# STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3Aa3bca1f42929e081

## Record

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

## Text

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
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
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.

1

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
2

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
3

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

4

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.

5

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
6

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,
7

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
8

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

9

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.
10

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

11

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
12

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
13

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.

14

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.
15

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.
16

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
17

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
18

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.

19

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

20

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

21

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.
22

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
(C) be signed by the applicant and the Chair of the Character
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.

23

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
24

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.
(C) Board Agrees with Recommendation for Conditional
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

25

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
26

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.
27

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

28

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
29

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.
30

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

31

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.
(C) Effect of Revocation
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
32

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
33

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
34

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.

35

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
(c) Judicial Proceeding
(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
(c) Participation of Interpreters; Attorney-Client
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

36

(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
(c) Conditions of Remote Electronic Participation by
Witness
Rule 21-202.

VIRTUAL JURY TRIALS

(a) Applicability
(b) Circumstances Warranting Virtual Jury Trial
(c) Pretrial Proceedings
(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
(c) Other Criminal and Delinquency Proceedings by Consent
(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
37

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,
38

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.

39

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.

40

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
41

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.

42

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

43

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.

44

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.

45

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

46

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

47

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.

48

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.

49

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
50

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.

51

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

52

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
53

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.

54

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;

55

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.

56

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
57

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)
58

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.

59

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

60

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

61

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.
(C) Considerations at Pretrial Conference
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;

62

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
63

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.

In

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.
(C) Additional Jurors
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
64

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.
(C) After all evidence has been presented, and pursuant to
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
65

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

66

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.

67

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.

68

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.

69

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;

70

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

71

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
72

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.

73

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
74

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-cas

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3Aa3bca1f42929e081. Public record. Not legal advice.