May Maryland judges receiving payments from successor law firms hear cases involving an associate hired by those firms?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1981. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Two judges were receiving payments from successor lawyers for matters inherited from their former practices. Those lawyers later formed a partnership and hired an associate, who contracted with the Public Defender Service to represent criminal defendants.
The Committee read Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 1-203(c) to bar a judge receiving successor payments from hearing a case in which a partner or employee of the successor appears as attorney of record. It concluded that the associate’s public-defender contract did not change that result: both judges should disqualify themselves while the successor payments continued.
Currency note
This opinion discusses the Maryland judicial ethics provisions in force at the time it was written. Its analysis is historical; verify the current Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct and the linked opinion before relying on a cited provision.
Common questions
Q: Did the associate’s public-defender contract change the recusal rule?
A: No. The Committee applied the statutory bar to her cases despite that contract.
Q: Did the rule extend beyond the original successor attorneys?
A: Yes. The opinion applied it to an employee of their partnership.
Q: How long did the Committee say disqualification should continue?
A: While each judge continued receiving collections from the successor in interest.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 1-203(c) to partners and employees of a judge’s successor in practice. It relies on earlier Maryland JEC opinions interpreting that continuing payment conflict.
Citations and references
- Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 1-203(b) and (c).
- Maryland JEC Opinion Requests 1974-07 and 1981-09.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 1981-08
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 1981-08
Date of Issue: December 3, 1981
O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice
Judge Not to Hear Cases Involving Associate of Successor Law Firm Making Referral Payments Who Has Contract with Public Defender
Two judges have requested the Committee’s opinion concerning the application of Md. Code Ann. Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Section 1-203(c). The ethical question presented arises from the following facts.
Before taking the oath of office, the two judges each turned over a portion of their respective practices to two attorneys. As allowed under Section 1-203(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, each judge agreed with his respective successor to receive collections from cases previously pending in his law practice. The two “successor” attorneys later formed a partnership, hiring one associate. Both judges have subsequently disqualified themselves from hearing cases in which any of the three attorneys participate.
The Public Defender Service has recently awarded the partnership’s associate a contract to represent indigent criminals in District Court for a fee of up to $600 per month. The check for these services will be deposited into the partnership account. The associate will continue to receive her usual salary from the partnership. The question here at issue is whether it is proper for the two judges to hear cases in which the partnership associate participates under this contract.
The Committee is of the opinion that both judges would be prohibited from doing so under Section 1-203(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Section 1-203(c) states that while a judge is receiving payments from a successor in practice that judge “may not hear a case in which a partner or employee of his ... successor in interest is an attorney of record” (emphasis added).
[Opinion Request No. 1974-07 (unpublished)], dated December 26, 1974, supports the Committee’s conclusion. In [Opinion Request No. 1974-07 (unpublished)], a judge, upon qualifying for the Bench, arranged for referral of matters pending in his law practice to other members of the bar. At the time the Committee was presented with the request, only two cases remained open. Both cases were referred to the same firm, under an arrangement that the fees, when collected, would be equally divided between the judge and the firm. The question presented was whether it was proper for the judge to hear cases in which the successor firm participated. Looking at Section 1-203(c), the Committee held its prohibition to be a continuing one, requiring a judge to disqualify himself until payments from successors have been collected. The Committee recently reaffirmed this holding in
[Opinion Request No. 1981-09], dated October 30, 1981. The Committee therefore concludes that the rule set forth in [Opinion Request Nos. 1974-07 (unpublished) and 1981-09] applies under the facts of this inquiry.
For this reason, we believe that while each judge continues to receive collections from his successor in interest, he should disqualify himself from hearing those cases in which the partnership associate participates under contract to the Public Defender Service.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1981. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace