Baltimore County v. Barnhart
30 A.3d 291
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Baltimore County sued former County Attorney Barnhart seeking a declaratory ruling on alleged MLRPC violations related to representing Willis in an ERS benefits appeal.
- Barnhart previously served as County Attorney (1995–2001) and represented the ERS; Rowe audit and transfer policy background informed the dispute.
- Transfer Policy and SPP § 37-203(f)(2) controls how transferred credits are discounted; 1990 Policy initially used the valuation rate.
- Rowe’s 1998 audit recommended using the valuation rate per Transfer Policy; later 2007 amendment clarified use of the regular rate.
- Willis retired in 2008 and, with Barnhart as his counsel, challenged the use of the valuation rate in his Board of Appeals proceeding.
- Circuit Court granted Barnhart summary judgment; County appealed raising four questions about conflicts, waiver, jurisdiction, and declaratory-judgment vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a genuine dispute about MLRPC 1.9/1.11. | County asserts conflict based on same/substantially related matter and confidential information. | Barnhart maintains no substantial relationship or confidential info; no disqualifying conflict. | No genuine dispute; judgment for Barnhart affirmed. |
| Whether the County waived disqualification rights. | County did not timely object; delay was tactical. | Delay should not bar consideration; no tactical motive. | Waiver established; court affirmed summary judgment on disqualification issue. |
| Whether circuit court had jurisdiction to rule on MLRPC violations. | Circuit court can interpret ethical rules in declaratory action. | Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline. | Circuit court lacked jurisdiction; affirmed Court of Appeals’ exclusive authority. |
| Whether declaratory judgment was an appropriate vehicle for reviewing MLRPC violations. | Declaratory judgment appropriate to resolve ethical questions. | Disciplinary process governs; declaratory action not proper for misconduct findings. | Court affirmed judgment; declaratory judgment deemed an improper vehicle for misconduct ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gatewood v. State, 388 Md. 526 (Md. 2005) (substantial relationship standard for former conflicts)
- Franklin v. Clark, 454 F. Supp. 2d 356 (D. Md. 2006) (remote involvement may negate conflict; conf. information analysis)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (Md. 2006) (Court of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kent, 337 Md. 361 (Md. 1995) (exclusive disciplinary authority referenced)
- Buckley v. Airshield Corp., 908 F. Supp. 299 (D. Md. 1995) (timeliness factors in disqualification waivers)
- Tessier v. Plastic Surgery Specialists, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 724 (E.D. Va. 1990) (concerns about confidential information in conflicts)