|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CORE ISSUE ISSUE: REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMARY: A number of bills are filed in the Maryland General Assembly each year that aim at regulating specific aspects of the legal profession. Legislation has sought to place a series of restrictions on lawyers, including proposals to interfere in the attorney discipline process, to require continuing legal education, to restrict fee arrangements and to alter Bar admission requirements. The legislature's domain for regulating the legal profession is the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Annotated Code (formerly Article 10 - Attorneys at Law and Attorneys in Fact). Within that Article are sections regulating admission to the Bar, misconduct of attorneys, unauthorized practice of law, the state prosecutor, state's attorneys, attorney escrow funds, and attorney liens, as well as authorizations of the Clients' Security Trust Fund and the Maryland Legal Services Corporation. Judicial oversight of the legal profession is much more extensive, consisting of a variety of offices and agencies including the Attorney Grievance Commission, the Clients' Security Trust Fund, the Maryland Judicial Conference, the Court of Appeals Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the State Board of Law Examiners. The question regarding which branch of government has primary responsibility for regulating the legal profession received considerable attention in a 1981 Court of Appeals case (Attorney General of Maryland, et al. vs. Richard V. Waldron). In its opinion, the court ruled that the judicial branch has primary responsibility for regulating the practice of law, admitting new members to the Bar and disciplining attorneys who fail to meet the standards of professional conduct. The special relationship that exists between the legal profession and the judiciary was critical to the Court's arguments supporting this contention. Although the court acknowledged that the legislative branch did have a role in "a restricted class of statutes relating to the legal profession . . .pursuant to its interest in promoting the health, safety and welfare of the people of this state" (namely, policing of legitimate court powers and establishing minimum Bar admission criteria), this opinion emphasized that the judicial branch had primary regulatory responsibility for the legal profession. Since 1993 there have been several bills aimed at regulating the practice of law in Maryland. Legislation to require lawyers to complete six hours of continuing legal education in ethics, to restrict a lawyer's ability to collect fees if damages exceed $150,000, to remove the authority of the Attorney Grievance Commission to oversee lawyer discipline activities, and to permit the Executive Branch to set attorney fees were filed in 1993 and 1994. In 1995, legislators sought to revoke an attorney's right to practice law if he or she did not meet child support obligation, to ban lawyers from representing clients in small claims court, and to restrict certain forms of lawyer advertising. None of these measures were successful. Some of the bills were filed again in 1996, but suffered the same fate, and there was a marked decline in bills of this type in the 1997 session. During the 1998 General Assembly, legislation passed that limits lawyer solicitation of the victims of specific accidents or disasters, and to those charged with specific criminal or traffic offenses. A 1999 bill requiring all Maryland lawyers to purchase fidelity bonds was defeated (see Attorney Admission/Renewal Fees). The few bills affecting the practice of law in 2000 and 2001 were modest in scope by being aimed primarily at specific fee and expense arrangements, and exempting lawyers who work with title insurers from filing annual statements of financial condition with the Insurance Adminstration. MSBA 2002 POSITION: The judicial branch of government has the primary responsibility for regulating the legal profession. All bills that aim at replacing the authority of the courts in this regard should be opposed. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
