Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

I just finished writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Maryland Association for Justice. The name of the case is Grady v. Brown, which is pending in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. This is a Boulevard Rule case.

The Boulevard Rule is the name of a legal doctrine in Maryland and elsewhere governing the right of way of drivers at intersections. Certain roads are favored, and any traffic entering those roads must stop and yield the right of way.

The issue in the case is that the defendant driver entered the favored roadway, but only to a degree that he didn't think would interfere with the flow of traffic. He was wrong, and there was an accident.

The trial judge in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City allowed the question of the defendant's negligence to go to the jury, despite the Boulevard Rule. The appeal is on the issue of the court's denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the issue of the defendant's negligence. Plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law.

The plaintiff in the case is represented by my colleague and fellow MAJ member Irwin I. Weiss, of Baltimore County. The defendant is being represented by Mark Brown of H. Barritt Peterson & Associates, also in Baltimore County. Talented, hardworking lawyers on both sides. I am involved in this case as counsel for the Maryland Association for Justice.

Because the resolution of this issue may affect the rights of car accident injury victims across Maryland, the MAJ petitioned for and was granted permission to file a brief as a "friend of the court." This means that I wrote a brief for the court's consideration addressing the policy implications of this decision for all drivers in the state.

I have done this before- I have served on the MAJ's Amicus Committee for three years. I also wrote the amicus brief in Mundey v. Erie Insurance. I love appellate writing, and writing as amicus often allows a little more creativity than representing one of the parties to the case. Plus, this is a way to directly affect the development of the law in my primary area of practice.

The trick in writing an effective amicus brief is to remember that you have a different goal than the attorneys representing the parties. The parties are stuck with their facts, good or bad. You're not. Amicus have the ability to change the facts or argue hypotheticals in order to illustrate to the court the potential policy implications of the matter before them.

For example, in Mundey, the issue was a requirement that an insured must "physically reside" in the covered household in order to be eligible for uninsured motorists benefits. Unfortunately, the plaintiff in the case had bad facts. He had been kicked out of his parents house for getting in trouble with the law, and other misbehavior. I argued in my brief that the court should ignore the reason the plaintiff was temporarily not residing in his parents household. I argued that what was important was that the decision would affect other people who were temporarily absent from their households for a variety of beneficial reasons, and that it wouldn't be fair to issue a decision making all of those people uninsured. In order to do this I contacted the Peace Corps, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Marayland National Guard. They were more than happy to send me statistics showing the number of Marylanders who were temporarily absent from their households for national service, religious missions, or military service. I included these statistics in the Appendix of my brief. I think this was effective because even though Mundey lost his case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland limited its holding to the facts of that particular case.

In writing amicus briefs it is also important to remember to avoid filing what is called a "me too" brief. The court's time and attention is valuable. It doesn't help them to read a regurgitation of the arguments and analysis made by the parties. Brevity is key.

I think it is a lot more difficult to write an amicus brief where the parties are represented by quality appellate counsel. In the Grady case, Mr. Weiss did such a good job that there were policy arguments I avoided entriely in the amicus brief, simply because they had been ably addressed, and I didn't think there was value in telling the court "yeah, what he said."

The only part of writing as amicus I don't like is that under the Maryland Rules, only the parties get to present oral argument to the court. I am not sure exactly when this case will be argued, but I will be watching closely for a decision because this is an important issue in determining the rights of Maryland drivers.