Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Fowlkes v. Choudhry
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2021-04-13 · cited 4×
In Fowlkes v. Choudhry, a mother sued a doctor for medical malpractice after her adult daughter’s death, seeking economic damages under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act for the household services she expected her daughter to provide in the future. A jury awarded $500,000, but the Court of Special Appeals vacated the award, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. The court held that a parent may recover pecuniary damages for lost household services only by presenting evidence both that the parent reasonably expected the services and that the adult child intended to continue providing them, which can be shown through proof of a legal duty, a promise, or acts reflecting ongoing intent. The court found the evidence here—limited to the daughter’s past habit of helping while living with her mother and the mother’s desire for that arrangement to continue—insufficient to support the claim, as it left the daughter’s future intent to speculation.
torts & liabilityfamily lawhealthcare
Attorney Grievance v. Planta
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2020-02-28 · cited 16×
The case involved the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland seeking disciplinary action against attorney William Clark Planta, who had been admitted to the bar in 1998, based on complaints from six former clients alleging repeated professional misconduct. The Court of Appeals disbarred Planta after finding that he violated multiple Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on competence, communication, fees, safekeeping of property, candor toward tribunals, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court determined that Planta had severely neglected client matters by missing deadlines and hearings, resulting in sanctions against clients; misappropriated funds by failing to deposit fees in trust accounts or return unearned amounts; and lied to a court about his tardiness. These actions formed a repeated pattern of neglect, mishandling of money, and dishonesty, compounded by Planta’s failure to respond to the disciplinary proceedings or offer mitigation, which the court held required disbarment to protect the public.
business & regulatory
Attorney Grievance v. Rheinstein
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2020-01-24 · cited 10×
The case was an attorney disciplinary proceeding in which the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland charged Jason Edward Rheinstein with professional misconduct arising from his representation of clients in civil litigation against Imagine, including misrepresentations to a circuit court judge, unsubstantiated fraud allegations, and efforts to pressure opposing counsel. The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred Rheinstein, finding he violated multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.1 (competence), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.4 (fairness to opposing parties), 4.4 (respect for third persons), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The court reasoned that Rheinstein had deliberately misrepresented facts to intimidate opponents and mislead the tribunal about criminal charges facing the opposing party, pursued baseless claims and disqualification motions, and engaged in vexatious litigation tactics, conduct comparable to prior cases warranting disbarment for deceit that undermined judicial integrity.
procedure
Gang v. Montgomery Cnty.
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2019-06-24 · cited 12×
In Peter Gang v. Montgomery County, a correctional officer sought to reopen his permanent partial disability compensation award from Montgomery County to retroactively raise the payment rate, claiming entitlement to a higher amount as a public safety employee; the request was filed within five years of his last compensation payment. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Workers’ Compensation Commission had authority under Section 9-736 of the Labor and Employment Article to reopen the award and correct the rate based on a mistake or error. The Court reasoned that subsection (b) provides continuing jurisdiction to modify prior findings or awards within the five-year limitations period without restriction from subsection (a), that Gang did not waive the right by failing to appeal or seek rehearing, and that minor procedural noncompliance in the filing did not bar relief when the application was timely.
labor & employmentprocedure
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Conwell
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2019-01-23 · cited 11×
This case was an attorney disciplinary proceeding in which the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission charged Scott A. Conwell with multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation of three clients in child custody, equal opportunity, and fee-collection matters. The Court of Appeals found that Conwell had failed to communicate with clients, pursue their claims diligently, charge reasonable fees, or file meritorious pleadings; had made false or misleading statements to tribunals; had disobeyed orders from a bankruptcy court; and had engaged in other dishonest conduct. The court disbarred Conwell, holding that his intentionally dishonest and self-serving actions violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 3.1, 3.3, 3.4(c), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d). It rejected mitigation evidence concerning his wife’s pregnancy complications because that evidence did not address the root cause of the dishonesty or constitute compelling extenuating circumstances that would preclude disbarment.
family lawcivil rightsprocedure
Attorney Grievance v. Conwell
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2019-01-23 · cited 1×
In Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Scott A. Conwell, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered disciplinary charges against an attorney for his handling of three client matters, including a child custody case and related fee disputes. The court found that Conwell violated multiple rules of professional conduct by failing to keep clients informed or advance their cases, charging an unreasonable fee of $14,060, filing frivolous pleadings without legal purpose, submitting an inflated invoice to seek a jury trial, and repeatedly disobeying bankruptcy court orders to cease litigation and respond to a show-cause order, resulting in a contempt finding. These actions constituted a pattern of incompetence, lack of diligence, unreasonable fees, lack of candor, and intentionally dishonest conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court ordered disbarment, concluding that the misconduct warranted that sanction and that offered mitigation, such as personal circumstances involving his wife’s pregnancy, did not constitute compelling extenuating circumstances excusing the dishonesty.
family lawprocedure