Disbarment – the loss of a law license – is an extreme sanction. Yet, in a recent case, Maryland’s top court rejected an attorney’s argument that his emailed criticism of several of Maryland’s government and legal officials was protected as free speech and upheld the decision to yank James Albert Frost’s law license.

An attorney’s knowingly false statements impugning the integrity and qualifications of several judges and public legal officers constitute a violation of the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC) and are not protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court of Appeals has ruled.

In addition, where an attorney repeatedly makes false allegations about the qualifications or integrity of “a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer,” without any explanation or investigation into the allegations, he has demonstrated a lack of fitness to practice law and disbarment is an appropriate sanction, the state’s top court said.

But the decision was not unanimous. Judge Robert N. McDonald said he couldn’t agree with the majority decision because the primary purpose in an attorney discipline proceeding is to protect the public from inept lawyers, not to protect public officials from criticism. McDonald said he would suspend Frost for his failure to respond adequately to the AGC’s inquiry but was not comfortable disbarring him based on what appeared to be an expression of opinion.

Deciding the best place to try a case – forum selection – is important in many ways to a lawsuit. How long it takes for a case to conclude, the likelihood of victory and the amount of damages awarded by a judge or jury can be vastly different, depending on the county where the case is heard. As a result, lawyers on both sides of the case carefully scrutinize the places where a lawsuit can be filed so as to determine the best location for handling the case.

The fact that venue is important means that lawyers often maneuver for the best judicial forum for their clients even before the trial begins. In a case of first impression, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals has clarified the law on the question of whether a trial court’s denial of a request to transfer a lawsuit before trial has begun can be immediately appealed.

Relying on what had been written about the issue in lawsuits dealing with other matters, the appeals court said it was persuaded to refuse Aleksey Kulikov’s attempt to immediately appeal the court order denying his request to take his case to another court.

The winter of 2010 was memorable for the record amount of snow that it dumped on Maryland. For several days, Charm City businesses, courts and public transportation remained closed because of blizzard conditions. Many Maryland homeowners also remember the damage caused by the snow and ice – many roofs needed repair and some failed under the weight of the wintry weather.

An Anne Arundel couple’s attempt to have their insurer reimburse them under their homeowners’ insurance policy for the damage caused by the February 2010 collapse of their carport was stymied by Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals when it upheld their insurer’s refusal to pay their claim. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance (State Farm) denied the claim on the ground that the carport was not a building and that the policy only covered losses due to collapse of buildings.

Under more than a foot of snow and ice, Moira and Gregory Taylor’s carport collapsed. The Taylors had built the detached carport in 2007. Before construction, Mrs. Taylor had called her State Farm insurance agent to ask whether the carport would be covered under the policy. Taylor recollected that the agent said the carport would be covered. The 20×20 structure was built on an existing asphalt pad next to the house. It was not attached to the Taylor’s house. When the carport fell, it landed on the Taylors’ two cars, a snow blower and a power washer.

Once again the Maryland courts have thrown a medical malpractice case out of court because of perceived shortcomings in the certificate that is required before the case can go to court.

There are several hoops that plaintiffs must go through in order to file a medical malpractice claim in Maryland. Plaintiffs are required to first file a claim with Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (HCADRO). In order to weed out bad claims, plaintiffs are also required to file a certificate of a qualified expert attesting to a departure from the standard of care and attesting that the departure from that is the reason for the alleged injury. A certificate of merit must also be filed.

Critics say that the certificate requirement only makes it more difficult to bring medical malpractice cases to court and increases the cost of litigation. And, not all states require certificates. The Oklahoma courts ruled in June that the certificate requirement was unconstitutional, impeded access to the courts and added to the cost of litigation.

A death seven hours after a colon perforation would seem to qualify as accidental. But, a woman’s quest to obtain $67,000 in accidental death benefits under her husband’s insurance policy has been stymied by her insurer ruling against her — explaining that perforation is a known risk of colonoscopies — and two federal courts deciding that the insurance company had not abused its discretion in making the decision.

Sherri Thomas’ husband, Duane Middleton, underwent a partial colonoscopy in February 2010. During the medical procedure, the cecum – lining — of his colon was unintentionally perforated, resulting in his death a short time later.

The amended death certificate listed the manner of death as an accident and the cause of death as acute peritonitis due to perforation of the cecum during a colonoscopy, with hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, hypertension, and chronic renal insufficiency as other significant conditions contributing to his death.

A Baltimore-based hospital should have been allowed to present evidence of the nurse-midwife standard of care and the role that violation of that standard might have caused in a medical malpractice case involving a baby born with cerebral palsy and other health issues, a Maryland appeals court recently ruled.

In Enzo Martinez and others v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Maryland’s intermediate appellate court reversed the Circuit Court for Baltimore City court and sent the case back for a new trial, ruling that The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHU) should have been allowed to present testimony about the role the midwife used by Rebecca Fielding and Enso Martinez played in their son Enzo Martinez’s injuries.

Fielding went into labor with Enzo on March 25, 2010. She had decided to have a natural birth at home with a woman who was a registered nurse-midwife and a doula. A doula is a labor coach who provides support for a woman in labor. Unfortunately, the baby was not in the proper position, which often leads to the infant not being able to progress through the birth canal. In an attempt to expedite delivery, the midwife took several actions – fundal pressure, intramuscular injections of Pitocin and an episiotomy — which, did not work. Eventually the midwife decided that Fielding should go to the hospital.

A Maryland court has refused to throw out a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a couple who were told by a local hospital that the husband’s multiple stent surgeries were necessary and then, who received a letter from the Department of Justice – which was investigating the doctor for criminal healthcare fraud – telling the man that the surgeries were not necessary.

Defendants Peninsula Regional Medical Center and Dr. John McLean had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Julian Peacock had waited too long to bring his lawsuit. Maryland’s federal trial court disagreed.

“Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court finds that dismissal of the Peacocks’ claims on limitations grounds would be premature at this stage of the litigation. Maryland courts have repeatedly cautioned that whether a defendant fraudulently concealed a cause of action and whether a plaintiff exercised ordinary diligence in investigating a claim are usually questions for the jury,” the United States District Court for the District of Maryland said in Julian Peacock et al. v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, et al.