STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES CHANGES

The Rules Committee has submitted its Two Hundred and

Fourteenth Report to the Supreme Court of Maryland, recommending

proposed new Title 12, Chapter 400 (Partition), containing new

Rules 12-401, 12-402, 12-403, 12-404, 12-405, 12-406, 12-407,

12-408, 12-409, and 12-410, and new Title 21 (Remote Electronic

Participation in Judicial Proceedings), containing new Rules 21101, 21-102, 21-103, 21-104, 21-105, 21-201, 21-202, 21-301, and

21-401; new Rules 15-1501 (Petition for Authorization for Minor

to Marry) and 17-106 (Remote Electronic Participation);

amendments to current Rules 1-101, 1-104, 1-322, 1-322.1, 2-111,

2-501, 2-504, 2-504.1, 2-516, 2-532, 2-533, 2-534, 2-613, 2-647,

3-113, 3-306, 3-516, 3-533, 3-534, 4-212, 4-231, 4-252, 4-322,

4-340, 4-345, 4-348, 4-349, 5-802, 6-206, 6-416, 6-463, 6-502,

7-102, 7-104, 7-501, 8-132, 8-202, 8-205, 8-206, 8-207, 8-303,

8-412, 8-413, 8-422, 8-431, 8-501, 8-602, 8-603, 8-605, 9-205,

9-205.3, 9-303, 10-103, 10-106.1, 10-111, 10-112, 10-202, 10205, 10-205.1, 10-304, 11-106, 11-108, 11-219, 12-102, 14-207,

14-209, 15-1305, 16-302, 16-309, 16-405, 16-406, 16-502, 16-503,

16-504, 16-914, 16-934, 17-601, 18-103.10, 18-203.10, 19-220,

19-301.0 (1.0), 19-301.4 (1.4), 19-301.6 (1.6), 19-301.7 (1.7),

19-301.8 (1.8), 19-301.9 (1.9), 19-301.10 (1.10), 19-301.11

(1.11), 19-301.12 (1.12), 19-301.14 (1.14), 19-301.17 (1.17),

19-301.18 (1.18), 19-302.3 (2.3), 19-302.4 (2.4), 19-303.3

(3.3), 19-303.7 (3.7), 19-303.9 (3.9), 19-305.1 (5.1), 19-308.3

(8.3), 20-106, 20-203, 20-301, and 20-405; and rescission of

current Rule 12-401 and current Title 2, Chapter 800, containing

Rules 2-801, 2-802, 2-803, 2-804, 2-805, 2-806, and 2-807; and

transmitting, without recommendation, draft new Rule 19-204.1

(Conditional Admission).

The Committee’s Two Hundred and Fourteenth Report and the

proposed Rules changes are set forth below.

Interested persons are asked to consider the Committee’s

Report and proposed Rules changes and to forward on or before

March 1, 2023 any written comments they may wish to make to

rules@mdcourts.gov or:

Sandra F. Haines, Esquire

Reporter, Rules Committee

Judiciary A-POD

580 Taylor Avenue

Annapolis, Maryland

21401

Gregory Hilton

Clerk

Supreme Court of Maryland

THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Hon. ALAN M. WILNER, Chair

Hon. DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, Vice Chair

SANDRA F. HAINES, Reporter

COLBY L. SCHMIDT, Deputy Reporter

HEATHER COBUN, Assistant Reporter

MEREDITH A. DRUMMOND, Assistant Reporter

Judiciary A-POD

580 Taylor Avenue

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

(410) 260-3630

EMAIL:

rules@mdcourts.gov

January 30, 2023

The Honorable Matthew J. Fader,

Chief Justice

The Honorable Shirley M. Watts

The Honorable Michele D. Hotten

The Honorable Brynja M. Booth

The Honorable Jonathan Biran

The Honorable Steven B. Gould

The Honorable Angela M. Eaves,

Justices

The Supreme Court of Maryland

Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Your Honors:

The Rules Committee submits this, its Two Hundred and

Fourteenth Report, and recommends, with one exception, that the

Court adopt the new Rules and amendments to existing Rules

transmitted with this Report.

This is an extensive Report that includes recommendations

(1) emanating from legislation enacted at the 2022 Session of

the General Assembly; (2) in one instance, submitted for the

Committee's consideration by then-Chief Judge Joseph M. Getty

upon a favorable recommendation by the Judicial Council; or (3)

that arose from other sources, all of which were considered by

the Committee at one or more of its four most recent meetings

(September 8, October 21, and November 18, 2022 and January 6,

2023). We have consolidated these many provisions into 19

Categories. 1

By the time this Report was written and filed, the Constitutional

Amendments changing the names of the two appellate courts to the Maryland

Supreme Court and the Appellate Court of Maryland, respectively, had taken

effect, so we have used those names to match what will be in the Rules. When

addressing historical matters – where a Rule came from, for example – we have

used the name of the Court at the time.

CATEGORY ONE:

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION TO THE BAR

This Item was referred to the Committee by the Court. Upon

receipt, and in collaboration with the State Board of Law

Examiners, the Committee undertook substantial research into how

conditional admission to the bar has been dealt with elsewhere.

In August 2009, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted

a Model Rule permitting an applicant who currently satisfied

eligibility requirements for admission, including fitness and

moral character requirements, to be conditionally admitted upon

demonstration of “recent successful rehabilitation from chemical

dependency or successful treatment for mental or other illness,

or from any other condition this Court deems appropriate, that

has caused conduct that would otherwise have rendered the

applicant currently unfit to practice law." The Rule contains

11 sections, nine with a Commentary. In adopting that Model

Rule, the ABA noted that 19 States and Puerto Rico already had

adopted versions of such a Rule. See EXHIBIT 1.

The ABA Model Rule cautioned, however, that conditional

admission was not intended to apply to all applicants who have

rehabilitated themselves from prior conduct "but only to those

whose rehabilitation or treatment is sufficiently recent that

protection of the public requires monitoring of the applicant

for a specified period." It noted also that the availability of

conditional admission did not preclude unconditional admission

where rehabilitation or treatment had been successful for a

sustained time period. Nor did it preclude denial or deferral

of admission where rehabilitation or treatment had been of

shorter duration.

In its 2021 Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission

Requirements, the ABA reported that 26 States now provide for

conditional admission, mostly where the problem was substance

abuse, debt, or criminal history, although some States added a

catchall non-specific "other" reason as well. Id. at 5, 6. Six

States also had a "structured program for deferring admission."

Id. See EXHIBIT 2.

At the Committee's October 21, 2022 meeting, there was

robust discussion of whether Maryland should adopt conditional

admission. Under the Rule presented by the Attorneys and Judges

Subcommittee, conditional admission would be limited to

situations involving substance abuse or a mental health

condition and require approval of a Conditional Admission

Agreement that would (1) be confidential, (2) last for a maximum

of two years unless extended, and (3) be monitored by Bar

Counsel or Bar Counsel's designee. The procedures for approving

and monitoring such an agreement were complex. The draft Rule

(19-204.1) was/is 13 pages long.

Apart from the ABA material, the Committee also had

available several law review articles discussing conditional

admission. See Janice M. Holder, Completing the Puzzle: Lawyer

Assistance and Conditional Admission, 49 Duq. L. Rev. No. 439

(2011); Stephanie Denzel, Second-Class Licensure: The Use of

Conditional Admission Programs for Bar Applicants with Mental

Health and Substance Abuse Histories, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 889

(2011); and Leslie C. Levin, The Folly of Expecting Evil:

Reconsidering the Bar’s Character and Fitness Requirement, 2014

BYU L. Rev. 775 (2015). See EXHIBIT 3.

At the Committee's request, the State Board of Law

Examiners did a survey of other States with respect to their

experiences with conditional admission and received 11

responses--from Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine,

New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia,

Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The survey asked how many conditional

admissions were recommended each year, what was the average

monitoring period, how frequently was the conditional admittee

"checked," what the cost of monitoring was and who paid those

costs, and what percentage of conditionally admitted attorneys

were ultimately not fully admitted. The numbers conditionally

admitted in a given year ranged from one to four. What we

learned was that the number of conditionally admitted attorneys

who ultimately are not fully admitted was very small, ranging

from zero to one. The majority of the few applicants subjected

to conditional admission eventually are fully admitted. See

EXHIBIT 4.

A few of the Committee members who had served on Character

Committees felt that conditional admission was unnecessary that a fair decision to admit or not admit could be made based

on what was before them. Other members were concerned about the

Conditional Admission Agreement being confidential - that

prospective clients should know that the attorney they were

seeking to employ has or had a substance abuse or mental health

problem that required the Court of Appeals (Supreme Court of

Maryland) to place conditions on the attorney’s practice.

After considerable discussion, given the miniscule number

of conditional admittees elsewhere, the cost of determining and

monitoring appropriate conditions, and concern about whether the

fact of a conditional admission (and the conditions) should be

made public so that prospective clients would be informed before

engaging the attorney, the Committee concluded that conditional

admission was not worth doing.

Because this matter was a Court referral, and in light of

the fact that 26 States (and the ABA) have adopted a Conditional

Admission Rule, the Committee has attached four Exhibits to this

Report so that the Court will be better able to make its own

judgment.

If the Court wishes to proceed further with conditional

admission, we recommend referring the topic back to the

Committee to finalize any details and deal with any provisions

that the Court would like to add or delete.

CATEGORY TWO:

REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Category Two consists largely of a new Title 21 to the

Maryland Rules, with conforming amendments to Rules in other

Titles. It is intended to implement the recommendation of the

Judicial Council to allow the continuance of remote electronic

participation in certain judicial proceedings that was

inaugurated several years ago as a response to the onslaught of

the COVID-19 virus.

That response initially was implemented through emergency

orders entered by the Governor or the Chief Judge of the Court

of Appeals but later was supplemented by Rules, including new

Chapter 1000 of Title 16 and amendments to Chapter 800 of Title

2. In September 2021, then-Chief Judge Getty appointed a Joint

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Operations, chaired by then-Chief

Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, Matthew Fader, to review

the technology and the operations of the Judiciary during the

COVID-19 pandemic and advise the Judicial Council which

operations, if any, should remain available as a matter of

standard judicial procedure. It was the Report of that Joint

Subcommittee that was presented to and approved by the Judicial

Council and referred by Chief Judge Getty to the Rules

Committee.

Because many of the remote proceedings recommended for

retention can apply to District Court and appellate court

proceedings, as well as to Circuit Court proceedings, the

Committee is recommending that, with some adjustments, the Rules

in Title 2, Chapter 800 be moved to a new Title 21 focused on

remote electronic participation by all of those courts. 2

Proposed Title 21 consists of four Chapters - Chapter 100

(Rules 21-101 through 21-105) containing general provisions,

Chapter 200 (Rules 21-201 and 21-202) dealing with civil

proceedings, Chapter 300 (Rule 21-301) dealing with criminal and

delinquency proceedings, and Chapter 400 (Rule 21-401) dealing

with proceedings in the two appellate courts. Current Title 2,

Chapter 800 is proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

The Judicial Council Joint Subcommittee also recommended

that court-annexed mediation proceedings be allowed to proceed

through remote electronic means, although there was initial

opposition by mediator groups to some of the provisions drafted

by the Rules Committee. That dispute has been resolved. The

provisions dealing with mediation are dealt with through new

Rule 17-106 and amendments to Rule 9-205.

The Committee, with the concurrence of the ADR

practitioners who operate court-annexed ADR programs, believes

that, because ADR is a process that is not subject to the same

level of court knowledge or control as judicial proceedings, the

ultimate decision to conduct a particular ADR remotely, in whole

or in part, should be made by the ADR practitioner after

consultation with the parties and not by a judge or magistrate.

See Rules 9-205 (g) and 17-106 (b). The ADR at issue may be a

“court-annexed” program, but it is not a judicial proceeding.

Rule 21-101 is a general applicability Rule. Rule 21-102,

with some style changes, repeats the definitions taken from

Title 2, Chapter 800 and adds one additional definition. Rule

21-103, derived from current Rule 2-802 (b), specifies who in

the various courts may order remote participation for various

categories of cases. Rule 21-104, which sets certain standards

and requirements for remote proceedings, is derived from current

Rules 2-804 and 2-805. Rule 21-105, dealing with subpoenas, is

taken in part from current Rule 2-807 (d). Rule 21-201 sets

forth the kinds of civil proceedings appropriate for remote

participation. Rule 21-202 focuses on remote participation in

civil jury trials. Rule 21-301 deals with conditions and

2 It does not appear that the Judicial Council Joint Subcommittee or the

Judicial Council itself gave any consideration to whether remote proceedings

should be permitted in the Orphans’ Courts, and that issue was never

presented to or considered by the Rules Committee. With the concurrence of

the State Court Administrator, the recommendations in this Category are

limited to the District, Circuit, and appellate courts.

procedures in criminal and delinquency proceedings.

pertains to proceedings in the appellate courts.

Rule 21-401

We call particular attention to the Committee's adoption of

the conclusion of the Judicial Council Joint Subcommittee that

remote proceedings generally are not recommended when the trier

of fact needs to assess the credibility of evidence, except when

the parties consent or the case needs to be tried on an

expedited basis and remote proceedings will facilitate the

participation of individuals who would have difficulty attending

in person.

In light of the addition of new Title 21 and the repeal of

Title 2, Chapter 800, conforming amendments are made to Rules 1101, 2-504, 2-504.1, 4-231, 10-106.1, 10-205, 10-304, 11-106,

11-108, 11-219, 15-1305, 16-302, 16-309, and 20-106. A related

conforming amendment is made to Rule 16-503. That Rule is

included in Category Ten of this Report.

CATEGORY THREE:

UNREPORTED OPINIONS (RULE 1-104)

Category Three consists of proposed amendments to Rule 1104, dealing with unreported Opinions, which was initially

raised by two practitioners and later proposed by the Court of

Special Appeals. The Committee examined the issue in the

context of unreported Opinions of (l) the Supreme Court or the

Appellate Court of Maryland, (2) Maryland trial courts, (3)

trial and appellate courts in other States, and (4) Federal

trial and appellate courts.

After much debate, the Committee recommends that:

(1)

Subsection (a)(1): Unreported Opinions, from any

court, do not constitute precedent within the rule of

stare decisis.

(2)

Subsection (a)(2)(A): Unreported Opinions of the

Supreme Court or the Appellate Court or that were

issued by those Courts under their previous names –

the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals –

may be cited in either Court for any purpose other

than (i) as precedent or, (ii) except as provided in

subsection (a)(2)(B) of the Rule, as persuasive

authority. An unreported opinion of either court may

be used in any court (i) when relevant under the

doctrine of the law of the case, res judicata, or

collateral estoppel, (ii) in a criminal action or

related proceeding involving the same defendant, (iii)

in a disciplinary action involving the same

respondent, or (iv) as persuasive authority as

provided in subsection (a)(2)(B) of the Rule.

(3)

Subsection (a)(2)(B): An unreported Opinion of the

Supreme Court or the Appellate Court other than a per

curiam Opinion, filed after the effective date of the

new Rule may be cited as persuasive authority, but

only if no reported authority adequately addresses the

issue before the Court. Unreported per curiam

Opinions may not be cited as persuasive authority.

Subsection (a)(2)(B) places certain other conditions

as well on the citation of unreported Appellate Court

Opinions. A Committee note following subsection

(a)(2)(B) notes that unreported Opinions issued after

May 1, 2015 are available on the Judiciary website.

(4)

Section (b): A memorandum opinion, order, or other

decision of a Maryland trial court may be cited for

its persuasive value only if no reported Opinion

adequately addresses the issue before the court.

(5)

Section (c): An unreported or unpublished opinion,

order, or other decision issued by (i) a State court

in a jurisdiction other than Maryland or (ii) a

Federal Court may be cited as persuasive authority if

the Court of that jurisdiction or the Federal Court

would permit it to be cited for that purpose. The

citation must indicate that the opinion is not

precedent in the issuing jurisdiction, if that is the

case.

(6)

Section (d): A party who cites an opinion, order, or

decision under section (c) or (d) that is not

available in a publicly accessible database is

required to attach a copy of the cited document to the

document in which it is cited.

CATEGORY FOUR:

INFORMATION REPORT (RULE 2-111)

Rule 2-111 currently requires that, unless otherwise

provided by an Administrative Order of the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court approved by the Court, a plaintiff must file with

the complaint an information report in the form available from

the clerk of the Circuit Court. There is an Administrative

Order, approved by the Court and initially adopted in 2005,

providing an extensive list of case types that do not require an

information report. That list is repeated in a Committee Note

to Rule 2-111. On September 9, 2022, Chief Justice Fader

requested that the Committee consider whether the list of

exemptions should be in the Rule itself.

With that request, the Chief Justice inquired of the

Circuit Court clerks whether there should be any subtractions

from or additions to the list of exemptions, and the clerks

responded with recommendations for some additions to the list.

The Committee complied with the Chief Justice’s request and that

of the clerks and recommends that (1) the list of exemptions

should be in the Rule itself, (2) the list should include the

case types recommended by the clerks, and (3) the Committee note

and the Administrative Order should be repealed. No change is

recommended to Rule 2-323 (h), dealing with defendants’

information reports.

CATEGORY FIVE:

PARTITION

Category Five consists of the deletion of current Rule 12401 and replacement of it with new Rules 12-401, 12-402, 12-403,

12-404, 12-405, 12-406, 12-407, 12-408, 12-409, and 12-410, all

to implement 2022 Md. Laws, Chapters 401 and 402. Those

statutes adopted in large measure the Uniform Partition of Heirs

Property Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners

on Uniform State Laws and contained in Code, Real Property

Article, § 14-702.

Rule 12-401 makes those Rules applicable in any action

where the relief sought is the partition, by sale or in kind, of

real property. Rule 12-402 sets out applicable definitions.

Rule 12-403 provides the venue for such actions. Rule 12-404

sets forth the required contents for a complaint for partition.

Rule 12-405 deals with process and preliminary matters. Rule

12-406 deals with the determination of fair market value. Rule

12-407 deals with the procedures in the event of a cotenant

buyout. Rule 12-408 deals with partition in kind. Rule 12-409

deals with partition by sale, and Rule 12-410 deals with the

Order of Partition.

CATEGORY SIX: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS; MILITARY SERVICE AFFIDAVITS

(Rules 1-322.1, 3-113, 3-306, 2-501, 2-613, 14-207, 14-209)

Subsection (d)(1) of Rule 1-322.1 is amended to delete the

requirement of including the last four digits of a social

security or taxpayer identification number (SSN/TIN) in court

filings. How to deal with personal identifiers has been a

recurring problem for several years. At one time, the Committee

and the Court thought that the problem with those particular

identifiers had been solved by requiring, when necessary,

disclosure of only the last four digits, which would be

restricted information.

The Committee has been advised by Chief Judge John

Morrissey that the District Court no longer has any use for a

partial SSN/TIN and that, if a full number is required, parties

should follow the redaction provisions available in Rule 1-322.1

(d)(4) or (d)(5) and, in an MDEC jurisdiction, file a Notice of

Restricted Information as required by Rule 20-201.1.

A new section (b) is added to Rule 3-113 to deal with the

problem of potential staleness regarding the filing of military

service affidavits that may become necessary in affidavit

judgment actions filed pursuant to Rule 3-306. That problem is

explained in the Reporter's note to Rule 3-306. Amendments to

Rule 3-306 address the problem, as well as the need to exclude

personal identifiers in affidavit judgment actions.

In a nutshell, there is no uniform standard in the Federal

Law for when a military service affidavit becomes stale, and

some Maryland judges have differing views regarding that. This

becomes a problem depending on when the need for such an

affidavit arises. With the concurrence of Chief Judge Morrissey

and Judge Norman Stone, the Committee proposes to deal with that

problem by adding a new section (b) to Rule 3-113, a new

subsection (c)(4)(E) to Rule 3-306, together with a cross

reference following that subsection, and corrective cross

references in Rules 2-501, 2-613, 14-207, and 14-209.

CATEGORY SEVEN: CRIMINAL ACTIONS

(RULES 4-348, 4-349, 4-212, 4-252, 8-422)

Upon consideration of recommendations from an appellate

attorney, the Committee recommends (1) moving the language

currently in Rule 4-348 (a) regarding the stay of a sentence of

imprisonment imposed by the District Court pending an appeal to,

and de novo trial in, a Circuit Court to Rule 4-349 (a) and (2)

adding a new section (d) to Rule 4-349 providing for the

duration of a release by a Circuit Court pending an appeal to,

or other review by, an appellate court. As explained in the

Reporter's note to Rule 4-349, the new language is intended to

clarify when a defendant must surrender to serve a sentence

after being released pending an appeal.

also is added to Rule 8-422 (b).

Clarifying language

The amendment to Rule 4-212 supplements an existing cross

reference, and the amendment to Rule 4-252 adds a new cross

reference following subsection (a)(4) of that Rule.

CATEGORY EIGHT:

DECEDENT'S ESTATES (RULES 6-416, 6-206, 6-502)

As explained in the Reporter's note, the amendments to Rule

6-416 (1) implement 2022 Md. Laws, Chapter 630 to clarify the

law relating to the payment of attorneys' fees and personal

representatives’ commissions without the need for court approval

and (2) make other changes recommended by an MSBA Workgroup

created to review that Rule.

The amendment to Rule 6-206 adds a cross reference to Code,

Estates and Trusts Article, § 5-606.

New Rule 6-502 implements recommendations from the MSBA

Estate and Trust Law Section addressing how firearms,

ammunition, and other destructive devices should be identified

and dealt with during the pendency of a decedent's estate.

CATEGORY NINE: GUARDIANSHIPS

(RULES 10-103, 10-111, 10-112, 10-202, 10-205.1)

The amendment to Rule 10-103 adds to the definition of

“interested person” in a guardianship proceeding a person

holding a power of attorney of the minor or disabled person and

a “supporter” named in a supported decision-making agreement

under Code, Estates and Trusts Article, Title 18. See 2022 Laws

of Maryland, Chapter 631.

The amendments to Rules 10-111 and 10-112 recognize (1)

that the Veterans Administration has been renamed the Department

of Veteran Affairs and (2) the existence of supporters and

supported decision-making agreements.

The amendments to Rule 10-202 update cross-references.

The amendments to Rule 10-205.1 direct that a guardianship

of a minor is to be governed by Code, Estates and Trusts

Article, § 13-702 rather than § 13-705 and that, if the minor is

at least 14 years old, the court shall appoint a qualified

individual designated by the minor unless that is not in the

best interest of the minor.

CATEGORY TEN: CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS; CONTENTS OF RECORD (RULES 2516, 3-516, 4-322, 16-405, 16-503, 8-412, 8-413, 20-301)

The amendments to these Rules deal principally with the

preservation of exhibits and the contents of the record on

appeal.

Rules 2-516 (Civil Procedure - Circuit Courts), 3-516

(Civil Procedure - District Court), and 4-322 (Criminal Causes)

require that all exhibits must remain in the custody of the

clerk unless the court orders otherwise. Amendments add that,

if the court permits someone other than the clerk to be the

custodian, it must (1) identify that person on the record and

instruct the custodian to secure the exhibit until final

determination of the action, including all appellate

proceedings, and retain the exhibit as required by law, and (2)

instruct the clerk to identify the custodian in a docket entry.

These amendments address problems that have surfaced in

some counties in which, at the end of the case in the trial

court, the clerk returns an exhibit to the party who offered it

and it becomes unavailable when needed in subsequent appellate

or collateral proceedings. A cross reference is added to Rule

16-405. Conforming amendments are made to Rule 16-503.

Rules 8-412 and 8-413 deal with the record on appeal. An

amendment to Rule 8-412 (e) provides that when the clerk of the

lower court transmits a record that does not contain the items

specified in Rule 8-413 (a), the appellate clerk, on motion of a

party, may extend the time for a party to file the party’s brief

once the record is complete.

Amendments to Rule 8-413 (a) require the record on appeal

to contain copies or photographs of physical exhibits made part

of the record below and the original of audio, audiovisual, or

video recording that was identified, whether or not offered or

admitted into evidence. Additionally, when the Supreme Court

reviews an action pending in the Appellate Court, the record

shall include the record of any proceedings in the Appellate

Court.

A Committee note is added that exhibits may be stored and

accessed using a digital storage platform approved by the State

Court Administrator and that a party who offers an audio,

audiovisual, or visual recording in a format not in common use

must provide the recording to the clerk in a medium and format

suitable for transmittal as part of the record.

Section (b) is amended to require the clerk of the lower

court’s certificate to identify tangible exhibits not included

for transmission and the custodians of those exhibits and to

transmit them to the appellate court upon request.

Section (c) requires, when an appeal is proceeding on a

Statement of the Case in lieu of the entire record, that the

appellant reproduce the statement in the appellant’s brief.

A conforming amendment to Rule 8-501 updates a reference to

Rule 8-413. Rule 8-501 is included in Category Twelve of this

Report.

The amendment to Rule 20-301 adds to the required content

of the official record in a case all exhibits stored on a

digital storage platform approved by the State Court

Administrator and referenced in the MDEC system.

CATEGORY ELEVEN: RULES REMANDED FROM THE 211TH REPORT

(RULES 3-533, 3-534, 7-104, 7-102)

The Rules in this Category were submitted to the Court

previously in the Committee’s 211th Report. At the open meeting

on that Report, members of the Court expressed concern about

appearing to extend certain times to appeal established by the

legislature. The Rules were remanded to the Committee for

further study. After further discussion, the Committee has

updated the proposed amendments to address the concern.

Rules 3-533 and 3-534 deal with motions in the District

Court for relief from a judgment entered by that Court - a

motion for new trial under Rule 3-533 or to alter or amend the

judgment under Rule 3-534. The amendments provide that, if a

statute sets an appeal time (from the District Court to a

Circuit Court) of less than ten days after entry of the

judgment, which several statutes in the Real Property Article

do, a motion under the respective Rules does not toll the time

for noting an appeal unless the motion is filed within the

statutory time allowed for an appeal, which the current Rules do

not require. See the new language recommended for Rule 3-533

(a)(2) and Rule 3-534 (b).

New language added to Rule 7-104 (c) also deals with that

issue, but in the context of when a motion under Rule 3-533 or

3-534 was filed but was not successful and the statutory time

for appeal to a Circuit Court is less than ten days or between

ten and 29 days.

The amendment to Rule 7-102 adds a cross-reference

regarding the computation of the amount in controversy in an

appeal from the District Court to a Circuit Court when the

action involves a claim for possession or repossession of

property.

CATEGORY TWELVE: APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

(RULES 8-132, 8-202, 8-205, 2-532, 2-533, 2-534, 8-206, 8-207,

16-406, 8-303, 8-501, 8-431, 8-603, 8-605, 8-602, 20-405)

Several new procedural requirements or conditions are

imposed by the Rules in this category, some to assist pro se

litigants seeking relief from judgments entered against them.

Some of these issues were brought to the Committee’s attention

by the Court of Appeals or Court of Special Appeals and others

by attorneys based on their experiences.

The amendments to the Title 8 Rules deal with appeals from

a Circuit Court to the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

In Rule 8-132, a new section (b) is added to provide that,

if an appeal, application for leave to appeal, or petition for

certiorari is improperly filed in the Appellate Court of

Maryland, that Court shall not reject the filing but record the

date it was received and transfer it to the proper court.

The amendment to Rule 8-202 expands a cross reference

regarding the State’s right to appeal a decision of the trial

court.

The amendments proposed to Rule 8-205 (1) require, with

certain exceptions, that a notice of appeal to the Appellate

Court in a civil case be accompanied by a Civil Appeal

Information Report on a form approved by the State Court

Administrator, and (2) state the consequence of failing to file

such a report. Those requirements were proposed by the Court of

Special Appeals. The amendments to Rules 2-532, 2-533, 2-534,

8-206, 8-207, and 16-406 are conforming ones.

The amendment to Rule 8-303, requested by the Appellate

Division of the Public Defender's Office, provides support for

the filing of informal petitions for certiorari or answers

thereto and for the processing of those documents. This is an

important change. A pro se petition is limited to 15 pages but

need not be accompanied by the documents otherwise required

under subsection (b)(2) of the Rule unless otherwise ordered by

the Court.

The amendment to Rule 8-501, requested by the Clerk of the

Supreme Court, reduces from 20 to eight the number of record

extracts required to be filed in the Supreme Court when a writ

of certiorari is issued. At the request of the clerks of both

appellate courts, Rules 8-431, 8-501, 8-603, and 8-605 are

amended to delete the requirement of filing extra copies of

various motions. The clerks have advised that they no longer

need those copies. Rule 8-603 is amended also to update the

name of the required Civil Appeal Information Report.

An amendment to Rule 8-602 conditions the ability of an

appellate court to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with

the Civil Appeal Information Report requirement of Rule 8-205 on

the appellant’s having been served with notice pursuant to Rule

8-205 (e).

An amendment to Rule 20-405 (c) eliminates the need to file

eight paper copies of an electronic submission in an appellate

court unless requested by the Court. Amendments to section (d)

set new requirements for how service is made in an appellate

court prior to docketing of the action in that court. A new

Committee note explains that the MDEC system does not allow a

party to serve other parties electronically when opening a case

in the appellate courts but does permit electronic service once

the clerk has docketed the case.

CATEGORY THIRTEEN: AGREEMENT REGARDING FORMER LAW PRACTICE

(RULES 18-103.10 AND 18-203.10)

Rule 18-103.10 establishes procedures a newly appointed or

elected judge must follow if the judge has left a law firm and

intends to be compensated for the value of the judge’s ownership

interest in the firm or payout of fees for legal services

rendered while at the firm.

The agreement must require the payout to be completed

within five years, except that upon a finding that the payout

cannot be completed within that period without significant and

unavoidable harm to a party, the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court may extend the period.

Rule 18-203.10 contains the same provisions with respect to

a newly appointed judicial appointee.

CATEGORY FOURTEEN:

LEGAL ASSISTANCE BY LAW STUDENTS

(RULE 19-220)

Amendments to Rule 19-220 fill a void created by the

dissolution of the Maryland State Bar Association (“MSBA”)

section to which the Rule refers.

Before a law student is authorized to engage in the

practice of law under the auspices of a clinical program or

externship, the Rule currently requires approval of the clinical

program or externship by the section council of the now-defunct

MSBA section. The amended Rule substitutes for this requirement

a new requirement that the dean of the student’s law school

certify in a writing filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court

of Maryland that the clinical program or externship complies

with the applicable American Bar Association standards and this

Rule.

The Rule currently permits supervision of the law student

by an attorney who is not a member of the Maryland bar, provided

that the supervising attorney has been authorized to practice

pursuant to Rule 19-218 and certifies in writing that the

attorney has read and is familiar with the Maryland Attorneys’

Rules of Professional Conduct and Maryland law pertaining to the

attorney’s area of practice. The amended Rule requires that

this certification be attached to the dean’s certification of

law students and the clinical program or externship in which

each student will be participating.

CATEGORY FIFTEEN: CLIENTS WITH DIMINISHED CAPACITY

(RULES 19-301.14, 19-301.0, 19-301.4)

The proposed amendments to Rule 19-301.14 and conforming

amendments to other Rules were recommended by a group of

experienced attorneys headed by Judge Patrick Woodward, which

worked with the Committee in updating the Rule to be consistent

with current best practice and recent science and literature

regarding the problem of dealing with clients who may have

diminished capacity. The work group was, indeed, a blue-ribbon

panel.

The background and recommended amendments are summarized

well in the four-page Comment that is part of Rule 19-301.14 and

the four-page Reporter's note to that Rule.

A new definition, “Diminished capacity,” is added to Rule

19-301.0. The work group believed that the definition is

essential to the interpretation of Rule 19-301.14. An expanded

Comment [6] at the end of Rule 19-301.4 also is recommended.

The amendments to Rules 19-301.6, 19-301.7, 19-301.8, 19301.9, 19-301.10, 19-301.11, 19-301.12, 19-301.17, 19-301.18,

19-302.3, 19-302.4, 19-303.3, 19-303.7, 19-303.9, 19-305.1, and

19-308.3 are conforming ones.

CATEGORY SIXTEEN: RULES GOVERNING MINORS

(RULES 9-205.3 AND 15-1501)

Rule 9-205.3 deals with custody assessments. A proposed

amendment to that Rule requires that, in a situation where an

adult who allegedly lives in a household with the child cannot

be located, the custody evaluation must contain documentation or

a description of the evaluator’s efforts to locate the adult.

New Rule 15-1501 implements Chapter 175 of the 2022 Laws of

Maryland, which prohibits minors under the age of 17 from

marrying, requires a child who is 17 and wishes to marry to

obtain permission from a Circuit Court to do so, and establishes

procedures for obtaining that permission.

A related amendment to Rule 16-914 adds a petition filed

pursuant to Rule 15-1501 to the list of case records as to which

a custodian ordinarily must deny inspection. Rule 16-914 is

included in Category Seventeen of this Report.

CATEGORY SEVENTEEN: ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS

(RULES 16-914, 16-502, 16-504, 16-934)

Rule 16-914 (g) is amended to require denial of access to a

transcript or audio, video, or digital recording of a court

proceeding in an action to which all documentary case records

are required to be shielded. That issue was referred to the

Committee by Chief Judge John Morrissey. The concern centered

on juvenile proceedings that may be open to the public, unless

closed by the court, but records in those cases are shielded

from public access. The proposed amendment to Rule 16-914 (g)

was included in the Committee’s Two Hundred and Thirteenth

Report, which was remanded to the Committee. The addition to

section (g) of the Rule stands independent of the issues to be

addressed on remand of the other Rules in that Report and,

therefore, is separately resubmitted with this Report.

Conforming amendments are made to Rules 16-502 and 16-504 solely

to add references to Rule 16-914 (g) and update references to

the appellate courts.

Rule 16-934 (a) authorizes a court to permit inspection of

a case record that is not otherwise subject to inspection or

deny inspection of a case record that otherwise would be subject

to inspection if the court finds a compelling reason to do so

and that no substantial harm will come from such an order.

The Committee was advised by Judge Robert Taylor, Jr., of

the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, of a problem that has

arisen when a person who has filed a pleading in a family law

case files a petition to preclude or limit inspection of

confidential or contact information included in the pleading.

What the petitioner often wishes to shield is the petitioner’s

address or other contact information.

Upon the filing of such a petition, the custodian is

required to deny inspection for a period not to exceed five

business days in order to give a judge an opportunity to

consider whether a temporary order should issue.

A temporary shielding order is in effect for up to ten

days, subject to a ten-day extension, but the Committee was

advised that serving the original pleading on the other party

within 20 days often is impracticable. That can lead to the

prospect of contact information becoming available to the

defendant on CaseSearch or elsewhere before the defendant is

served, which often can take much longer than 20 days,

especially if the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown or the

defendant is evading service.

The Committee found merit in these concerns and recommends:

(1)

Immediately upon docketing, a petition to shield or

otherwise limit inspection shall be delivered to a

judge for consideration.

(2)

Without regard to Rule 15-504, the court may enter an

order limiting or precluding inspection if it makes

the findings specified in subsection (d)(2) of the

Rule.

(3)

If the petition to limit inspection is filed prior to

service of the original pleading, the petition to

limit inspection shall be served with the original

pleading, and the court shall hold a hearing on the

petition to preclude or limit inspection within 15

days after the earlier of proof of service of the

original pleading or the first responsive pleading by

the defendant.

(4)

If the petition to preclude or limit inspection is

filed after all parties have been served, the court

shall hold a hearing on the petition within 15 days

after the petition to preclude or limit inspection is

filed.

(5)

If a petition to preclude or limit inspection is filed

in an appellate court and that court determines that

an evidentiary hearing is required, it may refer the

matter to a Circuit Court judge to conduct that

hearing.

(6)

For good cause, a temporary order precluding or

limiting inspection may be extended for up to 30 days.

CATEGORY EIGHTEEN: RULES CHANGES PERTAINING TO CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENTS (RULES 4-345, 6-463, 7-501, 17-601)

The ratification of 2022 Md. Laws, Chapter 45

(Constitutional Amendment - Cannabis – Adult Use and Possession)

triggered enactment of Section 5 of 2022 Md. Laws, Chapter 26

(Cannabis Reform), which added a new section 10-105.3 to Code,

Criminal Procedure Article. The new statute provides a

procedure that permits a person incarcerated for possession of

cannabis to file an application for resentencing. A cross

reference to the new statute is proposed to be added to Rule 4345.

2022 Md. Laws, Chapter 539 (Circuit Court for Howard County

– Judges Sitting as Orphans’ Court), ratified by the voters of

Maryland in the November 2022 general election, added Howard

County to the list of counties where the judges of the Circuit

Court sit as the Orphans’ Court for the county. Amendments to

Rules 6-463, 7-501, and 17-601 conform the Rules to this change.

2021 Md. Laws, Chapters 82 and 83 (Courts of Appeals and

Special Appeals – Renaming), also ratified by the voters in

November, changed the names of the Court of Appeals and the

Court of Special Appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland and

the Appellate Court of Maryland, respectively. The

constitutional amendment also changed the titles of the

individuals who serve on Maryland’s highest Court from “Judge”

to “Justice.” The proposed new Rules and the amendments to

existing Rules that appear in this Report contain the updated

terminology.

Approximately two hundred additional existing Rules have

been identified as requiring amendments to conform them to

Chapters 82 and 83. These Rules, as to which no substantive

changes are proposed, will be transmitted to the Court as the

Committee’s Two Hundred and Fifteenth Report.

CATEGORY NINETEEN:

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED CHANGES

1. Rules 1-322 and 9-303

Rule 1-322 deals with the filing of pleadings and other

papers. The proposed amendment permits a person to directly

file an item by electronic transmission as permitted by Code,

Family Law Article, § 4-505.1. That section, enacted by 2022

Md. Laws, Chapter 335, permits a petitioner associated with

certain domestic violence programs to file a petition for a

temporary protective order electronically. An amendment to Rule

9-303 adds a cross reference to the new statute following

section (a).

2. Rule 20-203

Rule 20-203 deals generally with a clerk’s duties when a

submission is received that does not comply with certain

requirements. In most instances, the clerk issues a deficiency

notice. As noted in the Reporter’s note, however, although the

clerk’s Quick Reference Guide states that, if a timely

correction is filed, it will relate back to the date the

deficient document was filed, the current Rule does not make

that clear. The Major Projects Committee asked for a

clarification.

The proposed amendments are a response to that request. If

the deficiency was the failure of the filer to file both a

redacted and unredacted submission when that is required under

Rule 20-201.1, there is no relation back. If the deficiency was

an incorrect case number, a refiling will relate back if filed

within 14 days after the notice was sent. An amendment to

subsection (d)(2) limits the corrected submission to simply

correcting the deficiency and disallows any other modifications.

3. Cross References

802.

Cross-references are added or amended in Rules 2-647 and 5-

3. “Housekeeping” Amendments

102.

“Housekeeping” amendments are made to Rules 4-340 and 12-

For the further guidance of the Court and the public,

following the proposed new Rules and the proposed amendments to

each of the existing Rules is a Reporter’s note describing in

further detail the reasons for the proposals. We caution that

the Reporter’s notes are not part of the Rules, have not been

debated or approved by the Committee, and are not to be regarded

as any kind of official comment or interpretation. They are

included solely to assist the Court in understanding some of the

reasons for the proposed changes.

Respectfully Submitted,

/ s /

Alan M. Wilner

Chair

AMW:sdm

cc: Gregory Hilton, Clerk

RULE 19-204.1

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS

CHAPTER 200 – ADMISSION TO THE BAR

GENERAL ADMISSION

ADD new Rule 19-204.1, as follows:

Rule 19-204.1.

(a)

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION

Conditional Admission Available

(1) When Permissible

Where an application for admission pursuant to Rule 19203, a Petition for Admission Without Examination pursuant to

Rules 19-215 and 19-216, or an investigation with respect to an

application or petition reveals past or current substance abuse

or mental health conditions that may affect the applicant’s good

moral character and fitness for the practice of law, the Court

may issue an order that the applicant or petitioner be admitted

to the Maryland Bar subject to conditions contained in a

Conditional Admission Agreement with terms satisfactory to the

applicant, the Board, and Bar Counsel.

(2) Conditional Admission Agreement

A Conditional Admission Agreement shall be in writing

and signed by the applicant, the Chair of the Board, Bar

Counsel, and any third-party monitor designated in the

RULE 19-204.1

Agreement.

The Agreement shall: (A) recite the basis for the

Agreement; (B) state that the applicant voluntarily consents to

its terms, agrees to waive the confidentiality of the

applicant’s bar application pursuant to Rule 19-105, and agrees

to pay all expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the

performance and enforcement of the Agreement; (C) state the

particular conditions imposed, including the identity of any

designated third-party monitor, and a time for performance or

completion; and (D) state that all parties to the Agreement

acknowledge that the Agreement will not take effect until it is

approved by the Supreme Court.

(3) Scope of Conditional Admission

Conditions on an applicant's admission to the Maryland

bar, if any, shall be for a specified period, not to exceed two

years from its commencement unless extended as described below.

All conditions imposed shall be tailored to detect recurrence of

behavior related to past or present substance abuse or mental

health condition that could render an applicant unfit to

practice law or pose a risk to clients or the public, and to

promote new or continued treatment, abstinence, or other

support.

Conditions may include supervised practice, substance

abuse treatment and counseling, medical treatment, drug or

alcohol screening, mental health treatment and counseling, or

other terms appropriate under the circumstances.

RULE 19-204.1

(b)

Recommendation for Conditional Admission Originating with

Character Committee

(1) Conditional Admission Proposed by Character Committee

Following a hearing by the Character Committee pursuant

to Rule 19-204 (a)(2) and with the consent of the applicant, the

Character Committee may recommend that the Board offer the

applicant the opportunity to enter into an Agreement for a

recommendation of conditional admission.

(2) Report and Recommendation Prepared by Character

Committee

If the applicant agrees to a recommendation of

conditional admission, the Character Committee shall prepare a

report and recommendation for conditional admission.

The report

and recommendation for conditional admission shall: (A) include

a recitation of the facts supporting the recommendation for

conditional admission; (B) state the recommended conditions; and

Committee.

(3) Report and Recommendation Submitted to Board

The report and recommendation for conditional admission,

together with the transcript of the Character Committee hearing

and all papers relating to the application, shall be sent to the

Board for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 19-204.

RULE 19-204.1

(4) Action by Board on Character Committee Recommendation

for Conditional Admission

(A) Board Agrees with Character Committee

If, after reviewing the Character Committee’s report

and recommendation for conditional admission and accompanying

documents, the Board concurs with the recommendation for

conditional admission, it shall prepare a proposed Conditional

Admission Agreement that complies with subsection (a)(2) of this

Rule.

The Board shall provide a copy of the proposed

Conditional Admission Agreement to the applicant for review and

signature.

(B) Board Disagrees with Recommendation of Character

Committee or Requires Additional Information

If, after reviewing the report and recommendation for

conditional admission and accompanying documents, the Board

disagrees with the recommendation of the Character Committee for

conditional admission or requires additional information before

reaching a recommendation on admission, it promptly shall afford

the applicant the opportunity for a hearing.

The hearing shall

be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Rule

19-204.

After any hearing, the Board may recommend admission

without conditions, conditional admission, or denial of

admission.

If the Board recommends admission with conditions

that differ from the conditions recommended by the Character

RULE 19-204.1

Committee, the Board shall prepare a report and recommendation

for conditional admission that complies with subsection (b)(2)

of this Rule and shall prepare a proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement that complies with subsection (a)(2) of this Rule.

The Board shall provide a copy of the proposed Conditional

Admission Agreement to the applicant for review and signature.

Admission but Recommends Amendments to Conditions

If the Board concurs with the recommendation for

conditional admission but recommends amendments to the

conditions proposed in the Character Committee’s report and

recommendation for conditional admission, it shall notify the

applicant of the proposed amendments.

If the applicant accepts

the proposed amendments, the Board shall draft a proposed

Conditional Admission Agreement that incorporates the amended

terms agreed to by the applicant and send a copy of the proposed

Conditional Admission Agreement to the applicant to be signed

and returned to the Board.

If the applicant rejects the

proposed amendments, the Board shall proceed in accordance with

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

(D) Submission of Agreement to Bar Counsel

Upon receipt of a proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement signed by the applicant, the Board shall send the

RULE 19-204.1

proposed Conditional Admission Agreement to Bar Counsel for

review, pursuant to section (d) of this Rule.

(c)

Recommendation for Conditional Admission Originating with

Board

(1) Following Character Committee Hearing

If, in an application for admission pursuant to Rule 19203 involving past or current substance abuse or a mental health

condition that may affect the applicant’s good moral character

and fitness for the practice of law, the Board concludes, after

reviewing a report and recommendation of the Character Committee

recommending admission of an applicant without conditions or

recommending denial of the application, that the applicant

should be admitted with conditions, it promptly shall afford the

applicant the opportunity for a hearing.

The hearing shall be

conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Rule

19-204.

Following a hearing, the Board may recommend admission

without conditions, recommend denial of the application, or

offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into a Conditional

Admission Agreement.

(2) Petition Pursuant to Rules 19-215 and 19-216

If, in a Petition for Admission Without Examination

pursuant to Rule 19-215 and 19-216 involving past or current

substance abuse or a mental health condition that may affect the

petitioner’s good moral character and fitness for the practice

RULE 19-204.1

of law, the Board concludes, after reviewing the character and

fitness summary prepared by the National Conference of Bar

Examiners and other papers gathered attendant to the Petition,

that the petitioner should be admitted with conditions, the

Board promptly shall afford the petitioner the opportunity for a

hearing on the record made before the Character Committee.

Following a hearing, the Board may offer the petitioner the

opportunity to enter into a Conditional Admission Agreement.

(3) Applicant or Petitioner Consents to Recommendation for

Conditional Admission

If the applicant or petitioner agrees to a

recommendation for conditional admission, the Board shall

prepare a report and recommendation for conditional admission

and a proposed Conditional Admission Agreement that complies

with subsection (a)(2) of this Rule.

The Board shall provide a

copy of the report and recommendation and the proposed

Conditional Admission Agreement to the applicant or petitioner

for review and signature.

(4) Submission of Conditional Agreement to Bar Counsel

Upon receipt of a proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement that has been signed by the applicant or petitioner,

the Board shall send the proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement to Bar Counsel for review pursuant to section (d) of

this Rule.

RULE 19-204.1

(d)

Review by Bar Counsel; Board

(1) Scope of Review by Bar Counsel

Bar Counsel’s review of a proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement shall be limited to determining whether any monitoring

provisions necessary to implement the proposed Conditional

Admission Agreement reasonably can be effectuated and whether a

third-party monitor should be designated in the proposed

Conditional Admission Agreement.

(2) Notice to Board by Bar Counsel

If the proposed Conditional Admission Agreement signed

by the applicant or petitioner contains monitoring provisions

that Bar Counsel believes cannot be effectuated reasonably, Bar

Counsel shall notify the Board.

The notice shall identify each

proposed monitoring provision to which Bar Counsel objects.

Bar

Counsel shall explain each objection and may propose an

alternative monitoring provision that reasonably will accomplish

the goal of the proposed Conditional Admission Agreement.

(3) Action by Board

If the Board concurs with the alternative monitoring

provisions proposed by Bar Counsel, it shall send a revised

proposed Conditional Admission Agreement to the applicant or

petitioner for review.

(4) Action by Applicant or Petitioner

RULE 19-204.1

If the applicant or petitioner agrees to the alternative

monitoring provisions proposed by Bar Counsel, the applicant or

petitioner shall sign the revised proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement and return it to the Board.

Upon receipt of a revised

proposed Conditional Admission Agreement signed by the applicant

or petitioner, the Board shall send the revised proposed

Conditional Admission Agreement to Bar Counsel for review and

approval.

Bar Counsel and any third-party monitor designated by

Bar Counsel shall sign the revised proposed Conditional

Admission Agreement and return it to the Board.

Upon receipt of

a proposed Conditional Admission Agreement signed by the

applicant or petitioner, Bar Counsel, and any third-party

monitor, the Chair of the Board or the Chair’s designee shall

sign the proposed Conditional Admission Agreement on behalf of

the Board.

(5) Rejection of Alternative Monitoring Provision by

Prospective Conditional Admittee or Board

If the applicant or petitioner or the Board objects to an

alternative monitoring provision proposed by Bar Counsel, and if

Bar Counsel cannot determine an alternative monitoring condition

acceptable to the Board and applicant or petitioner, the Board

shall proceed in accordance with subsection (b)(4)(B) of this

Rule.

(e)

Review by Court

RULE 19-204.1

When a proposed Conditional Admission Agreement is

executed by the applicant or petitioner, the Board, Bar Counsel,

and any third-party monitor designated by Bar Counsel, the Board

shall transmit to the Supreme Court the Board’s report and

recommendation for conditional admission, together with the

proposed Conditional Admission Agreement, any notification and

objections of Bar Counsel, the transcripts of all hearings

conducted in the matter, the report and recommendation of the

Character Committee, if any, and all other papers contained in

the bar application or Petition.

(f)

Conditional Admission Order

(1) Entry of Order

Upon review of the Board’s report and recommendation for

conditional admission, the proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement, and the other papers contained in the applicant or

petitioner’s bar admission file, the Court may accept, reject,

or modify the terms of the proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement, except that the Court may not impose monitoring

conditions on Bar Counsel to which Bar Counsel has previously

objected.

If the proposed Conditional Admission Agreement is

accepted in whole or in part or modified, the Supreme Court

shall enter a Conditional Admission Order adopting the

Conditional Admission Agreement in whole, in part, or as

modified.

RULE 19-204.1

(2) Monitoring of Terms of Conditional Admission Agreement

and Conditional Admission Order

Bar Counsel or Bar Counsel’s designee shall monitor

compliance with the Conditional Admission Agreement and

Conditional Admission Order.

(3) Modification of Conditional Agreement or Conditional

Agreement Order

Upon joint motion by Bar Counsel and the attorney, the

Supreme Court may reduce or extend a period of conditional

admission, or otherwise modify an order entered under this Rule.

(4) Revocation or Modification of Conditional Admission

Agreement or Conditional Admission Order upon Default

(A) Declaration of Proposed Default

Bar Counsel may declare a proposed default on a

Conditional Admission Agreement or Conditional Admission Order

if Bar Counsel determines that the attorney willfully

misrepresented or concealed material facts during the

negotiation of the Agreement or failed in a material way to

comply with the terms of the Conditional Admission Agreement or

Conditional Admission Order.

Bar Counsel shall provide written

notice to the attorney of the proposed default and afford the

attorney a reasonable opportunity to refute the determination.

(B) Petition

RULE 19-204.1

If the attorney fails to refute the charge or to offer

an explanation or proposed remedy satisfactory to Bar Counsel,

Bar Counsel shall file a motion to revoke or modify the

Conditional Admission Agreement in the Supreme Court.

Upon

consideration of the motion, the Court may take such action as

it finds appropriate, including issuing a show cause order,

entering an order designating a judge of any circuit court to

conduct a hearing, or entering an order temporarily revoking or

modifying the conditional admission pending further order of the

Court.

The attorney shall comply with the terms of Rule 19741 for suspended and disbarred attorneys and the terms of Rule

19-305.3 concerning law-related employment following revocation.

An attorney whose conditional admission has been revoked may not

reapply for admission until at least two years have passed from

the date of the revocation, unless otherwise ordered by the

Supreme Court.

(D) Completion of Conditional Term

Unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court, all

conditions attached to admission shall be lifted at the

conclusion of a Conditional Admission Order unless Bar Counsel,

no later than 30 days before the conclusion of the conditional

admission, files a written petition to revoke or modify the

RULE 19-204.1

conditional admission order under subsection (f)(4) of this

Rule.

(g)

Authority of Bar Counsel

Nothing in this Rule shall restrict or diminish the

authority of Bar Counsel to act on any complaint filed against a

conditionally admitted attorney.

(h)

Confidentiality

Except as provided in Rule 19-105 (c), a report and

recommendation for conditional admission, any Conditional

Admission Agreement, and all proceedings on conditional

admission are confidential and not subject to public inspection.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

The Court of Appeals requested a draft Rule authorizing

conditional admission of bar applicants. Over the course of

three meetings, the Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee developed

a Rule on conditional admission to present to the Rules

Committee. The Subcommittee declined to make a recommendation

as to whether conditional admission should be implemented in

Maryland. At its October 21, 2022 meeting, the Rules Committee

considered the draft Rule. After robust discussion, the

Committee determined that it does not recommend adopting

conditional admission in Maryland. However, in light of the

request of the Court of Appeals, the Committee elected to

transmit to the Court this draft Rule on conditional admission.

Section (a) provides that conditional admission to the

Maryland Bar is permissible in certain circumstances. The

Office of Bar Counsel is responsible for monitoring compliance

with the terms and conditions of any conditionally admitted

RULE 19-204.1

attorney. The duration of a conditional admission is limited to

not more than two years unless extended pursuant to section (f)

of this Rule.

Section (b) establishes that the Character Committee may,

after the Character Committee hearing and with the consent of

the applicant, recommend to the Board that the applicant be

offered conditional admission to the Maryland Bar. If the

applicant consents to conditional admission, a report and

recommendation for conditional admission is prepared by the

Character Committee and submitted to the Board for review and

action along with the transcript of the Character Committee

hearing. If the Board agrees with the recommendation of the

Character Committee a draft Conditional Admission Agreement is

prepared for review and signature of the parties. If the Board

does not agree with the Character Committee’s recommendations or

requires additional information, a hearing is held by the Board.

After this hearing, the Board may recommend admission with or

without conditions, or denial of admission to the Bar. If the

Board agrees with the Character Committee’s recommendation of

conditional admission, but not with the proposed terms of

admission, the Board will so notify the applicant, and if the

applicant consents to the changes, will provide a revised

conditional amendment for the review and execution of the

parties.

Section (c) covers situations in which the recommendation

for conditional admission originates with the Board, and not the

Character Committee. A recommendation from the Board for

conditional admission can occur following the Character

Committee hearing in applications involving current or past

substance abuse or mental health conditions that may affect the

applicant’s character and fitness to practice law. If the Board

concludes conditional admission should be extended to an

applicant, the applicant must be provided an opportunity for a

hearing subject to the procedures in Rule 19-204. The Board may

also elect to extend conditional admission to a petitioner under

Rules 19-215 and 19-216, subject to providing the petitioner an

opportunity for a hearing. If an applicant or petitioner

consents to conditional admission, a Conditional Admission

Agreement is drafted and sent to Bar Counsel for review.

Section (d) provides for a review of a proposed Conditional

Admission Agreement by Bar Counsel solely to assess whether Bar

RULE 19-204.1

Counsel’s office would have any difficulty monitoring or

otherwise complying with Bar Counsel’s requirements under this

Rule or the Agreement. In the event that Bar Counsel does not

agree with the provisions of a Conditional Admission Agreement,

Bar Counsel is permitted to so notify the Board and suggest

changes to the Agreement. The Board may accept or reject Bar

Counsel’s suggestions, and the applicant or petitioner is also

permitted to ratify or reject any proposed changes to the

Agreement.

Section (e) covers when a proposed Conditional Admission

Agreement and its accompanying documentation is provided to the

Supreme Court for review and subsequent approval or rejection.

Section (f) concerns the Supreme Court’s conditional

admission order. If an order of conditional admission is

entered by the Supreme Court, Bar Counsel or Bar Counsel’s

representative is responsible for monitoring the conditionally

admitted attorney’s compliance with the terms and conditions of

the order and Agreement. The terms and conditions of a

conditional admission order, including a reduction or extension

of the period of conditional admission, may be modified upon

joint motion by Bar Counsel and the conditionally admitted

attorney. Bar Counsel may declare a proposed default of the

conditional admission order in certain circumstances and file a

petition to revoke or modify a conditional admission order after

providing a written notice and a reasonable time to refute the

determination to the conditionally admitted attorney. Unless

otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court, a period of conditional

admission will automatically terminate unless a petition to

revoke or modify the conditional admission is filed by Bar

Counsel at least 30 days prior to the conclusion of the

conditional admission.

Section (g) confirms that Bar Counsel’s authority to

investigate and file disciplinary actions against conditionally

admitted attorneys is not limited in any manner by this Rule.

Section (h) establishes that, except as provided in Rule

19-105, information concerning a conditional admission is

confidential and not open to public inspection.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 100.

Rule 21-101.

APPLICABILITY

Rule 21-102.

DEFINITIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS

(a) Evidentiary Proceeding

(b) Judicial Officer

(d) Non-Evidentiary Proceeding

(e) Participant

(f) Remote Electronic Participation

(g) Remote Location

(h) Video Conferencing

(i) Virtual Jury Trial

Rule 21-103.

DECISION TO ORDER REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

(a) In General

(b) In Particular Proceeding

Rule 21-104. CONDITIONS, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS OF REMOTE

ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

(a) Personal Appearance

(b) Standards

Communications

(d) Method of Remote Electronic Participation

(e) Record

(f) Recording of Proceedings

(g) Public Access

(h) Standards and Requirements for Remote Electronic

Participation

(i) Minimum Requirements

Rule 21-105.

SUBPOENAS

(a) Generally

(b) If Remote Electronic Participation by Witness is

Impracticable

CHAPTER 200.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Rule 21-201. PERMISSIBLE REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

(a) Proceedings Appropriate for Remote Electronic

Participation

(b) Objection by a Party

Witness

Rule 21-202.

VIRTUAL JURY TRIALS

(a) Applicability

(b) Circumstances Warranting Virtual Jury Trial

(d) Jurors

(e) Use of Electronic Devices

(f) Recording Proceedings

CHAPTER 300.

CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS

Rule 21-301. PERMISSIBLE REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS

(a) Proceedings Where Consent Not Required

(b) Objection by a Party

(d) Conditions of Remote Electronic Participation by

Witness

CHAPTER 400. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

AND THE APPELLATE COURT

Rule 21-401. PERMISSIBLE REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN THE

SUPREME COURT AND APPELLATE COURT

(a) Proceedings Appropriate for Remote Electronic

Participation

(b) Objection by a Party

RULE 21-101

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 21-101, as follows:

Rule 21-101.

APPLICABILITY

The Rules in this Title apply to judicial proceedings

conducted in the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, a circuit

court, or the District Court.

Committee note: This Rule is not intended to limit the ability

to conduct alternative dispute resolution proceedings pursuant

to Title 17 or Rule 9-205 by remote electronic participation.

The prescribed conditions, standards, and requirements for

remote electronic participation stated in Title 21 may prove

unnecessary in more informal alternative dispute resolution.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

In September 2021, then-Chief Judge Joseph M. Getty

appointed a Joint Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations

to review the technology and other adaptations used by the

Judiciary during the COVID-19 pandemic and to advise which

innovations should remain in use moving forward. Individuals

serving on the Joint Subcommittee included judges, clerks,

administrators, a magistrate, a commissioner, and professionals

familiar with the technology used throughout the State. On

March 9, 2022, the Joint Subcommittee completed its detailed

report, including recommendations concerning remote proceedings

and events. The Judicial Council accepted all recommendations

from the report. In light of the recommendations in the report,

RULE 21-101

the Rules Committee prepared new Rules, including a new Title

devoted to remote electronic participation in judicial

proceedings, and related amendments.

Proposed new Rule 21-101 addresses the applicability of new

Title 21, clarifying that the Title applies to judicial

proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, a circuit

court, or the District Court. A Committee note states that the

Rule is not intended to limit remote electronic participation in

alternative dispute resolution proceedings.

RULE 21-102

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 21-102, as follows:

Rule 21-102.

DEFINITIONS

In this Title, the following definitions apply except as

otherwise provided or as necessary implication requires:

(a)

Evidentiary Proceeding

“Evidentiary proceeding” means a judicial proceeding at

which evidence will be presented.

(b)

Judicial Officer

“Judicial officer” means a judge, magistrate, District

Court commissioner, auditor, or examiner.

(c)

Judicial Proceeding

“Judicial proceeding” means any proceeding over which a

judicial officer presides.

(d)

Non-Evidentiary Proceeding

“Non-evidentiary proceeding” means a judicial proceeding,

including a conference, presided over by a judicial officer,

where neither testimony nor documentary or physical evidence

will be presented, other than by stipulation by all parties.

RULE 21-102

Committee note: Consideration of documents attached to a motion

or a response to a motion does not, itself, preclude a hearing

on the motion from being deemed a “non-evidentiary proceeding.”

(e)

Participant

“Participant” includes a party, witness, attorney for a

party or witness, judicial officer, and any other individual

entitled to speak or make a presentation at the proceeding.

(f)

Remote Electronic Participation

“Remote electronic participation” means simultaneous

participation in a judicial proceeding or conference from a

remote location by means of telephone, video conferencing, or

other electronic means approved by the court pursuant to the

Rules in this Title.

(g)

Remote Location

“Remote location” means a place other than the courtroom

or other physical location where a judicial proceeding or

conference is to be or ordinarily would be conducted.

For

purposes of this definition, the place where a judicial

proceeding or conference is to be conducted is the place from

which the presiding judicial officer will be participating.

Committee note: Section (g) of this Rule takes account of the

situation in which the presiding judicial officer also will be

participating from a place other than the court facility.

(h)

Video Conferencing

“Video conferencing” means a method of conducting a

proceeding by the use of interactive technology that sends

RULE 21-102

video, voice, and data signals over a transmission circuit so

that two or more individuals or groups can communicate with each

other simultaneously using video monitors and related audio

equipment.

(i)

Virtual Jury Trial

“Virtual jury trial” means a jury trial conducted by

remote electronic participation.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule 2-801

(2023) and is in part new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Rule 21-102 sets forth definitions applicable

to new Title 21. Except for section (b), the definitions are

taken from current Rule 2-801, with slight stylistic or

clarifying changes. Section (b) defines the term “judicial

officer,” used throughout the Title.

RULE 21-103

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 21-103, as follows:

Rule 21-103.

(a)

DECISION TO ORDER REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

In General

(1) In the District Court

An administrative judge of the District Court, by

administrative order posted on the website of the court in that

district, may direct that specific categories of proceedings

eligible for remote electronic participation under Rule 21-201

or Rule 21-301 be conducted, in whole or in part, in that manner

unless otherwise ordered, for good cause, by the presiding judge

in a particular case.

(2) In the Circuit Court

The county administrative judge, by administrative order

entered as part of the court’s case management plan, may direct

that specific categories of proceedings eligible for remote

electronic participation under Rule 21-201 or Rule 21-301 be

conducted, in whole or in part, in that manner unless otherwise

RULE 21-103

ordered, for good cause, by the presiding judge in a particular

case.

(3) In the Appellate Courts

The Chief Judge of the Appellate Court and the Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court, by administrative order posted on

the Judiciary website, may direct that specific categories of

proceedings eligible for remote electronic participation under

Rule 21-401 be conducted, in whole or in part, in that manner

unless otherwise ordered, for good cause.

(b)

In Particular Proceeding

If the court intends to permit or require remote

electronic participation on its own initiative in a proceeding

that is subject to participation under Rule 21-201, Rule 21-301,

or Rule 21-401, but is not subject to the administrative order

entered pursuant to section (a) of this Rule, the court shall

notify the parties in writing of its intention to do so and

afford them a reasonable opportunity to object.

An objection

shall state specific grounds and may be ruled on without a

hearing.

Cross reference:

(b).

See Rules 21-201 (b), 21-301 (b), and 21-401

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule 2-802 (b)

(2023) and is in part new.

RULE 21-103

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Rule 21-103 generally addresses a decision to

order remote electronic participation. The Rule is derived from

current Rule 2-802 (b), with slight changes and additions.

Subsection (a)(1) provides that, in the District Court, an

administrative judge may direct by administrative order that

specific case categories be conducted by remote electronic

participation. Subsection (a)(2) indicates that this authority

belongs to the country administrative judge in the circuit

courts. Subsection (a)(3) states that the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Appellate Court may

enter administrative orders regarding remote electronic

participation in the appellate courts.

Section (b) states that, if a certain proceeding is subject

to remote electronic participation pursuant to Rule 21-201, Rule

21-301, or Rule 21-401 but is not included in the administrative

order, the court must notify the parties if it intends to

conduct the proceeding by remote electronic participation. The

parties must be given an opportunity to object and any objection

must state specific grounds. Section (b) further clarifies that

an objection may be ruled on without a hearing.

A cross reference after section (b) points to Rules 21-201

(b), 21-301 (b), and 21-401 (b) concerning objections to remote

electronic participation in civil proceedings, criminal and

delinquency proceedings, and appellate proceedings,

respectively.

RULE 21-104

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 21-104, as follows:

Rule 21-104.

CONDITIONS, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS OF REMOTE

ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

(a)

Personal Appearance

If, at any time during a proceeding or conference in

which a participant is participating by remote electronic

participation under the Rules in this Title, the court

determines that the personal appearance of the participant is

necessary in order to avoid substantial prejudice to a party or

unfairness of the proceeding, the court shall continue the

matter and require a personal appearance.

(b)

Standards

(1) Generally

Except as otherwise provided by subsection (b)(2) of

this Rule or by other law, remote electronic participation shall

not be permitted unless the process, including connections,

software, and equipment, complies with standards developed by

RULE 21-104

the State Court Administrator and approved by the Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court pursuant to section (h) of this Rule.

(2) Exception

The court may excuse non-compliance with subsection

(b)(1) of this Rule with the consent of the parties or if it

finds that the non-compliance will not cause substantial

prejudice to any of the parties or adversely affect the fairness

of the proceeding.

(c)

Participation of Interpreters; Attorney-Client

Communications

The process, including connections, software, and

equipment, shall permit interpreters to perform their function

and permit confidential communication between attorneys and

their clients during the proceeding.

Cross reference: For provisions concerning the selection,

appointment, and use of interpreters for court proceedings,

including proceedings in which there is remote electronic

participation, see Rule 1-333.

(d)

Method of Remote Electronic Participation

If remote electronic participation is to be permitted in

an evidentiary proceeding, the court, whenever feasible, shall

require that the participation be by video conferencing rather

than mere audio.

(e) Record

RULE 21-104

A record of proceedings under Chapter 200 or 300 of this

Title, whether conducted in whole or in part by remote

electronic means, shall be made in accordance with the

applicable provisions of the Rules in Title 16, Chapter 500.

(f)

Recording of Proceedings

A person may not record or download a recording of the

proceedings except (1) as directed by the court for compliance

with section (e) of this Rule, or (2) with the express consent

of the court and all parties pursuant to the Rules in Title 16,

Chapter 600 or Rule 16-208.

Committee note: Any remote location shall be considered to be

governed by Rule 16-208.

(g)

Public Access

If a proceeding that otherwise would be open to the

public is conducted entirely by remote electronic means, the

court shall ensure that members of the public shall have the

ability to listen to the non-redactable portions of the

proceeding during the course of the proceeding through remote

electronic means.

Committee note: The “non-redactable” portions of a proceeding

are those portions of the proceeding that are not required to be

safeguarded or redacted from an audio recording obtained by a

member of the public in accordance with Rule 16-502 (f) and (g)

or Rule 16-504 (g) and (h). Each court should establish a

process to provide the public access to proceedings conducted

through remote electronic participation.

RULE 21-104

(h)

Standards and Requirements for Remote Electronic

Participation

The State Court Administrator shall develop and present

to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for approval standards

and requirements for the process, connections, software, and

equipment for remote electronic participation in judicial

proceedings.

(i)

Minimum Requirements

The standards for remote electronic participation shall

include the following:

(1) All participants shall be able to communicate with each

other by sight, hearing, or both as relevant.

(2) Unless waived by the participants, all participants

shall be able to observe all physical evidence and exhibits

presented during the proceeding, and the process shall permit

participants to transmit documents as necessary.

(3) Video quality shall be adequate to allow participants

and the fact-finder to observe the demeanor and non-verbal

communications of other participants.

Sound quality shall be

adequate to allow participants to hear clearly what is occurring

where each of the participants is located.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rules 2-804

and 2-805 (2023), and is in part new.

RULE 21-104

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Rule 21-104 addresses the conditions,

standards, and requirements for all remote electronic

participation pursuant to Title 21. The Rule is derived from

current Rule 2-804 addressing conditions on remote electronic

participation and current Rule 2-805 concerning the standards

and requirements for remote electronic participation.

Section (a) is derived from current Rule 2-804 (a), with

stylistic changes. The section provides that the court shall

continue a matter and require personal appearance by a

participant if the court determines that the personal appearance

is necessary to avoid substantial prejudice to any party or

unfairness of the proceeding.

Section (b) is derived from current Rule 2-804 (b), with

stylistic differences. Subsection (b)(1) requires that the

process for remote electronic participation comply with

standards developed by the State Court Administrator and

approved by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Subsection

(b)(2) indicates the limited circumstances that may excuse

noncompliance with subsection (b)(1).

Section (c) and the related cross reference, addressing the

participation of interpreters and confidential attorney-client

communications, are identical to current Rule 2-804 (c) and the

subsequent cross reference.

Section (d), addressing the preference for video

conferencing rather than only audio when using remote electronic

participation in an evidentiary proceeding, is identical to

current Rule 2-804 (d).

Section (e), providing that a record be made of proceedings

conducted in whole or in part by remote electronic means, is

derived in part from current Rule 2-804 (e) and expanded to

apply to proceedings in the District Court as well as the

circuit courts.

Section (f) and the related Committee note contain the

language currently located in Rule 2-804 (f) and the subsequent

Committee note. Section (f) notes that a person may not record

or download a recording of a proceeding conducted by remote

electronic participation except as directed by the court or with

the express consent of the court and all parties as otherwise

permitted by the Rules. The Committee note following section

RULE 21-104

(f) clarifies that remote locations are governed by Rule 16-208

concerning cell phones, other electronic devices, and cameras.

Section (g) is identical to current Rule 2-804 (g)

requiring the court to ensure that members of the public have

the ability to listen to the non-redacted portion of a

proceeding during the course of a proceeding conducted by remote

electronic means. The Committee note following section (g) is

derived from the Committee note at the end of current Rule 2804, but is updated to include a reference to the District Court

Rule pertaining to obtaining an audio recording. While current

Rule 2-804 is only applicable to circuit courts, new Title 21 is

also applicable to the District Court pursuant to proposed new

Rule 21-101.

Sections (h) and (i) are derived from sections (b) and (c),

respectively, of Rule 2-805. The sections address the standards

and requirements for the process, connections, software, and

equipment for remote electronic participation, including minimum

requirements.

RULE 21-105

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 21-105, as follows:

Rule 21-105.

(a)

SUBPOENAS

Generally

In addition to complying with the content requirements of

Rule 2-510, a subpoena issued to require the presence of an

individual at a proceeding to be conducted by remote electronic

participation shall describe the method by which that presence

will be implemented and state that details will be supplied by a

court official prior to the court proceeding.

The party

requesting the subpoena shall provide to the court official in

writing an e-mail address for the individual subject to the

subpoena if the individual subject to the subpoena is to appear

by remote electronic participation.

Unless impracticable, the

court official shall send log-in information to individuals

appearing by remote electronic participation at least five days

before the date of the proceeding.

The subpoena shall direct

the individual subject to the subpoena to contact the party who

requested the subpoena within three days after service if the

RULE 21-105

individual is unable to effect his or her presence by the manner

stated in the subpoena.

(b)

If Remote Electronic Participation by Witness is

Impracticable

If remote electronic participation is impracticable for a

witness, the subpoena may direct the witness to appear at the

courthouse to participate with appropriate assistance from court

personnel.

The party requesting the subpoena shall (1) file a

return of service and (2) notify the clerk in writing at least

three days before the proceeding if a witness was served with a

subpoena pursuant to section (b) of this Rule.

Committee note: The party requesting the subpoena should make

reasonable efforts to secure an e-mail address for the witness

to comply with section (a) of this Rule. However, in the

instance where remote electronic participation cannot be

secured, section (b) requires the witness to physically appear

at the courthouse for assistance in complying with the subpoena.

Source:

This Rule is derived from former Rule 2-807 (d) (2023).

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Rule 21-105 addresses the use of subpoenas for

proceedings conducted by remote electronic participation. This

language was previously contained in Rule 2-807 (d). Because

subpoenas may be utilized in other proceedings conducted by

remote electronic participation and not only in virtual civil

jury trials, the concepts previously contained in Rule 2-807 (d)

have been moved to Chapter 100 of new Title 21 as new Rule 21105.

Section (a) states the general requirements of a subpoena

issued to require the presence of an individual at a proceeding

RULE 21-105

conducted by remote electronic participation. Section (b)

provides that the subpoena may direct a witness to appear at the

courthouse to participate by remote electronic participation

with assistance if independent remote electronic participation

is impracticable. The subsequent Committee note, also taken

from current Rule 2-807, explains that the party requesting the

subpoena should make reasonable efforts to secure an e-mail

address for the witness to comply with section (a) and that, if

remote electronic participation cannot be secured, section (b)

requires the witness to physically appear at the courthouse for

assistance in complying with the subpoena.

RULE 21-201

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 200 – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

ADD new Rule 21-201, as follows:

Rule 21-201.

PERMISSIBLE REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

(a)

Proceedings Appropriate for Remote Electronic

Participation

Subject to the conditions in this Title, any other

reasonable conditions the court may impose in a particular

proceeding, and the resolution of any objection made pursuant to

section (b) of this Rule, a court, on motion or on its own

initiative, may permit or require one, some, or all participants

to participate by means of remote electronic participation in

all or any part of the following types of civil proceedings:

(1) Non-jury uncontested or contested evidentiary or nonevidentiary proceedings;

(2) Guardianship proceedings;

(3) Scheduling, status, and pretrial conferences;

(4) Proceedings in which remote electronic participation is

authorized by other specific law;

RULE 21-201

Cross reference: See Code, Family Law Article, §§ 4-505.1, 5326(c), 9.5-110, and 10-328 and Rule 15-1104 (d).

(5) Virtual jury trials conducted pursuant to Rule 21-202;

and

(6) If the presiding judicial officer and all parties

consent to remote electronic participation, any other proceeding

in a civil action.

(b)

Objection by a Party

Upon objection by a party in writing or on the record,

the court, in determining whether to require remote electronic

participation, shall consider and make findings in writing or on

the record regarding whether remote electronic participation

would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to a party or

adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

(c)

Conditions of Remote Electronic Participation by Witness

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, conditions of

remote electronic participation in civil proceedings shall

include ensuring that a witness:

(1) is alone in a secure room when testifying, and, upon

request, shares the surroundings to demonstrate compliance;

Committee note: Subsection (c)(1) of this Rule aims to mirror

the separation between a witness and an attorney for the witness

while the witness is providing testimony. This subsection does

not prohibit remote electronic participation in a proceeding by

an attorney for a witness. Nothing in this Rule shall preclude

accommodations for a child witness or a witness who otherwise

needs assistance when testifying.

RULE 21-201

(2) is not being coached in any way;

(3) is not referring to any documents, notes, or other

materials while testifying, unless permitted by the court;

(4) is not exchanging text messages, e-mails, or in any way

communicating with any third parties while testifying;

(5) is not recording the proceeding; and

(6) is not using any electronic devices other than a device

necessary to facilitate the remote electronic participation.

Cross reference: For provisions concerning testimony taken by

telephone of a witness in a civil case in the District Court,

see Rule 3-513.

Committee note: Section (c) of this Rule is not intended to

limit any other reasonable conditions that the court may impose

for remote electronic participation or to preclude the court

from authorizing an accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Rule 1-332.

The Rules Committee endorses two caveats stated in the

March 9, 2022 Report of the Judicial Council’s Joint

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations:

(1) Remote proceedings generally are not recommended when

the finder of fact needs to assess the credibility of evidence

but may be appropriate when the parties consent or the case

needs to be heard on an expedited basis and remote proceedings

will facilitate the participation of individuals who would have

difficulty attending in person; and

(2) Where a judicial officer has discretion to hold or

decline to hold a remote proceeding, the judicial officer should

consider (i) the preference of the parties, (ii) whether the

proceeding will involve contested evidence, (iii) whether the

finder of fact will need to assess witness credibility, (iv) the

availability of participants who will be affected by the

decision, (v) possible coaching or intimidation of witnesses

appearing remotely, (vi) access by witnesses to technology and

connectivity that would allow participation, (vii) the length

and complexity of the proceeding, (viii) the burden on the

RULE 21-201

parties and the court, (ix) whether remote participation will

cause substantial prejudice to a party or affect the fairness of

the proceeding, and (x) any other factors the judicial officer

considers relevant.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from recommendations made

in the March 9, 2022 Report of the Judicial Council’s Joint

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations and from former

Rules 2-802, 2-803, and 2-806 (2023), and is in part new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 21-201 addresses remote electronic participation in

civil proceedings. Section (a) enumerates the types of

proceedings considered appropriate for remote electronic

participation, stating that the court may permit or require one,

some, or all participants to participate by means of remote

electronic participation in any or part of the proceeding.

Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3) list specific case types or

proceedings that are appropriate for remote electronic

participation. These specific types of proceedings were

included in the Report of the Joint Subcommittee on Post-COVID

Judicial Operations as either (1) presumptively appropriate for

remote proceedings under normal operating conditions at the

discretion of the presiding judicial officer or (2)

presumptively appropriate for remote proceedings under normal

operating conditions such that courts may consider holding such

proceedings remotely by default, subject to exceptions, or

making remote proceedings an available option for parties to

request.

Subsection (a)(4) incorporates the concepts of current Rule

2-806, acknowledging that other law may permit remote electronic

participation. The cross reference following subsection (a)(4)

cites several examples, including: Code, Family Law Article, §

4-505.1 permitting a hearing by video conferencing on an

electronically filed petition for a temporary protective order;

Code, Family Law Article, § 5-326(c) authorizing video

conferencing to consult with a child for guardianship review

hearings; Code, Family Law Article, §§ 9.5-110 and 10-328

permitting testimony of out-of-State witnesses to be taken in

another State in cases concerning the Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and the Uniform Interstate

Family Support Act, respectively; and Rule 15-1104 (d)

RULE 21-201

permitting remote electronic participation in public or

catastrophic emergency hearings.

Subsection (a)(5) cites to proposed Rule 21-202, which

permits virtual civil jury trials when (1) the parties and the

county administrative judge consent to a virtual jury trial or

(2) the court orders a virtual trial due to a state of emergency

declared by the Governor and the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court. Subsection (a)(6) serves as a catch-all for other civil

proceedings that are not covered by subsections (a)(1) through

(a)(5), permitting remote electronic participation in an civil

action when the presiding judicial officer and all parties

consent to the remote electronic participation.

Section (b) sets forth the process by which a party may

object to conducting a proceeding by remote electronic

participation. The court must make findings in writing or on

the record regarding whether remote electronic participation

would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to any party or

adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

Section (c) lists certain conditions for remote electronic

participation by a witness, including requirements for the

location and activities of the witness while providing

testimony. The section addresses common concerns about possible

influences on a witness appearing by remote electronic

participation. A Committee note after subsection (c)(1)

acknowledges that a witness may be represented by an attorney

when testifying in a proceeding. Although the witness must

testify alone in a secure room, the attorney for the witness may

still be virtually present at the proceeding. The Committee

note also clarifies that the Rule is not intended to preclude

accommodations for the testimony of a child or of a witness

requiring assistance to testify. A cross reference after

subsection (c)(6) points to Rule 3-513 concerning the testimony

of a witness by telephone in a District Court civil case.

A Committee note following section (c) clarifies that the

section is not intended to limit any other reasonable conditions

that the court may impose or accommodations that may be

permitted for a testifying witness. Section (c) presents

minimum conditions, not an exhaustive list of possible

conditions, for testimony by remote electronic participation.

The Committee note also cites and endorses two important caveats

taken directly from the March 9, 2022 Report of the Joint

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations.

RULE 21-202

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 – REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 200 – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

ADD new Rule 21-202, as follows:

Rule 21-202.

(a)

VIRTUAL JURY TRIALS

Applicability

(1) This Rule

This Rule applies to civil actions that the county's

case management plan provides are eligible for a virtual jury

trial.

Cross reference:

See Rule 16-302 (b).

(2) Other Rules

Except to the extent of any inconsistency with this

Rule, the other applicable Maryland Rules apply.

To the extent

there is any inconsistency, this Rule prevails.

(b)

Circumstances Warranting Virtual Jury Trial

In any case where (1) the parties consent to and the

county administrative judge approves a virtual jury trial or (2)

the court orders a virtual trial due to a state of emergency

declared by the Governor and the Chief Justice of the Supreme

RULE 21-202

Court, the trial shall proceed through remote video

conferencing.

Committee note: The need for this Rule was a consequence of the

COVID-19 pandemic. While not limited to pandemics or other

natural disasters, the invocation of this Rule should be

considered only in the most dire and emergent circumstances.

The Rule is not intended to substitute trial processes on

virtual platforms for trials conducted in courthouses where

participants can be physically present in a designated location.

Trial judges are reminded to employ virtual jury trials as a

procedure of last resort and to preserve the time-honored

process of public trials with full and unfettered opportunity of

parties to participate in the proceedings in person, except as

otherwise permitted elsewhere in these Rules.

(c)

Pretrial Proceedings

(1) Scheduling Conference

If the court anticipates conducting a virtual jury trial

in an action, or upon motion of a party, the court shall conduct

a scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 2-504.1.

At the

scheduling conference, any party may note an objection to a

virtual jury trial and provide reasons for the objection.

The

court shall consider the objection prior to determining whether

a virtual jury trial will be held.

(2) Pretrial Conference

(A) Timing

The court shall conduct a pretrial conference no later

than ten days before a virtual jury trial.

(B) Prior to Pretrial Conference

RULE 21-202

To the extent practicable, all proposed exhibits,

other than rebuttal and impeachment exhibits, and requested jury

selection questions shall be filed with the court and served on

the other parties at least ten days before the pretrial

conference.

To the extent practicable, any objections to the

admissibility of an exhibit shall be filed and served within

three days after service of the proposed exhibit.

In addition to the matters listed in Rule 2-504.2 (b),

the court shall consider the following matters in preparation

for a virtual jury trial:

(i) confirmation that each attorney, party, and witness

has the technology required and the ability to use the

technology to participate;

Committee note: The court should direct all participants to

familiarize themselves with the video conferencing software,

exhibit presentation, use of breakout rooms, bench conferences,

and other aspects of the virtual trial.

(ii) appropriate virtual backgrounds to be displayed by

each attorney, party, and witness at all times;

(iii) resolution of any objections raised pursuant to

subsection (c)(2)(B) of this Rule;

(iv) conversion of exhibits into an electronically

viewable format;

RULE 21-202

(v) identification and resolution of any objections to

depositions under Rule 2-419 (d);

(vi) additional instructions to be given pertaining to

the remote nature of the jury trial;

Committee note: Instructions should include guidelines for

participating in the virtual proceedings, such as a requirement

that participants remain visible on camera throughout the

entirety of the hearing unless otherwise directed by the court,

background noises and other distractions should be minimized,

participants may only use their technological device to attend

the proceeding, and all other technological devices must be

powered off or set on silent mode.

(vii) the method for providing jury instructions to

jurors, such as through e-mail or by a court-approved secure

file sharing service;

(viii) a trial schedule designed to minimize the fatigue

associated with online participation in a virtual trial; and

Committee note: A trial schedule designed to minimize fatigue

may include limiting morning and afternoon sessions to three

hours and scheduling periodic breaks. The judge and attorneys

should make a reasonable effort to agree on the schedule, but if

no agreement is reached, the court shall determine an

appropriate trial schedule.

(ix) any other matters that can be resolved prior to

trial to minimize sidebar conferences or otherwise expedite the

trial proceedings.

(D) Pretrial Conference Order

Following the pretrial conference, the court shall

enter a Pretrial Conference Order reciting the actions taken and

stipulations made.

The Order shall control the subsequent

RULE 21-202

proceedings and may be modified only to prevent manifest

injustice.

(d)

Jurors

(1) Jury Selection

(A) Juror Qualification Forms

A juror qualification form may be used to collect

information regarding a juror's ability to participate in a

virtual jury trial.

Rule 16-309 (b).

The contents of the form shall comply with

Except as provided in Rule 2-512 (c),

responses to juror qualification forms shall remain

confidential.

(B) Examination

Jury selection may occur by video conferencing.

advance of the examination, case-specific written questionnaires

may be used to elicit appropriate information.

The parties

shall have access to the jurors' responses to case-specific

written questionnaires in advance of the examination to expedite

the selection process.

In addition to the alternates ordinarily selected for

an in-person jury trial, the court may select up to two

additional alternate jurors to serve on the jury panel.

Committee note: The additional alternate jurors permitted by

subsection (d)(1)(C) of this Rule account for jurors who

experience technical difficulties that could prevent them from

RULE 21-202

continuing with the trial or who develop a health-related issue

that requires them to be excused.

(2) Jury Instructions

(A) The court shall provide empaneled jurors with

instructions and training on the use of remote technology and

the protocol for informing the court if they experience

technical problems during the trial.

Designated staff shall be

made available to monitor and address technical issues.

Committee note: The court's instructions for contacting

designated court staff to convey technical problems or other

issues during trial may include instructions for the jurors to

contact staff by phone call, text messaging, e-mail, or through

video conferencing.

(B) At the commencement of trial, the court shall provide

specific instructions and information to the jury that pertain

to the remote format of the trial.

Committee note: The trial judge should provide an enhanced jury

charge that emphasizes the need for jurors to give their full

attention to the trial and to maintain the secrecy of jury

deliberations.

Rule 2-520, the court shall issue instructions to the jury by

video conferencing.

At the court's discretion, jury

instructions may be made available to jurors during

deliberations in a digital viewing format.

(3) Jurors' Notes

Jurors shall be permitted to take notes but shall be

instructed to destroy or delete those notes at the conclusion of

RULE 21-202

the trial.

A juror's notes may not be reviewed by or relied

upon for any purpose by any person other than the author.

Cross reference: See Rule 2-521 (a) regarding jurors' notes

during an in-person trial.

(4) Juror Review of Documents

The court shall arrange for documentary evidence and a

verdict sheet to be converted into a digital viewing format that

is secure and available for juror access during deliberations.

(5) Deliberations

Jurors shall deliberate using the video conferencing

software used to participate during the virtual jury trial.

For

deliberations, jurors shall be placed in a separate virtual

breakout room, and no one other than the jurors shall be allowed

access to the virtual deliberation room.

The court shall ensure

that jury deliberations are not recorded.

Once a verdict has

been reached, the jury foreperson shall notify the designated

officer of the court, who will then notify the judge.

(6) Jury Verdict

Once a verdict has been reached, the jury shall be moved

from the separate virtual breakout room to the virtual courtroom

to return the verdict.

discharged.

The jury shall be polled before it is

If the poll discloses that the jury, or stated

majority, has not concurred in the verdict, the court may direct

RULE 21-202

the jury to retire for further deliberations or may discharge

the jury.

Committee note: Although for in-person jury trials, Rule 2-522

(b)(4) requires polling of the jury “on request of a party or on

the court's own initiative,” subsection (d)(6) of this Rule

requires polling of the jury for all virtual jury trials in

which a verdict has been reached.

(7) Communication with Court

All communications by a juror shall be made to the court

employee designated by the judge to receive them.

Upon receipt

of a communication from the jury or a juror, the designated

employee promptly shall notify the judge of the communication.

If the judge determines that the communication pertains to the

action, the judge promptly, and before responding to the

communication, shall direct that the parties be notified of the

communication and invite and consider, on the record, the

parties' positions on any response.

Cross reference: See Rule 2-521 (d) for communications with the

jury during an in-person trial.

(e)

Use of Electronic Devices

In accordance with the standards and requirements set

forth in Rule 21-104, court personnel, parties to a case, and

witnesses may use technological equipment and video conferencing

software to facilitate a virtual jury trial.

A juror may use an

electronic device with audio and video capabilities and video

conferencing software to participate in the virtual jury trial.

RULE 21-202

A juror may not use the electronic device for any purpose other

than participating in the virtual jury trial while the trial is

in session.

Except during periods specified by the judge or as

otherwise permitted by this Rule, other electronic devices shall

be turned off or set on silent mode while the trial is in

session.

Committee note: An example of a permitted use of an electronic

device that otherwise is required to be turned off or set on

silent mode is the use of the juror's cell phone to contact

designated court staff regarding a technical problem with the

video conferencing software.

(f)

Recording Proceedings

A person may not record, download, or transmit an audio,

audio-video, video, or still image of proceedings under this

Rule except as directed by the court for compliance with Rule

21-104 (e) and (f).

Source:

This Rule is derived from former Rule 2-807 (2023).

REPORTER’S NOTE

New Rule 21-202 concerning virtual civil jury trials is

derived from current Rule 2-807, with some stylistic,

clarifying, and conforming changes.

Rule 21-202 (a) addresses the applicability of the Rule and

is derived from current Rule 2-807 (a). Section (b) of Rule 21202 and the subsequent Committee note are derived from current

Rule 2-807 (b) and the Committee note after the section,

describing the circumstances warranting a virtual civil jury

trial.

RULE 21-202

Proposed Rule 21-202 (c) is identical to current Rule 2-807

(c), with a few changes. Proposed language is added to

subsection (c)(2)(C)(i) requiring inquiry into whether, in

addition to having the required technology, each attorney,

party, and witness has the ability to use the technology to

participate. The phrase “of this Rule” is added in subsection

(c)(2)(C)(iii). Additional language in the Committee note after

subsection (c)(2)(C)(vi) clarifies that instructions should

include a requirement that participants remain visible on camera

unless otherwise directed by the court and that devices may be

on silent mode. Stylistic changes from Rule 2-807 are also

proposed in subsection (c)(2)(C)(vii) and in the Committee note

following subsection (c)(2)(C)(xiii).

Section (d) and the related Committee notes are derived

from current Rule 2-807 (e) and Committee notes concerning

jurors in virtual jury trials. An additional sentence added to

subsection (d)(5) clarifies that jury deliberations are not

recorded. Internal references have been updated in the

Committee notes following subsections (d)(1)(C) and (d)(6).

Section (e) and the related Committee note are identical to

current Rule 2-807 (f) and the subsequent Committee note, with

updated internal references. Similarly, section (f) is derived

from current Rule 2-807 (g), with updated internal references.

RULE 21-301

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 300 – CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS

ADD new Rule 21-301, as follows:

Rule 21-301.

PERMISSIBLE REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS

(a)

Proceedings Where Consent Not Required

Subject to the conditions in this Title, any other

reasonable conditions the court may impose in a particular

proceeding, and resolution of any objection made pursuant to

section (b) of this Rule, the court, on motion or on its own

initiative, may permit or require one, some, or all participants

to participate by means of remote electronic participation in

all or any part of the following types of criminal and

delinquency proceedings:

(1) plea agreements not likely to result in incarceration or

where the defendant already is incarcerated;

(2) discharge-of-counsel hearings with the defendant’s

knowing and voluntary consent;

RULE 21-301

(3) proceedings involving Rule 4-271 (a)(1) or the

application of State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310 (1979) or its

progeny;

(4) initial appearances for detained defendants;

(5) appearances pursuant to bench warrants;

(6) bail reviews;

(7) expungement hearings;

(8) juvenile detention hearings where the respondent already

is detained;

(9) motions hearings not involving the presentation of

evidence;

(10) hearings concerning parking citations;

(11) hearings concerning non-incarcerable traffic citations

for which the law permits, but does not require, that the

defendant appear;

Cross reference: See Code, Transportation Article, § 16-303(h).

(12) sentencings;

(13) three-judge panel-sentencing reviews; and

(14) proceedings in which remote electronic participation is

authorized by other specific law.

Cross reference:

303.

(b)

See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-

Objection by a Party

RULE 21-301

Upon objection by a party in writing or on the record,

the court, in determining whether to require remote electronic

participation, shall consider and make findings in writing or on

the record regarding whether remote electronic participation

would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to a party or

adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

(c)

Other Criminal and Delinquency Proceedings by Consent

(1) Generally

Subject to the conditions in this Title and any other

reasonable conditions the court may impose in a particular case,

one, some, or all participants may participate by remote

electronic participation in all or any part of any other

proceeding in which the presiding judicial officer and all

parties consent to remote electronic participation.

(2) Consent by Defendant or Respondent

The court may not accept the consent of a defendant or

respondent to waive an in-person proceeding pursuant to

subsection (c)(1) of this Rule unless, after an examination of

the defendant or respondent in person or by remote electronic

participation on the record in open court conducted by the

court, the State's Attorney, the attorney for the defendant or

respondent, or any combination thereof, the court determines and

announces on the record that the consent is made knowingly and

voluntarily.

The consent of a defendant or respondent pursuant

RULE 21-301

to this subsection is effective only for the specified

proceeding and not for any subsequent proceedings.

(d)

Conditions of Remote Electronic Participation by Witness

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, conditions of

remote electronic participation in criminal and delinquency

proceedings shall include ensuring that a witness:

(1) is alone in a secure room when testifying, and, upon

request, shares the surroundings to demonstrate compliance;

Committee note: Subsection (d)(1) of this Rule aims to mirror

the separation between a witness and an attorney for the witness

while the witness is providing testimony. This subsection does

not prohibit remote electronic participation in a proceeding by

an attorney for a witness. Nothing in this Rule shall preclude

accommodations for a child witness or a witness who otherwise

needs assistance when testifying.

(2) is not being coached in any way;

(3) is not referring to any documents, notes, or other

materials while testifying, unless permitted by the court;

(4) is not exchanging text messages, e-mail, or in any way

communicating with any third parties while testifying;

(5) is not recording the proceeding; and

(6) is not using any electronic devices other than a device

necessary to facilitate the remote electronic participation.

Committee note: Section (d) of this Rule is not intended to

limit any other reasonable conditions that the court may impose

for remote electronic participation or to preclude the court

from authorizing an accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and Rule 1-332.

RULE 21-301

The Rules Committee endorses two caveats stated in the

March 9, 2022 Report of the Judicial Council’s Joint

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations:

(1) Remote proceedings generally are not recommended when

the finder of fact needs to assess the credibility of evidence

but may be appropriate when the parties consent or the case

needs to be heard on an expedited basis and remote proceedings

will facilitate the participation of individuals who would have

difficulty attending in person; and

(2) Where a judicial officer has discretion to hold or

decline to hold a remote proceeding, the judicial officer should

consider (i) the preference of the parties, (ii) whether the

proceeding will involve contested evidence, (iii) whether the

finder of fact will need to assess witness credibility, (iv) the

availability of participants who will be affected by the

decision, (v) possible coaching or intimidation of witnesses

appearing remotely, (vi) access by witnesses to technology and

connectivity that would allow participation, (vii) the length

and complexity of the proceeding, (viii) the burden on the

parties and the court, (ix) whether remote participation will

cause substantial prejudice to a party or affect the fairness of

the proceeding, (x) a defendant’s or juvenile respondent’s right

of confrontation, and (xi) any other factors the judicial

officer considers relevant.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from recommendations made

in the March 9, 2022 Report of the Judicial Council’s Joint

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations and from former

Rules 2-802 and 2-803 (2023), and is in part new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 21-301 addresses remote electronic participation in

criminal and delinquency proceedings. Section (a) enumerates

the types of proceedings considered appropriate for remote

electronic participation, stating that the court may permit or

require one, some, or all participants to participate by means

of remote electronic participation in any or part of the

proceeding. Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(13) list specific

case types or proceedings that are appropriate for remote

electronic participation. These specific types of proceedings

were included in the March 9, 2022 Report of the Joint

RULE 21-301

Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations as either (1)

presumptively appropriate for remote proceedings under normal

operating conditions at the discretion of the presiding judicial

officer or (2) presumptively appropriate for remote proceedings

under normal operating conditions such that courts may consider

holding such proceedings remotely by default, subject to

exceptions, or making remote proceedings an available option for

parties to request. The cross reference following subsection

(a)(11) cites to a relevant provision of the Transportation

Article of the Code. Subsection (a)(14) acknowledges that other

law may permit remote electronic participation in a criminal or

delinquency proceeding. The cross reference following

subsection (a)(14) cites to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §

11-303 permitting testimony of a child victim by closed circuit

television as an example of remote electronic participation

permitted by other law.

Section (b) sets forth the process by which a party may

object to conducting a proceeding by remote electronic

participation. The court must make findings in writing or on

the record regarding whether remote electronic participation

would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to a party or

adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

Section (c) addresses other criminal and delinquency

proceedings conducted by remote electronic participation by

consent. The Joint Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial

Operations concluded that criminal non-jury evidentiary

proceedings should be treated as presumptively inappropriate for

remote proceedings under normal operating conditions, subject to

case-by-case exceptions, but recommended that the Rules

Committee consider a Rule permitting remote electronic

participation in certain criminal non-jury evidentiary

proceedings upon knowing and voluntary consent and appropriate

waivers from defendants. Subsection (c)(1) states generally

that participants may utilize remote electronic participation in

a proceeding when the presiding judicial officer and all parties

consent. Subsection (c)(2) sets forth specific requirements for

the court’s acceptance of the knowing and voluntary consent of a

defendant or respondent. The subsection clarifies that a

defendant’s or respondent’s consent is effective only for the

specific proceeding and not for a subsequent proceeding.

Section (d) lists certain conditions for remote electronic

participation by a witness, including requirements for the

location and activities of the witness while providing

testimony. The section addresses common concerns about possible

RULE 21-301

influences on a witness appearing by remote electronic

participation. A Committee note after subsection (d)(1)

acknowledges that a witness may be represented by an attorney

when testifying in a proceeding. Although the witness must

testify alone in a secure room, the attorney for the witness may

still be virtually present at the proceeding. The Committee note

also explains that the Rule is not intended to preclude

accommodations for the testimony of a child or of a witness

requiring assistance to testify.

A Committee note following section (d) clarifies that the

section is not intended to limit any other reasonable conditions

that the court may impose or accommodations that may be

permitted for a testifying witness. Section (d) presents

minimum conditions, not an exhaustive list of possible

conditions, for testimony by remote electronic participation.

The Committee note also cites and endorses two important caveats

taken directly from the Report of the Joint Subcommittee on

Post-COVID Judicial Operations.

RULE 21-401

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 21 - REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 400 – PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT AND APPELLATE

COURT

ADD new Rule 21-401, as follows:

Rule 21-401.

PERMISSIBLE REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION IN THE

SUPREME COURT AND APPELLATE COURT

(a)

Proceedings Appropriate for Remote Electronic

Participation

Subject to the conditions in this Title, any other

reasonable conditions imposed in a particular proceeding, and

the determination of any objection made pursuant to section (b)

of this Rule, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief

Judge of the Appellate Court, or either’s designee, on motion or

on the initiative of the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, or either’s

designee, may permit or require one, some, or all participants

to participate by means of remote electronic participation in

all or any part of a proceeding in the appellate court.

(b)

Objection by a Party

Upon objection by a party in writing or on the record,

the Chief Justice or Chief Judge of the appropriate appellate

RULE 21-401

court, in determining whether to require remote electronic

participation, shall consider and make findings in writing or on

the record regarding whether remote electronic participation

would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to a party or

adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Rule 21-401 addresses permissible remote

electronic proceedings in the appellate courts.

Section (a) provides that the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court, the Chief Judge of the Appellate Court, or a designee of

a Chief Justice or Chief Judge of an appellate court may direct

that a proceeding be conducted by remote electronic

participation.

Section (b) sets forth the process by which a party may

object to conducting a proceeding by remote electronic

participation. The court must make findings in writing or on

the record regarding whether remote electronic participation

would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to a party or

adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

RULE 17-106

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

ADD new Rule 17-106, as follows:

Rule 17-106.

(a)

REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

Definition

In this Rule, “remote electronic participation” means

simultaneous participation in alternative dispute resolution by

means of telephone, video conferencing, or other electronic

means from a place other than the physical location where the

ADR is to be or ordinarily would be conducted.

(b)

Generally

Any or all portions of an alternative dispute resolution

or a prehearing conference may be in person or conducted by

remote electronic participation.

The ADR practitioner or ADR

organization, in consultation with the parties, shall determine

the format of an ADR.

In making that determination, the ADR

practitioner or ADR organization shall consider (1) the

accessibility of the format to each party, (2) the technological

competency of the ADR practitioner, (3) the ability of the

format to provide for confidentiality of data and

communications, (4) party preference, and (5) whether the format

RULE 17-106

can be used in a manner that does not affect substantially the

fairness of the proceeding.

(c)

Participation of Interpreters; Attorney-Client

Communications

A remote electronic participation process of an

alternative dispute resolution or a prehearing conference shall

permit interpreters to perform their function and permit

confidential communication between attorneys and their clients

during the alternative dispute resolution.

Cross reference: See Rule 1-333 for provisions concerning the

selection, appointment, and use of an interpreter for a

“proceeding” as defined in section (a) of that Rule, including a

proceeding in which there is remote electronic participation.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Proposed new Title 21 addresses remote electronic

participation in judicial proceedings. As noted in the March 9,

2022 Report of the Joint Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial

Operations, alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) may also be

conducted by remote electronic participation. However, the

Rules proposed in new Title 21 may contain requirements or

conditions that are not applicable to more informal ADR.

Accordingly, proposed amendments to Title 17 clarify the use of

remote electronic participation in ADR.

New Rule 17-106 sets forth the general use of and

requirements for remote electronic participation in ADR.

Section (a) defines “remote electronic participation.”

Section (b) states that any and all portions of an

alternative dispute resolution or prehearing conference may be

RULE 17-106

in person or conducted by remote electronic participation. The

section provides that the ADR practitioner or ADR organization

determines the format of the ADR in consultation with the

parties. The section sets forth several factors that the ADR

practitioner or ADR organization shall consider, derived from

the Online Dispute Resolution Standards developed by the

National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution and the

International Council for Online Dispute Resolution.

Section (c) requires that the remote electronic

participation process allow for interpreters and confidential

communications between attorneys and clients. The requirements

stated in section (c) are also found in proposed new Title 21.

A cross reference following section (c) notes that Rule 1-333

contains provisions concerning the selection, appointment, and

use of an interpreter.

RULE 9-205

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 9 – FAMILY LAW ACTIONS

CHAPTER 200 – DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT, AND

CHILD CUSTODY

AMEND Rule 9-205 by adding new section (g), by re-lettering

subsequent sections, and by updating internal references, as

follows:

Rule 9-205.

MEDIATION OF CHILD CUSTODY AND VISTATION DISPUTES

. . .

(d)

Court Designation of Mediator

(1) In an order referring a matter to mediation, the court

shall:

(A) designate a mediator from a list of qualified

mediators approved by the court;

(B) if the court has a unit of court mediators that

provides child access mediation services, direct that unit to

select a qualified mediator; or

to select a qualified mediator.

(2) If the referral is to a fee-for-service mediation, the

order shall specify the hourly rate that the mediator may charge

RULE 9-205

for mediation in the action, which may not exceed the maximum

stated in the applicable fee schedule.

(3) A mediator selected pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(B) or

(d)(1)(C) of this Rule has the status of a court-designated

mediator.

(4) In designating a mediator, the court is not required to

choose at random or in any particular order.

The court should

endeavor to use the services of as many qualified mediators as

practicable, but the court may consider, in light of the issues

and circumstances presented by the action or the parties, any

special training, background, experience, expertise, or

temperament of the available prospective designees.

(5) The parties may request to substitute for the courtdesignated mediator another mediator who has the qualifications

set forth in Rule 17-205 (a)(1), (2), (3), and (6) and

subsection (c)(2) of this Rule, whether or not the mediator's

name is on the court's list, by filing with the court no later

than 15 days after service of the order of referral to mediation

a Request to Substitute Mediator.

(A) The Request to Substitute Mediator shall be

substantially in the following form:

[Caption of Case]

REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE MEDIATOR AND SELECTION OF MEDIATOR BY

STIPULATION

RULE 9-205

We agree to attend mediation proceedings pursuant to Rule 9-205

conducted by

_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________,

(Name, address, and telephone number of

mediator)

and we have made payment arrangements with the mediator.

request that the court substitute this mediator for the mediator

designated by the court.

________________________________________________________________

(Signature of Plaintiff)

(Signature of Defendant)

________________________________________________________________

(Signature of Plaintiff's

(Signature of Defendant's

Attorney, if any)

I, ____________________________________________________________,

(Name of Mediator)

agree to conduct mediation proceedings in the above-captioned

case in accordance with Rule 9-205 (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and

(j), and (k).

I solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that I have the

qualifications prescribed by Rule 9-205 (d)(5).

________________________________________________________________

Signature of Mediator

(B) If the Request to Substitute Mediator is timely filed,

the court shall enter an order striking the original designation

and substituting the individual selected by the parties to

conduct the mediation, unless the court determines after notice

RULE 9-205

and opportunity to be heard that the individual does not have

the qualifications prescribed by subsection (d)(5) of this Rule.

If no Request to Substitute Mediator is timely filed, the

mediator shall be the court-designated mediator.

substituted by the court pursuant to subsection (d)(5)(B) of

this Rule is not subject to the fee schedule provided for in

section (j)(l) of this Rule and Rule 17-208 while conducting

mediation proceedings pursuant to the stipulation and

designation, but shall comply with all other obligations of a

court-designated mediator.

Committee note: Nothing in this Rule or the Rules in Title 17

prohibits the parties from selecting any individual, regardless

of qualifications, to assist them in the resolution of issues by

participating in ADR that is not court-ordered.

(e)

Role of Mediator

The role of a mediator designated by the court or agreed

upon by the parties is as set forth in Rule 17-103.

(f)

Confidentiality

Confidentiality of mediation communications under this

Rule is governed by Rule 17-105.

Cross reference: For the definition of “mediation

communication,” see Rule 17-102 (h).

Committee note: By the incorporation of Rule 17-105 by

reference in this Rule, the intent is that the provisions of the

Maryland Mediation Confidentiality Act are inapplicable to

mediations under Rule 9-205. See Code, Courts Article, § 31802(b)(1).

RULE 9-205

(g)

Format of Mediation

The format of mediation shall be determined by the ADR

practitioner or ADR organization in accordance with the

provisions of Rule 17-106 (b).

(g)(h)

Scope of Mediation; Restriction on Fee Increase

(1) The court's initial order may require the parties to

attend a maximum of four hours in not more than two mediation

sessions.

For good cause and upon the recommendation of the

mediator, the court may order up to four additional hours.

The

parties, by agreement, may extend the mediation beyond the

number of hours stated in the initial or any subsequent order.

Committee note: Although the parties, without further order of

court, may extend the mediation, an amendment to the time

requirements contained in a scheduling order may be made only by

order of the court.

Cross reference:

See Rule 2-504.

(2) Mediation under this Rule shall be limited to the issues

of custody and visitation unless the parties agree otherwise in

writing.

(3) During any extension of the mediation pursuant to

subsection (g)(1)(h)(1) of this Rule or expansion of the issues

that are the subject of the mediation pursuant to subsection

(g)(2)(h)(2) of this Rule, the mediator may not increase the

mediator's hourly rate for providing services relating to the

action.

RULE 9-205

Cross reference: See Rule 17-208, concerning fee schedules and

sanctions for noncompliance with an applicable schedule.

(h)(i)

If Agreement

If the parties agree on some or all of the disputed

issues, the mediator shall provide copies of any document

embodying the points of agreement to the parties and their

attorneys for review and signature.

If the document is signed

by the parties as submitted or as modified by the parties, a

copy of the signed document shall be sent to the mediator, who

shall submit it to the court.

Committee note: Mediators often will record points of agreement

expressed and adopted by the parties to provide documentation of

the results of the mediation. Because a mediator who is not a

Maryland lawyer is not authorized to practice law in Maryland,

and a mediator who is a Maryland lawyer ordinarily would not be

authorized to provide legal advice or services to parties in

conflict, a mediator should not be authoring agreements

regarding matters in litigation for the parties to sign. If the

parties are represented by counsel, the mediator should advise

them not to sign the document embodying the points of agreement

until they have consulted their attorneys. If the parties,

whether represented or not, choose to sign the document, a

statement should be added that the points of agreement as

recorded by the mediator constitute the points of agreement

expressed and adopted by the parties.

(i)(j)

If No Agreement

If no agreement is reached or the mediator determines

that mediation is inappropriate, the mediator shall so advise

the court but shall not state the reasons.

The mediator may

assist the parties in the completion of a Joint Statement of the

Parties Concerning Decision-Making Authority and Parenting Time,

RULE 9-205

provided for by Rule 9-204.2.

If the court does not order

mediation or the case is returned to the court after mediation

without an agreement as to all issues in the case, the court

promptly shall schedule the case for hearing on any pendente

lite or other appropriate relief not covered by a mediation

agreement.

(j)(k)

Evaluation Forms

At the conclusion of the mediation, the mediator shall

give to the parties any evaluation forms and instructions

provided by the court.

(k)(l)

Costs

(1) Fee Schedule

Fee schedules adopted pursuant to Rule 17-208 shall

include maximum fees for mediators designated pursuant to this

Rule, and a court-designated mediator appointed under this Rule

may not charge or accept a fee for a mediation proceeding

conducted pursuant to that designation in excess of that allowed

by that schedule.

(2) Payment of Compensation and Expenses

Payment of the compensation and reasonable expenses of a

mediator may be compelled by order of court and assessed among

the parties as the court may direct.

In the order for

mediation, the court may waive payment of the compensation and

reasonable expenses.

RULE 9-205

Source: This Rule is derived in part from the 2012 version of

former Rule 9-205 and is in part new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Amendments are proposed to Rule 9-205 in combination with

proposed new Rule 17-106. For additional information, see the

Reporter’s note to Rule 17-106.

New section (g) is proposed to address the format of

mediation conducted pursuant to Rule 9-205. The section

provides that the format of the mediation shall be determined by

the ADR practitioner or the ADR organization in accordance with

the provisions of Rule 17-106 (b).

Additional amendments re-letter subsequent sections and

update internal references.

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rule 2-801.

DEFINITIONS

(a) Evidentiary Proceeding

(b) Judicial Proceeding

(d) Participant

(e) Remote Electronic Participation

(f) Remote Location

(g) Video Conferencing

(h) Virtual Jury Trial

Rule 2-802. NON-EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS

(a) In General

(b) On Court’s Own Initiative

Rule 2-803.

EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS

(a) In General

(b) On Court’s Own Initiative

Rule 2-804.

CONDITIONS ON REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

(a) Personal Appearance

(b) Standards

Communications

(d) Method of Remote Electronic Participation

(e) Record

(f) Recording of Proceedings

(g) Public Access

Rule 2-805.

STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

(a) Existing Remote Electronic Participation Programs

(b) Standards and Requirements for Remote Electronic

Participation

Rule 2-806. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION AUTHORIZED BY OTHER

SPECIFIC LAW

Rule 2-807.

VIRTUAL JURY TRIALS

(a) Applicability

(b) Circumstances Warranting Virtual Jury Trial

(d) Subpoenas

(e) Jurors

(f) Use of Electronic Devices

(g) Recording Proceedings

RULE 2-801

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-801, as follows:

Rule 2-801.

DEFINITIONS

In this Chapter, the following definitions apply except as

otherwise provided or as necessary implication requires:

(a)

Evidentiary Proceeding

“Evidentiary proceeding” means a judicial proceeding at

which evidence in any form will be presented.

(b)

Judicial Proceeding

“Judicial proceeding” means any evidentiary or non-

evidentiary proceeding over which a judge, magistrate, auditor,

or examiner presides.

(c)

Non-Evidentiary Proceeding

“Non-evidentiary proceeding” means a judicial proceeding,

including a conference, presided over by a judge, magistrate,

auditor, or examiner, where neither testimony nor documentary or

physical evidence will be presented, other than by stipulation

by all parties.

Committee note: Consideration of documents attached to a motion

or a response to a motion does not, itself, preclude a hearing

on the motion from being deemed a “non-evidentiary proceeding.”

RULE 2-801

(d)

Participant

“Participant” includes a party, witness, attorney for a

party or witness, judge, magistrate, auditor, or examiner, and

any other individual entitled to speak or make a presentation at

the proceeding.

(e)

Remote Electronic Participation

“Remote electronic participation” means simultaneous

participation in a judicial proceeding or conference from a

remote location by means of telephone, video conferencing, or

other electronic means approved by the court pursuant to the

Rules in this Chapter.

(f)

Remote Location

“Remote location” means a place other than the courtroom

or other physical location where a judicial proceeding or

conference is to be conducted.

For purposes of this definition,

the place where a judicial proceeding or conference is to be

conducted is the place from which the presiding judicial

official will be participating.

Committee note: Section (f) of this Rule takes account of the

situation in which the presiding judicial official also will be

participating from a place other than the court facility.

(g)

Video Conferencing

“Video conferencing” means a method of conducting a

judicial proceeding by the use of an interactive technology that

sends video, voice, and data signals over a transmission circuit

RULE 2-801

so that two or more individuals or groups can communicate with

each other simultaneously using video monitors and related audio

equipment.

(h)

Virtual Jury Trial

“Virtual jury trial” means a jury trial conducted by

remote electronic participation.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Current Chapter 800 of Title 2 details remote electronic

participation in civil proceedings in the circuit court.

However, proposed new Title 21 has been drafted to address

remote electronic participation in all judicial proceedings, not

only in civil circuit court cases. Therefore, Chapter 800 is

proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

Relevant definitions concerning remote electronic

participation are now located in Rule 21-102, derived from Rule

2-801.

RULE 2-802

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-802, as follows:

Rule 2-802.

(a)

NON-EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS

In General

Subject to Rule 2-804, a court, on motion or on its own

initiative, may permit or require one or more participants or

all participants to participate in a non-evidentiary proceeding

by means of remote electronic participation, unless, upon

objection by a party, the court finds, with respect to that

proceeding, that remote electronic participation would be likely

to cause substantial prejudice to a party or adversely affect

the fairness of the proceeding.

With the approval of the county

administrative judge or the judge's designee, remote electronic

participation in a non-evidentiary proceeding before a

magistrate, examiner, or auditor is permitted in accordance with

the Rules in this Chapter.

Committee note: The intent of this Rule is to allow a court to

permit or require remote electronic participation in nonevidentiary proceedings, including (1) status and scheduling

conferences, (2) discussion of other administrative matters in

which the physical presence of one or more participants is not

essential; (3) proceedings limited to the argument of motions,

petitions, requests, or applications involving only questions of

RULE 2-802

law or procedure; and (4) judicial review actions to be decided

on the record made before an administrative agency.

(b)

On Court's Own Initiative

(1) In General

The county administrative judge, by administrative order

entered as part of the court's case management plan, may direct

that specific categories of non-evidentiary proceedings

routinely be conducted, in whole or in part, by remote

electronic participation unless otherwise ordered, for good

cause, by the presiding judge in a particular case.

(2)

In Particular Proceeding

If the court intends to permit or require remote

electronic participation on its own initiative in a proceeding

not subject to an administrative order entered pursuant to

subsection (b)(1) of this Rule, the court shall notify the

parties of its intention to do so and afford them a reasonable

opportunity to object.

An objection shall state specific

grounds and may be ruled upon without a hearing.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 2-802 is proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

Provisions regarding remote electronic participation in nonevidentiary proceedings are now located in proposed Title 21.

For further discussion, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 2-801.

RULE 2-803

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-803, as follows:

Rule 2-803.

(a)

EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDINGS

In General

Subject to section (b) of this Rule and Rule 2-804, a

court, on motion or on its own initiative, may permit one or

more participants or all participants to participate in an

evidentiary proceeding by means of remote electronic

participation (1) with the consent of all parties, or (2) in

conformance with section (c) of this Rule.

With the approval of

the county administrative judge or the judge's designee, remote

electronic participation in an evidentiary proceeding before a

magistrate, examiner, or auditor is permitted in accordance with

the Rules in this Chapter.

(b)

On Court's Own Initiative

If the court intends to permit remote electronic

participation pursuant to this Rule on its own initiative, it

shall notify the parties of its intention to do so and afford

them a reasonable opportunity to object.

An objection shall

RULE 2-803

state specific grounds.

The court may rule on the objection

without a hearing.

(c)

Absence of Consent; Required Findings

In the absence of consent by all parties, a court may

exercise the authority under section (a) only upon findings

that:

(1) participation by remote electronic means is authorized

by statute; or

(2) the participant is an essential participant in the

proceeding or conference; and

(A) by reason of illness, disability, risk to the

participant or to others, or other good cause, the participant

is unable, without significant hardship to a party or the

participant, to be physically present at the place where the

proceeding is to be conducted; and

(B) permitting the participant to participate by remote

electronic means will not cause substantial prejudice to any

party or adversely affect the fairness of the proceeding.

Committee note:

It is not the intent of this section that mere

absence from the county or State constitute good cause, although

the court may consider the distance involved and whether there

are any significant impediments to the ability of the

participant to appear personally.

Source:

This Rule is new.

RULE 2-803

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 2-803 is proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

Provisions regarding remote electronic participation in

evidentiary proceedings are now located in proposed Title 21.

For further discussion, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 2-801.

RULE 2-804

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-804, as follows:

Rule 2-804.

(a)

CONDITIONS ON REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

Personal Appearance

If, at any time during a proceeding or conference in

which a participant is participating by remote electronic

participation under the Rules in this Chapter, the court

determines that the personal appearance of the participant is

necessary in order to avoid substantial prejudice to a party or

unfairness of the proceeding, the court shall continue the

matter and require the personal appearance.

(b)

Standards

(1) Generally

Except as otherwise provided by law or by subsection

(b)(2) of this Rule, remote electronic participation shall not

be permitted unless the process, including connections,

software, and equipment, to be used comply with standards

developed by the State Court Administrator and approved by the

Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 2-805.

(2) Exception

100

RULE 2-804

The court may excuse non-compliance with subsection

(b)(1) of this Rule (A) with the consent of the parties, or (B)

if it finds that the non-compliance will not cause substantial

prejudice to the parties or adversely affect the fairness of the

proceeding.

(c)

Participation of Interpreters; Attorney-Client

Communications

The process, including connections, software, and

equipment, shall permit interpreters to perform their function

and permit confidential communication between attorneys and

their clients during the proceeding.

Cross reference: For provisions concerning the selection,

appointment, and use of interpreters for court proceedings,

including proceedings in which there is remote electronic

participation, see Rule 1-333.

(d)

Method of Remote Electronic Participation

If remote electronic participation is to be permitted in

an evidentiary proceeding, the court, whenever feasible, shall

give preference to requiring that the participation be by video

conferencing rather than mere audio.

(e) Record

A full record of proceedings conducted, in whole or in

part, by remote electronic means shall be made in accordance

with Rule 16-503 (a).

(f)

Recording of Proceedings

101

RULE 2-804

A person may not record or download a recording of the

proceedings except (1) as directed by the court for compliance

with section (e) of this Rule, or (2) with the express consent

of the court and all parties pursuant to the Rules in Title 16,

Chapter 600 or Rule 16-208.

Committee note: Any remote location shall be considered to be

governed by Rule 16-208.

(g)

Public Access

If a proceeding that otherwise would be open to the

public is conducted entirely by remote electronic means, the

court shall ensure that members of the public shall have the

ability to listen to the non-redactable portions of the

proceeding during the course of the proceeding through remote

electronic means.

Committee note: The “non-redactable” portions of a proceeding

are those portions of the proceeding that are not required to be

safeguarded or redacted from an audio recording obtained by a

member of the public in accordance with Rule 16-504 (g) and (h).

Each court may need to include in its case management plan a

process to provide the public access to proceedings conducted

through remote electronic participation.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 2-804 is proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

Provisions regarding the conditions of remote electronic

participation are now located in Rule 21-104, derived in part

from Rule 2-804. For further discussion, see the Reporter’s

note to Rule 2-801.

102

RULE 2-805

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-805, as follows:

Rule 2-805.

(a)

STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

Existing Remote Electronic Participation Programs

Remote electronic participation programs in existence on

June 30, 2018 may continue in effect, subject to review by the

State Court Administrator for consistency with the standards and

requirements established under the Rules in this Chapter.

After

review, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, upon a

recommendation by the State Court Administrator, may direct

changes necessary to make those programs consistent with the

standards and requirements established under the Rules in this

Chapter.

(b)

Standards and Requirements for Remote Electronic

Participation

The State Court Administrator shall develop and present

to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for approval

standards and requirements for the process, connections,

software, and equipment for remote electronic participation in

judicial proceedings.

103

RULE 2-805

(c)

Minimum Requirements

In addition to complying with the requirements set forth

in Rule 2-804, the standards shall include the following

requirements:

In addition to complying with the requirements set forth

in Rule 2-804, the standards shall include the following

requirements:

(1) All participants shall be able to communicate with each

other by sight, hearing, or both as relevant.

(2) Unless waived by the participants, all participants

shall be able to observe all physical evidence and exhibits

presented during the proceeding, and the program shall permit

participants to transmit documents as necessary.

(3) Video quality shall be adequate to allow participants

and the fact-finder to observe the demeanor and non-verbal

communications of other participants.

Sound quality shall be

adequate to allow participants to hear clearly what is occurring

where each of the participants is located.

Source:

This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 2-805 is proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

Provisions regarding the standards and requirements of remote

electronic participation are now located in Rule 21-104, derived

104

RULE 2-805

in part from Rule 2-805. For further discussion, see the

Reporter’s note to Rule 2-801.

105

RULE 2-806

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-806, as follows:

Rule 2-806.

REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION AUTHORIZED BY OTHER

SPECIFIC LAW

Nothing in this Chapter is intended to preclude a court from

permitting:

(a)

remote electronic participation in public or catastrophic

emergency hearings to be conducted pursuant to Rule 15-1104 (d);

(b)

testimony of out-of-State witnesses to be taken in

another State in a case under the Interstate Custody Compact

pursuant to Code, Family Law Article, § 9.5-110 or in an action

under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act pursuant to

Code, Family Law Article, § 10-328;

(c)

consultation by the court with a child in a guardianship

review hearing pursuant to Code, Family Law Article, § 5-326

(c); or

(d)

remote electronic participation in other proceedings to

the extent and in the manner authorized by other law.

Source:

This Rule is new.

106

RULE 2-806

REPORTER’S NOTE

Rule 2-806 is proposed to be deleted in its entirety.

Provisions regarding remote electronic participation authorized

by other law are now located in proposed Title 21. For further

discussion, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 2-801.

107

RULE 2-807

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIRCUIT COURT

CHAPTER 800. REMOTE ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION

DELETE Rule 2-807, as follows:

Rule 2-807.

(a)

VIRTUAL JURY TRIALS

Applicability

(1) Applicability of this Rule

This Rule applies to civil actions that the county's

case management plan provides are eligible for a virtual jury

trial.

Cross reference: See Rule 16-302 (b).

(2) Applicability of Other Rules

Except to the extent of any inconsistency with this

Rule, the other applicable Maryland Rules apply. To the extent

there is any inconsistency, this Rule prevails.

(b)

Circumstances Warranting Virtual Jury Trial

In any case where (1) the parties and the county

administrative judge consent to a virtual jury trial or (2) the

court orders a virtual trial due to a state of emergency

declared by the Governor and the Chief Judge of the Court of

Appeals, the trial shall proceed through remote video

conferencing.

108

RULE 2-807

Committee note: The need for this Rule was a consequence of the

COVID-19 pandemic. While not limited to pandemics or other

natural disasters, the invocation of this Rule should be

considered only in the most dire and emergent circumstances. The

Rule is not intended to substitute trial processes on virtual

platforms for trials conducted in courthouses where participants

can be physically present in a designated location. Trial judges

are reminded to employ virtual jury trials as a procedure of

last resort and to preserve the time-honored process of public

trials with full and unfettered opportunity of parties to

participate in the proceedings in person, except as otherwise

permitted elsewhere in the Rules of Procedure.

(c)

Pretrial Proceedings

(1) Scheduling Conference

If the court anticipates conducting a virtual jury trial

in an action, or upon motion of a party, the court shall conduct

a scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 2-504.1. At the

scheduling conference, any party may note an objection to a

virtual jury trial and provide reasons for the objection. The

court shall consider the objection prior to determining whether

a virtual jury trial will be held.

(2) Pretrial Conference

(A) Timing

The court shall conduct a pretrial conference no later

than ten days before a virtual jury trial.

(B) Prior to Pretrial Conference

To the extent practicable, all proposed exhibits,

other than rebuttal and impeachment exhibits, and requested jury

selection questions shall be filed with the court and served on

109

RULE 2-807

the other parties at least ten days before the pretrial

conference. To the extent practicable, any objections to the

admissibility of an exhibit shall be filed and served within

three days after service of the proposed exhibit.

In addition to the matters listed in Rule 2-504.2 (b),

the court shall consider the following matters in preparation

for a virtual jury trial:

(i) an inquiry to confirm that each attorney, party, and

witness has the technology required to participate;

Committee note: The court should direct all participants to

familiarize themselves with the video conferencing software,

exhibit presentation, use of breakout rooms, bench conferences,

and other aspects of the virtual trial.

(ii) appropriate virtual backgrounds to be displayed by

each attorney, party, and witness at all times;

(iii) resolution of any objections raised pursuant to

subsection (c)(2)(B);

(iv) conversion into electronically viewable format of

exhibits to be offered into evidence and, as appropriate, made

available to jurors and witnesses;

(v) identification and determination of any objections

to depositions under Rule 2-419 (d) at the pretrial conference;

(vi) additional instructions that are to be given

pertaining to the remote nature of the jury trial;

110

RULE 2-807

Committee note: Instructions should include guidelines for

participating in the virtual proceedings, such as a requirement

that video cameras remain powered on throughout the entirety of

the hearing, background noises and other distractions should be

minimized, participants may only use their technological device

to attend the proceeding, and all other technological devices

must be powered off.

(vii) the method for providing jury instructions to

jurors, such as through e-mail or via a court-approved secure

file sharing service;

(xiii) a trial schedule designed to minimize the fatigue

associated with online participation in a virtual trial; and

Committee note:

A trial schedule designed to minimize fatigue

may include limiting morning and afternoon sessions to three

hours and scheduling periodic breaks. The judge and attorneys

should make a reasonable effort to agree on the schedule, but if

no agreement is reached, the court determines an appropriate

trial schedule.

(ix) any other matters that can be resolved prior to

trial to minimize sidebar conferences or otherwise expedite the

trial proceedings.

(D) Pretrial Conference Order

Following the pretrial conference, the court shall enter

a Pretrial Conference Order reciting the actions taken and

stipulations made. The Order shall control the subsequent

111

RULE 2-807

proceedings and may be modified only to prevent manifest

injustice.

(d)

Subpoenas

(1) Generally

In addition to complying with the content requirements

of Rule 2-510, a subpoena issued to require the presence of an

individual at a proceeding to be conducted by remote electronic

participation shall describe the method by which that presence

will be implemented and state that details will be supplied by a

court official prior to the court proceeding. The party

requesting the subpoena shall provide the court official in

writing with an e-mail address for the ind

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

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