44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

to Judge Kathleen Gallogly Cox of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for a hearing. 13
Judge Cox heard testimony from Ms. Bogarosh, Mr. Butler, and Chapman himself,
and, thereafter, issued the following Memorandum Opinion, in which she determined that
Chapman violated Rules 1.4, 5.3, 5.4, 14 and 8.4, but did not violate Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.15,
and 5.5:
Memorandum Opinion
This matter came before the Court for hearing on April 23,
12
(...continued)
fact, including findings as to any evidence regarding remedial
action, and conclusions of law. If dictated into the record, the
statement shall be promptly transcribed. Unless the time is
extended by the Court of Appeals, the written or transcribed
statement shall be filed with the clerk responsible for the record
no later than 45 days after the conclusion of the hearing. The
clerk shall mail a copy of the statement to each party.
(d) Transcript. The petitioner shall cause a transcript of the
hearing to be prepared and included in the record.
(e) Transmittal of record. Unless a different time is ordered
by the Court of Appeals, the clerk shall transmit the record to
the Court of Appeals within 15 days after the statement of
findings and conclusions is filed.
13
After Chapman was served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action
but before the hearing before Judge Cox, Chapman filed a “Trial Memorandum” in which
he argued that the Petition should have been dismissed because it was so vague as to deny
him due process of law. Judge Cox treated the memorandum as a motion to dismiss, which
she denied. Chapman did not renew his objections in any written exceptions before us and,
therefore, pursuant to Rule 16-759, we shall not address this basis for dismissal of the
Petition. See also Attorney Grievance v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 552, 16 A.3d 181, 192
(2011).
14
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contain a typographical error in
which Rule 5.4 is referred to as Rule 5.3 in the concluding sentence of the Section titled “G.
MRPC 5.4.” It is obvious from the discussion contained in that Section that the hearing
judge intended to refer to Rule 5.4.
12