cost-benefit analysis. We nevertheless caution the Panel on remand against utilizing a cost-benefit analysis, or any method of calculation that makes the fee award proportional to the monetary judgment awarded. It must also be said, however, that our
Court of Appeals has cautioned that the purpose of fee-shifting statutes is not to “improve the financial lot of attorneys,” nor “to replicate exactly the fee an attorney could earn through a private fee arrange- ment with his client.”49
And fee petitions
will be measured in accordance with Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5, which imposes a reasonable- ness standard on all fees. One can expect
49
Friolo I , 819 A.2d at 526, restated in Friolo v. Frankel, 170 Md. App. 441 (2006) (“Friolo II”) (Cert. granted Dec. 14, 2006, September 2006 Term, Case No. 107.).
courts to view the rule as an important factor when deciding whether or not to temper the amount of fees claimed. While reasonableness of fees remains in flux, it is probably fair to say that Maryland courts are more likely to question or reduce fee petitions that would pass muster in some federal courts.
Conclusion Though not universally true, conven-
tional wisdom suggests that employment discrimination litigation is more likely to result in a favorable outcome for plaintiffs when brought in state courts. Maryland’s antidiscrimination law, while broad in scope, is remarkably selective in provid- ing full access to the courts. Only in four counties are civil suits guaranteed. Additionally, federal laws prohibiting
employment discrimination are different in significant respects from the general
requirements of the Maryland Code and the more specific requirements found in the laws of Baltimore, Howard, Mont- gomery and Prince George’s Counties. The authors strongly caution practitioners to familiarize themselves with the differ- ences. Finally, the Court of Appeals did not
address the potential equal protection is- sue this differing treatment for residents of different counties raises, and the argument remains to be addressed.50
The courts may
never need to address this potential equal protection issue if the General Assembly made local courts accessible to all Mary- land employees alleging discrimination, rather than only those in a few select counties. This is a goal worth pursuing.
50Corbin, 841 A.2d at n. 5.
MTLA LEADERS’ FORUM
Members of the Leaders’ Forum have pledged to raise or write $10,000 during this election cycle to help fund candidates who support justice for victims of personal injury.
David F. Albright, Jr., Esquire Bruce Babij, Esquire
Andrew E. Bederman, Esquire Augustus F. Brown, Esquire Dwayne A. Brown, Esquire Thomas C. Cardaro, Esquire
John J. “Jack” Condliffe, Esquire Henry E. Dugan, Jr., Esquire
Elizabeth Jesukiewicz Frey, Esquire Kevin I. Goldberg, Esquire
Lawrence S. Greenberg, Esquire
Alison D. Kohler, Esquire Louise A. Lock, Esquire
Stephen A. Markey, III, Esquire Richard P. Neuworth, Esquire Bruce M. Plaxen, Esquire Harry B. Siegel, Esquire Kerri B. Staton, Esquire
George S. Tolley, III, Esquire
Wayne M. Willoughby, Esquire Robert J. Zarbin, Esquire Laura G. Zois, Esquire
46
Trial Reporter
Winter 2007
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64