# SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A6dbc68af91776609

## Record

- **Collection:** Court rules
- **Document type:** Court rule

## Text

SUPREME COURT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Minutes of a meeting of the Rules Committee held in Rooms
237-238 of the Maryland Judicial Center, 187 Harry S. Truman
Parkway, Annapolis, Maryland on 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
1

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

2

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
3

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
4

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.
5

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
6

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
7

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.

8

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

9

(3) includes:
(A) an administrative record;
(B) a license record;
(C) a case 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.”
10

“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
11

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
12

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,
13

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
14

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
15

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.
(c) Delegation of Authority
(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
16

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
17

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-

18

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.
(C) A self-represented litigant who files an initial
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

19

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,

20

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

21

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

22

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
23

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
24

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
25

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).
(c) Judges and Judicial Appointees
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

26

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

27

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
28

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
29

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

30

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).

He

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

31

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
32

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
33

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
34

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.

35

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
···
(c) Uncertified Copy
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.

36

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

37

(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;
(C) If the case is then pending in the Appellate
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;

38

(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;
(C) Any written order issued under Rule 2-602 (b);
(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.
(c) Informal Petitions, Cross-Petitions, and Answer
Answers, and Replies

39

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
40

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;
41

(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

42

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
43

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.
(c) Enforcement
(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
44

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

45

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
46

(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.

47

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:

48

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.
(c) Duty to Report IOLTA Participation
(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

49

If all IOLTA eligible trust funds of all attorneys in
a law firm are deposited in shared law firm IOLTA
accounts, the firm shall designate an attorney to be its
“IOLTA Reporting Attorney.” The 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
50

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
51

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.
(C) Disclosure of Administrative Suspension
After an attorney's administrative suspension
for failure to file an IOLTA Compliance Report has
been terminated, the attorney need not disclose the
administrative suspension in response to a request for
information as to whether the attorney has been the
subject of a disciplinary or remedial proceeding.
(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).

52

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.

53

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

54

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

55

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.

56

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
57

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;
(c) an attorney shall be responsible for conduct of
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
58

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.
(C) the attorney, the supervising attorney, and the
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
59

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
(c) of this Rule specifies the circumstances in which an
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

60

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

61

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

62

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
63

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

64

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).

65

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
66

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

67

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,
68

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

69

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
70

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.

He

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

71

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;
or
(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
72

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

73

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 d

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A6dbc68af91776609. Public record. Not legal advice.