend this definition.

The General Provisions Subcommittee

considered both proposed definitions for “seal.” The

Subcommittee elected to recommend the more

restrictive definition of seal, with stylistic changes, to

the Rules Committee.

At its March 20, 2026 meeting, the Rules

Committee considered the issue and decided to

recommend that “seal” mean “to restrict access to a

judicial record to persons authorized by written order

of the court and to authorized Judiciary personnel as

required to perform official duties.”

In contrast with the extremely restricted access

to sealed records, “shield” is proposed to mean to

“render a judicial record or a specified portion of a

judicial record unavailable for public inspection in

accordance with a Rule or other law or by order of a

court.” A Committee note following the definition

clarifies that shielded case records are accessible by

parties and attorneys to a case unless otherwise

restricted by statute, Rule, or court order. A cross

reference to the Access Rules in Title 16, Chapter 900

is included after the definition.

At the suggestion of staff, both definitions were

amended to add reference to the definition of “judicial

record” from Rule 16-903. See the Reporter’s note to

Rule 16-903.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 900 – ACCESS TO JUDICIAL RECORDS

DIVISION 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 16-903 by deleting “documentary”

in section (j) and by updating a statutory reference in

subsection (j)(2), as follows:

Rule 16-903. DEFINITIONS

In this Chapter, the following definitions apply except

as otherwise expressly provided or as necessary

implication requires:

∙∙∙

(d) Case Record

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, “case

record” means:

(A) all or any portion of a paper, document, exhibit,

order, notice, docket entry, or other record, whether in

paper, electronic, or other form, that is made, entered,

filed with, or maintained by the clerk of a court in

connection with an action or proceeding; and

(B) a miscellaneous record filed with the clerk of

the court pursuant to law that is not a notice record.

(2) “Case record” does not include a document or

information described in subsection (b)(3) of this Rule.

∙∙∙

(j) Judicial Record

“Judicial record” means a record that is the

original or copy of any documentary material that:

(1) is made or received by, and is in the possession

of, a judicial agency, judicial personnel, or a special

judicial unit, in connection with the transaction of

judicial business;

(2) is in any form, including the forms listed in

Code, General Provisions Article, § 4-101(j)(1)(ii) § 4101(k)(1)(ii), and

(3) includes:

(A) an administrative record;

(B) a license record;

(D) a notice record; or

(E) a special judicial unit record.

∙∙∙

Rule 16-903 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 16-903 clarify the

definition of a “judicial record.” During discussion of

proposed definitions in Rule 1-202 for “seal” and

“shield,” the Rules Committee asked whether “judicial

record,” defined as “a record that is the original or

copy of any documentary material,” includes audio and

video recordings. This apparently limiting language

presented a problem when applying the definitions of

“seal” and “shield” to digital media evidence, e.g. body

camera footage, which may form part of the record of a

case, and to recordings of proceedings created

pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 500.

Staff reviewed Rule 16-903 in more detail and

determined that a judicial record is intended to include

recordings. “Judicial record” encompasses the

broadest understanding of the type of record which

may be in the possession of the Judiciary. It includes

administrative, license, case, notice, and special

judicial unit records which are “in any form,” including

those listed in a section of the Maryland Public

Information Act (“PIA,” Code, General Provisions

Article, Title 4). Subsection (j)(2) contains an outdated

citation to this section of the PIA, which is corrected.

The correct subsection of the PIA lists various forms

that a public record can take, including “film or

microfilm,” “a recording,” and “a tape.” The PIA

contains the same stem language as Rule 16-903 (j),

referring to “the original or copy of any documentary

material.”

“Documentary” is not defined in the PIA or the

Rules. It is generally defined to mean “being or

consisting of documents” (Merriam-Webster) or “in the

form of documents” (Cambridge Dictionary). Though it

is used in the PIA definition of “public record,” the

subsequent use of “in any form” and explicit listing of

non-documents supports that “documentary” was not

meant to limit public records to documents. To

alleviate confusion, “documentary” is proposed to be

deleted from Rule 16-903 (j).

Additionally, Rule 16-903 (d) defines “case

record” – a subset of “judicial record” – to mean “all or

any portion of a paper, document, exhibit, order,

notice, docket entry, or other record, whether in paper,

electronic, or other form, that is made, entered, filed

with, or maintained by the clerk of a court in

connection with an action or proceeding.”

Read together, the provisions of Rule 16-903

and Code, General Provisions Article, § 4-101(k)(1)(ii)

do not exclude non-document exhibits, including

recordings, or Title 16, Chapter 500 recordings from

the definition of “judicial record.”

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that Agenda Item 1 is

a reconsideration of amendments discussed at the March 2026

Rules Committee meeting.

He said that these amendments

represent painstaking work to clarify terminology and ensure

consistency throughout the Rules.

He explained that, in the

“paper world,” prior to the advent of electronic filing, nonpublic records were physically placed under seal.

When Rules

governing MDEC filing were adopted, the Supreme Court created

the concept of “shielding” records from public access.

The

terms “seal” and “shield” are sometimes used inconsistently both

colloquially and in the Rules.

The proposed amendments to Rule

1-202 define the terms “seal” and “shield.”

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that the definitions

in Rule 1-202 generally were approved by the Committee in March,

but during the discussion of conforming amendments in other

Rules, the Committee identified issues that warranted referral

back to the General Court Administration Subcommittee for

additional consideration.

The Rules were remanded to the

Subcommittee and some additional amendments are now recommended.

The Vice Chair said that the proposed amendment to Rule 16903 is new; it clarifies the definition of “judicial record” to

include records that are not documents.

Additionally, a

statutory reference is updated.

The Vice Chair called for any discussion on the proposed

amendments to Rules 1-202 and 16-903.

There being no motion to

amend or reject the proposed amendments, they were approved as

presented.

The Vice Chair presented Rule 2-403, Protective Orders;

Rule 4-243, Plea Agreements; Rule 4-261, Depositions; Rule 4266, Subpoenas – Generally; Rule 4-312, Jury Selection; Rule 4341, Sentencing – Presentence Investigation and Report; Rule 8125, Appeals from Courts Exercising Criminal Jurisdiction –

Confidentiality; Rule 8-504, Contents of Brief; Rule 10-108,

Orders; Rule 15-1103, Initiation of Proceeding to Contest

Isolation or Quarantine; Rule 16-502, In District Court; Rule

16-504, Electronic Recording of Circuit Court Proceedings; Rule

16-504.1, Public Access to Electronic Recording of Circuit Court

Proceedings; Rule 16-904, General Policy; Rule 16-911, Required

Denial of Inspection – In General; Rule 16-914, Case RecordsRequired Denial of Inspection - Certain Categories; Rule 16-916,

Case Records - Procedures for Compliance; Rule 18-407,

Confidentiality; Rule 18-427, Reprimand; Rule 19-104, Subpoena

Power; Rule 19-105, Confidentiality; Rule 19-707,

Confidentiality; Rule 19-716, Conditional Diversion Agreement;

and Rule 20-201, Requirements for Electronic Filing, for

consideration (see Appendix 1).

The Vice Chair explained that the remaining amendments are

conforming ones to clarify terminology regarding access to court

records in light of the proposed definitions of “seal” and

“shield.”

He asked whether there were any questions or

concerns.

Del. Bartlett asked whether the proposed amendment to Rule

8-125 maintains the intended level of protection of appellate

filings involving certain victims.

She commented that

subsection (b)(3) requires protection of identifying information

about minor victims and victims of certain sexual offenses.

She

asked how this information is protected under the amended Rule.

Mr. Zavin explained that the Rule requires that the

initials of the victim be used in publicly available briefs,

opinions, or other appellate records.

The version of a document

with the individual’s full name is not available to the public

but is available to the parties.

He explained that this is the

current practice despite the current Rule requiring the

documents to be “sealed.”

Assistant Reporter Cobun confirmed

that the intention of the amendment is to maintain the current

practice but with more precise terminology.

Del. Bartlett asked whether the same explanation applies to

the amendments proposed in Rule 8-504.

it does.

The Vice Chair said that

Ms. Cobun added that it was her understanding that the

current Rule uses “sealed” but, in practice, the records are

being shielded.

Mr. Brault asked whether the provision in Rule 2-403 (a)(9)

that refers to simultaneously filing documents in a “sealed

envelope” should read “filed under seal.”

concept of a physical envelope is outdated.

He suggested that the

Ms. Cobun asked

whether the scenario contemplated in Rule 2-403 occurs still.

The Reporter suggested adding “or otherwise under seal” to

clarify that the discovery can be sealed by other means.

Judge

Curtin suggested that an in camera review could use this

provision.

The Chair added that she has instructed parties to

place records in sealed envelopes in advance of medical

malpractice trials.

Judge Chen commented that she had a case

with photographs that were too large to scan that needed to be

protected.

The Vice Chair said that Mr. Brault’s question was whether

“sealed envelope” was too narrow.

Mr. Brault said that, having

heard examples of how judges still use this provision, he would

not recommend changing the language in Rule 2-403 (a)(9).

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

conforming amendments, Rules 2-403, 4-243, 4-261, 4-266, 4-312,

4-341, 8-125, 8-504, 10-108, 15-1103, 16-502, 16-504, 16-504.1,

16-904, 16-911, 16-914, 16-916, 18-407, 18-427, 19-104, 19-105,

19-707, 19-716, and 20-201 were approved as presented.

Agenda Item 2. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 16104 (Circuit Court – Circuit Administrative Judge)

The Vice Chair presented Rule 16-104, Circuit Court –

Circuit Administrative Judge, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 100 – COURT ADMINISTRATIVE

STRUCTURE

AMEND Rule 16-104 by adding a reference to

Rule 4-344 (d) to subsection (c)(2), as follows:

Rule 16-104. CIRCUIT COURT – CIRCUIT

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

(a) Designation

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall

designate, from among the incumbent judges in each

judicial circuit, a Circuit Administrative Judge for each

judicial circuit, to serve in that capacity at the

pleasure of the Chief Justice. The Circuit

Administrative Judge shall serve also as the County

Administrative Judge of the circuit court for the

county within which the judge resides.

(b) Duties

Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and to

the direction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court, the Circuit Administrative Judge is generally

responsible for the overall administration of the circuit

courts within the judicial circuit, and for matters that

may affect more than one of those courts. In carrying

out those responsibilities, the Circuit Administrative

Judge:

(1) may perform, on a temporary basis, any of the

duties of a County Administrative Judge for a circuit

court within the judicial circuit in the absence of the

County Administrative Judge or acting County

Administrative Judge for that court;

(2) after consulting with the County Administrative

Judges in the circuit, may direct the assignment of

magistrates appointed on a circuit-wide basis among

the courts within the circuit as judicial business

requires; and

(3) shall convene a meeting of all of the circuit court

judges within the judicial circuit at least once every six

months. The meeting may be conducted in person or

by video, telephonic, or other electronic means.

(1) Designation of Acting Circuit Administrative

Judge

A Circuit Administrative Judge may designate

another County Administrative Judge in the same

circuit to serve as Acting Circuit Administrative Judge

during the temporary absence of the Circuit

Administrative Judge.

(2) Delegation of Certain Duties

A Circuit Administrative Judge may delegate to

another County Administrative Judge in the same

circuit, with that County Administrative Judge’s

agreement, some or all of the responsibilities of the

Circuit Administrative Judge under Rules 2-327 (d), 2551 (a), 4-344 (d), and 4-352.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule

16-101 c (2016) and is in part new.

Rule 16-104 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The Conference of Circuit Judges proposes

adding a reference to Rule 4-344 (d) to subsection

(c)(2) of this Rule.

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that the proposed

amendment to Rule 16-104 (c)(2) adds a reference to Rule 4-344

(d), pertaining to the appointment of a three-judge panel to

review a criminal sentence, to the list of responsibilities that

a Circuit Administrative Judge may delegate.

Judge Curtin said

that, if the Administrative Judge is unavailable or otherwise

wishes to delegate this responsibility, the amendment allows the

judge to do so.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendment to Rule 16-104, it was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 3. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 20106 (When Electronic Filing Required; Exceptions).

The Vice Chair presented Rule 20-106, When Electronic

Filing Required; Exceptions, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 20 – ELECTRONIC FILING AND CASE

MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 20-106 by adding “Generally” to

the tagline of subsection (a)(3), by adding to subsection

(a)(3)(A) clarifying language and an exception

pertaining to certain self-represented litigants, by

adding new subsection (a)(4) pertaining to nonattorneys initiating summary ejectment actions, by

adding a cross reference following new subsection

(a)(4), and by re-numbering current subsection (a)(4)

as (a)(5), as follows:

Rule 20-106. WHEN ELECTRONIC FILING

REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS

(a) Filers – Generally

(1) Attorneys

Except as otherwise provided in section (b) of

this Rule, an attorney who enters an appearance in an

action shall file electronically the attorney's entry of

appearance and all subsequent submissions in the

action.

(2) Judges, Judicial Appointees, Clerks, and

Judicial Personnel

Except as otherwise provided in section (b) of

this Rule, judges, judicial appointees, clerks, and

judicial personnel, shall file electronically all

submissions in an action.

(3) Self-represented Litigants – Generally

(A) A Except as provided in subsection (a)(4) of this

Rule, a self-represented litigant who is a registered

user may elect to file an initial pleading or paper

electronically or in paper form.

(B) Subject to section (b) of this Rule, a self-

represented litigant in an action who is a registered

user and who files an initial pleading or paper

electronically shall file electronically all subsequent

submissions in the action in that court.

pleading or paper in paper form shall file in paper form

all subsequent submissions in the action in that court

and shall not be considered a registered user under

this Title in that action.

Committee note: A self-represented litigant must

choose a filing method and continue to file in the same

manner throughout the action in that court. Nothing

in this Rule is intended to preclude a self-represented

litigant from selecting a different filing method in the

action on appeal.

(D) For good cause shown, the administrative

judge having direct administrative supervision over the

court in which an action is pending may permit a selfrepresented litigant to change how the litigant files in

the action.

(E) A self-represented litigant in an action who is

not a registered user may not file submissions

electronically.

(4) Non-attorneys Initiating Summary Ejectment

Actions

A self-represented landlord and a non-attorney

representing a landlord who initiates an action for

summary ejectment pursuant to Code, Real Property

Article, § 8-401, shall (A) become a registered user

pursuant to Rule 20-104 and (B) file electronically all

submissions in the action.

Cross reference: See Code, Business Occupations and

Professions Article, § 10-206(b) for the authority of a

non-attorney to represent a landlord in certain

proceedings.

(4)(5) Other Persons

Except as otherwise provided in the Rules in this

Title, a registered user who is required or permitted to

file a submission in an action shall file the submission

electronically. A person who is not a registered user

shall file a submission in paper form.

Committee note: Examples of persons included under

subsection (a)(4) of this Rule are government agencies

or other persons who are not parties to the action but

are required or permitted by law or court order to file a

record, report, or other submission with the court in

the action and a person filing a motion to intervene in

an action.

(b) Exceptions

(1) MDEC System Outage

Registered users, judges, judicial appointees,

clerks, and judicial personnel are excused from the

requirement of filing submissions electronically during

an MDEC system outage in accordance with Rule 20501.

(2) Other Unexpected Event

If an unexpected event other than an MDEC

system outage prevents a registered user, judge,

judicial appointee, clerk, or judicial personnel from

filing submissions electronically, the registered user,

judge, judicial appointee, clerk, or judicial personnel

may file submissions in paper form until the ability to

file electronically is restored. With each submission

filed in paper form, a registered user shall submit to

the clerk an affidavit describing the event that

prevents the registered user from filing the submission

electronically and when, to the registered user's best

knowledge, information, and belief, the ability to file

electronically will be restored.

Committee note: This subsection is intended to apply

to events such as an unexpected loss of power, a

computer failure, or other unexpected event that

prevents the filer from using the equipment necessary

to effect an electronic filing.

(3) Other Good Cause

For other good cause shown, the administrative

judge having direct administrative supervision over the

court in which an action is pending may permit a

registered user, on a temporary basis, to file

submissions in paper form. Satisfactory proof that,

due to circumstances beyond the registered user's

control, the registered user is temporarily unable to file

submissions electronically shall constitute good cause.

...

Rule 20-106 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 20-106 are

requested by the Major Projects Committee (“the MPC”)

of the Judicial Council. At its April 27, 2026 meeting,

the MPC discussed implementation of electronic filing

of failure to pay rent cases pursuant to Code, Real

Property Article, § 8-401. E-filing of these cases was

piloted in Baltimore County pursuant to an April 27,

2022 Administrative Order, and the option to e-file has

since been rolled out statewide. According to data

provided to the MPC, in March 2026, there were 1,093

actions filed in paper, almost 4 percent of the 27,397

total filings. The MPC expressed a desire to mandate

that all landlords e-file failure to pay rent actions.

Pursuant to the 2022 Administrative Order, once

the viability of the project is determined, the Chief

Judge of the District Court may “implement

mandatory electronic filing for failure to pay rent cases

in MDEC jurisdictions” in phases. The order states

that it “shall be rescinded upon the completion” of

these phases. A 2024 Administrative Order on the

Administration and Expansion of Maryland Electronic

Courts Statewide provides that landlord/tenant failure

to pay rent actions “may, but are not required to,

utilize MDEC.”

Summary ejectment actions may be

electronically initiated using a “Landlord Tenant (LLT)

Portal,” with subsequent filings made using the

Odyssey File and Serve Portal. Although failure to pay

rent actions are initiated through a different portal,

they are MDEC actions governed by Title 20.

Rule 20-106 currently requires electronic filing

by attorneys, judges and other judiciary personnel,

and self-represented litigants who register to use

MDEC. Pursuant to the 227th Report Rules Order,

effective July 1, 2026, subsection (a)(3) of the Rule is

amended to permit a self-represented litigant who is a

registered user to initiate an action in either paper or

electronic form. The litigant must continue using the

same filing method throughout the action unless

otherwise ordered by the court.

The General Court Administration

Subcommittee was informed that since e-filing was

made available to landlords, there has been mass

adoption of it, with approximately 90% of summary

ejectment cases having been filed electronically. The

remaining 10% of cases, however, necessitate the

maintenance of a business process and resources

which are solely in place to enable paper filing of

summary ejectment actions. District Court facilities

maintain a “register” for landlord/tenant filings to

process the complaint form, take the fee, set a court

date, etc. The Subcommittee was informed that, after

consideration and discussion with the Maryland MultiHousing Association and District Court staff, MPC

recommends that paper filing for summary ejectment

be eliminated entirely and all actions be required to be

filed electronically.

The Subcommittee discussed the potential

negative impact on “mom and pop” landlords – who are

not frequent or high-volume filers – if they are required

to register for and use MDEC. The Subcommittee was

informed that clerks are strongly in favor of moving to

electronic filing exclusively and believe that any

reluctant users can receive assistance and instruction

to navigate the system.

Rules Committee staff later asked MPC

leadership whether it is possible to provide an

exception for good cause to allow for a summary

ejectment action to still be filed in paper, but was

informed that there is no way to merge the eviction

business process with the general civil complaint

process. Once the summary ejectment “register” is

eliminated, the MPC contends that it will not be

possible to process a paper-filed eviction action.

To effectuate the proposed change to mandate

that a landlord file electronically a summary ejectment

action, the Subcommittee recommends an amendment

to the Rule to (1) require a landlord who is either selfrepresented or represented by a non-attorney

pursuant to Code, Business Occupations and

Professions Article, § 10-206(b) to become a registered

user of MDEC and (2) file electronically all

submissions in a summary ejectment action.

Subsection (a)(3) is amended to add an exception

to the general Rule governing self-represented litigants

who are registered users and to add the phrase “an

initial pleading or paper,” which is a clarifying

amendment.

New subsection (a)(4) sets forth the exception

and requirements for non-attorneys who initiate a

summary ejectment action. Current subsection (a)(4)

is renumbered as (a)(5).

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that, in general,

attorneys are required to register for MDEC and electronically

file all case documents.

Self-represented parties are not

required to register for MDEC but may choose to do so.

Landlord/tenant actions for failure to pay rent are exempt from

mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Administrative Order.

After a successful pilot program, the District Court established

a portal for landlords to electronically file these cases, but

such filing has remained voluntary.

The Vice Chair explained that the Major Projects Committee

of the Judicial Council recommends requiring that all failure to

pay rent actions be electronically filed.

The proposed

amendments to Rule 20-106 require a landlord or an attorney or

representative for a landlord to register to use MDEC and

electronically file the petition in a failure to pay rent

action.

The Vice Chair reminded the Committee that, effective July

1, Rule 20-106 will permit a self-represented litigant who

registers to use MDEC to choose either paper or electronic

filing.

The filer must use the same method throughout the

pendency of the action, but otherwise may “opt out” of MDEC

filing even if the filer has registered for the system.

This

provision necessitated amending Rule 20-106 to make it clear

that a landlord cannot use the exemption to opt out of

electronic filing.

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that a comment was

received from Kathy Howard, Esq., an attorney for Regional

Management, Inc., on behalf of the Maryland Multi-Housing

Association (“the MMHA”) (see Appendix 2).

The Reporter

informed the Committee that the MMHA is concerned about selfrepresented “mom and pop” landlords who are not frequent or bulk

filers.

The Vice Chair said that the Subcommittee discussed

this issue.

The Chair added that the Committee has been informed that

clerks will be available to assist with filing and the District

Court plans to have robust education and training as part of

implementation of the proposed Rule change, if adopted.

She

said that she is sympathetic to the small pro se filer, but that

it is not practical to maintain a separate filing system for a

small group of filers.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 20-106, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 4. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 20109 (Access to Electronic Records in an Action).

The Vice Chair presented Rule 20-109, Access to Electronic

Records in an Action, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 20 – ELECTRONIC FILING AND CASE

MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 20-109 by adding new section (g)

pertaining to remote access to case records by

members of the Maryland Bar; by adding a cross

reference following the new section; by re-lettering

current sections (g) through (j) as (h) through (k),

respectively; and by making stylistic changes, as

follows:

Rule 20-109. ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC RECORDS IN

AN ACTION

(a) Generally

Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, access

to electronic judicial records in an action is governed

by the Rules in Title 16, Chapter 900.

(b) Parties and Attorneys of Record

Subject to any protective order issued by the

court or other law, parties to and attorneys of record

for a party in an action shall have full access to all

case records in that action, including (1) records

marked confidential or shielded from public inspection

and (2) remote access to electronic case records. In an

action where a corporation or business entity

established under the law of any state or federal law is

a party, the corporation or business entity may

designate in writing a registered user who shall have

remote access to all case records in the action but not

be permitted to file in the action. An attorney for a

victim or victim's representative shall have access to

case records, including remote access to electronic

case records, as provided in Rule 1-326 (d).

Committee note: The Rules in Title 16, Chapter 900

may restrict public access to certain case records; those

Rules do not impact access by a party or attorney of

record in an action. See Rule 16-901 (b).

Judges and judicial appointees shall have full

access, including remote access, to judicial records to

the extent that such access is necessary to the

performance of their official duties. The Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court, by Administrative Order, may

further define the scope of remote access by judges

and judicial appointees.

(d) Clerks and Judicial Personnel

Clerks and judicial personnel shall have full

access from their respective work stations to judicial

records to the extent such access is necessary to the

performance of their official duties. The State Court

Administrator, by written directive, may further define

the scope of such access by clerks and judicial

personnel.

(e) Judiciary Contractors

The State Court Administrator, by written

directive, may allow appropriate access for Judiciary

contractors from their respective work stations to

judicial records to the extent that such access is

necessary to the performance of their official duties.

Before access under this section is granted to a

contractor, the contractor shall sign a non-disclosure

agreement on a form approved by the Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court.

(f) Court-Designated ADR Practitioners

(1) Definition

In this section, “ADR practitioner” means an

individual who conducts ADR under the Rules in Title

17, and includes a mediator designated pursuant to

Rule 9-205.

(2) Access to Case Records

During the period of designation of a courtdesignated ADR practitioner in an action, and subject

to any protective order issued by the court or other

law, the ADR practitioner shall have full access,

including remote access, to all case records in that

action. In an action in the circuit court, the ADR

practitioner shall file a notice of the designation with

the clerk and, promptly upon completion of all services

rendered pursuant to the designation, a notice that the

designation is terminated. If not terminated earlier,

the designation shall end when the case is closed.

Committee note: The special access provided by

section (f) of this Rule may be needed to assist the

ADR practitioner in rendering the services anticipated

by the designation but should end when no further

services are anticipated.

(g) Members of the Maryland Bar

For purposes of the practice of law, an active

member of the Maryland Bar in good standing who is a

registered user shall have remote access to all case

records in MDEC that are not sealed or shielded.

Cross reference: For the definition of “case record,”

see Rule 16-903.

(g)(h) Public Access

(1) Access Through CaseSearch

Members of the public shall have free access to

information posted on CaseSearch.

(2) Unshielded Documents

Subject to any protective order issued by the

court, members of the public shall have free access to

unshielded case records and unshielded parts of case

records from computer terminals or kiosks that the

courts make available for that purpose. Each court

shall provide a reasonable number of terminals or

kiosks for use by the public. The terminals or kiosks

shall not permit the user to download, alter, or forward

the information, but the user is entitled to a copy of or

printout of a case record in accordance with Rule 16905 (c) and (d).

Committee note: The intent of subsection (g)(2)(h)(2) of

this Rule is that members of the public be able to

access unshielded electronic case records in any

action from a computer terminal or kiosk in any

courthouse of the State, regardless of where the action

was filed or is pending.

(h)(i) Department of Juvenile Services

Subject to any protective order issued by the

court, a registered user authorized by the Department

of Juvenile Services to act on its behalf shall have full

access, including remote access, to all case records in

an action to the extent the access is (1) authorized by

Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-27 and (2) necessary to

the performance of the individual's official duties on

behalf of the Department.

(i)(j) Government Agencies and Officials

Nothing in this Rule precludes the Administrative

Office of the Courts from providing remote electronic

access to additional information contained in case

records to government agencies and officials (1) who

are approved for such access by the Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court, upon a recommendation by the

State Court Administrator, and (2) when those

agencies or officials seek such access solely in their

official capacity, subject to such conditions regarding

the dissemination of such information imposed by the

Chief Justice.

Committee note: Where a law, such as Code, Family

Law Article, § 12-202(b), requires the court to send or

transmit certain court records to a government agency,

such a requirement may be satisfied, with the written

consent of the agency, by providing access to the court

records pursuant to this section.

(j)(k) CASA Program.

(1) Definition

In this section, “CASA program” means a CourtAppointed Special Advocate Program created pursuant

to Code, Courts Article, § 3-830.

Committee note: CASA programs provide trained

volunteers (1) to provide background information to

the Juvenile Courts to aid them in making decisions in

the child's best interest, and (2) to ensure that

children who are the subject of proceedings within the

jurisdiction of the court are provided appropriate case

planning and services. See Code, Courts Article, §§ 3830 and 3-8A-32. CASA programs are county-based.

They are created in a county with the support of the

Juvenile Court for that county. The overall CASA

program is administered by the Administrative Office

of the Courts, which may adopt rules governing the

operation of the program, including supervision of the

volunteers.

More than a dozen CASA programs have been created

throughout the State, some of which serve the

Juvenile Courts in more than one county. Upon an

appointment to assist a child in a particular case, the

director of the program assigns a volunteer attached to

that program to provide that assistance. The

confidentiality that applies to court records in juvenile

cases does not prohibit review of a court record by a

“Court-Appointed Special Advocate for the child” in a

proceeding involving that child. See Code, Courts

Article, §§ 3-827(a)(2) and 3-8A-27(b)(2). The purpose

of this section is to clarify how that access and ability

to file reports may be accomplished through MDEC.

(2) Registered Users; Reports

Each CASA program shall inform the clerk of the

circuit court for each county within its authorized

service area in writing of the name of and contact

information for not more than two staff persons who

are registered users authorized by the program to have

remote access and to file reports through MDEC on

behalf of the program. Except as otherwise ordered by

the court, only those registered users may file reports

and have remote access to court records on behalf of

the program. CASA program registered users must file

reports through MDEC.

(3) Limitations; Access

The ability to file reports and have remote access

to court records shall be limited to cases in which the

CASA program or a volunteer on behalf of the program

has been appointed by the court to provide service and

is allowed only for the period during which service is

being provided in that case pursuant to the order of

appointment. Unless otherwise ordered by the court,

access shall include notices of hearings and all other

records not under seal.

(4) Control of Records

The registered user with remote access (A) shall

keep exclusive control over the records obtained and

(B) may not permit such records to be shared with or

copied for anyone other than (i) an authorized

volunteer designated by the CASA program to provide

service to the child pursuant to the order of

appointment and (ii) CASA program staff authorized to

supervise the volunteer. Any order expunging the

court records in a case in which the CASA program

participated shall include the expungement of records

in that case obtained and maintained by the program.

Source: This Rule is new.

Rule 20-109 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Proposed amendments to Rule 20-109 are

recommended by the General Court Administration

Subcommittee to implement a possible phased

approach to expanded remote access to electronic

court records. The Rules Committee was recently

contacted by the Maryland Criminal Defense

Attorneys’ Association (“MCDAA”) to request an

amendment to Rule 20-109 to permit attorneys who

are not the attorney of record to have remote access to

public case records. After consideration, the General

Court Administration Subcommittee recommends (1)

an amendment to permit remote access to MDEC

records by attorneys for the purpose of the practice of

law and (2) that a public meeting be scheduled to hear

from stakeholders regarding expanding access further.

Proposed new section (g) permits an active

member of the Maryland Bar who is a registered

MDEC user to access remotely all case records in

MDEC that are not sealed or shielded. The

Subcommittee opted to limit use by attorneys to the

practice of law, recognizing that there are other

reasons a member of the Maryland Bar may want this

access (for example, an attorney who is not engaged in

the practice of law may be working as a journalist or

writing a book). A cross reference to the definition of

“case record” follows the new subsection. Current

subsections (g) through (k) are relettered.

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that, as the Chair

stated in her remarks at the beginning of the meeting, the

Committee is aware of the interest in a broad Rule permitting

remote access to MDEC records by the public, summarized in the

memorandum included in the materials (see Appendix 3).

explained that the proposal before the Committee is limited to

Maryland attorneys for the purpose of the practice of law, but

that does not mean that the Committee will not make a more

expansive recommendation in the future.

The Vice Chair reminded

the Committee that an attorney or member of the public will

remain free to enter any courthouse and access public records

for any purpose at a kiosk in the clerk’s office.

Judge Chen commented that the Committee was previously

informed that the MDEC system is unable to track who has viewed

a document, only who has edited or changed a document.

said that this is true.

can be added.

Ms. Rupp

Mr. Gibson asked whether this feature

Ms. Rupp asked why the Judiciary would need this

level of tracking for viewing public records.

Mr. Gibson

replied that victims and witnesses have an interest in having

their information protected.

Assistant Reporter Cobun pointed

out that there are statutes and Rules in place designed to

protect this information.

Judge Wilson commented that, when the

court maintained paper files, there usually was a form to

request to view a file but, even then, there was no record of

which documents were reviewed or copied.

Mr. Gibson reiterated

his concern about sensitive information being exposed.

Ms.

Cobun reminded the Committee that the proposed amendment extends

access to attorneys who must adhere to ethical obligations.

The Chair said that there are statutes and Rules governing

the redaction and shielding of confidential information.

She

informed the Committee that she is against the idea of imposing

a watchful eye over public records.

The Vice Chair noted that Ms. Rupp raised operational

concerns from a programming perspective but, after discussions,

it was determined that the proposed amendment can be implemented

as written.

Ms. Rupp explained that there were concerns about

how to ensure that the credentials of an attorney who stops

practicing are properly revoked.

Vickie Schultz, Esq., of Maryland Legal Aid, addressed the

Committee.

Ms. Schutlz informed the Committee that Legal Aid

has supported this type of expansion of MDEC access in recent

years because it helps attorneys achieve transparency and

efficiency.

Legal Aid and other legal services organizations

will be better able to screen and prioritize cases with this

expanded access.

Ms. Schultz explained that potential clients

often do not bring the documents necessary for Legal Aid to

determine whether to take on a case and the clients must be

instructed to go to a kiosk at a courthouse to obtain the

documents.

These potential clients are often coming to Legal

Aid in a crisis and with looming deadlines.

She added that

Legal Aid appreciates the plan to study additional expansion of

access.

D. Robert Enten, Esq., and Brian Shefferman, Esq.,

addressed the Committee on behalf of the Maryland Criminal

Defense Attorneys’ Association.

Mr. Enten said that criminal

law practitioners support the proposed amendment.

Mr.

Shefferman informed the Committee that private criminal defense

attorneys are at a disadvantage compared to prosecutors who have

broad access to case records because the “State of Maryland” is

a party to every case.

He said that a potential client may

approach a defense attorney and have a case with an open

probation; the attorney cannot pull the records of that case in

the moment.

He said that remote access would be a tremendous

asset to the bar.

Judge Curtin asked how remote access to case records could

be used for something other than reviewing a prospective

client’s records.

Mr. Shefferman replied that he could look up

records relating to a state’s witness for cross examination

purposes and added that he would not be limited to reviewing the

records during court hours.

Mr. Enten commented that

prosecutors can already do this.

Mr. Marcus said that it would

be an asset to be able to review past cases involving a client

where he was not representing the person.

agreed.

Mr. Shefferman

Judge Anderson added that remote access could also

assist with conflict checks.

Lisa Sarro, Esq., of Community Legal Services of Prince

George’s County, addressed the Committee.

She said that her

agency provides representation in family law, domestic violence,

and consumer rights cases as well as same-day legal services in

eviction cases.

Ms. Sarro explained that, in same-day eviction

representation, attorneys are working to identify possible

defenses, and the client often does not bring documents to

court.

Currently, someone must go to the clerk’s office to pull

the case records to gain a full picture of the client’s

situation.

Ms. Sarro said that the proposed amendment would be

a significant help for these attorneys.

The Reporter said that there is some concern about screen

scraping, mass data downloads, and other misuse of MDEC if this

amendment is adopted.

She said that an attorney who is

suspended or disbarred may try to abuse the privilege and

monetize access before the credential is revoked.

Ms. Rupp

replied that there is technology in place to prevent screen

scraping from CaseSearch to protect the system from lagging.

She said that the security team can identify when such an event

occurs because there will be a large uptick in packets of data

requested.

The Vice Chair commented that this will be something

to discuss as the Committee considers expanding access.

The Chair called for further discussion on Rule 20-109.

Mr. Zavin pointed out that it seems like an older version of the

Rule was used in the materials; he said that section (a) does

not match what was adopted by the Court in the 228th Report Rules

Order.

Ms. Cobun said that this will be corrected.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 20-109, the amendments were approved as

presented.

The Vice Chair presented a conforming amendment to Rule 16905, Copies, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 16 – COURT ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 900 – ACCESS TO JUDICIAL RECORDS

DIVISION 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 16-905, as follows:

Rule 16-905. COPIES

···

Copies or printouts in paper form that are

obtained from a terminal or kiosk located in a

courthouse are uncertified.

Committee note: In an action available through

MDEC, members of the public are entitled to an

uncertified copy of unshielded case records and

unshielded parts of case records in any courthouse of

the State regardless of where the action was filed or is

pending. See Rule 20-109 (g)(2)(h)(2).

···

Rule 16-905 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

The proposed amendment to Rule 16-905 is

amended in light of the proposed amendment to Rule

20-109. Subsection (g)(2) in that Rule is re-lettered as

subsection (h)(2).

The Vice Chair said that the conforming amendment updates a

reference to Rule 20-109.

There being no motion to amend or

reject the proposed conforming amendment, it was approved as

presented.

Agenda Item 5. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 8303 (Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Procedure).

The Vice Chair presented Rule 8-303, Petition for Writ of

Certiorari – Procedure, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 8 – APPELLATE REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT

CHAPTER 300 – OBTAINING REVIEW IN THE

SUPREME COURT

AMEND Rule 8-303 by adding a provision to

section (c) pertaining to replies to answers to petitions

and cross-petitions, by deleting subsection (e)(2)(A), by

adding a provision to subsection (e)(2) pertaining to

cross-petitions and answers to petitions, by deleting

subsection (e)(2)(B), by adding new section (f)

permitting replies to answers and specifying the word

limits of such replies, and by making stylistic changes,

as follows:

Rule 8-303. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI –

PROCEDURE

(a) Filing

A petition or cross-petition for a writ of certiorari

shall be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

The petition or cross-petition shall be accompanied by

the filing fee prescribed pursuant to Code, Courts

Article, § 7-102 unless:

(1) if the petition or cross-petition is in a civil action,

the prepayment of prepaid costs has been waived in

accordance with Rule 1-325.1;

(2) if the petition or cross-petition is in a criminal

action, the fee has been waived by an order of court or

the petitioner is represented by the Public Defender's

Office; or

(3) the petitioner either attests in writing or is

determined by the court to be (A) not represented by

an attorney, and (B) by court order, confined in a

correctional or detention facility or a facility governed

by Code, Health--General Article, Title 10.

Committee note: An individual who is unrepresented

and confined by court order in a correctional or

detention facility or a mental health facility is

presumed to be unable to prepay the fee for filing a

petition or cross-petition for certiorari or other

extraordinary relief. Nothing in this Rule prohibits the

Supreme Court from later ordering the petitioner to

pay the fee if the petitioner is not indigent or assessing

costs at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Cross reference: Rule 1-325.

(b) Petition; Cross-Petition

(1) Contents

The petition or cross-petition shall present

accurately, briefly, and clearly whatever is essential to

a ready and adequate understanding of the points

requiring consideration. Except with the permission of

the Supreme Court, a petition or cross-petition,

including a cross-petition that answers a petition,

shall not exceed 3,900 words. A petition and crosspetition shall contain the following information:

(A) A reference to the action in the lower court by

name and docket number;

(B) A statement whether the case has been decided

by the Appellate Court;

Court, a statement whether briefs have been filed in

that Court or the date briefs are due, if known;

(D) A statement whether the judgment of the

circuit court has adjudicated all claims in the action in

their entirety, and the rights and liabilities of all

parties to the action;

(E) The date of the judgment sought to be reviewed

and the date of any mandate of the Appellate Court;

(F) The questions presented for review;

(G) A particularized statement of why review of

those issues by the Supreme Court is desirable and in

the public interest;

(H) A reference to pertinent constitutional

provisions, statutes, ordinances, or regulations;

(I) A concise statement of the facts material to the

consideration of the questions presented; and

(J) A concise argument in support of the petition or

cross-petition.

(2) Documents

A copy of each of the following documents shall

be submitted with the petition or cross-petition at the

time it is filed:

(A) The docket entry evidencing the judgment of

the circuit court;

(B) Any opinion of the circuit court;

(D) If the case has not been decided by the

Appellate Court, all briefs that have been filed in the

Appellate Court; and

(E) Any opinion of the Appellate Court.

(3) Where Documents Unavailable

If a document required by subsection (b)(2) of

this Rule is unavailable, the petitioner shall state the

reason for the unavailability. If a document required

to be submitted with the petition or cross-petition

becomes available after the petition or cross-petition is

filed but before it has been acted upon, the petitioner

shall file it as a supplement to the petition or crosspetition as soon as it becomes available.

(4) Previously Served Documents

Copies of any brief or opinion previously served

upon or furnished to another party need not be served

upon that party.

Answers, and Replies

A self-represented party may file an informal

petition for writ of certiorari, cross-petition for writ of

certiorari, or answer to a petition or cross-petition for

writ of certiorari. Subject to section (f) of this Rule, a

self-represented litigant also may file a reply to an

answer to a petition or cross-petition for writ of

certiorari. An informal petition for writ of certiorari,

cross-petition for certiorari, or answer to a petition for

writ of certiorari is not subject to the requirements of

Rule 8-112 and shall not exceed 15 pages in length.

An informal petition for writ of certiorari or crosspetition for writ of certiorari shall contain the

information required in subsection (b)(1) of this Rule,

but need not be accompanied by the documents

required in subsection (b)(2) of this Rule unless

otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court. The

Supreme Court may authorize the use of a form for

filing an informal petition for writ of certiorari, crosspetition for writ of certiorari, or answer to a petition for

writ of certiorari. Any such form shall be made

available electronically on the Judiciary website, or in

paper form in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme

Court. Section (c) of this Rule does not limit the ability

of the Clerk of the Supreme Court to accept a petition

for writ of certiorari, cross-petition for writ of

certiorari, or answer to a petition for writ of certiorari,

that does not meet the requirements of this Rule.

(d) Sanction

Failure to comply with section (b) of this Rule is a

sufficient reason for denying the petition or crosspetition.

(e) Answer

(1) Time to File

Within 15 days after service of the petition or

cross-petition, any other party may file an original

answer to the petition or cross-petition stating why the

writ should be denied. If an amicus curiae brief is

filed in support of the petition or cross-petition

pursuant to Rule 8-511 (e), the deadline to answer is

automatically extended to 15 days after service of the

amicus curiae brief.

(2) Word Limits

Except with the permission of the Supreme

Court: (A) an answer to a petition or answer to a crosspetition shall not exceed 3,900 words., and (B) a reply

to a cross-petition shall not exceed 1,500 words.

(f) Reply

(1) Time to File

Within 15 days after service of an answer to a

petition, a cross-petition that includes an answer to a

petition, or an answer to a cross-petition, the

petitioner or cross-petitioner may file a reply.

(2) Word Limit

Except with the permission of the Supreme

Court, a reply filed pursuant to subsection (f)(1) of this

Rule shall not exceed 1,500 words.

Committee note: a petitioner that receives a crosspetition that includes an answer to a petition may file

an answer to the cross-petition pursuant to section (e)

of this Rule and a reply to the answer to the petition

pursuant to section (f) of this Rule.

(f)(g) Stay of Judgment of the Appellate Court or of a

Circuit Court

Upon the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari,

or upon issuing a writ on its own motion, the Supreme

Court may stay the issuance, enforcement, or

execution of a mandate of the Appellate Court or the

enforcement or execution of a judgment of a circuit

court.

(g)(h) Disposition

On review of the petition or cross-petition and

any answer, the Court, unless otherwise ordered, shall

grant or deny the petition or cross-petition without the

submission of briefs or the hearing of argument. The

Court may not grant a petition or cross-petition with

fewer than three affirmative votes. If the petition or

cross-petition is granted, the Court shall:

(1) direct further proceedings in the Supreme Court;

(2) dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 8-602;

(3) affirm the judgment of the lower court;

(4) vacate or reverse the judgment of the lower

court;

(5) modify the judgment of the lower court;

(6) remand the action to the lower court for further

proceedings pursuant to Rule 8-604 (d); or

(7) an appropriate combination of the above.

(h)(i) Duty of Clerk

The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall send a

copy of the order disposing of the petition or crosspetition to the clerk of the lower court. If the order

directs issuance of a writ of certiorari, the Clerk shall

issue the writ to the lower court.

Source: This Rule is derived from former Rule 811.

Rule 8-303 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

A member of the Rules Committee raised a

concern with the concept of a “reply to a crosspetition” as it is used in subsection (b)(1) of Rule 8303. This Rule does not contain a reference to the

concept of a “reply” anywhere else. This leaves it open

to interpretation whether it is permissible to file a reply

to an answer in the petition for certiorari procedures.

After considering this issue, the Appellate

Subcommittee approved revising Rule 8-303 to clarify

that it is permissible to file a reply in response to an

answer.

To accomplish this, revisions are proposed to

section (c) to explicitly add replies as pleadings.

In addition, subsection (e)(2) is proposed to be restyled and revised to clarify that an answer and an

answer to a cross-petition have the same word limits.

Subsection (e)(2)(B) is proposed to be deleted and

moved to new section (f).

Finally, proposed new section (f) provides for the

time in which to file a reply to an answer or cross

petition and specifies the word limit that applies to a

reply.

Stylistic changes are also proposed.

The Vice Chair informed the Committee that Mr. Brown had

raised a question about word limits for a reply to an answer to

a cross-petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.

The Vice Chair said that section (c) is amended to include such

replies and new section (f) sets forth the time to file and word

limits.

He added that the intention of the proposed amendments

is to codify the current practice and that the Clerk of the

Supreme Court did not object to the proposal.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 8-303, the Rule was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 6. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19503 (Reporting Pro Bono Legal Service).

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

Service, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 500 – PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES

AMEND Rule 19-503 by adding a provision to

section (e) permitting an attorney to waive

confidentiality to participate in the pro bono honor

roll, as follows:

Rule 19-503. REPORTING PRO BONO LEGAL

SERVICE

(a) Definitions

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

Information System, (2) “AOC” means the

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

year” means the 12-month period commencing on July

1 and ending the following June 30.

(b) Required as a Condition of Practice

As a condition precedent to the practice of law,

each attorney admitted to practice in Maryland, by

September 10 of each year and in accordance with this

Rule, shall file electronically, through AIS, a Pro Bono

Legal Service Report. On or before July 10 of each

year, AOC shall send electronically to each attorney

registered with AIS a Pro Bono Legal Service Report

approved by the State Court Administrator. The first

notice to be sent under this Rule shall be emailed to

attorneys on or before July 10, 2019 and shall require

attorneys to report information with respect to pro

bono legal service during the period January 1, 2018

through June 30, 2019. This report shall be filed

electronically on or before September 10, 2019.

Thereafter, the Report shall include information with

respect to pro bono legal service during the preceding

fiscal year.

Committee note: The purpose of pro bono legal service

reporting is to document the pro bono legal service

performed by attorneys in Maryland and determine the

effectiveness of the Local Pro Bono Action Plans, the

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

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

Rules of Professional Conduct.

(1) Notice of Default

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year, AOC shall electronically notify each defaulting

attorney of the attorney's failure to file the Pro Bono

Legal Service Report for the preceding fiscal year. The

notice shall (A) state that the attorney has not filed the

Report, and (B) state that continued failure to file the

Report may result in the entry of an order by the

Supreme Court prohibiting the attorney from

practicing 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) List of Defaulting Attorneys

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year but no later than March 10, AOC 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 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

information from its records or give further notice to

the defaulting attorneys.

(4) Decertification Order

If satisfied that AOC has given the required

notice to the attorneys named in the proposed

Decertification Order, the Supreme Court shall enter a

Decertification Order prohibiting each of them 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.

(5) Transmittal of Decertification Order

AOC shall transmit a copy of the Decertification

Order to each attorney named in the Order.

(6) Recertification; Reinstatement

(A) Notice to Supreme Court

If a decertified attorney thereafter files the

outstanding Pro Bono Legal Service Report, AOC shall

inform the Supreme Court and request the Court to

enter an order that recertifies the attorney and

terminates the decertification.

(B) Confirmation of Recertification

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 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.

(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) Certain Information Furnished to the Standing

Committee on Pro Bono Legal Service

AOC promptly shall submit to the Standing

Committee on Pro Bono Legal Service a compilation of

non-identifying information and data from the Pro

Bono Legal Service Reports.

(e) Confidentiality

Pro Bono Legal Service Reports are confidential

and are not subject to inspection or disclosure under

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

nor AOC shall release those Reports to any person,

except as provided in this Rule, or upon order of the

Supreme Court, or as authorized in writing by an

attorney for the attorney’s participation in a pro bono

participation recognition program. 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:

The Supreme Court’s Standing Committee on

Pro Bono Legal Service (the “Pro Bono Committee”)

seeks to institute a Pro Bono Honor Roll to provide

recognition to attorneys that achieve significant

milestones in pro bono practice each year.

Participation in the program is completely voluntary.

Attorneys will be able choose to opt in to the program

during the annual pro bono reporting currently

required by this Rule.

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

proposes amending section (e) of this Rule to permit

JIS to share pro bono reporting information submitted

by practicing attorneys that choose to participate in

the Pro Bono Honor Roll program with the Pro Bono

Committee.

Mr. Marcus said that Judge Michael Siri, Chair of the

Supreme Court’s Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Service

(“the Pro Bono Committee”), and Sharon Goldsmith, Esq.,

Executive Director of the Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland,

Inc. were present to address Agenda Item 6.

Judge Siri informed the Committee that the request from the

Pro Bono Committee is to amend Rule 19-503 (e) to allow

disclosure of pro bono hours for the purposes of establishing a

recognition program.

He said that the Pro Bono Committee is

creating a Pro Bono Honor Roll to recognize attorneys who do the

minimum recommended hours (50) or more.

Judge Siri said that Chief Justice Fader and Justice Eaves

were involved in planning the Honor Roll, which will have three

tiers of recognition for attorneys who opt in:

100 to 149 hours, and 150 hours or more.

50 to 99 hours,

He said that the

Supreme Court is supportive of the idea, but Rule 19-503 (e)

requires an amendment to permit hours of participating attorneys

to be disclosed.

automatic.

Judge Siri noted that disclosure would not be

Attorneys who wish to participate in the program

would have to opt into the program and authorize disclosure for

the limited purpose of being recognized for their pro bono work.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendment to Rule 19-503, it was approved as presented.

Agenda Item 7. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19409 (Interest on Funds) and Rule 19-703 (Bar Counsel).

Mr. Marcus presented Rules 19-409, Interest on Funds, and

19-703, Bar Counsel, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 400 – ATTORNEY TRUST ACCOUNTS

AMEND Rule 19-409 by creating new subsection

(f)(2) regarding Bar Counsel’s access to information to

IOLTA Compliance Reports and by making related

stylistic changes to section (f), as follows:

Rule 19-409. INTEREST ON FUNDS

(a) Definitions

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

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

“AOC” means the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(b) Generally

Any interest paid on funds deposited in an

attorney trust account, after deducting service charges

and fees of the financial institution, shall be credited

and belong to the client or third person whose funds

are on deposit during the period the interest is earned,

except to the extent that interest is paid to the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation Fund as

authorized by law. The attorney or law firm shall have

no right or claim to the interest.

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

that certain fees may not be deducted from interest

that otherwise would be payable to the Maryland Legal

Services Corporation Fund.

(1) Required as a Condition of Practice

As a condition of continuing to practice 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, the State

Court Administrator shall send electronically to each

attorney in active status a notice requiring the

attorney to complete through AIS an IOLTA

Compliance Report on or before September 10 of that

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

State Court Administrator in consultation with the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation. The report shall

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

address, location, and account number of each IOLTA

account maintained by the attorney as of July 10 of

each year.

(3) Shared Law Firm IOLTA Accounts

If all IOLTA eligible trust funds of all attorneys in

a law firm are deposited in shared law firm IOLTA

accounts, the firm shall designate an attorney to be its

“IOLTA Reporting Attorney.” The IOLTA Reporting

Attorney shall report on all law firm IOLTA accounts

by submitting one report listing the specific account

information for the firm with the IOLTA 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, each

attorney in active status shall file electronically

through AIS a completed IOLTA Compliance Report

with AOC.

(d) Enforcement

(1) Notice of Default

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year, the State Court Administrator shall send

electronically a Notice of Default to each attorney who

has failed to file the IOLTA Compliance Report. The

Notice of Default shall (A) be on a form approved by

the State Court Administrator, (B) state that the

attorney has not filed the IOLTA Compliance Report,

and (C) state that failure to cure the default will result

in the entry of an order by the Supreme Court

administratively suspending the attorney from the

practice of law in Maryland.

(2) List of Defaulting Attorneys

As soon as practicable after February 10 of each

year but no later than March 10, the State Court

Administrator shall:

(A) transmit to the Supreme Court a list that

includes the name and 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; and

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

information from its records or give further notice to

the defaulting attorneys.

(3) Administrative Suspension Order

If satisfied that the State Court Administrator

has given the Notice of Default to the attorneys named

on the list, the Supreme Court shall enter an

Administrative Suspension Order prohibiting each

attorney in default from practicing law in Maryland.

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.

(4) Effect of Order

An attorney who has been sent a copy of the

Administrative Suspension Order and who has not

been restored to good standing may not practice law in

Maryland and shall comply with the requirements of

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

remedy or sanction allowed by law, an action for

contempt may be brought against an attorney who

practices law in violation of an Administrative

Suspension Order.

(5) Termination of Order

(A) Notice to Supreme Court

If, after an administrative suspension under

this Rule, an attorney files the outstanding IOLTA

Compliance Report and the attorney is in compliance

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

the State Court Administrator shall inform the

Supreme Court that the attorney is no longer in

default and request the Court to enter an order

terminating the attorney's administrative suspension.

(B) Duty of Court

Upon receipt of the notice and request provided

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

any fee for reinstatement, the Supreme Court shall

enter an order terminating the administrative

suspension of the attorney and the Clerk of the Court

shall (A) send electronically a copy of the

Reinstatement Order to each attorney who has been

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

After an attorney's administrative suspension

for failure to file an IOLTA Compliance Report has

been terminated, the attorney need not disclose the

administrative suspension in response to a request for

information as to whether the attorney has been the

subject of a disciplinary or remedial proceeding.

(e) Confidentiality

Except as provided in 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. Nonidentifying information and data contained in an

attorney's IOLTA Compliance Report are not

confidential.

(f) Information Furnished to the Maryland Legal

Services Corporation Certain Entities

(1) 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, § 10-303.

(2) Bar Counsel

Upon written request of Bar Counsel pursuant to

Rule 19-703 (b)(3), AOC shall provide the requested

information from an IOLTA Compliance Report to Bar

Counsel.

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

(2016).

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

note:

Amendments to Rules 19-409 and 19-703 are

proposed to address Bar Counsel’s access to

information contained in IOLTA Compliance Reports.

Pursuant to current Rule 19-409, the information from

IOLTA Compliance Reports may only be disclosed by

the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) to the

Maryland Legal Services Corporation. Bar Counsel

has requested that the Rules Committee consider

amendments that permit Bar Counsel, with prior

approval of the Commission, to request and receive

information from IOLTA Compliance Reports to

eliminate the need for Bar Counsel to use the

subpoena process.

Pursuant to Rule 19-411, Bar Counsel already

receives certain information about attorney trusts

accounts. For example, Rule 19-411 (b)(1)(C) provides

that an agreement with a financial institution to

accept deposit of funds into an attorney trust account

must include a procedure for reports to Bar Counsel

when there is an overdraft in the account, or an

instrument drawn on the account is dishonored for

insufficient funds.

Rule 19-409, however, does not currently permit

disclosure to Bar Counsel of the information that the

attorney reported about the accounts in the attorney’s

IOLTA Compliance Report. As a result, despite

receiving notice that an overdraft has occurred, Bar

Counsel does not have sufficient details to determine

the appropriate financial institution to subpoena for

account information.

Proposed amendments to section (f) of Rule 19409 create new subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) to highlight

the two entities that may receive information from the

otherwise confidential IOLTA Compliance Reports.

Subsection (f)(1) consists of the current language of

section (f).

New subsection (f)(2) adds new language

permitting Bar Counsel to submit a written request for

information contained in IOLTA Compliance Reports.

This information would enable Bar Counsel to

determine the financial institution where the attorney

has an IOLTA account to continue any related

investigation.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 700 – DISCIPLINE, INACTIVE STATUS,

RESIGNATION

GENERAL PROVISIONS

AMEND Rule 19-703 by adding new subsection

(b)(3) and renumbering subsequent subsections, as

follows:

Rule 19-703. BAR COUNSEL

(a) Appointment

Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the

Commission shall appoint an attorney as Bar Counsel.

Before appointing Bar Counsel, the Commission shall

notify bar associations and the general public of the

vacancy and consider any recommendations that are

timely submitted. Bar Counsel shall serve at the

pleasure of the Commission and shall receive the

compensation set forth in the budget of the

Commission.

(b) Powers and Duties

Subject to the supervision and approval, if

required, of the Commission, Bar Counsel has the

powers and duties to:

(1) investigate professional misconduct or incapacity

on the part of an attorney;

(2) issue subpoenas as provided by Rule 19-712;

(3) upon approval of the Chair of the Commission,

request information as provided by Rule 19-409 from

IOLTA Compliance Reports pertaining to an account

overdraft, a dishonored instrument, or an

investigation;

(3)(4) enter into and implement Conditional

Diversion Agreements, issue notices, recommend

letters of cautionary advice or letters of admonition,

and propose reprimands;

(4)(5) file statements of charges, participate in

proceedings before Peer Review Panels, and prosecute

all disciplinary and remedial proceedings;

(5)(6) file and prosecute petitions for disciplinary

and remedial actions in the name of the Commission;

(6)(7) monitor and enforce compliance with all

disciplinary and remedial orders of the Supreme

Court;

(7)(8) investigate petitions for reinstatement and

applications for resignation from the practice of law

and represent the Commission in those proceedings;

(8)(9) initiate, intervene in, and prosecute actions to

enjoin the unauthorized practice of law;

(9)(10) employ attorneys, investigators, and staff

personnel as authorized by the Commission at the

compensation set forth in the Commission's budget;

(10)(11) discharge any employee;

(11)(12) maintain dockets and records of all papers

filed in disciplinary or remedial proceedings;

(12)(13) make reports to the Commission;

(13)(14) consult with the State and local bar

associations, public and private support groups, and

other appropriate persons in an effort to identify

programs or services that can (A) serve as a resource

to assist attorneys who may come before Bar Counsel,

the Commission, or the Supreme Court, and (B) be

considered when recommending or determining an

appropriate disposition of complaints or charges

against those attorneys. Those resources may include

(A) treatment for emotional distress, mental disorders

or disability, or dependence on alcohol, drugs, or other

intoxicants, (B) assistance in law office management,

including mentoring, accounting, bookkeeping,

financial, and other professional assistance relevant to

the handling of client or third-party funds, calendaring

events and time deadlines, and other professional or

business requirements related to the practice of law,

and (C) monitoring services when required by Bar

Counsel, the Commission, or the Supreme Court; and

Committee note: Subsection (b)(13) of this Rule does

not require Bar Counsel or the Commission to create

or fund any of these programs or services or to require

or recommend their use in any particular case. The

Rules Committee is advised that programs and

services of this kind do exist or can be created. The

Committee believes that identifying those that are

reliable and available may permit a more effective

disposition in particular cases by Bar Counsel, the

Commission, and the Supreme Court.

(14)(15) perform other duties prescribed by the

Commission, this Chapter, and the Rules in Title 19,

Chapter 400 (Attorney Trust Accounts).

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule

16-712 (2016) and is in part new.

Rule 19-703 was accompanied by the following Reporter’s

note:

Amendments to Rules 19-409 and 19-703 are

proposed to address Bar Counsel’s access to

information contained in IOLTA Compliance Reports.

See the Reporter’s note to Rule 19-409 for further

details.

A proposed amendment to Rule 19-703 adds

new subsection (b)(3), stating that Bar Counsel has the

authority to, as provided by Rule 19-409, request

information from IOLTA Compliance Reports

pertaining to an overdraft in an account, a dishonored

instrument, or an investigation. Due to the

confidential nature of IOLTA Compliance Reports, Bar

Counsel must obtain approval from the Chair of the

Commission before requesting the information.

The remaining subsections are renumbered to

account for the new language.

Mr. Marcus said that Bar Counsel Thomas DeGonia II was

present to explain the amendments proposed in Agenda Item 7.

Mr. DeGonia said that his office has encountered issues

with accessing information in IOLTA Compliance Reports

maintained pursuant to Rule 19-409.

He explained that he has

had to subpoena this information when his office is notified of

an overdraft or other issue with an account.

The proposed

amendments allow Bar Counsel to request the information in

writing rather than using the subpoena process.

The proposed

amendment to Rule 19-703 adds this mechanism to the powers and

duties of Bar Counsel.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rules 19-409 and 19-703, they were approved as

presented.

Agenda Item 8. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19305.3 (5.3) (Responsibilities Regarding Non-Attorney

Assistants).

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-305.3 (5.3), Responsibilities

Regarding Non-Attorney Assistants, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 300 – MARYLAND ATTORNEYS’ RULES OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

LAW FIRMS AND ASSOCIATIONS

AMEND Rule 19-305.3 by replacing “assistants”

with “assistance” in the title; by renumbering current

Comment [2] as Comment [1]; by adding and deleting

certain language from renumbered Comment [1]; by

renumbering current Comments [1] and [3] as

Comments [3] and [2], respectively; and by adding new

Comments [4] and [5], as follows:

Rule 19-305.3. RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING

NON-ATTORNEY ASSISTANTS ASSISTANCE (5.3)

With respect to a non-attorney employed or retained

by or associated with an attorney:

(a) a partner, and an attorney who individually or

together with other attorneys possesses comparable

managerial authority in a law firm shall make

reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect

measures giving reasonable assurance that the

person's conduct is compatible with the professional

obligations of the attorney;

(b) an attorney having direct supervisory authority

over the non-attorney shall make reasonable efforts to

ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with

the professional obligations of the attorney;

such a person that would be a violation of the

Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct if

engaged in by an attorney if:

(1) the attorney orders or, with the knowledge of the

specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the attorney is a partner or has comparable

managerial authority in the law firm in which the

person is employed, or has direct supervisory

authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at

a time when its consequences can be avoided or

mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action;

and

(d) an attorney who employs or retains the services

of a non-attorney who (1) was formerly admitted to the

practice of law in any jurisdiction and (2) has been and

remains disbarred, suspended, or placed on inactive

status because of incapacity shall comply with the

following requirements:

(A) all law-related activities of the formerly

admitted attorney shall be (i) performed from an office

that is staffed on a full-time basis by a supervising

attorney and (ii) conducted under the direct

supervision of the supervising attorney, who shall be

responsible for ensuring that the formerly admitted

attorney complies with the requirements of this Rule.

(B) the attorney shall take reasonable steps to

ensure that the formerly admitted attorney does not:

(i) claim to be an attorney;

(ii) render legal consultation or advice to a client

or prospective client;

(iii) appear on behalf of or represent a client in

any judicial, administrative, legislative, or alternative

dispute resolution proceeding;

(iv) appear on behalf of or represent a client at a

deposition or in any other discovery matter;

(v) negotiate or transact any matter on behalf of a

client with third parties;

(vi) receive funds from or on behalf of a client or

disburse funds to or on behalf of a client; or

(vii) perform any law-related activity for (a) a law

firm or attorney with whom the formerly admitted

attorney was associated when the acts that resulted in

the disbarment or suspension occurred or (b) any

client who was previously represented by the formerly

admitted attorney.

formerly admitted attorney shall file jointly with Bar

Counsel (i) a notice of employment identifying the

supervising attorney and the formerly admitted

attorney and listing each jurisdiction in which the

formerly admitted attorney has been disbarred,

suspended, or placed on inactive status because of

incapacity; and (ii) a copy of an executed written

agreement between the attorney, the supervising

attorney, and the formerly admitted attorney that sets

forth the duties of the formerly admitted attorney and

includes an undertaking to comply with requests by

Bar Counsel for proof of compliance with the terms of

the agreement and this Rule. As to a formerly

admitted attorney employed as of July 1, 2006, the

notice and agreement shall be filed no later than

September 1, 2006. As to a formerly admitted

attorney hired after July 1, 2006, the notice and

agreement shall be filed within 30 days after

commencement of the employment. Immediately upon

the termination of the employment of the formerly

admitted attorney, the attorney and the supervising

attorney shall file with Bar Counsel a notice of the

termination.

COMMENT

[2] [1] Section (a) of this Rule requires attorneys

with managerial authority within a law firm to make

reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and

procedures designed to provide ensure that the firm

has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance

that non-attorneys in the firm will and non-attorneys

outside the firm who work on firm matters act in a way

compatible with the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of

Professional Conduct professional obligations of the

attorney. See Comment [1] to Rule 19-305.1 (5.1).

Section (b) of this Rule applies to attorneys who have

supervisory authority over the work of a non-attorney

such non-attorneys within or outside the firm. Section

attorney is responsible for the conduct of a nonattorney such non-attorneys within or outside the firm

that would be a violation of the Maryland Attorneys'

Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by an

attorney.

[3] [2] Section (d) of this Rule addresses

formerly admitted attorneys engaging in law-related

activities and does not establish a standard for what

constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.

[1] [3] Attorneys generally employ assistants in

their practice, including secretaries, investigators, law

student interns, and paraprofessionals. Such

assistants, whether employees or independent

contractors, act for the attorney in rendition of the

attorney's professional services. An attorney must give

such assistants appropriate instruction and

supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their

employment, particularly regarding the obligation not

to disclose information relating to representation of the

client, and should be responsible for their work

product. The measures employed in supervising nonattorneys should take account of the fact that they do

not have legal training and are not subject to

professional discipline.

[4] An attorney may use non-attorneys outside

the firm to assist the attorney in rendering legal

services to the client. Examples include the retention

of an investigative or paraprofessional service, hiring a

document management company to create and

maintain a database for complex litigation, sending

client documents to a third party for printing or

scanning, and using an Internet-based service to store

client information. When using such services outside

the firm, an attorney must make reasonable efforts to

ensure that the services are provided in a manner that

is compatible with the attorney’s professional

obligations. The extent of this obligation will depend

upon the circumstances, including the education,

experience and reputation of the non-attorney; the

nature of the services involved; the terms of any

arrangements concerning the protection of client

information; and the legal and ethical environments of

the jurisdictions in which the services will be

performed, particularly with regard to confidentiality.

See also Rules 19-301.1, 19-301.2, 19-301.4, 19301.6, 19-305.4 (a), and 19-305.5 (a). When retaining

or directing a non-attorney outside the firm, an

attorney should communicate directions appropriate

under the circumstances to give reasonable assurance

that the non-attorney's conduct is compatible with the

professional obligations of the attorney.

[5] Where the client directs the selection of a

particular non-attorney service provider outside the

firm, the attorney ordinarily should agree with the

client concerning the allocation of responsibility for

monitoring as between the client and the attorney.

See Rule 19-301.2. When making such an allocation

in a matter pending before a tribunal, attorneys and

parties may have additional obligations that are a

matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules.

Model Rules Comparison: The language of Rule 19305.3 (a) through (c) (5.3) is substantially similar to

the language of the Ethics 2000 and the Commission

on Ethics 20/20 Amendments to the ABA Model Rules

of Professional Conduct. Section (d) of this Rule and

Comment [3] [2] are in part derived from Rule 217 (j) of

the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement

and in part new.

Rule 19-305.3 (5.3) was accompanied by the following

Reporter’s note:

Chief Justice Fader recently noted to the Rules

Committee that Rule 19-305.3 differs from the

American Bar Association (“ABA”) Model Rule 5.3 and

requested that the Rules Committee consider whether

similar or other changes to the Maryland Rule would

be beneficial.

In August 2012, the ABA amended Model Rule

5.3 pursuant to Resolution 105C. Although Maryland

Rule 19-305.3 was adopted by Rules Order shortly

after the amendment to the Model Rule, the Rules

history does not indicate whether these amendments

were brought to the Rules Committee for discussion.

As part of the Commission on Ethics 20/20,

Resolution 105C aimed “to provide guidance regarding

the ethical implications of retaining lawyers and

nonlawyers outside the firm to work on client matters

(i.e. outsourcing).” Although the main topic of the

Resolution was outsourcing, “[t]he Commission’s

proposals also reflect the view that the evolution of law

practice and the continued rapid changes in and

diversity of outsourcing arrangements make bright

lines impossible to draw. Like many obligations

described in the Model Rules, the proposals are

intended to be rules of reason and are not intended to

preclude consideration of broader legal concerns…”

In regard to ABA Model Rule 5.3, Resolution

105C proposed amending the title of the Rule and

adding two new Comments. The Attorneys and Judges

Subcommittee has considered ABA Model Rule 5.3 and

recommends parallel updates to Rule 19-305.3 to

address non-attorney vendors and their use of

technology, including AI, to provide services.

An amendment is proposed to the title of Rule

19-305.3. The term “assistants” is replaced with

“assistance.” The “General Information Form”

submitted with ABA Resolution 105C explained, “To

reflect the increasingly important role of automated

nonlawyer assistance, such as ‘cloud computing’

services, the title of the Rule will change from

‘Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants’ to

‘Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance.’”

While the Rule concerns the supervision of persons,

the change reflects that non-attorneys may also use

technological services while assisting attorneys.

Current Comment [2], offering an overview of the

Rule, is proposed to be renumbered as Comment [1],

mirroring the order of the Comments in ABA Model

Rule 5.3. Proposed changes to the language in

renumbered Comment [1] reflect that the Rule applies

to the use of non-attorneys outside, as well as inside, a

firm.

Proposed new Comment [4] addresses

considerations when using services outside of a firm

and mirrors Comment [3] of ABA Model Rule 5.3, with

stylistic changes. As explained in ABA Resolution

105C, the proposed Comment “describes a lawyer’s

obligations when using nonlawyer services outside the

firm… [and] identifies the factors that determine the

extent of the lawyer’s obligations in this regard. The

Comment also references several other Model Rules

that lawyers should consider when using nonlawyer

services outside the firm.” The new language also

highlights the importance of communicating directions

to a non-attorney to ensure that all conduct is

compatible with the attorney’s professional obligations.

Proposed new Comment [5] parallels Comment

[4] of ABA Model Rule 5.3. The language addresses

monitoring of non-attorneys outside a firm. ABA

Resolution 105C provides:

The word “monitoring” reflects a new ethical

concept. The Commission concluded that it was

needed because, when a nonlawyer outside the

firm is performing services in connection with a

matter, it may not be possible to “directly

supervise” the nonlawyer. The word

“monitoring” makes clear that there is

nevertheless a need to remain aware of how

nonlawyer services are being performing.

Overall, the proposed amendments to the title

and Comments bring Rule 19-305.3 more closely in

line with ABA Model Rule 5.3.

Mr. Marcus said that the Committee was contacted by Chief

Justice Fader and asked to review Rule 19-305.3 (5.3) for

possible amendments related to artificial intelligence (“AI”) in

the legal profession.

The Rule governs the role of non-

attorneys and the responsibility of the supervising attorney to

exercise discretion and diligence in the oversight of services

provided by a non-attorney.

Mr. Marcus explained that the title of the Rule is changed

to “Responsibilities Regarding Non-Attorney Assistance” rather

than “Assistants” in order to be more expansive and capture

services outsourced to technology, including AI.

He also said

that the proposed amendments to the Rule’s Comments update the

guidance to attorneys when outsourcing tasks or engaging nonattorneys.

Mr. Marcus directed the Committee’s attention to new

Comment 4, which provides examples of non-attorney services that

may assist in serving a client, such as a document management

company for complex litigation or a third-party printing service

for client documents.

The Comment cautions attorneys to ensure

that the services are compatible with the ethical obligations of

attorneys and will provide appropriate protections for client

information.

Mr. Marcus informed the Committee that many of the proposed

amendments were made to the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”)

Model Rule 5.3 in 2012 to address the question of the duties of

an attorney who contracts for services with a non-attorney

vendor.

The ABA established that the attorney must engage in an

inquiry into the vendor and provide oversight of the services to

ensure that ethical rules and all relevant laws are followed.

Mr. Marcus informed the Committee that, in part due to the

proliferation of AI, the Attorneys & Judges Subcommittee

recommends the proposed amendments to clarify the duties of

attorneys when engaging non-attorney services.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-305.3 (5.3), the Rule was approved as

presented.

Agenda Item 9. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19301.1 (1.1) (Competence), Rule 19-301.6 (1.6) (Confidentiality

of Information), and Rule 19-303.3 (3.3) (Candor Toward

Tribunal).

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-301.1 (1.1), Competence, for

consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 300 – MARYLAND ATTORNEYS’ RULES OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP

AMEND Rule 19-301.1 by adding language to

Comment [6] and by adding new Comment [7], as

follows:

Rule 19-301.1. COMPETENCE (1.1)

An attorney shall provide competent representation

to a client. Competent representation requires the

legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation

reasonably necessary for the representation.

COMMENT

Legal knowledge and skill--[1] In determining

whether an attorney employs the requisite knowledge

and skill in a particular matter, relevant factors

include the relative complexity and specialized nature

of the matter, the attorney's general experience, the

attorney's training and experience in the field in

question, the preparation and study the attorney is

able to give the matter and whether it is feasible to

refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, an

attorney of established competence in the field in

question. In many instances, the required proficiency

is that of a general practitioner. Expertise in a

particular field of law may be required in some

circumstances.

[2] An attorney need not necessarily have

special training or prior experience to handle legal

problems of a type with which the attorney is

unfamiliar. A newly admitted attorney can be as

competent as a practitioner with long experience.

Some important legal skills, such as the analysis of

precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal

drafting, are required in all legal problems. Perhaps

the most fundamental legal skill consists of

determining what kind of legal problems a situation

may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any

particular specialized knowledge. An attorney can

provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field

through necessary study. Competent representation

can also be provided through the association of an

attorney of established competence in the field in

question.

[3] In an emergency an attorney may give advice

or assistance in a matter in which the attorney does

not have the skill ordinarily required where referral to

or consultation or association with another attorney

would be impractical. Even in an emergency, however,

assistance should be limited to that reasonably

necessary in the circumstances, for ill-considered

action under emergency conditions can jeopardize the

client's interest.

[4] An attorney may accept representation

where the requisite level of competence can be

achieved by reasonable preparation. This applies as

well to an attorney who is appointed as an attorney for

an unrepresented person. See also Rule 19-306.2

(6.2).

Thoroughness and preparation--[5] Competent

handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into

and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the

problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting

the standards of competent practitioners. It also

includes adequate preparation. The required attention

and preparation are determined in part by what is at

stake; major litigation and complex transactions

ordinarily require more extensive treatment than

matters of lesser complexity. An agreement between

the attorney and the client regarding the scope of the

representation may limit the matters for which the

attorney is responsible. See Rule 19-301.2 (c) (1.2).

Maintaining competence--[6] To maintain the

requisite knowledge and skill, an attorney should keep

abreast of changes in the law and its practice,

including the benefits and risks associated with

relevant technology, engage in continuing study and

education and comply with all continuing legal

education requirements to which the attorney is

subject.

[7] When using, directing the use of, or relying

on technology, including artificial intelligence, a lawyer

must independently review, verify, and exercise

professional judgment regarding any output generated

by the technology that is used in connection with

representing a client. See Rule 19-305.3 (5.3).

Model Rules Comparison: Rule 19-301.1 (1.1) is

substantially similar to the language of the Ethics

2000 Amendments to the ABA Model Rules of

Professional Conduct.

Rule 19-301.1 (1.1) was accompanied by the following

Reporter’s note:

The American Bar Association (“ABA”) recently

addressed the ethical implications of attorneys’ use of

generative artificial intelligence (“GAI”) tools in Formal

Opinion 512. The Opinion “identifies some ethical

issues involving the use of GAI tools and offers general

guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this

emerging landscape,” noting that “[i]t is anticipated

that [the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and

Professional Responsibility] and state and local bar

association ethics committees will likely offer updated

guidance on professional conduct issues relevant to

specific GAI tools as they develop.” Although it does

not identify any necessary rules changes, Formal

Opinion 512 addresses several Model Rules of

Professional Responsibility (“ABA Model Rules”) that

are implicated using AI.

The Attorneys & Judges Subcommittee

considered whether any amendments to the Maryland

Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct are necessary

or desirable to address the rising use of AI by

attorneys. The Subcommittee determined that

additions to the Comments of several Title 19 Rules

would assist attorneys navigating new technology,

particularly AI, in legal practice. Accordingly,

amendments are proposed to Rules 19-301.1 (1.1), 19301.6 (1.6), and 19-303.3 (3.3).

ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires that attorneys

provide competent representation. This obligation also

is contained in Maryland Rule 19-301.1, which is

substantially similar to the Model Rule. However, in

2012, the ABA Commission on Ethics amended

Comment [6] of Model Rule 1.1, recognizing the

challenges associated with advances in and increased

use of technology. Specifically, new language stated,

“a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law

and its practice, including the benefits and risks

associated with relevant technology…” (emphasis

added). In explaining the amendment to Model Rule

1.1, Resolution 105A provided:

[T]he Commission concluded that competent

lawyers must have some awareness of basic

features of technology. To make this point, the

Commission is recommending an amendment to

Comment [6] of Model Rule 1.1 (Competence)

that would emphasize that, in order to stay

abreast of changes in the law and its practice,

lawyers need to have a basic understanding of

the benefits and risks of relevant technology.

At the time of this change in 2012, the Attorneys

and Judges Subcommittee did not bring this proposed

change forward to the Rules Committee. Adding

language requiring lawyers to maintain knowledge of

the benefits and risks associated with technology

would reiterate the need for attorneys to be aware of

developments in the use of AI, but may appear to place

an ethical burden on attorneys whose practice does

not require extensive knowledge of technology.

Overall, in light of the rising use of AI and the

increased ethical risks associated with similar

technology, the Subcommittee recommends adding

language to Comment [6] of Rule 19-301.1 mirroring

the addition in the Model Rule.

A new Comment [7] is also proposed to Rule 19301.1. In California, the state’s Supreme Court

instructed the State Bar by letter dated August 22,

2025, “to consider whether the guiding principles

provided in [the Bar’s November 2023 ‘Practical

Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial

Intelligence in the Practice of Law’] should be

incorporated into the comments for the California

Rules of Professional Conduct” and “to consider

incorporating… any additional guidance that may be

warranted in light of recent or upcoming generative AI

developments…” Accordingly, the State Bar prepared

proposed amendments to California’s Rules of

Professional Conduct and sought public input on the

changes. The deadline for public comments was on

May 4, 2026 and, at this time, changes to California’s

rules have not been finalized.

The proposed changes to the California Rules of

Professional Conduct include new Comments and

revisions to current Comments. The Attorneys and

Judges Subcommittee reviewed the proposed

amendments from California and recommends

incorporating new Comment [7] into the Maryland

Rules, with slight modification.

Proposed Comment [7] sets forth an attorney’s

obligation to independently review and verify output

generated when using, directing the use of, or relying

on technology. A reference to Rule 19-305.3 (5.3) at

the end of the Comment serves as a reminder of an

attorney’s obligation to supervise when using nonattorney assistance.

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed additions to the Comments

of Rule 19-301.1 (1.1) are recommended to call attention to the

duty of competence as it pertains to technology.

He explained

that attorneys must keep abreast of developing technology,

including artificial intelligence (“AI”), and use their judgment

when utilizing technology.

He added that, for example,

attorneys who use AI are expected to understand the implications

of that technology; attorneys should know not to provide

confidential client information to a large language model like

ChatGPT that feeds the information into an open environment.

Additionally, AI used for legal research can return

“hallucinated” cases that do not exist or misstate the law.

said that a level of knowledge about this technology is

necessary before using it.

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed amendment to Rule 19301.1 (1.1) amends Comment 6 to instruct attorneys to be aware

of the benefits and risks of technology.

Additionally, new

Comment 7 cautions attorneys to “independently review, verify,

and exercise professional judgment” when reviewing the output of

technology such as AI.

Mr. Marcus noted that Comment 7

addresses the situation where AI used for legal research

hallucinates or misstates cited cases.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-301.1 (1.1), the Rule was approved as

presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-301.6 (1.6), Confidentiality

of Information, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 300 – MARYLAND ATTORNEYS’ RULES OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP

AMEND Rule 19-301.6 by adding language to

Comment [20], as follows:

Rule 19-301.6. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

(1.6)

(a) An attorney shall not reveal information relating

to representation of a client unless the client gives

informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly

authorized in order to carry out the representation, or

the disclosure is permitted by section (b) of this Rule.

(b) An attorney may reveal information relating to the

representation of a client to the extent the attorney

reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or

substantial bodily harm;

(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or

fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial

injury to the financial interests or property of another

and in furtherance of which the client has used or is

using the attorney's services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury

to the financial interests or property of another that is

reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the

client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance

of which the client has used the attorney's services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the attorney's

compliance with these Rules, a court order or other

law;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the

attorney in a controversy between the attorney and the

client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil

claim, or disciplinary complaint against the attorney

based upon conduct in which the client was involved

or to respond to allegations in any proceeding

concerning the attorney's representation of the client;

(6) to comply with these Rules, a court order or

other law.

COMMENT

[1] This Rule governs the disclosure by an

attorney of information relating to the representation

of a client during the attorney's representation of the

client. See Rule 19-301.18 (1.18) for the attorney's

duties with respect to information provided to the

attorney by a prospective client, Rule 19-301.9 (c)(2)

(1.9) for the attorney's duty not to reveal information

relating to the attorney's prior representation of a

former client and Rules 19-301.8 (b) (1.8) and 19301.9 (c)(1) (1.9) for the attorney's duties with respect

to the use of such information to the disadvantage of

clients and former clients.

[2] A fundamental principle in the clientattorney relationship is that, in the absence of the

client's informed consent, the attorney must not reveal

information relating to the representation. See Rule

19-301.0 (g) (1.0) for the definition of informed

consent. This contributes to the trust that is the

hallmark of the client-attorney relationship. The client

is thereby encouraged to seek legal assistance and to

communicate fully and frankly with the attorney even

as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter.

The attorney needs this information to represent the

client effectively and, if necessary, to advise the client

to refrain from wrongful conduct. Almost without

exception, clients come to attorneys in order to

determine their rights and what is, in the complex of

laws and regulations, deemed to be legal and correct.

Based upon experience, attorneys know that almost all

clients follow the advice given, and the law is upheld.

[3] The principle of client-attorney

confidentiality is given effect by related bodies of law:

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine

and the rule of confidentiality established in

professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege and

work-product doctrine apply in judicial and other

proceedings in which an attorney may be called as a

witness or otherwise required to produce evidence

concerning a client. The rule of client-attorney

confidentiality applies in situations other than those

where evidence is sought from the attorney through

compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule, for

example, applies not only to matters communicated in

confidence by the client but also to all information

relating to the representation, whatever its source. An

attorney may not disclose such information except as

authorized or required by the Maryland Attorneys'

Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. See also

Scope.

[4] Section (a) of this Rule prohibits an attorney

from revealing information relating to the

representation of a client. This prohibition also

applies to disclosures by an attorney that do not in

themselves reveal protected information but could

reasonably lead to the discovery of such information

by a third person. An attorney's use of a hypothetical

to discuss issues relating to the representation is

permissible so long as there is no reasonable likelihood

that the listener will be able to ascertain the identity of

the client or the situation involved.

Implied Authority to Disclose--[5] Except to the

extent that the client's instructions or special

circumstances limit that authority, an attorney is

impliedly authorized to make disclosures about a

client when appropriate in carrying out the

representation. In some situations, for example, an

attorney may be impliedly authorized to admit a fact

that cannot properly be disputed, or to make a

disclosure that facilitates a satisfactory conclusion to a

matter. Attorneys in a firm may, in the course of the

firm's practice, disclose to each other information

relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has

instructed that particular information be confined to

specified attorneys.

Disclosure Adverse to Client--[6] Although the

public interest is usually best served by a strict rule

requiring attorneys to preserve the confidentiality of

information relating to the representation of their

clients, the confidentiality rule is subject to limited

exceptions. Section (b) of this Rule, however, permits

disclosure only to the extent the attorney reasonably

believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish one

of the purposes specified. Where practicable, the

attorney should first seek to persuade the client to

take suitable action to obviate the need for disclosure.

In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client's

interest should be no greater than the attorney

reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the

purpose. If the disclosure will be made in connection

with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be

made in a manner that limits access to the information

to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know

it and appropriate protective orders or other

arrangements should be sought by the attorney to the

fullest extent practicable.

[7] Section (b) of this Rule permits, but does not

require the disclosure of information relating to a

client's representation to accomplish the purposes

specified in subsections (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this

Rule. In exercising the discretion conferred by this

Rule, the attorney may consider such factors as the

nature of the attorney's relationship with the client

and with those who might be injured by the client, the

attorney's own involvement in the transaction and

factors that may extenuate the conduct in question.

An attorney's decision not to disclose as permitted by

section (b) of this Rule does not violate this Rule.

Disclosure may be required, however, by other Rules

regardless of whether the disclosure is permitted by

Rule 19-301.6 (1.6). See Rules 19-301.2 (d) (1.2), 19303.3 (a)(4) (3.3), 19-304.1 (b) (4.1), 19-308.1 (8.1) and

19-308.3 (8.3). An attorney representing an

organization may in some circumstances be permitted

to disclose information regardless of whether the

disclosure is permitted by Rule 19-301.6 (b) (1.6). See

Rule 19-301.13 (c) (1.13).

[8] Subsection (b)(1) of this Rule recognizes the

overriding value of life and physical integrity and

permits disclosure reasonably believed necessary to

prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily

harm. Such harm is reasonably certain to occur if it

will be suffered imminently or if there is a present and

substantial threat that a person will suffer such harm

at a later date if the attorney fails to take action

necessary to eliminate the threat. Thus, an attorney

who knows that a client has accidentally discharged

toxic waste into a town's water supply may reveal this

information to the authorities if there is a present and

substantial risk that a person who drinks the water

will contract a life-threatening or debilitating disease,

and the attorney reasonably believes disclosure is

necessary to eliminate the threat or reduce the

number of victims.

[9] Subsection (b)(2) of this Rule is a limited

exception to the rule of confidentiality that permits the

attorney to reveal information to the extent necessary

to enable affected persons or appropriate authorities to

prevent the client from committing a crime or a fraud,

as defined in Rule 19-301.0 (f) (1.0), that is reasonably

certain to result in substantial injury to the financial

or property interests of another and in furtherance of

which the client has used or is using the attorney's

services. Such a serious abuse of the client-attorney

relationship by the client forfeits the protection of this

Rule. The client can, of course, prevent such

disclosure by refraining from the wrongful conduct.

Although subsection (b)(2) of this Rule does not require

the attorney to reveal the client's misconduct, the

attorney may not counsel or assist the client in

conduct the attorney knows is criminal or fraudulent.

See Rule 19-301.2 (d) (1.2). See also Rule 19-301.16

(1.16) with respect to the attorney's obligation or right

to withdraw from the representation of the client in

such circumstances. Where the client is an

organization, the attorney should consult Rule 19301.13 (b) (1.13).

[10] Subsection (b)(3) of this Rule addresses the

situation in which the attorney does not learn of a

client's criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of

which the attorney's services were used until after the

act has occurred. Although the client no longer has

the option of preventing disclosure by refraining from

the wrongful conduct, there will be situations in which

the loss suffered by the affected person can be

prevented, rectified or mitigated. In such situations,

the attorney may disclose information relating to the

representation to the extent necessary to enable the

affected persons to prevent or mitigate reasonably

certain losses or to attempt to recoup their losses.

Subsection (b)(3) of this Rule does not apply when a

person who has committed a crime or fraud thereafter

employs an attorney for representation concerning

that offense.

[11] An attorney's confidentiality obligations do

not preclude an attorney from securing confidential

legal advice about the attorney's personal

responsibility to comply with these Rules, a court

order or other law. In most situations, disclosing

information to secure such advice will be impliedly

authorized for the attorney to carry out the

representation. Even when the disclosure is not

impliedly authorized, subsection (b)(4) of this Rule

permits such disclosure because of the importance of

an attorney's compliance with the law.

Withdrawal--[12] If the attorney knows that the

attorney's services will be used by the client in

materially furthering a course of criminal or fraudulent

conduct, the attorney must withdraw, as stated in

Rule 19-301.16 (a)(1) (1.16). After withdrawal the

attorney is required to refrain from making disclosure

of the client's confidences, except as otherwise

provided in Rule 19-301.6 (1.6) or in other Rules.

[13] If the attorney knows that despite the

withdrawal the client is continuing in conduct that is

criminal or fraudulent, and is making use of the fact

that the attorney was involved in the matter, the

attorney may have to take positive steps to avoid being

held to have assisted the conduct. See Rules 19-301.2

(d) (1.2) and 19-304.1 (b) (4.1). In other situations not

involving such assistance, the attorney has discretion

to make disclosure of otherwise confidential

information only in accordance with Rules 19-301.6

(1.6) and 19-301.13 (c) (1.13). Neither this Rule nor

Rule 19-301.8 (b) (1.8) nor Rule 19-301.16 (d) (1.16)

prevents the attorney from giving notice of the fact of

withdrawal, and the attorney may also withdraw or

disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation, or the

like.

Dispute Concerning Attorney's Conduct--[14]

Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges

complicity of the attorney in a client's conduct or other

misconduct of the attorney involving representation of

the client, the attorney may respond to the extent the

attorney reasonably believes necessary to establish a

defense. The same is true with respect to a claim

involving the conduct or representation of a former

client. Such a charge can arise in a civil, criminal,

disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on a

wrong allegedly committed by the attorney against the

client or on a wrong alleged by a third person, for

example, a person claiming to have been defrauded by

the attorney and client acting together. The attorney's

right to respond arises when an assertion of such

complicity has been made. Subsection (b)(5) of this

Rule does not require the attorney to await the

commencement of an action or proceeding that

charges such complicity, so that the defense may be

established by responding directly to a third party who

has made such an assertion. The right to defend also

applies, of course, where a proceeding has been

commenced.

[15] An attorney entitled to a fee is permitted by

subsection (b)(5) of this Rule to prove the services

rendered in an action to collect it. This aspect of the

rule expresses the principle that the beneficiary of a

fiduciary relationship may not exploit it to the

detriment of the fiduciary.

Disclosures Otherwise Required or Authorized-[16] As noted in Comment 7, Rules 19-303.3 (b) (3.3)

and 19-304.1 (b) (4.1) require disclosure in some

circumstances regardless of whether the disclosure is

permitted by Rule 19-301.6 (1.6). Circumstances may

be such that disclosure is required under other Rules,

for example, Rule 19-301.2 (d) (1.2), in order to avoid

assisting a client to perpetrate a crime or fraud.

[17] Other law may require that an attorney

disclose information about a client. Whether such a

law supersedes Rule 19-301.6 (1.6) is a question of law

beyond the scope of these Rules. When disclosure of

information relating to the representation appears to

be required by other law, the attorney must discuss

the matter with the client to the extent required by

Rule 19-301.4 (1.4). If, however, the other law

supersedes this Rule and requires disclosure,

subsection (b)(6) of this Rule permits the attorney to

make such disclosures as are necessary to comply

with the law.

[18] An attorney may be ordered to reveal

information relating to the representation of a client by

a court or by another tribunal or governmental entity

claiming authority pursuant to other law to compel the

disclosure. Absent informed consent of the client to do

otherwise, the attorney should assert on behalf of the

client all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not

authorized by other law or that the information sought

is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client

privilege or other applicable law. In the event of an

adverse ruling, the attorney must consult with the

client about the possibility of appeal to the extent

required by Rule 19-301.4 (1.4). Unless review is

sought, however, subsection (b)(6) of this Rule permits

the attorney to comply with the court's order.

Acting Competently to Preserve Confidentiality-[19] An attorney must act competently to safeguard

information relating to the representation of a client

against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the

attorney or other persons who are participating in the

representation of the client or who are subject to the

attorney's supervision. See Rules 19-301.1 (1.1), 19305.1 (5.1) and 19-305.3 (5.3).

[20] When transmitting a communication that

includes information relating to the representation of a

client, the attorney must take reasonable precautions

to prevent the information from coming into the hands

of unintended recipients. This duty applies not only to

the transmission of information by non-technological

means but also to the transmission of information

through the use of technology such as email, a

document sharing platform or portal, or an artificial

intelligence tool. This duty, however, does not require

that the attorney use special security measures if the

method of communication affords a reasonable

expectation of privacy. Special circumstances,

however, may warrant special precautions. Factors to

be considered in determining the reasonableness of

the attorney's expectation of confidentiality include the

sensitivity of the information and the extent to which

the privacy of the communication is protected by law

or by a confidentiality agreement. A client may require

the attorney to implement special security measures

not required by this Rule or may give informed consent

to the use of a means of communication that would

otherwise be prohibited by this Rule.

Former Client--[21] The duty of confidentiality

continues after the client-attorney relationship has

terminated. See Rule 19-301.9 (c)(2) (1.9). See Rule

19-301.9 (c)(1) (1.9) for the prohibition against using

such information to the disadvantage of the former

client.

Model Rules Comparison: Rule 19-301.6 (1.6) retains

elements of former Rule 1.6 language, incorporates

some changes from the Ethics 2000 Amendments to

the ABA Model Rules, and incorporates further

revisions.

Rule 19-301.6 (1.6) was accompanied by the following

Reporter’s note:

The Attorneys & Judges Subcommittee recently

considered whether amendments to the Maryland

Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct are necessary

or desirable to address the rising use of Artificial

Intelligence (“AI”) by attorneys. For additional

background information, see the Reporter’s note to

Rule 19-301.1 (1.1).

ABA Formal Opinion 512 references several

Model Rules that should be considered by attorneys

when using AI. In regards to maintaining

confidentiality, ABA Formal Opinion 512 cites, among

other rules, Model Rule 1.6, providing, “A lawyer using

[generative artificial intelligence] must be cognizant of

the duty under Model Rule 1.6 to keep confidential all

information relating to the representation of a client,

regardless of its source, unless the client gives

informed consent, disclosure is impliedly authorized to

carry out the representation, or disclosure is permitted

by an exception.”

The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee

determined that additional language in a Comment

may further highlight the importance of taking

reasonable precautions when transmitting

information. Accordingly, proposed new language in

Comment [20] of Rule 19-301.6 adds a sentence noting

that the duty to take reasonable precautions applies to

transmissions of information by both technological

and non-technological means. The new language

provides examples of technology that may be used for

transmissions, including email, document sharing

platforms or portals, and artificial intelligence tools.

Mr. Marcus said that the proposed amendment to Rule 19301.6 (1.6) highlights the duty of confidentiality when sharing

client information by electronic transmission, whether that is

email, a document-sharing portal, or an artificial intelligence

tool.

Comment 20 is amended to state that the attorney must be

aware of the impact of the use of such technology on

confidentiality.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-301.6 (1.6), the Rule was approved as

presented.

Mr. Marcus presented Rule 19-303.3 (3.3), Candor Toward

Tribunal, for consideration.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 300 – MARYLAND ATTORNEYS’ RULES OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

ADVOCATE

AMEND Rule 19-303.3 by adding new Comment

[3] and renumbering subsequent Comments, as

follows:

Rule 19-303.3. CANDOR TOWARD TRIBUNAL (3.3)

(a) An attorney shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a

tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material

fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the

attorney;

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when

disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or

fraudulent act by the client;

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in

the controlling jurisdiction known to the attorney to be

directly adverse to the position of the client and not

disclosed by an opposing attorney; or

(4) offer evidence that the attorney knows to be

false. If an attorney has offered material evidence and

comes to know of its falsity, the attorney shall take

reasonable remedial measures.

(b) The duties stated in section (a) of this Rule

continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and

apply even if compliance requires disclosure of

information otherwise protected by Rule 19-301.6

(1.6).

attorney reasonably believes is false.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, an attorney shall

inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the

attorney which will enable the tribunal to make an

informed decision, whether or not the facts are

adverse.

(e) Notwithstanding sections (a) through (d) of this

Rule, an attorney for an accused in a criminal case

need not disclose that the accused intends to testify

falsely or has testified falsely if the attorney reasonably

believes that the disclosure would jeopardize any

constitutional right of the accused.

COMMENT

[1] This Rule governs the conduct of an attorney

who is representing a client in the proceedings of a

tribunal. See Rule 19-301.0 (p) (1.0) for the definition

of “tribunal.” It also applies when the attorney is

representing a client in an ancillary proceeding

conducted pursuant to the tribunal's adjudicative

authority, such as a deposition. Thus, for example,

subsection (a)(4) of this Rule requires an attorney to

take reasonable remedial measures if the attorney

comes to know that a client who is testifying in a

deposition has offered evidence that is false.

[2] This Rule sets forth special duties of

attorneys as officers of the court to avoid conduct that

undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.

An attorney acting as an advocate in an adjudicative

proceeding has an obligation to present the client's

case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty

while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is

qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the

tribunal. Consequently, although an attorney in an

adversary proceeding is not required to present an

impartial exposition of the law or to vouch for the

evidence submitted in a cause, the attorney must not

allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of

law or fact or evidence that the attorney knows to be

false.

Representations by an Attorney--[3] Attorneys

have a duty to review analyses and citations to

authority and correct errors, including misstatements

of law and misleading arguments, before submitting

materials to a court. An attorney’s duty of candor

towards the tribunal includes the obligation to take

reasonable measures to verify the accuracy and

existence of cited authorities, including ensuring that

the cited authority is not fabricated, misstated, or

taken out of context, before submission to a tribunal,

including any cited authorities generated or assisted

by artificial intelligence or other technological tools.

[4] An advocate is responsible for pleadings and

other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually

not required to have personal knowledge of matters

asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily

present assertions by the client, or by someone on the

client's behalf, and not assertions by the attorney.

Compare Rule 19-303.1 (3.1). However, an assertion

purporting to be on the attorney's own knowledge, as

in an affidavit by the attorney or in a statement in

open court, may properly be made only when the

attorney knows the assertion is true or believes it to be

true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry.

There are circumstances where failure to make a

disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative

misrepresentation. The obligation prescribed in Rule

19-301.2 (d) (1.2) not to counsel a client to commit or

assist the client in committing a fraud applies in

litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule 19-301.2

(d) (1.2), see the Comment to that Rule. See also the

Comment to Rule 19-308.4 (b) (8.4).

Misleading Legal Argument--[4][5] Legal

argument based on a knowingly false representation of

law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal. An

attorney is not required to make a disinterested

exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence

of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated

in subsection (a)(3) of this Rule, an advocate has a

duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the

controlling jurisdiction which has not been disclosed

by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that

legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine

the legal premises properly applicable to the case.

False Evidence--[5][6] When evidence that an

attorney knows to be false is provided by a person who

is not the client, the attorney must refuse to offer it

regardless of the client's wishes.

[6][7] When false evidence is offered by the

client, however, a conflict may arise between the

attorney's duty to keep the client's revelations

confidential and the duty of candor to the court. Upon

ascertaining that material evidence is false, the

attorney should seek to persuade the client that the

evidence should not be offered or, if it has been

offered, that its false character should immediately be

disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the attorney

must take reasonable remedial measures.

[7][8] Except in the defense of a criminal

accused, the rule generally recognized is that, if

necessary to rectify the situation, an advocate must

disclose the existence of the client's deception to the

court or to the other party. Such a disclosure can

result in grave consequences to the client, including

not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case

and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the

alternative is that the attorney cooperate in deceiving

the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process

which the adversary system is designed to implement.

See Rule 19-301.2 (d) (1.2). Furthermore, unless it is

clearly understood that the attorney will act upon the

duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the

client can simply reject the attorney's advice to reveal

the false evidence and insist that the attorney keep

silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the

attorney into being a party to fraud on the court.

Perjury by a Criminal Defendant--[8][9] Whether

an advocate for a criminally accused has the same

duty of disclosure has been intensely debated. While

it is agreed that the attorney should seek to persuade

the client to refrain from perjurious testimony, there

has been dispute concerning the attorney's duty when

that persuasion fails. If the confrontation with the

client occurs before trial, the attorney ordinarily can

withdraw. Withdrawal before trial may not be

possible, however, either because trial is imminent, or

because the confrontation with the client does not take

place until the trial itself, or because no other attorney

is available.

[9][10] The most difficult situation, therefore,

arises in a criminal case where the accused insists on

testifying when the attorney knows that the testimony

is perjurious. The attorney's effort to rectify the

situation can increase the likelihood of the client's

being convicted as well as opening the possibility of a

prosecution for perjury. On the other hand, if the

attorney does not exercise control over the proof, the

attorney participates, although in a merely passive

way, in deception of the court.

[10][11] Three resolutions of this dilemma have

been proposed. One is to permit the accused to testify

by a narrative without guidance through the attorney's

questioning. This compromises both contending

principles; it exempts the attorney from the duty to

disclose false evidence but subjects the client to an

implicit disclosure of information imparted to the

attorney. Another suggested resolution, of relatively

recent origin, is that the advocate be entirely excused

from the duty to reveal perjury if the perjury is that of

the client. This is a coherent solution but makes the

advocate a knowing instrument of perjury.

[11][12] The other resolution of the dilemma is

that the attorney must reveal the client's perjury if

necessary to rectify the situation. A criminal accused

has a right to the assistance of an advocate, a right to

testify and a right of confidential communication with

an attorney. However, an accused should not have a

right to assistance of an attorney in committing

perjury. Furthermore, an advocate has an obligation,

not only in professional ethics but under the law as

well, to avoid implication in the commission of perjury

or other falsification of evidence. See Rule 19-301.2

(d) (1.2).

Remedial Measures--[12][13] If perjured

testimony or false evidence has been offered, the

advocate's proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate

with the client confidentially. If that fails, the advocate

should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the

situation. If withdrawal will not remedy the situation

or is impossible, the advocate should make disclosure

to the court. It is for the court then to determine what

should be done--making a statement about the matter

to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial or perhaps

nothing. If the false testimony was that of the client,

the client may controvert the attorney's version of their

communication when the attorney discloses the

situation to the court. If there is an issue whether the

client has committed perjury, the attorney cannot

represent the client in resolution of the issue, and a

mistrial may be unavoidable. An unscrupulous client

might in this way attempt to produce a series of

mistrials and thus escape prosecution. However, a

second such encounter could be construed as a

deliberate abuse of the right to an attorney and as

such a waiver of the right to further representation.

Constitutional Requirements--[13][14] The

general rule--that an advocate must disclose the

existence of perjury with respect to a material fact,

even that of a client--applies to defense attorneys in

criminal cases, as well as in other instances. However,

the definition of the attorney's ethical duty in such a

situation may be qualified by constitutional provisions

for due process and the right to an attorney in

criminal cases. Section (e) of this Rule is intended to

protect from discipline the attorney who does not make

disclosures mandated by sections (a) through (d) of

this Rule only when the attorney acts in the

“reasonable belief” that disclosure would jeopardize a

constitutional right of the client. For a definition of

“reasonable belief,” see Rule 19-301.0 (l) (1.0).

Duration of Obligation--[14][15] A practical time

limit on the obligation to rectify the presentation of

false evidence has to be established. The conclusion of

the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for the

termination of the obligation. After that point,

however, the attorney may be permitted to take certain

actions pursuant to Rule 19-301.6 (b)(3) (1.6).

Refusing to Offer Proof Believed to Be False-[15][16] Generally speaking, an attorney has authority

to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the

attorney reasonably believes is false. Offering such

proof may reflect adversely on the attorney's ability to

discriminate in the quality of evidence and thus impair

the attorney's effectiveness as an advocate. In

criminal cases, however, an attorney may, in some

jurisdictions, be denied this authority by

constitutional requirements governing the right to an

attorney.

Ex Parte Proceedings--[16][17] Ordinarily, an

advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting

one side of the matters that a tribunal should consider

in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is

expected to be presented by the opposing party.

However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an

application for a temporary restraining order, there is

no balance of presentation by opposing advocates.

The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to

yield a substantially just result. The judge has an

affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party

just consideration. The attorney for the represented

party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of

material facts known to the attorney and that the

attorney reasonably believes are necessary to an

informed decision.

Model Rules Comparison: Rule 19-303.3 (3.3) has

been rewritten to retain elements of existing Maryland

language and to incorporate some changes from the

Ethics 2000 Amendments to the ABA Model Rules.

Rule 19-303.3 (3.3) was accompanied by the following

Reporter’s note:

The Attorneys & Judges Subcommittee recently

considered whether amendments to the Maryland

Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct are necessary

or desirable to address the rising use of Artificial

Intelligence (“AI”) by attorneys. For additional

background information, see the Reporter’s note to

Rule 19-301.1 (1.1).

ABA Formal Opinion 512 highlights an

attorney’s responsibilities to the court. The Opinion

explains, “In judicial proceedings, duties to the

tribunal likewise require lawyers, before submitting

materials to a court, to review these outputs, including

analysis and citations to authority, and to correct

errors, including misstatements of law and fact, a

failure to include controlling legal authority, and

misleading arguments.” Specifically, Model Rule 3.3

“makes it clear that lawyers cannot knowingly make

any false statement of law or fact to a tribunal or fail to

correct a material false statement of law or fact

previously made to a tribunal.”

A large concern with attorneys using AI is the

possibility of fabricated case citations and authorities

if the materials are not appropriately reviewed. To

address this issue, a proposed amendment to Rule 19303.3 (3.3) adds new Comment [3] to expressly

highlight that an attorney is responsible for verifying

citations and authorities used in materials filed with

the court.

The first sentence of the new Comment is

derived from ABA Formal Opinion 512. The remainder

of proposed Comment [3] mirrors the language

proposed to be added as a Comment to California

Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3.

Subsequent Comments are renumbered

accordingly.

Mr. Marcus explained that Rule 19-303.3 (3.3) is amended to

add new Comment 3 to state that an attorney must review and

analyze citations to authority prior to submitting a filing to

the court.

Mr. Marcus asked whether Bar Counsel Thomas DeGonia II

wished to add any comments.

Mr. DeGonia informed the Committee

that the proposed amendments to this Rule and the other two

Rules in Agenda Item 9 will be helpful when speaking to

practitioners and providing guidance.

There being no motion to amend or reject the proposed

amendments to Rule 19-303.3 (3.3), they were approved as

presented.

Agenda Item 10. Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule

19-301.15 (1.15) (Safekeeping Property).

Mr. Marcus informed the Committee that Rule 19-301.15

(1.15) was amended by the Supreme Court in November 2024,

effective July 1, 2025.

The amendment altered when a flat fee

may be deemed earned by an attorney.

Prior to the amendment,

the Rule required informed consent from the client to collect a

flat fee and immediately deposit the fee in the attorney’s

operating account, rather than in the attorney’s escrow account.

Mr. Marcus explained that, when the attorney is the one advising

the client and obtaining the informed consent, there can be

problems later if the relationship breaks down and the client

disputes the fee and whether the consent was properly obtained.

Mr. Marcus said that Bar Counsel Thomas DeGonia II worked

with the bar to develop the concept of “milestones” when

portions of a fee can be earned, but the amendment adopted by

the Supreme Court did away with the informed consent provision

of Rule 19-301.15 (1.15).

Mr. Marcus said that, as the Rule was about to go into

effect, the Committee was contacted by several attorneys who

contended that certain practice areas would be hindered by the

Rule change.

He directed the Committee to the memorandum

summarizing the history of the Rule change and subsequent

discussions over the last year (see Appendix 4).

Mr. Marcus said that, after several meetings, the

Subcommittee could not reach a consensus on a recommendation to

the Committee.

Instead, the Subcommittee refers two options for

amendments to Rule 19-301.15 (1.15) to the full Committee for

discussion without a recommendation.

Mr. Marcus presented two versions of Rule 19-301.15 (1.15),

Safekeeping Property, for consideration.

VERION A – “HAND OUT”

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 300 – MARYLAND ATTORNEYS’ RULES OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP

AMEND Rule 19-301.15 by adding a reference to

new section (f) in section (c), by adding new section (f)

pertaining to circumstances in which a flat fee may be

charged to a client, by adding a statement to the cross

reference following Comment [3] concerning an

attorney’s duty to refund unearned fees, and by adding

new Comment [6] as follows:

Rule 19-301.15. SAFEKEEPING PROPERTY (1.15)

(a) An attorney shall hold property of clients or third

persons that is in an attorney's possession in

connection with a representation separate from the

attorney's own property. Funds shall be kept in a

separate account maintained pursuant to Title 19,

Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, and records shall

be created and maintained in accordance with the

Rules in that Chapter. Other property shall be

identified specifically as such and appropriately

safeguarded, and records of its receipt and distribution

shall be created and maintained. Complete records of

the account funds and of other property shall be kept

by the attorney and shall be preserved for a period of

at least five years after the date the record was

created.

(b) An attorney may deposit the attorney's own funds

in a client trust account only as permitted by Rule 19408 (b).

this Rule, An an attorney shall deposit into a client

trust account legal fees and expenses that have been

paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the attorney only

as fees are earned or expenses incurred.

(d) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a

client or third person has an interest, an attorney shall

promptly notify the client or third person. Except as

stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by

agreement with the client, an attorney shall deliver

promptly to the client or third person any funds or

other property that the client or third person is

entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or

third person, shall render promptly a full accounting

regarding such property.

(e) When an attorney in the course of representing a

client is in possession of property in which two or

more persons (one of whom may be the attorney) claim

interests, the property shall be kept separate by the

attorney until the dispute is resolved. The attorney

shall distribute promptly all portions of the property as

to which the interests are not in dispute.

Cross reference: For the duties of an attorney with

respect to attorney trust account funds that are

presumed abandoned, see Rule 19-414.

(f) In a civil matter, when an attorney charges a flat

fee for specified legal services that is paid in whole or

in part in advance of the attorney providing the

services, the fee may be construed to be the attorney’s

property earned upon receipt and not deposited into

an attorney trust account only if (1) depositing the

funds into an attorney trust account would not be in

the client’s best interest because the existence of funds

in an attorney’s trust account would prohibit or

interfere with the client’s ability to be eligible for a

benefit or program with financial restrictions for which

the legal services are being sought or interfere or

conflict with any provision or form of relief under any

federal law, and (2) the flat fee agreement is agreed to

in advance in a writing signed by the client, in a

manner that can easily be understood by the client,

and includes the following information provisions in

bold print: (A) the scope of the services to be provided;

(B) the total amount of the fee and the terms of

payment; (C) that the fee becomes the attorney’s

property immediately upon receipt and will not be

placed into a trust account; (D) that the fee agreement

does not alter the client’s right to terminate the clientattorney relationship; and (E) that the client may or

may not be entitled to a refund of a portion of the

fee if the agreed-upon legal services have not been

completed and the client is entitled to a refund of a

portion of the fee paid, the attorney agrees to pay

that sum to the client or the client’s estate or, as

directed by the client, the client’s guardian or

attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney, for the

benefit of the client.

In the event of a dispute relating to a fee under

section (f) of this Rule, the attorney shall take

reasonable and prompt action to resolve the dispute.

COMMENT

[1] An attorney should hold property of others

with the care required of a professional fiduciary.

Securities should be kept in a safe deposit box, except

when some other form of safekeeping is warranted by

special circumstances. All property of clients or third

persons, including prospective clients, must be kept

separate from the attorney's business and personal

property and, if money, in one or more trust accounts.

Separate trust accounts may be warranted when

administering estate money or acting in similar

fiduciary capacities. An attorney should maintain on a

current basis books and records in accordance with

generally accepted accounting practice and the Rules

in Title 19, Chapter 400 and comply with any other

record-keeping rules established by law or court order.

[2] Normally it is impermissible to commingle

the attorney's own funds with client funds, and section

(b) of this Rule provides that it is permissible only as

permitted by Rule 19-408 (b). Accurate records must

be kept regarding which part of the funds are the

attorney's.

[3] Attorneys often receive funds from which the

attorney's fee will be paid. The attorney is not required

to remit the client funds that the attorney reasonably

believes represent fees owed. However, an attorney

may not hold funds to coerce a client into accepting

the attorney's contention. The disputed portion of the

funds must be kept in a trust account and the

attorney should suggest means for prompt resolution

of the dispute, such as arbitration. The undisputed

portion of the funds shall be distributed promptly.

Cross reference: See Rule 19-301.16 (d) (1.16) for

requirements concerning the requirement to refund

any advance payment of fee or expense that has not

been earned or incurred. Section (f) of this Rule does

not relieve an attorney of the obligation to refund any

such sums.

[4] Section (e) of this Rule also recognizes that

third parties may have lawful claims against specific

funds or other property in a an attorney's custody,

such as a client's creditor who has a lien on funds

recovered in a personal injury action. An attorney may

have a duty under applicable law to protect such

third-party claims against wrongful interference by the

client. In such cases, when the third-party claim is

not frivolous under applicable law, the attorney must

refuse to surrender the funds or property to the client

until the claims are resolved. An attorney should not

unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the

client and the third party, but, when there are

substantial grounds for dispute as to the person

entitled to the funds, the attorney may file an action to

have a court resolve the dispute.

[5] The obligations of an attorney under this

Rule are independent of those arising from activity

other than rendering legal se

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

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