Appellate Watch by Cary J. Hansel
The Appellate Watch alerts our Amicus Committee about cases important to MTLA and advises members of issues pending before the Court of Special Appeals.
Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
William C. Bond v. Timothy M. Gunning, Esq. Miriam S. Pessin 504-00151
410-296-5960
Negligence/Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Lynn K. Stewart Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues
In this case, the widow of a deceased lawyer came into pos- session of a manuscript provided to the lawyer by a client who contacted the lawyer about a possible book deal. The manuscript was at least partially autobiographical, and told the story of the former client’s involvement in the death of his father and his subsequent incarceration. The widow is alleged to have produced the book to a private investigator working on behalf of the ex-wife of the former client. The manuscript was then used in a divorce and custody dispute between the former client and his ex-wife. The former client sued the lawyer’s widow and the lawyer’s estate for, among other claims, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the release of the manuscript. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the widow, finding that the claims were time barred. On appeal, the former client argues that the applicable statute of limitations is the three-year statute found in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, and not the shorter statute for claims against an estate found in the Estate and Trust Article. The Trial Court also granted summary judgment to the widow on the former client’s conversion claim on the theory that the cause of action for conversion only exists when there is a tangible object, or chattel, and that the lawsuit sought the return of intangible intellectual property rights. The former client argues on appeal that the manuscript itself was a tangible object subject to a conversion claim.
Goldman, Skeen & Wadler, P.A. v.
Harry Goldman, Jr., Esq. 410-837-4222
Cooper & Tuerkllp Contract 405-02550
Evelyn Omega Cannon Baltimore City
Two law firms are locked in a dispute regarding the division of legal fees in cases arising from referrals by a shipyard worker’s union. Among other arguments, the appellants suggested that stipulated damages in a settlement agreement they had reached with the appellees were an unenforceable penalty rather than liquidated damages, and that the fee division required by the settlement agreement violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Summer 2008
Trial Reporter
61
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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76