r1r STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE - Maryland ...

The proposed new Guidelines for child’s counsel in custody
and child access cases are based upon the Maryland Standards of
Practice for Court-Appointed Lawyers Representing Children in
Custody Cases that were approved and adopted by the Conference of
Circuit Judges at its September 19, 2005 meeting.
As with the CINA Guidelines, the Committee has substituted
the word “Guideline” for “Standard” wherever it appeared in the
original document. Although neither set of Guidelines is part of
the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, both are
referenced in Comment 1 to Rule 1.14 (Client with Diminished
Capacity) of those Rules.
In the “Introduction and Scope” section of the proposed new
Guidelines, the second and fourth sentences of the first
paragraph have been added by the Committee. The second sentence
is derived from the first sentence of paragraph 20 of the
Preamble and Scope portion of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of
Professional Conduct, with the word “does” replacing the word
“should” in both places that it appears. The fourth sentence is
borrowed verbatim from the penultimate sentence of the “Statement
of the Issue” portion of the CINA Guidelines.
In paragraph 2.1, Determining Considered Judgment, the list
of factors that the attorney should consider is borrowed verbatim
from CINA Guidelines B1 a and b.
In Paragraph 3, a statement concerning conflicts of interest
for Child’s Best Interest Attorneys appointed to represent
siblings has been transferred to the Commentary following Rule
1.7 of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Although the word “should” is used throughout the
Guidelines, the Committee recommends the use of the words “shall
not” with respect to the issue of whether a Child’s Best Interest
Attorney or Child’s Advocate Attorney may testify at trial or
file a report with the court.
Provisions concerning the appointment of child’s counsel
have been included in a separate Rule, proposed new Rule 9-205.1.
Because the child who is the subject of a child custody or child
access dispute is not a party to the action, additional
provisions in Rule 9-205.1 implement the service, notice, and
discovery portions of the Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed
new Rule requires that an order appointing child’s counsel
specify the role of the attorney, permit the attorney to
participate in discovery under Title 2 of the Rules as though the
child were a party, and provide that the service and notice
provisions of Title 1 apply as though the child were a party.
-226-