Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

First, check out the Hon. Dennis Sweeney's statement on the Sheila Dixon case. If you take the time to read it, you will find it very enlightening. If I'm wrong, I will refund the purchase price of this blog post.

It is clearly Judge Sweeney's belief that the conviction was not the result of a confused jury, political play, or anything other than the fact that Mayor Dixon did some things that any reasonable person, particularly one with her intelligence and political experience, would know were stupid.

I have seen Judge Sweeney speak (in fact, the topic was professionalism and ethics), know his reputation in the legal community, and have had friends serve as his clerks. He's now retired, because Maryland has an incredibly stupid law requiring judges to step down at age 70, but allowing them to hear cases part-time. In my opinion, all that does is bolster his props as an independent outsider. He's legit. I am accepting his opinion at face value.

Really, this piqued my curiousity because it is an extremely rare insight into the judicial thought process. We rarely get an unvarnished version of what a judge truly thinks about a given case. It is apparent that Judge Sweeney accepted the plea deal because he found that it was in the interest of justice and in the interest of the citizens of Baltimore and the democratic process.

Oh, and he was right to stick up for the jurors. Trial by jury is the essence of democracy. Limiting the right to a jry trial makes sense only if you want to live someplace like China, Cuba, the Soviet Union or Iran. It's not a perfect system, but it beats the alternative handily under any system of measurement you can devise.

Second, if you want to read an appellate opinion that can easily be understood by any layperson, and that also features seamless legal analysis, check out this opinion by the Hon. Charles Moylan. An easy way to spot a Judge Moylan opinion is with a scale. The heavier it is, the more likely it's his. He tends a little to the wordy. But what's great about him is his opinions always have everything you need to fully understand whatever he is discussing. If I am doing research, I love coming across a Moylan opinion because invariably he has collected all of the relevant authority in one place. I'm no criminal lawyer, but I had no trouble understanding the complex Fourth Amendment analysis Judge Moylan is making, and I doubt you will either.

Seriously, tell me it makes sense for this guy to relegated to part time status at age 70. That rule should really be changed.

Here is a report about a New York lawyer who is helping a victim of horrific abuse. HT to Above the Law.

"Amy" was victimized by an uncle who used her as the star of child pornography. She has hired an attorney, James L. Marsh, who has had her evaluated, and has obtained expert reports showing the effects of the abuse on her, and documenting how much it has cost her in counseling, diminished wages, and lawyer fees. The total is about 3.4 million dollars.

Mr. Marsh has taken the position that every person convicted of posessing one of the images of Amy is jointly and severally liable for her damages. He has made hundreds of court filings seeking restitution on this basis. Many judges have agreed, although some have criticized this approach, arguing that the link between posessing a single image and the damages claimed is too tenuous.

Although many of these perverts are incarcerated and have little or no assets, others are comparatively well off. In the first year of this strategy, Mr. Marsh has collected over $170,000 for Amy. He is pledging 10% of his attorney's fees to the Children's Law Center.

Mr. Marsh's website states that he is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now the American Association for Justice), a group I am proud to be a member of. We are the greedy trial lawyers everyone is telling you are ruining America. What this lawyer is doing is in the best tradition of advocating for justice on behalf of an innocent victim.

Mr. Marsh, I salute you.

In case "Jersey Shore" doesn't work out, cast member Vinny plans to go to law school. I do not remember tanning being a big part of law school.

Today the Baltimore Sun reports that a former Baltimore County prosecutor has been charged with an armed carjacking. He is noted to have had recent legal troubles, apparently stemming from addiction issues. According to the article, efforts to strip him of his law license are underway, with the Court of Appeals of Maryland scheduled to hear the case next month.

I can't help but feel bad for the guy. Obviously, he is charged with committing a serious crime. By expressing sympathy, I don't intend to minimize that. But this is a person who seemingly was a productive member of society before getting on the wrong path.

There are always articles in the bar association newsletters talking about how practicing law is a high-risk profession for substance abuse and depression. I would urge anybody who needs help to get it. Stories like this should remind everyone that even though "it can't happen to me," sometimes it can.

The last few months, I have been appearing in appellate courts more often than trial courts. For a lot of trial lawyers, this would be a bad thing. I actually prefer it. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy trial work- I love the competition and the chance to use my creativity. But I love handling appeals. If I had the choice, I would choose an appellate argument over a jury trial any day of the week.

Here are a few thoughts I have about the right way to handle oral argument before appellate courts. They are not in any particular order. Actually, one of them is, and it’s first.

DO NOT READ THE ARGUMENT. Seriously. If you think this is a good idea, you are not competent to handle appeals. In fact, not only should you not handle appeals, but if I have to sit there while you read it, you should be killed. Every appeals judge in the land will instantly hate your argument if you are reading. Since they sit on an elevated bench, this means that they can only see the top of your head. It means you are not making eye contact. It demeans the process because it inhibits free flowing interaction with the court. It undermines your ability to quickly analyze and react to the court’s questions. Even though this seems like the most common-sense rule imaginable, I have personally seen two lawyers do this in the last 30 days. I think all of us are a little nervous, even if only for the first few sentences. But if you need to read a prepared argument, you are probably are not cut out to be an appellate lawyer, and you should retain appellate counsel.

ANSWER THE COURT’S QUESTIONS. Appellate judges are usually pretty smart. If you are not expecting to get asked tough questions, you don’t know what you’re doing. The judges expect answers. If you try to duck the question, you will likely get caught, and the court will ask you again. Or, if you are really unlucky, you will get asked if you are conceding you don’t have a good argument because you are avoiding the question. Also, don’t answer a question if you did not fully hear or understand it. This happened to me in my last argument. I got a long convoluted question from a judge who talks fast. I didn’t catch the last sentence. The right way to handle this is to say “I’m sorry your honor, could you repeat that?” In my case, I ended up with seven laughing judges, because I don’t think I was the only person who didn’t catch it. But it did get rephrased, and I was then able to give an appropriate answer. It’s better to ask than it is to give a bad answer to a question you didn’t hear or understand.

MEET HYPOTHETICALS HEAD-ON. Appellate courts love hypotheticals. Remember, if you are in a court of record, there is a good chance a reported opinion will ultimately get applied to lots of factual situations that differ from the specific facts before the court in your case. Judges are conscious of this, and you can expect hypotheticals designed to test how the result you are trying for would affect different facts. Sometimes these questions are designed to present intentionally absurd facts to test the logical reasoning of your argument. Don’t be afraid to pick these hypotheticals apart. If the facts differ so greatly from your case that a different result would happen, tell the court that and tell them why.

Check back later in the week for a few more of my thoughts on this topic.

You usually do not see sitting judges doing a lot of press. Part of the job is the appearance of being above the fray. So this interview the Baltimore Sun did with newly sworn Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge John Nagle is kind of a rare opportunity to see a judge speak publicly about how they feel about the responsibility of the position and the way they intend to run a courtroom.

Judge Nagle is clear that he disapproves of attorneys who appear flip or glib. I am now making a mental note to tone it down when appearing before Judge Nagle.

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion in AES Sparrows Point LNG LLC v. Md. Dept. of the Environment. AES wants to build a liquified natural gas terminal in eastern Baltimore County. To do this, AES needed to get the approval of federal and state regulatory authorities. They obtained the needed federal approval, but were denied by the state. The state's denial was based on the environmental impact of the proposed facility, because it involved deep water dredging, among other reasons. The backstory behind the state's denial is the overwhelming community opposition to the proposed plant. Simply put, the folks who live in eastern Baltimore County did not want this facility because of safety and environmental concerns. They did the smart thing, and complained to their elected officials. It seems that this pressure worked, and the state ultimately concuded the objections were well-founded and denied approval.

AES then went to federal court and sued, trying to force the state to approve their project. The trial court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The appellate court ruled in favor of the state, saying: "For reasons that follow, we uphold Maryland’s denial of AES’s § 401(a)(1) Certification Request on the independent ground that the
dredging required to accommodate the LNG tankers would create additional deep water areas where dissolved oxygen levels would fail to meet Maryland water quality standards." Basically, the court's ruling is that Maryland's reasons for denying approval were not arbitrary or capricious, and therefore the denial should stand.

This is a huge win for the community, which now will not be stuck with a project it didn't want. This also shows how representative democracy works. The community went to their elected representatives, County Executive Jim Smith and Congressman C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, and those officials fought for what their constituents wanted. Agree or disagree, these guys did their jobs- sticking up for the people who elected them.

AES really can't do much about this opinion. Its options are to find a way to comply with the state's environmental requirements, or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. It is very unlikely that the Supreme Court would take the case. Last year, the Supreme Court received over 8,200 of these requests; the court agreed to hear less than two percent of those cases. Moreover, the 4th Circuit ruled unanimously and is generally regarded as the most conservative appellate circuit in the country. It is likely that the legal aspect of this dispute ends here, in a victory for the state.

I thought this letter to the Baltimore Sun was interesting. Letter writer Andrew Slutkin notes that of the ten highest paying occupations in the Baltimore area, 9 of them are doctors. The only non-doctor position in the top ten is CEO. These are the people crying for tort reform because their insurance is too expensive. Boo Hoo. God forbid you drop to 11th or 12th highest paid. You might have to start bringing your own lunch to work.

Governor O'Malley has recently appointed two well-known Baltimore County lawyers to serve as judges on the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. They are S. Ann Brobst and John Nagle. I don't personally know either of them, although I know both by reputation.

John Nagle is a partner in Bodie/Nagle, which is one of the largest law firms in Baltimore County. He has the reputation of being a smart guy with a great deal of litigation experience. He has worked mostly on the defense side of the "v." A layperson might think that I would prefer judicial appointees who come from a more plaintiff-oriented background. They would be wrong. I want judges who are fair, smart, openminded, and who will allow me to educate them on the law if they don't know it already. From all accounts, Mr. Nagle will be that type of judge. He is set to be sworn in on January 5.

The other appointee, Judge Brobst (who was sworn in yesterday) is a long-time Baltimore County prosecutor. According to a profile published in the Sun, she has prosecuted several high-profile cases, including Kirk Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth was sentenced to death, only to be freed nearly a decade later when DNA evidence not available at the time of his trial exonerated him. I imagine the experience of securing a death sentence as a prosecutor and later finding out that an innocent man was convicted (thankfully before his execution) has made Judge Brobst keenly aware of the magnitude of the decisions made by Maryland courts. Maryland circuit court judges hear all kinds of cases, so it is likely that Judge Brobst will hear civil cases as well as criminal. I don't see this as a big deal- I have tried many civil cases before judges who are former prosecutors. Generally they have tried a ton of cases before going on the bench, and excel at letting the lawyers do their thing. I would almost always prefer to try my case in front of a judge who has significant trial experience because they know what it is like to be the person standing in front of the jury, and run the case accordingly. To they extent they lack substantive knowledge of the particular law that applies to the case, being prepared to educate the Court is part of an advocate's job.

I do not know Judge Brobst personally, but two of the commentators in the Sun article are lawyers I respect greatly: Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger and Maryland State Bar Association President-Elect Henry Dugan. Scott and I worked together many years ago with Peter Angelos's firm, and Henry is involved in the Maryland Association for Justice, where I am a board member. Both of these gentlemen are fine trial lawyers, and I take their praise of Judge Brobst as a significant endorsement.

Both of these new judicial appointments are welcomed in Baltimore County, where the caseloads have been growing, and being down a few judges has impacted the court's ability to move the docket. Initally, my opinion is that these are two solid appointments that will beneift the Court, the parties who appear before it, and the citizens of Baltimore County.

I wonder if the lawyer representing Terrell Suggs’ girlfriend has much experience in plaintiffs’ tort litigation. Here’s why. First- filing a 70 million dollar lawsuit before the final protective order hearing is a bad idea simply because it offers a great financial motive cross-examination to the other side. Second- it hurts your settlement leverage, because for famous people silence is worth something. Third- running to the courthouse to file a suit for money damages isn’t going to look good to your mostly conservative, Ravens fan Baltimore County jury when the battery case goes to trial. Maybe the amount of the ad damnum won’t come into evidence, but the timeline sure will. Fourth- for a case arising after 10/01/09, your non-economic damages are capped at $725,000. So I guess you have $19,250,000 in economic damages, right? That must have been a really, really bad broken nose. I guess filing for such a large amount, so quickly, did accomplish one of the goals- it got the lawyer’s name in the paper, and he smartly declined comment. I really think the primary goals- getting a determination on custody and the protective order- could best be accomplished without all of the sensationalism and media attention caused by the 70 million dollar lawsuit. After all, there are three more years to file the tort claim.

If this woman had come to me for legal representation, the first thing I would have done would be to find the most expert family lawyer I could to handle the custody and protective order case. I have handled protective order hearings before, but there are people who do that for a living, more expertly than I could. I wonder if the family lawyer representing her will associate with experienced co-counsel for the tort case? I’m curious to see how this turns out, but based on what I have seen so far, I hope Ms. Williams has some pretty compelling evidence or she could have a tough fight on her hands. Too bad there's no grounds to transfer venue to Pittsburgh.

WhiteCoat advocates a loser-pays system in medical malpractice cases. Sure. I’ll go along with that, if it comes with automatic liability for the physician if the patient is not cured. After all, it’s fair for he who does not succeed to pay, right? Why don’t we all agree that doctors know more about medicine than lawyers, and lawyers know more about the law than doctors?

Paul Luvera has some tips for cross-examining Defense Medical Exam doctors. Paul calls this a basic outline, which it is. Miller & Zois lawyers use a much more detailed approach, but Paul provides an outstanding basic foundation for the cross.

I had never heard of Moe Levine until I got an ad for a book about him from the American Association for Justice. Then I found a closing he gave in a case about a young woman who broke her arm in a car accident. This is an outstanding effort in a case all of us have tried at least once. He truly does a wonderful job of personalizing his client’s non-economic damages in a case where there is a real, but not catastrophic, injury. Thanks to Howard Nations for providing this wonderful resource.

I have but a single thought on losing: It sucks. I hate it, and I have a hard time getting past it. Thankfully, it doesn't happen all that often.

My fiancee's parents live next door to a lawyer I have known for many years, and used to clerk for. He lost a 2.8 million dollar judgment in a civil case. My future father-in-law likes to tease him about it. He doesn't mean anything by it- he isn't an attorney and doesn't understand that what he is doing is the legal equivalent of cracking jokes to Bill Buckner about the ball that went between his legs in the 1986 World Series, causing the Red Sox to lose Game 6 and ultimately the Championship.

Here are noted trial lawyer Paul Luvera's thoughts on losing, which I think gives a window into how trial lawyers really feel when they lose.

Everybody loses sometimes. Ted Williams hit over .400 and got to the Hall of Fame. He failed to get a hit 60% of the time. It happens to everyone (except, apparently, Gerry Spence) including me. But I don't have to like it, and I won't.

Yesterday I was in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant in a products liability case.

I think the way the hearing went down contains a lesson for defending against summary judgment motions.

My primary argument in opposition was a legal one. Without getting into the facts of the case, I thought I had a pretty strong legal argument that even if the facts were undisputed, the motion could not be granted because the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That was the primary argument I made in the motion papers and at the hearing.

The only problem was that it soon because apparent that the hearing judge hated this argument.

Luckily, I was able to shift to the backup argument- that the defendant had failed to show that the material facts of the case were undisputed. I was able to show the court inconsistencies between the defendant's corporate representative's depostion testimony and the facts he swore to in his affidavit in support of the defendants motion.

Ultimately, the hearing judge was persuaded that these inconsistencies were sufficient to preclude the entry of summary judgment.

I think the lesson here is that a defendant needs two things to get summary judgment- undisputed facts and a right to judgment as a matter of law. If you have arguments to make on both of these points, make them. The facts and the law work together, so you need to be prepared to use both in opposition.

I think it is generally best to lead with your strongest argument. But where you have more than one good-faith argument to make, do it.

If I were picking a career field today, I would do my best to avoid fields that would leave me with a crushing debt load and minimal prospects of securing employment. You know, like practicing law.

But what do I know? Above the Law reports that the number of LSAT’s administered has risen every year since 2006. Who is taking this test? Attention LSAT takers: The market has spoken. It does not need more baby lawyers.

Please, people. Only go to law school if you have a passion for it and the skill set to match. Everyone else should immediately go to their college career office and find out what industries are actually growing, and then take the test for whatever grad school gets you into that field. I hear nursing is big these days, as all those baby boomers get old.

Law is a crappy backup plan for college grads who don’t know what else to do. They graduate with significant student loan debt, have a terrible time finding a job, and when they do they end up miserable because they are spending hundreds of hours a year doing something they don’t love. Law is a very, very, tough gig even if you love it. If you don’t, it’s miserable.

That’s what I did. I am a lawyer, specifically a trial lawyer, because I love it and can’t imagine being happy doing something else. If that isn’t going to be you, find what you love and then go do that.

Friday, the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued its opinion in an attorney discipline case. The Court reaffirmed what we all know, which is that commingling personal and client assets in an attorney trust account is likely to get you disbarred. So for my lawyer readers, don't do that.

The facts are interesting though. It seems that the lawyer was accused of sexually molesting one of his young daughter's playmates. The opinion doesn't say so, but it looks like the lawyer was not convicted criminally. So he does something that only a truly innocent or really stupid person would do- he sues the purported victim's parents for defaming him. In turn, they do something that a really smart person (or a person getting excellent legal advice from Andrew D. Freeman, Esq.) would do- they counterclaimed for battery on behalf of their daughter. The Baltimore County civil jury agreed with the parents, granting judgment against the lawyer in the amount of $386,350 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages.

The disbarment proceeding centered upon the lawyer's financial misconduct in trying to conceal assets from the parents' efforts to collect the judgment. Nothing was really said by the Court of Appeals about the jury's finding of liability for improprly touching the girl. The opinion gave me the impression that if the lawyer had simply paid the judgment, he would still be practicing.

I wonder if this is because of the standard of proof? In Maryland, attorney misconduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, for the civil judgment the parents obtained, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. So the only way that the abuse could have been before the Court of Appeals would be if there had been a "trial within a trial" to allow the court to rule upon the abuse allegations under a "clear and convincing" standard. To be clear, this is my own analysis; it's not in the opinion.

I bet the Court was glad to have an iron-clad reason to disbar without having to wade into the abuse allegations. I think you can see the court didn't want to go there, since the only mention is about one line explaining where the judgment against the lawyer came from.

Today's Baltimore Sun reports that Judge Davis has been confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Hopefully we will see the Senate act to end the shameful delays in judicial appointments.

He's a good judge. There is no good reason he wasn't immediately confirmed. Hopefully the Senate will move quickly to confirm the remaining three nominees to that court, fully staffing it for the first time in a very long time.

Last week, I argued an appeal in a truck accident case. I was in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which is our state's intermediate appellate court. My case was fourth in line on the day's docket. That meant I got to (was forced to) sit through the argument on the cases ahead of mine.

The other arguments ran the gamut from abominable to excellent, and featured a range of attorneys from young lawyers to experienced appellate advocates.

One thing I saw some of these other lawyers do was to address the questioning judges by name. For example, "Great question, Judge Hollander." Actually, my example violates two rules of appellate argument. Never tell a judge they asked a great question. Presumably, they also thought it was a good question, or they would have remained silent.

But my real beef here is that I think it is never appropriate to call a judge by name in a courtroom. My practice is to refer to all members of the court as "Your Honor" if we are in a setting where I am being a lawyer and they are being a judge. To do otherwise seems disrespectful, and could be taken as implying a personal relationship that does not exist.

When I ran into a member of my appellate panel in the lobby prior to the start to the docket, I found "Good morning, Judge Pierson" totally appropriate. When I am in a courtroom and he is on the bench, that is "Good morning, Your Honor.

I happen to know the most recent past clerk for one on the judges on my panel. Afterwards I emailed her about this issue. She actually said she even called her judge "Your Honor" in chambers.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't think so. At a minimum, sticking with the formal "Your Honor" is never going to get me in trouble. And it is also great if you happen to be bad with names.

You know why? Because reform is supposed to make something better, not worse. I am stealing the phrase "tort reform" back from those who would destroy injury victims' rights for the sake of simple economic expediency. So here are John Bratt's proposals for Maryland tort reform.

First, do away with the antiquated "contributory negligence" standard. In Maryland, if you are even a teensy, eensy bit negligent, you can never make a recovery in tort. "But wait", exclaims a chorus of the uninformed, "that's not fair- if you are negligent it is your own fault." Oh really? What about a pedestrian who looks left, but not right and then a drunk driver runs him down? His fault, huh? Good thing Donte Stallworth ran that guy over in Florida, not Maryland. In our state, there is a good chance that guy loses his case against the drunk driver. Maryland should abandon this unfair standard and move to a contributory negligence system such as those in use in 44 other states.

Second, our legislature should appeal the "actual malice" standard to recover punitive damages. What this means is that in order to recover ounitive damages, you must prove that whatever the defendant did was not only intentional, but done out of specific ill will toward the injured person. There is a great illustration in the news right now. A 20 year old college student, a pedestrian, was run down and killed by a repeat drunk driver, who then left the scene. It turns out, he was captured on various cameras driving erratically throughout the city before the fatal collision. That poor young woman's family will not be able to recover punitive damages. Is that fair? This is a case where allowing punitive damages is not only morally right, but would provide a benefit to society by showing that this conduct will not be tolerated n the community.

Finally, the big one. I would abolish all arbitrary damages caps. Damages caps are unfair, un-American, and deprive citizens of their right to have their damages determined by a jury. Juries are kind of a big deal in America. It's in the Constitution and all. Juries decide whether people live or die, go to prison or go free. But when it comes to some doctor or insurance company's pocketbook, we don't trust them anymore. That's stupid. The whole point of our system of government is that it puts the ultimate power in the hands of the people. Arbitrary damages caps take that power away from our juries.

Laura Zois and I had a trial this summer where we were representing a young woman whose right leg was crushed by a gas tanker that ran a red light. Our Baltimore City jury awarded her $63,000 in medical bills and $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. Because of Maryland's arbitrary cap on non-economic damages, the verdict was automatically reduced to $729,000. When we told the jury about this, they were mad. They put a lot of time and effort into arriving at a fair verdict, only to have it undone by a law they were not allowed to be told about during the trial. That's not fair. They intended their verdict to compensate my client for the rest of her life for her permanent injuries, not two-thirds of it.

These three tort reform proposals would do an immense amount of good for injury victims in Maryland. They make sense, and promote fairness in our civil justice system. On the other hand, the only real argument against them is an economic one, made by those who stand to lose the most- wrongdoers and their insurers.

What are we known for in Baltimore? Let’s say you’re not from around here. What comes to mind when you think B-More? Johnny U and the old Baltimore Colts? Francis Scott Key writing down his thoughts on seeing Old Glory still flying over Fort Mchenry? Johns Hopkins’ perpetual status as one of the top hospitals in the world? Hometown of disgraced Vice President Spiro T. Agnew and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? Home of the National Aquarium, with good ol’ Willie Don jumping in the pool in his 1920’s bathing suit?

These are all great, but nope. When people think Baltimore, they think ghetto, dope and crime. Homicide, The Wire, and The Corner. Has David Simon has done more to make Baltimore look bad than anyone in history? No. Unfortunately, that is like blaming the mirror if you’re ugly. It’s not perfect, but it’s home. This is basically a too-wordy intro to the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog’s “Only in Baltimore” fall frenzy.

Only in Baltimore:

Does the local newspaper publish a list of Top 15 memorable crimes.

Does a cartoon-worthy trial between Billy Murphy and Steve Snyder end up in an appellate opinion affecting every medical malpractice case tried in the state.

Does a Police Department lawyer moonlight defending criminals.

Does a police major get demoted for spending department time life-coaching on Facebook.

Does a mayor facing criminal charges come out publicly in favor of a seven-foot pink flamingo encroaching on the sidewalk.

Radio-talk show host is the gig of choice for disgraced or replaced political figures (Ed Norris and Larry Young representing the former, Bob Ehrlich representing the latter).

It’s a weird town, but we love it anyway. Plus, it’s so much better than Glad Valley, South Dakota (the farthest point from a McDonald’s in the continental United States).

Connecticut has outlawed the practice of using "runners"- when crooked lawyers pay third parties to solicit injury plaintiffs either in person at hospitals or by going through police reports. These injured folks are then steered to crooked doctors, and the crooked lawyer helps them recover on the trumped-up claim.

Of course, I am sure that there are also genuinely injured people who are ensnared by these "runners" as well. The problem there is that they end up with the lawyer who uses runners, rather than with the most competent lawyer for their kind of case.

This is one of the few things that reputable personal injury lawyers, insurance companies, judges and legislators all agree on. This is a practice that is a harm to society, and brings the legal system into disrepute. Thankfully, this practice has been illegal in Maryland for many years.

Thanks to Walter Olson at Point of Law for the link.

Here is the list of nominees to fill the seat on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that became available due to the retirment on the Hon. John M. Glynn.

Out of this list, the only nominee that I know is Hon. Nathan Braverman. Judge Braverman is a sitting judge on the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. I have appeared before him many times and have always found that he is attentive to the arguments of the lawyers, respectful of all litigants, and fair. I don't think he'd be a bad choice.

I also doubt he will be appointed, since he was on the list before it was readvertised. That is what happens when they send the names to the Governor, and he doesn't want to appoint any of the nominees.

The nominees list has two new names, Charles Joseph Peters and Kendra Young Ausby. I don't know either of them. But I would suggest that they are most likely to be appointed to the seat, simply because all of the other nominees were on the first list. We'll see what happens.