Notice of In-Person Meeting
Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
June 20, 2024 Open Meeting, 9:30 a.m.
Instructions for Members of the Public
The June 20, 2024, 9:30 a.m. open meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure will be held in-person at the Maryland Judicial Center, Rooms 236-238, 187 Harry
S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401. Members of the public may attend.
If you have a comment related to a posted agenda item, you may e-mail it to
rules@mdcourts.gov at least 24 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your comment will
be distributed to the members of the Rules Committee prior to the meeting.
Agenda and Proposed Rules Changes
• The meeting agenda and proposed Rules changes are attached to this Notice. During the
meeting, copies of any updated materials will be available.
The agenda for a meeting of the Rules Committee generally will be
posted 7-10 days before the date of the meeting. At the discretion of
the Chair, items may be deleted from or added to the agenda.
AGENDA FOR
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
June 20, 2024 (Friday)
9:30 a.m.
Maryland Judicial Center
Rooms 236-238
187 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
Item 1
Consideration of Rules changes proposed by the
Special Subcommittee on Voir Dire
(a) Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 2-
512 (Jury Selection) and Rule 4-312 (Jury
Selection)
(b) Memorandum re: the status of proposed new Rules
pertaining to peremptory challenges
Judge
Wilner
Item 2
Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 19-711
(Complaint; Investigation by Bar Counsel)
Mr. Marcus
Item 3
Consideration of proposed amendments recommended by
the ADR Subcommittee:
Amendments to:
Rule 17-102 (Definitions)
Rule 17-202 (General Procedure)
Rule 17-205 (Qualifications of Court-
Designated
Mediators)
Rule 17-207 (Procedure for Approval)
Rule 17-303 (Designation of Mediators and
Settlement Conference Chairs)
Rule 17-602 (Authority to Order ADR)
Rule 17-603 (Qualifications of Court-
Designated
ADR Practitioners)
Rule 17-604 (Procedure for Approval)
Rule 9-205 (Mediation of Child Custody and
Visitation Disputes)
Mr.
Zollicoffer
Item 4
Consideration of proposed amendments to Rule 1-333
(Court Interpreters)
Judge
Wilner
AGENDA ITEM 1
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 2 – CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIRCUIT COURT
CHAPTER 500 - TRIAL
AMEND Rule 2-512 by deleting certain words from the tagline of section
(d), by changing the tagline of subsection (d)(1), by adding language to
subsection (d)(1) concerning the purpose of examination and the discretion of
the court, by adding a Committee note after subsection (d)(1), by creating new
subsection (d)(2) with language from current subsection (d)(1), by adding a
Committee note concerning the Model Jury Selection Questions after section
(d), by re-lettering current subsection (d)(2) as section (e), and by re-lettering
subsequent sections, as follows:
Rule 2-512. JURY SELECTION
(a) Jury Size and Challenge to the Array
(1) Size
Before a trial begins, the judge shall decide (A) the required number of
sworn jurors, including any alternates, and (B) the size of the array of qualified
jurors needed.
Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 8-421(b).
(2) Insufficient Array
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
2
If the array is insufficient for jury selection, the trial judge may direct that
additional qualified jurors be summoned at random from the qualified juror
pool as provided by statute.
(3) Challenge to the Array
A party may challenge the array on the ground that its members were not
selected or summoned according to law, or on any other ground that would
disqualify the array as a whole. A challenge to the array shall be made and
determined before any individual member of the array is examined, except that
the trial judge for good cause may permit the challenge to be made after the
jury is sworn but before any evidence is received.
(b) General Requirements
All individuals to be impanelled on the jury, including any alternates,
shall be selected in the same manner, have the same qualifications, and be
subject to the same examination.
(c) Jury List
(1) Contents
Before the examination of qualified jurors, each party shall be provided
with a list that includes each juror's name, address, age, sex, education,
occupation, spouse's occupation, and any other information required by Rule.
Unless the trial judge orders otherwise, the address shall be limited to the city
or town and zip code and shall not include the street address or box number.
(2) Dissemination
(A) Allowed
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
3
A party may provide the jury list to any person employed by the party to
assist in jury selection. With permission of the trial judge, the list may be
disseminated to other individuals such as the courtroom clerk or court reporter
for use in carrying out official duties.
(B) Prohibited
Unless the trial judge orders otherwise, a party and any other person to
whom the jury list is provided in accordance with subsection (c)(2)(A) of this
Rule may not disseminate the list or the information contained on the list to
any other person.
(3) Not Part of the Case Record; Exception
Unless the court orders otherwise, copies of jury lists shall be returned
to the jury commissioner. Unless marked for identification and offered in
evidence pursuant to Rule 2-516, a jury list is not part of the case record.
Cross reference: See Rule 16-934 concerning petitions to permit or deny
inspection of a case record.
(d) Examination and Challenges for Cause
(1) Examination Generally
The trial judge may permit the parties to conduct an examination of
qualified jurors or may conduct the an examination after considering questions
proposed by the parties. The purpose of an examination is to (A) identify and
remove prospective jurors who are unable to serve fairly and impartially and (B)
allow the parties to obtain information that may provide guidance for the use of
peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Regardless of whether an
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
4
examination is conducted by a judge or by the parties, the court retains
discretion to preclude improper, excessive, or abusive questioning.
Committee note: The ability to use the examination of a prospective juror to
obtain information that may provide guidance for the informed exercise of
peremptory challenges does not limit or excuse the trial court’s obligation to
remove a prospective juror for cause who cannot serve fairly and impartially.
(2) Conduct of Examination
If the judge conducts the examination, the judge may permit the parties to
supplement the examination by further inquiry or may submit to the jurors
additional questions proposed by the parties. The jurors' responses to any
examination shall be under oath. On request of any party, the judge shall
direct the clerk to call the roll of the array and to request each qualified juror to
stand and be identified when called.
Committee note: The Maryland State Bar Association, Inc. has promulgated
Model Jury Selection Questions for Maryland Civil Trials, which may provide
guidance to the court and parties in the formulation of relevant questions for
the examination of jurors.
(2)(e) Challenge for Cause
A party may challenge an individual qualified juror for cause. A challenge
for cause shall be made and determined before the jury is sworn, or thereafter
for good cause shown.
(e)(f) Peremptory Challenges
(1) Designation of Qualified Jurors; Order of Selection
Before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the trial judge shall
designate those individuals on the jury list who remain qualified after
examination. The number designated shall be sufficient to provide the required
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
5
number of sworn jurors, including any alternates, after allowing for the
exercise of peremptory challenges. The trial judge shall at the same time
prescribe the order to be followed in selecting individuals from the list.
(2) Number; Exercise of Peremptory Challenges
Each party is permitted four peremptory challenges plus one peremptory
challenge for each group of three or less alternates to be impanelled. For
purposes of this section, all plaintiffs shall be considered as a single party and
all defendants shall be considered as a single party unless the trial judge
determines that adverse or hostile interests between plaintiffs or between
defendants justify allowing one or more of them the separate peremptory
challenges available to a single party. The parties shall simultaneously
exercise their peremptory challenges by striking names from a copy of the jury
list.
(f)(g) Impanelled Jury
(1) Impanelling
The individuals to be impanelled as sworn jurors, including any
alternates, shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in
the order previously designated by the trial judge and shall be sworn.
(2) Oath; Functions, Powers, Facilities, and Privileges
All sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall take the same oath and,
until discharged from jury service, have the same functions, powers, facilities,
and privileges.
(3) Discharge of Jury Member
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
6
At any time before the jury retires to consider its verdict, the trial judge
may replace any jury member whom the trial judge finds to be unable or
disqualified to perform jury service with an alternate in the order of selection
set under subsection (e)(1). When the jury retires to consider its verdict, the
trial judge shall discharge any remaining alternates who did not replace
another jury member.
(g)(h) Foreperson
The trial judge shall designate a sworn juror as foreperson.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is in part derived from former Rules 754 a and Rule 543 c and in
part new.
Section (b) is derived from former Rule 751 b and former Rule 543 b 3.
Section (c) is new.
Section (d) is in part derived from former Rules 752, 754 b, and 543 d and in
part new.
Section (e) is derived from former Rule 754 b.
Section (e)(f) is derived from former Rules 753 and 543 a 3 and 4.
Section (f)(g) is new.
Section (g)(h) is derived from former Rule 751 d.
REPORTER’S NOTE
By letter dated April 11, 2024, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
requested that the Rules Committee consider whether to recommend changes
to the current scope of voir dire. Noting that the topic of voir dire was raised
during the General Assembly’s 2024 legislative session as Senate Bill 827
(“SB827”), the Chief Justice asked the Committee to address possible changes
to the voir dire process at its May meeting.
The Rules Committee most recently considered changes to the voir dire
process in 2014. In Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350, 357 n.1 (2014), the Court
of Appeals, now the Supreme Court, declined to “address Pearson's contention
that Maryland should discontinue limited voir dire by allowing voir dire to
facilitate the intelligent use of peremptory challenges” and asked the Rules
RULE 2-512
Rule 2-512
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
7
Committee “[t]o gather more information on the important issue of whether to
maintain limited voir dire.”
After discussing the topic at the June 19, 2014 Rules Committee
meeting, the Committee transmitted its 185
th
Report with the results of its
extensive research. The Report cited numerous resources, including
publications from the National Center of State Courts (“NCSC”) and standards
and principles of the American Bar Association (“ABA”).
The 185
th
Report contained five recommendations. In regard to the scope
of voir dire, the Report stated, “The Court should join the Federal courts and
the great majority of State courts and permit voir dire to include relevant
inquiries designed to facilitate or guide the intelligent exercise of peremptory
challenges, in both civil and criminal cases.”
At the Rules Committee meeting on May 17, 2024, the Committee heard
comments from several interested parties and discussed how to address the
issues raised. After consideration, the topic of voir dire expansion was referred
to a Special Subcommittee on voir dire. The Special Subcommittee
recommends expanding the scope of voir dire by amending Rules 2-512 and 4-
312.
Proposed amendments to Rule 2-512 update the tagline of section (d) to
refer only to examinations of prospective jurors. Language concerning
challenges for cause has been moved to a new section.
A new tagline for subsection (d)(1) reflects that the subsection now
addresses examinations, generally. Proposed new language defines the scope
of voir dire examination, using the language of SB827.
A proposed Committee note after subsection (d)(1) notes that the
expanded scope of voir dire does not minimize the obligation of the trial court
to remove jurors for cause.
New subsection (d)(2) addresses the conduct of the examination using
language from current subsection (d)(1).
A proposed Committee note after section (d) highlights the existence of
Model Jury Selection Questions promulgated by the MSBA. The Special
Subcommittee has been advised that the MSBA is currently reviewing and, if
needed, updating the Model Jury Selection Questions for both civil and
criminal trials.
Current subsection (d)(2) is re-lettered as new section (e). Subsequent
sections (e) through (g) are re-lettered as sections (f) through (h), respectively.
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
8
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 300 – TRIAL AND SENTENCING
AMEND Rule 4-312 by deleting certain words from the tagline of section
(e), by changing the tagline of subsection (e)(1), by adding language to
subsection (e)(1) concerning the purpose of examination and the discretion of
the court, by adding a Committee note after subsection (e)(1), by creating new
subsection (e)(2) with language from current subsection (e)(1), by adding a
Committee note concerning the Model Jury Selection Questions after section
(e), by re-lettering current subsection (e)(2) as section (f), and by re-lettering
subsequent sections, as follows:
Rule 4-312. JURY SELECTION
(a) Jury Size and Challenge to the Array
(1) Size
Before a trial begins, the trial judge shall decide (A) the required number
of sworn jurors, including any alternates and (B) the size of the array of
qualified jurors needed.
Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 8-420(b).
(2) Insufficient Array
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
9
If the array is insufficient for jury selection, the trial judge may direct
that additional qualified jurors be summoned at random from the qualified
juror pool as provided by statute.
(3) Challenge to the Array
A party may challenge the array on the ground that its members were not
selected or summoned according to law, or on any other ground that would
disqualify the array as a whole. A challenge to the array shall be made and
determined before any individual member of the array is examined, except that
the trial judge for good cause may permit the challenge to be made after the
jury is sworn but before any evidence is received.
(b) General Requirements
(1) Uniform Method of Impaneling
All individuals to be impaneled on the jury, including any alternates, shall
be selected in the same manner, have the same qualifications, and be subject
to the same examination.
(2) Jurors Not to Be Addressed by Name
In any proceeding conducted in the courtroom or in chambers, a juror
shall be referred to by juror number and not by name.
Committee note: The judge should advise prospective jurors and remind
impaneled jurors that (1) it is standard procedure for jurors to be referred to in
open court only by juror number and not by name, and (2) they may disclose
their names to each other if they wish and, when not in open court, refer to
each other by name, but they may not specifically disclose the names of other
jurors to anyone else unless authorized by the judge.
(c) Jury List
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
10
(1) Contents
Subject to section (d) of this Rule, before the examination of qualified
jurors, each party shall be provided with a list that includes each juror's name,
city or town of residence, zip code, age, gender, education, occupation, and
spouse's occupation. Unless the trial judge orders otherwise, the juror's street
address or box number shall not be provided.
(2) Dissemination
(A) Allowed
A party may provide the jury list to any person employed by the party to
assist in jury selection. With permission of the trial judge, the list may be
disseminated to other individuals such as the courtroom clerk or court reporter
for use in carrying out official duties.
(B) Prohibited
Unless the trial judge orders otherwise, a party and any other person to
whom the jury list is provided in accordance with subsection (c)(2)(A) of this
Rule may not disseminate the list or the information contained on the list to
any other person.
(3) Not Part of the Case Record; Exception
Unless the court orders otherwise, copies of jury lists shall be returned to
the jury commissioner. Unless marked for identification and offered in
evidence pursuant to Rule 4-322, a jury list is not part of the case record.
Cross reference: See Rule 16-913 (a) concerning disclosure of juror
information by a custodian of court records.
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
11
(d) Nondisclosure of Names and City or Town of Residence
(1) Finding by the Court
If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence or information, after
affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, that disclosure of the names
or the city or town of residence of prospective jurors will create a substantial
danger that (i) the safety and security of one or more jurors will likely be
imperiled, or (ii) one or more jurors will likely be subjected to coercion,
inducement, other improper influence, or undue harassment, the court may
enter an order as provided in subsection (d)(2) of this Rule. A finding under
this section shall be in writing or on the record and shall state the basis for the
finding.
(2) Order
Upon the finding required by subsection (d)(1) of this Rule, the court may
order that:
(A) the name and, except for prospective jurors residing in Baltimore City,
the city or town of residence of prospective jurors not be disclosed in voir dire;
and
(B) the name and, except for jurors residing in Baltimore City, the city or
town of residence of impaneled jurors not be disclosed (i) until the jury is
discharged following completion of the trial, (ii) for a limited period of time
following completion of the trial, or (iii) at any time.
Committee note: Nondisclosure of the city or town in which a juror resides is
in recognition of the fact that some counties have incorporated cities or towns,
the disclosure of which, when coupled with other information on the jury list,
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
12
may easily lead to discovery of the juror's actual residence. The exception for
Baltimore City is to take account of the fact that Baltimore City is both an
incorporated city and the equivalent of a county, and because persons are not
eligible to serve as jurors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City unless they
reside in that city, their residence there is necessarily assumed.
Cross reference: See Rule 16-913 (a).
(3) Extent of Nondisclosure
An order entered under this section may direct that the information not
be disclosed to (A) anyone other than the judge and counsel; (B) anyone other
than the judge, counsel, and the defendant; or (C) anyone other than the judge,
counsel, the defendant, and other persons specified in the order. If the court
permits disclosure to counsel but not the defendant, the court shall direct
counsel not to disclose the information to the defendant, except pursuant to
further order of the court.
(4) Modification of Order
The court may modify the order to restrict or allow disclosure of juror
information at any time.
Committee note: Restrictions on the disclosure of the names and city or town
of residence of jurors should be reserved for those cases raising special and
legitimate concerns of jury safety, tampering, or undue harassment. See
United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Quinones,
511 F.3d 289 (2nd Cir. 2007). When dealing with the issues of juror security
or tampering, courts have considered a mix of five factors in deciding whether
such information may be shielded: (1) the defendant's involvement in organized
crime, (2) the defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm
jurors, (3) the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process,
(4) the potential that, if convicted, the defendant will suffer a lengthy
incarceration, and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility
that jurors' names would become public and expose them to intimidation or
harassment. See United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir.
2005); United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994). Although the
possibility of a lengthy incarceration is a factor for the court to consider the
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
13
court should not shield that information on that basis alone. In particularly
high profile cases where strong public opinion about a pending case is evident,
the prospect of undue harassment, not necessarily involving juror security or
any deliberate attempt at tampering, may also be of concern.
(e) Examination and Challenges for Cause
(1) Examination Generally
The trial judge may permit the parties to conduct an examination of
qualified jurors or may conduct the examination after considering questions
proposed by the parties. The purpose of an examination is to (A) identify and
remove prospective jurors who are unable to serve fairly and impartially and (B)
allow the parties to obtain information that may provide guidance for the use of
peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Regardless of whether an
examination is conducted by a judge or by the parties, the court retains
discretion to preclude improper, excessive, or abusive questioning.
Committee note: The ability to use the examination of a prospective juror to
obtain information that may provide guidance for the informed exercise of
peremptory challenges does not limit or excuse the trial court’s obligation to
remove a prospective juror for cause who cannot serve fairly and impartially.
(2) Conduct of Examination
If the judge conducts the examination, the judge may permit the parties to
supplement the examination by further inquiry or may submit to the jurors
additional questions proposed by the parties. The jurors' responses to any
examination shall be under oath. On request of any party, the judge shall
direct the clerk to call the roll of the array and to request each qualified juror to
stand and be identified when called.
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
14
Committee note: The Maryland State Bar Association, Inc. has promulgated
Model Jury Selection Questions for Maryland Criminal Trials, which may
provide guidance to the court and parties in the formulation of relevant
questions for the examination of jurors.
(2)(f) Challenges for Cause
A party may challenge an individual qualified juror for cause. A challenge
for cause shall be made and determined before the jury is sworn, or thereafter
for good cause shown.
(f)(g) Peremptory Challenges
Before the exercise of peremptory challenges, the trial judge shall
designate those individuals on the jury list who remain qualified after
examination. The number designated shall be sufficient to provide the required
number of sworn jurors, including any alternates, after allowing for the
exercise of peremptory challenges pursuant to Rule 4-313. The judge shall at
the same time prescribe the order to be followed in selecting individuals from
the list.
(g)(h) Impaneled Jury
(1) Impaneling
The individuals to be impaneled as sworn jurors, including any alternates,
shall be called from the qualified jurors remaining on the jury list in the order
previously designated by the trial judge and shall be sworn.
(2) Oath; Functions, Powers, Facilities, and Privileges
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
15
All sworn jurors, including any alternates, shall take the same oath and,
until discharged from jury service, have the same functions, powers, facilities,
and privileges.
(3) Discharge of Jury Member
At any time before the jury retires to consider its verdict, the trial judge
may replace any jury member whom the trial judge finds to be unable or
disqualified to perform jury service with an alternate in the order of selection
set under section (e). When the jury retires to consider its verdict, the trial
judge shall discharge any remaining alternates who did not replace another
jury member.
(h)(i) Foreperson
The trial judge shall designate a sworn juror as foreperson.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is in part derived from former Rule 754 a and in part new.
Section (b) is derived from former Rule 751 b.
Section (c) is new.
Section (d) is new.
Section (e) is derived in part from former Rule 752 and 754 b and is in part
new.
Section (f) is derived from former Rule 754 b.
Section (f)(g) is derived from former Rule 753.
Section (g)(h) is new.
Section (h)(i) is derived from former Rule 751 d.
REPORTER’S NOTE
The Rules Committee was recently asked to consider the scope of voir
dire examination. For additional information, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 2-
512.
RULE 4-312
Rule 4-312
Recommended by Special SC on Voir Dire 06/07/2024
For RC 06/20/24
16
Proposed amendments to Rule 4-312 update the tagline of section (e) to
refer only to examinations of prospective jurors. Language concerning
challenges for cause has been moved to a new section.
A new tagline for subsection (e)(1) reflects that the subsection now
addresses examinations, generally. Proposed new language defines the scope
of voir dire examination, using the language of SB827.
A proposed Committee note after subsection (e)(1) notes that the
expanded scope of voir dire does not minimize the obligation of the trial court
to remove jurors for cause.
New subsection (e)(2) addresses the conduct of the examination using
language from current subsection (e)(1).
A proposed Committee note after section (e) highlights the existence of
Model Jury Selection Questions promulgated by the MSBA. The Special
Subcommittee has been advised that the MSBA is currently reviewing and, if
needed, updating the Model Jury Selection Questions for both civil and
criminal trials.
Current subsection (e)(2) is re-lettered as new section (f). Subsequent
sections (f) through (h) are re-lettered as sections (g) through (i), respectively.
1
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Hon. ALAN M. WILNER, Chair
Hon. DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, Vice Chair
SANDRA F. HAINES, Reporter
COLBY L. SCHMIDT, Deputy Reporter
HEATHER COBUN, Assistant Reporter
MEREDITH A. DRUMMOND, Assistant Reporter
Judiciary A-POD
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland
21401
(410) 260-3630
FAX: (410) 260-3631
MEMORANDUM
TO : Members of the Rules Committee
FROM : Meredith Drummond, Esq., Assistant Reporter
DATE : June 11, 2024
SUBJECT : Proposed New Rules Regarding Peremptory Challenges
By letter dated April 11, 2024, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
requested that the Rules Committee consider whether to recommend changes
to the current scope of voir dire. Noting that the topic of voir dire was raised
during the General Assembly’s 2024 legislative session, the Chief Justice asked
the Committee to address possible changes to the voir dire process at its May
meeting.
At the Rules Committee meeting on May 17, 2024, the Committee heard
comments from several interested parties and discussed how to address the
issues raised. After consideration, the topic of voir dire expansion was referred
to a Special Subcommittee on Voir Dire to (1) determine whether to recommend
expanding the scope of voir dire, (2) consider guidelines for implementation of
any expansion, and (3) discuss additional methods of identifying jurors who
harbor impermissible biases.
The Special Subcommittee on Voir Dire met on June 7, 2024 and
recommends amendments to Rules 2-512 and 4-312 concerning the scope of
voir dire. The recommended amendments are on the agenda of the June 20,
2024 Rules Committee meeting.
In addition, the Special Subcommittee determined that adopting a Rule
like Washington Rule 37 would address concerns about the use of peremptory
challenges. The Subcommittee also discussed expanding the scope of any rule
to protect the groups enumerated in Cal. Civ. Proc. § 231.7.
The Special Subcommittee is working on drafting a new Rule pertaining
to peremptory challenges to be placed in Title 2 and a comparable Rule to be
2
placed in Title 4. At this time, drafts have not been finalized. The
Subcommittee plans to meet again during the summer and present draft Rules
pertaining to peremptory challenges to the Rules Committee at its September 5,
2024 meeting.
Washington Rule 37 and Cal. Civ. Proc. § 231.7 are provided for
reference. Does the Committee have any guidance it wishes to provide to the
Special Subcommittee regarding whether, as a matter of policy, certain specific
provisions of Washington Rule 37 or Cal. Civ. Proc. § 231.7 should or should
not be incorporated into a Maryland Rule?
AGENDA ITEM 2
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 19 – ATTORNEYS
CHAPTER 700 – DISCIPLINE, INACTIVE STATUS, RESIGNATION
AMEND Rule 19-711 by adding new subsection (b)(3) pertaining to
allegations of misconduct by an attorney who is a candidate for public office
and by making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 19-711. COMPLAINT; INVESTIGATION BY BAR COUNSEL
(a) Who May Initiate
Bar Counsel may file a complaint on Bar Counsel's own initiative, based
on information from any source. Any other person also may file a complaint
with Bar Counsel. Any communication to Bar Counsel that (1) is in writing, (2)
alleges that an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct or has an
incapacity, (3) includes the name and contact information of the person making
the communication, and (4) states facts which, if true, would constitute
professional misconduct by or demonstrate an incapacity of an attorney
constitutes a complaint.
(b) Review of Complaint
(1) Generally
Bar Counsel shall make an inquiry concerning every complaint that is
not facially frivolous, unfounded, or duplicative.
(2) Declining Complaint
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
2
If Bar Counsel concludes that a complaint is without merit, does not
allege facts which, if true, would demonstrate either professional misconduct or
incapacity, or is duplicative, Bar Counsel shall decline the complaint and notify
the complainant. Bar Counsel also may decline a complaint submitted by an
person who provides information about an attorney derived from published
news reports or third party sources where the complainant appears to have no
personal knowledge of the information being submitted.
(3) When Attorney is a Candidate for Election
(A) Definitions
For purposes of this Rule, (i) “election” [means][includes] a general
election, primary election, or special election [in Maryland], whether arising
under the Code, Election Article, a city ordinance, or an equivalent source, and
(ii) “candidate” means an individual who files a certificate of candidacy for a
public office.
(B) Generally
If a complaint is received or initiated by Bar Counsel less than 90 days
before an election in which the attorney is a candidate, all action in the matter
shall be stayed until after the election unless:
(i) the complaint is declined pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this Rule;
(ii) Bar Counsel is proceeding in accordance with Rule 19-732;
(iii) the attorney submits a written waiver of the stay to Bar Counsel; or
(iv) seven Commission members present or participating by remote
electronic means determine that the stay should be lifted because: (a) deferring
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
3
action could put an individual or the public at risk from the attorney’s past or
potential future misconduct that is within the purview of the Commission and
the risk could be avoided or mitigated by prompt investigation or (b) prompt
investigation is necessary to preserve evidence. Upon a determination by the
Commission to lift the stay in whole or in part, Bar Counsel shall proceed as
directed by the Commission.
Cross reference: See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pierre, 485 Md. 56
(2023).
Committee note: When subsection (b)(3) of this Rule applies, all action on a
complaint is stayed prior to any notification by Bar Counsel to the attorney.
The Committee recognizes that the complainant or other individual may make
the existence of the complaint public despite the stay. Subsection (b)(3)(B)(iii)
addresses the circumstance in which the attorney has been made aware of the
existence of a complaint and wishes to decline the stay.
(3)(4) After Attorney Response
Unless a complaint is declined for one of the reasons set forth in
subsection (b)(2) of this Rule or action is stayed pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of
this Rule, Bar Counsel ordinarily shall obtain a written response from the
attorney who is the subject of a complaint and consider other appropriate
information to assist in evaluating the merits of the complaint. If Bar Counsel
determines based upon such evaluation that an insufficient basis exists to
demonstrate misconduct or incapacity or that the overall circumstances do not
warrant investigation, Bar Counsel may close the file without approval of the
Commission. Otherwise, subject to subsection (b)(5)(b)(6) of this Rule, Bar
Counsel shall (A) docket the complaint, (B) notify the complainant and explain
in writing the procedures for investigating and processing the complaint, (C)
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
4
comply with the notice requirement of section (c) of this Rule, and (D) conduct
an investigation to determine whether there exists a substantial basis to
conclude the attorney committed professional misconduct or is incapacitated.
(4)(5) If Complaint Declined or Closed
If a complaint is declined or closed by Bar Counsel, allegations made in
the complaint may not be used in any disciplinary proceeding against the
attorney. If additional information becomes known to Bar Counsel regarding a
complaint that was declined or closed before docketing, the earlier allegations
may be reopened.
Committee note: In this Rule, “docket” refers to the process of listing a
complaint on the docket of active investigations maintained by Bar Counsel,
rather than on a docket maintained by the clerk of a court. Before determining
whether a complaint is frivolous or unfounded, Bar Counsel may contact the
attorney and obtain an informal response to the allegations.
(5)(6) Pending Civil or Criminal Action
If Bar Counsel concludes that a civil or criminal action involving material
allegations against the attorney substantially similar or related to those alleged
in the complaint is pending in any court of record in the United States, or that
substantially similar or related allegations presently are under investigation by
a law enforcement, regulatory, or disciplinary agency, Bar Counsel, with the
approval of the Commission, may defer action on the complaint pending a
determination of those allegations in the pending action or investigation. Bar
Counsel shall notify the complainant of that decision and, during the period of
the deferral, shall report to the Commission, at least every 90 days, the status
of the other action or investigation. The Commission, at any time, may direct
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
5
Bar Counsel to proceed in accordance with subsection (b)(1) or (3)(4) of this
Rule.
(c) Notice to Attorney
(1) Generally
Except as otherwise provided in this section, Bar Counsel shall notify the
attorney who is the subject of the complaint that Bar Counsel is undertaking
an investigation to determine whether the attorney has engaged in professional
misconduct or is incapacitated. The notice shall be given before the conclusion
of the investigation and shall include the name and contact information of the
complainant and the general nature of the professional misconduct or
incapacity under investigation. As part of the notice, Bar Counsel may demand
that the attorney provide information and records that Bar Counsel deems
appropriate and relevant to the investigation. The notice shall state the time
within which the attorney shall provide the information and any other
information that the attorney may wish to present. The notice shall be served
on the attorney in accordance with Rule 19-708.
(2) Exceptions
Bar Counsel need not give notice of investigation to an attorney if, with
the approval of the Commission, Bar Counsel proceeds under Rule 19-737, 19-
738, or 19-739.
(d) Time for Completing Investigation
(1) Generally
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
6
Subject to subsection (b)(5) subsections (b)(3) and (b(6) of this Rule or
unless the time is extended pursuant to subsection (d)(2) of this Rule, Bar
Counsel shall complete an investigation within 120 days after docketing the
complaint.
(2) Extension
(A) Upon written request by Bar Counsel and a finding of good cause by the
Commission, the Commission may grant an extension for a specified period.
Upon a separate request by Bar Counsel and a finding of good cause, the
Commission may renew an extension for a specified period.
(B) The Commission may not grant or renew an extension, at any one time,
of more than 60 days unless it finds specific good cause for a longer extension.
(C) If an extension exceeding 60 days is granted, Bar Counsel shall provide
the Commission with a status report at least every 60 days.
(3) Sanction
For failure to comply with the time requirements of section (d) of this
Rule, the Commission may take any action appropriate under the
circumstances, including dismissal of the complaint and termination of the
investigation.
Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule 16-731 (2016) and is in
part new.
Reporter’s Note
The Supreme Court of Maryland in Attorney Grievance Commission v.
Pierre, 485 Md. 56 (2023) and in a letter to the Chair of the Rules Committee
dated September 21, 2023 requested that the Rules Committee consider
RULE 19-711
Rule 19-711 (v 2.2)
Post-Drafting Session 05/21/2024
7
proposing a Rule addressing how and when attorney misconduct investigations
and proceedings should be handled during an election campaign in which the
respondent attorney is a candidate.” September 21, 2023 letter, paragraph 2.
The Attorneys and Judges Subcommittee, in conjunction with the then-
recently appointed Bar Counsel, considered the Court’s request at its January
9, 2024 meeting. Following that meeting, additional research was conducted to
identify approaches taken in other jurisdictions and by organizations interested
in attorney disciplinary matters, and a special drafting group was convened to
prepare amendments to Rule 19-711.
Rule 19-711 is proposed to be amended to add new subsection (b)(3),
which governs how complaints against an attorney who is a candidate for
public office will proceed.
The revisions provide that action on any complaint against an attorney
who is a candidate for public office that is received or initiated less than 90
days before the election is stayed until after the election unless (1) the
complaint is declined by Bar Counsel pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of the Rule;
(2) Bar Counsel proceeds in accordance with Rule 19-732; (3) the attorney
waives the stay in writing; or (4) the stay is lifted by a vote of at least seven
members of the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Stylistic changes are also proposed to this Rule.
AGENDA ITEM 3
RULE 17-102
Rule 17-102
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISION
AMEND Rule 17-102 by adding new section (g) defining “MACRO”; by re-
lettering current sections (g) through (l) as (h) through (m), respectively; and by
making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 17-102. DEFINITIONS
· · ·
(g) MACRO
“MACRO” means the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office, a unit
within the Administrative Office of the Courts.
(g)(h) Mediation
“Mediation” means a process in which the parties work with one or more
impartial mediators who, without providing legal advice, assist the parties in
reaching their own voluntary agreement for the resolution of all or part of a
dispute.
Cross reference: For the role of the mediator, see Rule 17-103.
(h)(i) Mediation Communication
“Mediation communication” means a communication, whether spoken,
written, or nonverbal, made as part of a mediation, including a communication
RULE 17-102
Rule 17-102
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
made for the purpose of considering, initiating, continuing, reconvening, or
evaluating a mediation or a mediator.
(i)(j) Neutral Case Evaluation
“Neutral case evaluation” means a process in which (1) the parties, their
attorneys, or both appear before an impartial evaluator and present in
summary fashion the evidence and arguments to support their respective
positions, and (2) the evaluator renders an evaluation of their positions and an
opinion as to the likely outcome of the litigation.
(j)(k) Neutral Expert
“Neutral expert” means an individual with special expertise to provide
impartial technical background information, an impartial opinion, or both in a
specific area.
(k)(l) Neutral Fact-Finding
“Neutral fact-finding” means a process in which (1) the parties, their
attorneys, or both appear before an impartial individual and present the
evidence and arguments to support their respective positions as to disputed
factual issues, and (2) the individual makes findings of fact as to those issues
that are not binding unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.
(l)(m) Settlement Conference
“Settlement conference” means a conference at which the parties, their
attorneys, or both appear before an impartial individual to discuss the issues
and positions of the parties in an attempt to agree on a resolution of all or part
RULE 17-102
Rule 17-102
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
of the dispute by means other than trial. A settlement conference may include
neutral case evaluation and neutral fact-finding, and the impartial individual
may recommend the terms of an agreement.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is new.
Section (b) is new.
Section (c) is new.
Section (d) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (a) (2012).
Section (e) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (b) (2012).
Section (f) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (c) (2012).
Section (g) is new.
Section (g)(h) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (d) (2012).
Section (h)(i) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (e) (2012).
Section (i)(j) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (f) (2012).
Section (j)(k) is new.
Section (k)(l) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (g) (2012).
Section (l)(m) is derived from former Rule 17-102 (h) (2012).
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-102 implement changes requested by
the Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the
Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative
Office of the Courts. The proposal provides for a centralized, statewide hub for
ADR practitioners to apply and maintain credentials.
Rule 17-102 is amended to add new section (g) to define “MACRO,” the
acronym for the office in the Administrative Office of the Courts that will
implement and maintain the statewide program. “MACRO” is used throughout
Title 17 to refer to the office.
Current sections (g) through (l) are re-lettered as (h) through (m),
respectively.
RULE 17-202
Rule 17-202
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 200 – PROCEEDINGS IN CIRCUIT COURT
AMEND Rule 17-202 by deleting references to the court’s list of approved
ADR practitioners and organizations and replacing them with references to the
list maintained by MACRO in subsections (c)(1) and (f)(5), by adding a
requirement that a practitioner must either have applied to provide services in
that court or consented to a designation in that court, by replacing “the court”
with “MACRO” in subsection (c)(2), by adding to section (d) a requirement that
the court attempt to use a diverse range of qualified individuals, and by adding
a Committee note after section (d), as follows:
Rule 17-202. GENERAL PROCEDURE
· · ·
(c) Designation of ADR Practitioner
(1) Direct Designation
In an order referring all or part of an action to ADR, the court may
designate, from a list of approved ADR practitioners maintained by the court
pursuant to Rule 17-207, an ADR practitioner to conduct the ADR an ADR
practitioner approved and on the list maintained by MACRO pursuant to Rule
17-207 who has either (A) applied to provide services in the court making the
designation or (B) consented to the designation in that court.
RULE 17-202
Rule 17-202
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
Committee note: The court may determine that it is appropriate to designate
an ADR practitioner who has not applied to provide services in that court but
who is on the list to provide services in another court. Before a court
designates an ADR practitioner who has not applied to offer services in that
court, the court should obtain the consent of the practitioner to serve in that
court.
(2) Indirect Designation if ADR is Non-fee-for-service
If the ADR is non-fee-for-service, the court may delegate authority to an
ADR organization selected from a list maintained by the court MACRO
pursuant to Rule 17-207 or to an ADR unit of the court to designate an ADR
practitioner qualified under Rules 17-205 or 17-206, as applicable, to conduct
the ADR. An individual designated by the ADR organization pursuant to the
court order has the status of a court-designated ADR practitioner.
Committee note: Examples of the use of indirect designation are referrals of
indigent litigants to publicly funded community mediation centers and referrals
of one or more types of cases to a mediation unit of the court.
(d) Discretion in Designation
In designating an ADR practitioner, the court is not required to choose at
random or in any particular order from among the qualified ADR practitioners
or organizations on its lists. The court should endeavor to use the services of a
diverse range of as many qualified persons as practicable, but the court may
consider, in light of the issues and circumstances presented by the action or
the parties, any special training, background, experience, expertise, or
temperament of the available prospective designees.
Committee note: Courts are encouraged to use a broad range of practitioners
that reflect the diversity of the parties who appear before the courts.
RULE 17-202
Rule 17-202
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
· · ·
(f) Objection; Alternatives
· · ·
(5) Ruling
If a party timely objects to a referral, the court shall revoke its order. If
the parties offer an alternative proposal or agree on a different ADR
practitioner, whether or not the ADR practitioner's name is on the court's list of
approved ADR practitioners and organizations maintained by MACRO pursuant
to Rule 17-207, the court shall revoke or modify its order, as appropriate.
· · ·
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-202 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts. Currently, individual courts approve and maintain lists of ADR
practitioners available to provide services in those courts. MACRO intends to
centralize this process by requiring practitioners to apply directly to MACRO.
MACRO will review the applications for compliance with the requirements of
this Title and will maintain the lists of practitioners approved to work in each
court as well as the ADR organizations approved by each court to provide
services.
Proposed amendments to subsection (c)(1) provide for designation of a
practitioner from the list maintained by MACRO. The practitioner must either
be on the list approved for designation in that court or have consented to
designation in that court. The intent of the provision is to provide flexibility to
courts, especially those with smaller rosters of approved practitioners, to select
a practitioner with the requisite expertise and availability. A Committee note
after subsection (c)(1) clarifies that a court may wish to designate a practitioner
who is not on that court’s list but who is otherwise approved by MACRO and
RULE 17-202
Rule 17-202
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
4
on the list for another court. The court must obtain that practitioner’s consent
before making the designation. Subsection (c)(2) updates a reference to the
court’s list to MACRO’s list.
Section (d) adds the requirement that the court should attempt to use a
diverse range of qualified practitioners. A Committee note following section (d)
explains the intent of the added language.
Subsection (f)(5) is also amended to change a reference to the court’s list
of approved practitioners to the list maintained by MACRO.
RULE 17-205
Rule 17-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 200 – PROCEEDINGS IN CIRCUIT COURT
AMEND Rule 17-205 by requiring a mediator designated by the court to
provide documentation of continuing education to MACRO in subsection (a)(5),
by permitting the county administrative judge to designate an individual to
receive reports in subsection (a)(7), by adding new subsection (a)(9) requiring a
mediator to notify the court and MACRO if changes to certain information, and
by making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 17-205. QUALIFICATIONS OF COURT-DESIGNATED MEDIATORS
(a) Basic Qualifications
A mediator designated by the court shall:
(1) unless waived by the parties, be at least 21 years old;
(2) have completed at least 40 hours of basic mediation training in a
program meeting the requirements of Rule 17-104 or, for individuals trained
prior to January 1, 2013, former Rule 17-106;
(3) be familiar with the rules, statutes, and practices governing mediation in
the circuit courts;
(4) have mediated or co-mediated at least two civil cases;
(5) complete in each calendar year four hours of continuing mediation-
related education in one or more of the topics set forth in Rule 17-104 and
RULE 17-205
Rule 17-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
provide documentation of continuing education in the manner required by
MACRO and approved by the State Court Administrator;
(6) abide by mediation standards adopted by Administrative Order of the
Supreme Court and posted on the Judiciary website;
(7) submit to periodic monitoring of court-ordered mediations by a qualified
mediator designated by the county administrative judge or the judge’s
designee; and
(8) comply with procedures and requirements prescribed in the court's case
management plan filed under Rule 16-302 (b) relating to diligence, quality
assurance, and a willingness to accept, upon request by the court, a
reasonable number of referrals at a reduced-fee or pro bono.; and
(9) provide notification to MACRO of any changes to (A) the mediator’s name,
business address, telephone number, or e-mail address and (B) any other
information required to be updated by the application approved pursuant to
Rule 17-207. MACRO shall update the practitioner list and notify each court
where the practitioner has requested to offer services.
· · ·
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-205 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts. The proposal provides for a centralized, statewide hub for ADR
practitioners to apply and maintain credentials. MACRO is in the process of
RULE 17-205
Rule 17-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
developing a web-based platform – through the Judiciary website – for this
process.
Proposed amendments to section (a) are intended to permit MACRO to
oversee practitioner compliance with continuing education requirements.
Subsection (a)(5) requires that documentation of continuing education be
submitted to MACRO in a manner approved by the State Court Administrator.
The centralized process is not dependent on completion of the web-based
platform and can be conducted by other means until the platform is completed,
according to MACRO representatives. The State Court Administrator may
determine the best method of transmitting information to and from MACRO in
the interim.
Subsection (a)(7) adds the potential for an administrative judge’s
designee to assign a monitor.
New subsection (a)(9) provides for notification by the practitioner of any
changes to contact information or other relevant information.
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 200 – PROCEEDINGS IN CIRCUIT COURT
AMEND Rule 17-207 by changing in subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) the
manner of application for an individual seeking to conduct ADR, by specifying
in subsections (a)(3)(C) and (b)(3)(C) that the State Court Administrator may
require applications be made through an online platform, by deleting the
language in subsection (a)(4) and replacing it with a new procedure for action
by MACRO on an application; by changing in subsections (a)(5) and (b)(5) the
responsibility for maintenance of lists of approved practitioners, by deleting the
contents of subsection (a)(6) and replacing it with a provision for public access
to lists by MACRO, by adding new subsections (a)(7) and (b)(7) creating a
process for designating a practitioner as inactive, by re-lettering subsection
(a)(7) as (a)(8); by adding to subsection (a)(8) a provision for a circuit court to
notify MACRO that a practitioner should be removed from a list; by changing in
subsection (b)(4) the committees and organizations responsible for reviewing
and acting on applications, by specifying in subsection (b)(6) that MACRO is
responsible for providing access to lists of practitioners to the public and to
circuit court clerks, by re-lettering subsection (b)(7) as (b)(8); by changing in
new subsection (b)(8) the body responsible for determining that an individual
should be removed from the court-approved practitioner lists, and by making
stylistic changes, as follows:
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
Rule 17-207. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL
(a) Generally
(1) Scope
This section applies to individuals who seek eligibility for designation
by a court to conduct ADR pursuant to Rule 9-205, Rule 14-212, or Rule 17-
201 other than in actions assigned to the Business and Technology Case
Management Program or the Health Care Malpractice Claims ADR Program.
(2) Application
An individual seeking designation to conduct ADR shall file an
application with the clerk of the circuit court from which the individual is
willing to accept referrals MACRO. The application shall be substantially in the
form approved by the State Court Administrator and shall be available from the
clerk of each circuit court posted to the Judiciary website. The clerk shall
transmit each completed application, together with all accompanying
documentation, to the county administrative judge or the judge's designee.
(3) Documentation
(A) An application for designation as a mediator shall be accompanied by
documentation demonstrating that the applicant meets the requirements of
Rule 17-205 (a) and, if applicable, Rule 9-205 (c)(2) and Rule 17-205 (c) and (e).
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
(B) An application for designation to conduct ADR other than mediation
shall be accompanied by documentation demonstrating that the applicant is
qualified as required by Rule 17-206 (a).
(C) The State Court Administrator may require the application and
documentation to be provided in a word processing file through an online
platform or other electronic format.
(4) Action on Application
(A) Determination
After such investigation as the county administrative judge deems
appropriate, the county administrative judge or designee shall notify the
applicant of the approval or disapproval of the application and the reasons for
the disapproval. MACRO shall review the application to determine (i) whether
an applicant seeking designation as a mediator meets the requirements of Rule
17-205 (a) and, if applicable, Rule 9-205 (c)(2) and Rule 17-205 (c) and (e), and
(ii) whether an applicant for designation to conduct other ADR meets the
requirements of Rule 17-206 (a).
(B) Notice to Applicant
After such investigation as MACRO deems appropriate, MACRO shall
notify the applicant of the approval or disapproval of the application and the
reasons for a disapproval.
(C) Notice to Court
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
4
If MACRO approves the application, MACRO shall transmit or make
available through electronic means the completed application and all
accompanying documentation to the county administrative judge or the judge’s
designee for each court for which the applicant is seeking designation to
conduct ADR.
(5) Court-Approved ADR Practitioner and Organization Lists
The county administrative judge or designee of each circuit court MACRO
shall maintain a list: lists of ADR practitioners approved in accordance with
this Rule and ADR organizations approved in each court. The lists shall be
made available to all circuit courts and identify the ADR practitioners and ADR
organizations that have requested to serve in each court. The lists shall also
identify:
(A) of mediators who meet the qualifications set forth in Rule 17-205 (a), (c),
and (e);
(B) of mediators who meet the qualifications of Rule 9-205 (c);
(C) of other ADR practitioners who meet the applicable qualifications set
forth in Rule 17-206 (a); and
(D) of ADR organizations approved by the county administrative judge.
(6) Public Access to Lists
The county administrative judge or designee shall provide to the clerk of
the court a copy of each list, together with a copy of the application filed by
each individual on the lists. The clerk shall make these items available to the
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
5
public. MACRO shall provide public access to the lists set forth in subsection
(a)(5) of this Rule.
(7) Designation as Inactive
After notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, MACRO may
designate a practitioner on a court-approved list as “inactive” for failure to
maintain the continuing education requirements set forth in Rule 17-205 (a)(5).
MACRO shall notify the applicable court when a practitioner has been
designated as “inactive.” If the practitioner subsequently comes into
compliance with the continuing education requirements, MACRO shall notify
the applicable court that the practitioner is no longer designated as “inactive.”
(7)(8) Removal From List
After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the county
administrative judge or another judge of the court designated by the
administrative judge may remove a person determine that an ADR practitioner
should be removed from a court-approved list for failure to maintain the
qualifications required by Rule 17-205, Rule 9-205 (c), or Rule 17-206 (a) or for
other good cause. The county administrative judge or the judge’s designee
shall notify MACRO of the determination, the reasons for the determination,
and whether the reasons for the determination are relevant to the practitioner’s
eligibility to serve in other courts. Upon receipt of such notification from the
court, MACRO shall remove the practitioner from the court’s list. If the reason
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
6
for removal is relevant to the practitioner’s eligibility to serve in other courts,
MACRO shall notify the other courts of the practitioner’s removal.
(b) Business and Technology and Health Care Malpractice Programs
(1) Scope
This section applies to individuals who seek eligibility for designation by a
court to conduct ADR pursuant to Rule 17-201 in an action assigned to the
Business and Technology Case Management Program or pursuant to Rule 17-
203 in an action assigned to the Health Care Malpractice Claims ADR Program.
(2) Application
An individual seeking designation to conduct ADR shall file an application
with the Administrative Office of the Courts, which shall transmit the
application to the committee of program judges appointed pursuant to Rule 16-
702 MACRO. The application shall be substantially in the form approved by
the State Court Administrator and shall be available from the clerk of each
circuit court posted to the Judiciary website.
(3) Documentation
(A) An application for designation as a mediator, shall be accompanied by
documentation demonstrating that the applicant meets the applicable
requirements of Rule 17-205.
(B) An application for designation to conduct ADR other than mediation
shall be accompanied by documentation demonstrating that the applicant is
qualified as required by Rule 17-206 (a).
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
7
(C) The State Court Administrator may require the application and
documentation to be provided in a word processing file through an online
platform or other electronic format.
(4) Action on Application
After such investigation as the Committee of Program Judges MACRO
deems appropriate, the Committee shall notify the Administrative Office of the
Courts that the application has been approved or disapproved and the reasons
for a disapproval. The Administrative Office of the Courts MACRO shall
approve or disapprove the application. MACRO shall notify the applicant of the
action of the Committee and the reasons for a disapproval.
(5) Court-Approved ADR Practitioner Lists
The Administrative Office of the Courts MACRO shall maintain a list:
(A) of mediators who meet the qualifications of Rule 17-205 (b);
(B) of mediators who meet the qualifications of Rule 17-205 (d); and
(C) of other ADR practitioners who meet the qualifications of Rule 17-206
(a).
(6) Public Access to Lists
The Administrative Office of the Courts MACRO shall attach to the lists
such additional information as the State Court Administrator specifies, keep
the lists current, and transmit a copy of each current list and attachments to
the clerk of each circuit court, who shall make these items available to the
clerk of each circuit court and to the public.
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
8
Committee note: Examples of information that the State Court Administrator
may specify as attachments to the lists include information about the
individual's qualifications, experience, and background and any other
information that would be helpful to litigants selecting an individual best
qualified to conduct ADR in a specific case.
(7) Designation as Inactive
After notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, MACRO may
designate a practitioner on a court-approved list as “inactive” for failure to
maintain the continuing education requirements set forth in Rule 17-205 (a)(5).
MACRO will notify the applicable court(s) when a practitioner has been
designated as “inactive.” If the practitioner subsequently comes into
compliance with the continuing education requirements, MACRO shall notify
the applicable court(s) that the practitioner is no longer designated as
“inactive.”
(7)(8) Removal From List
After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Committee of
Program Judges MACRO may remove an individual from a court-approved
practitioner list for failure to maintain the qualifications required by Rule 17-
205 or Rule 17-206 (a) or for other good cause.
Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule 17-107 (2012) and is in
part new.
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-207 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
9
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
Subsection (a)(2) is amended to provide that ADR practitioners apply to
MACRO rather than the circuit court, using a form approved by the State Court
Administrator posted to the Judiciary website.
Subsection (a)(3)(C) is amended to permit the State Court Administrator
to require use of an online platform to transmit the application and other
documentation.
The procedure in current subsection (a)(4) is proposed to be deleted and
replaced. New subsection (a)(4)(A) sets forth the determination to be made by
MACRO on receipt of an application. New subsection (a)(4)(B) requires MACRO
to notify the applicant of the decision to either approve or disapprove the
application and the reasons for a disapproval. New subsection (a)(4)(C)
provides that MACRO shall share the application and materials with the
administrative judge or the judge’s designee in each jurisdiction where the
applicant will seek designation.
The Rules Committee’s ADR Subcommittee was informed that
administrative judges are in favor of this proposed process to streamline
applications and approvals. Judges in each court will maintain their discretion
regarding the designation of practitioners for cases, but MACRO will oversee
the initial screening for baseline qualifications and monitor continuing
education compliance.
Subsection (a)(5) is amended to require MACRO to maintain lists of ADR
practitioners approved by any circuit court and make those lists available to all
circuit courts.
Subsection (a)(6) deletes the current language pertaining to public access
to lists and requires MACRO to provide public access. The publicly available
information will include the practitioner’s name, areas of expertise, and other
basic information, according to the MACRO representatives. Additional profile
details, including contact information, can be made public at the practitioner’s
discretion.
New subsection (a)(7) creates a new procedure for designating a
practitioner as inactive for failure to document completion of continuing
education, which is now reported to MACRO under proposed amendments to
Rule 17-205. MACRO will notify the applicable court when a practitioner is
designated as inactive and reinstate a practitioner after requirements are met.
RULE 17-207
Rule 17-207
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
10
Current subsection (a)(7) is re-lettered as subsection (a)(8). It alters the
process for removing a practitioner from an approved list when the practitioner
fails to maintain required qualifications. The county administrative judge or
his or her designee will now notify MACRO of the determination and MACRO
will remove the practitioner from lists. MACRO will then determine if the
reason for the removal is one which should be shared with other courts where
the practitioner works.
Proposed amendments in section (b) make similar changes to the
provisions governing ADR practitioners in business and technology and health
care malpractice programs, with some exceptions. Proposed new subsection
(b)(7) contains the same procedure for designation as inactive as proposed new
subsection (a)(7).
RULE 17-303
Rule 17-303
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 300 – PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURT
AMEND Rule 17-303 by clarifying in subsection (b)(3) that the court or
ADR Office should attempt to use a diverse range of qualified individuals and
by adding a Committee note following subsection (b)(3), as follows:
Rule 17-303. DESIGNATION OF MEDIATORS AND SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE CHAIRS
(a) Limited to Qualified Individuals
(1) Court-Designated Mediator
A mediator designated by the court or pursuant to court order shall
possess the qualifications prescribed in Rule 17-304 (a).
(2) Court-Designated Settlement Conference Chair
A settlement conference chair designated by the court or pursuant to
court order shall possess the qualifications prescribed in Rule 17-304 (b).
(b) Designation Procedure
(1) Court Order
The court by order may designate an individual to conduct the ADR or
may direct the ADR Office, on behalf of the court, to select a qualified
individual for that purpose.
(2) Duty of ADR Office
RULE 17-303
Rule 17-303
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
If the court directs the ADR Office to select the individual, the ADR Office
may select the individual or may arrange for an ADR organization to do so. An
individual selected by the ADR Office or by the ADR organization has the status
of a court-designated mediator or settlement conference chair.
(3) Discretion in Designation or Selection
Neither the court nor the ADR Office is required to choose at random or
in any particular order from among the qualified individuals. They should
endeavor to use the services of a diverse range of as many qualified individuals
as practicable, but the court or ADR Office may consider, in light of the issues
and circumstances presented by the action or the parties, any special training,
background, experience, expertise, or temperament of the available prospective
designees.
Committee note: Courts are encouraged to use a broad range of practitioners
that reflect the diversity of the parties who appear before the courts.
(4) ADR Practitioner Selected by Agreement of Parties
If the parties agree on the record to participate in ADR but inform the
court of their desire to select an individual of their own choosing to conduct the
ADR, the court may (A) grant the request and postpone further proceedings for
a reasonable time, or (B) deny any request for postponement and proceed with
a scheduled trial.
Source: This Rule is new.
RULE 17-303
Rule 17-303
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
REPORTER’S NOTE
The proposed amendment to Rule 17-303 implements a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
Subsection (b)(3) is amended to require that the court should attempt to
use a diverse range of qualified practitioners. A Committee note following
subsection (b)(3) explains the intent of the “diverse range” addition.
RULE 17-602
Rule 17-602
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 600 – PROCEEDINGS IN ORPHANS’ COURT
AMEND Rule 17-602 by updating an internal reference in subsection
(f)(1), by clarifying in subsection (f)(2) that the courts should attempt to use a
diverse range of qualified individuals, and by adding to the Committee note
following subsection (f)(2), as follows:
Rule 17-602. AUTHORITY TO ORDER ADR
· · ·
(f) Designation of ADR Practitioner
(1) Generally
The order shall designate an individual to conduct the mediation or
settlement conference (A) agreed to by the parties, or (B) in the absence of such
an agreement, from a list of qualified individuals maintained by the court
pursuant to Rule 17-603 17-604.
(2) Discretion in Designation
In designating an individual under subsection (e)(1)(B) of this Rule, the
court is not required to choose at random or in any particular order from
among the qualified individuals on its lists. The court should endeavor to use
the services of a diverse range of as many qualified individuals as practicable,
but the court may consider, in light of the issues and circumstances presented
RULE 17-602
Rule 17-602
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
by the action or the parties, any special training, background, experience,
expertise, or temperament of the available prospective designees.
Committee note: Courts are encouraged to use a broad range of practitioners
that reflect the diversity of the parties who appear before the courts.
Nothing in these Rules is intended to preclude the parties from participating in
a collaborative law process as long as all parties agree to it.
Source: This Rule is new.
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-602 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
An internal reference is updated in subsection (f)(1). Subsection (f)(2) is
amended to add the requirement that the court should attempt to use a diverse
range of qualified practitioners. The Committee note following subsection (f)(2)
is updated to explain the intent of the “diverse range” addition.
RULE 17-603
Rule 17-603
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 600 – PROCEEDINGS IN ORPHANS’ COURT
AMEND Rule 17-603 by updating an internal reference in section (a) and
by requiring in subsection (a)(4) that documentation of continuing education be
submitted to MACRO, as follows:
Rule 17-603. QUALIFICATIONS OF COURT-DESIGNATED ADR
PRACTITIONERS
(a) Court-Designated Mediators
A mediator designated by the court pursuant to Rule 17-602 (e)(1)(B)
(f)(1)(B) shall:
(1) unless waived by the parties, be at least 21 years old;
(2) have completed at least 40 hours of basic mediation training in a
program meeting the requirements of Rule 17-104 or, for individuals trained
prior to January 1, 2013, former Rule 17-106;
(3) be familiar with the rules, statutes, and procedures governing wills, the
administration of estates, the authority of orphans' courts and registers of
wills, and the mediation program operated by the orphans' court;
(4) complete in each calendar year four hours of continuing mediation-
related education in one or more of the topics set forth in Rule 17-104 and
RULE 17-603
Rule 17-603
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
provide documentation of continuing education to MACRO in a manner
approved by the State Court Administrator;
(5) abide by mediation standards adopted by Administrative Order of the
Supreme Court and posted on the Judiciary website; and
(6) submit to periodic monitoring of court-ordered mediations by a qualified
mediator designated by the Chief Judge.
· · ·
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-603 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
A technical amendment in section (a) reflects the correct location of the
provision governing appointment of an ADR practitioner from court-approved
lists.
Subsection (a)(4) is amended to incorporate the new proposed method for
practitioners to report continuing education to MACRO.
RULE 17-604
Rule 17-604
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 17 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CHAPTER 600 – PROCEEDINGS IN ORPHANS’ COURT
AMEND Rule 17-604 by requiring in subsection (a)(1) that an individual
file an application with MACRO and use a form approved by the State Court
Administrator, by deleting the Committee note following subsection (a)(1); by
deleting the language in section (b) and replacing it with a new procedure for
action by MACRO on an application; by providing in subsection (c)(1) that
MACRO shall maintain lists of approved individuals; by adding new subsection
(c)(2) creating a process for designating a practitioner as inactive; by re-
lettering current subsection (c)(2) as (c)(3); by adding to new subsection (c)(3) a
provision for the Chief Judge of the orphans’ court to notify MACRO that a
practitioner should be removed from a list; and by making stylistic changes, as
follows:
Rule 17-604. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL
(a) Application
(1) Generally
An individual seeking designation to conduct mediation or settlement
conference proceedings shall file an application with the Chief Judge of the
orphans' court from which MACRO indicating the county or counties from
which the individual is willing to accept referrals. The application shall be
RULE 17-604
Rule 17-604
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
substantially in the form approved by the Chief Judge State Court
Administrator and posted to the Judiciary website. An individual may apply for
designation to conduct both mediations and settlement conferences but shall
file a separate application for each. The Chief Judge may select a designee to
accept and maintain the applications.
Committee note: The Committee recommends that the Chief Judges of the
orphans' courts attempt to develop a uniform application form that can be used
throughout the State.
(2) Documentation
The application shall be accompanied by documentation that the
applicant meets the requirements of Rule 17-603 (a) or (b), as relevant, and
may include documentation of the applicant's approval to conduct mediations
or settlement conferences in other orphans' courts of the State.
(b) Action on Application
(1) Determination
After such investigation as the Chief Judge finds appropriate, the Chief
Judge shall notify the applicant of the approval or disapproval of the
application and the reasons for any disapproval. MACRO shall review the
application to determine whether an applicant seeking designation as a
mediator meets the requirements of Rule 17-603 (a) or (b), as relevant.
(2) Notice to Applicant
RULE 17-604
Rule 17-604
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
After such investigation as MACRO deems appropriate, MACRO shall notify
the applicant of the approval or disapproval and the reasons for any
disapproval.
(3) Notice to Court
If MACRO approves the application, MACRO shall transmit or make
available through electronic means the completed application and all
accompanying documentation to the Chief Judge or the judge’s designee for
each court for which the applicant is seeking designation to conduct ADR.
(c) Lists
(1) Generally
The Chief Judge MACRO shall maintain lists of individuals who have been
approved for designation to conduct mediations or settlement conferences,
which shall be available to the public and to the other orphans' courts of the
State.
(2) Designation as Inactive
After notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, MACRO may
designate a practitioner on a court-approved list as “inactive” for failure to
maintain the continuing education requirements set forth in Rule 17-603.
MACRO will notify the applicable court when a practitioner has been
designated as “inactive.” If the practitioner subsequently comes into
compliance with the continuing education requirements, MACRO shall notify
the applicable court that the practitioner is no longer designated as “inactive.”
RULE 17-604
Rule 17-604
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
4
(2)(3) Removal from List
After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Chief Judge or
another judge of the court designated by the Chief Judge may remove an
individual from a list for failure to maintain the required qualifications or for
other good cause. The Chief Judge or the judge’s designee shall notify MACRO
of the determination. Upon receipt of such notification from the court, MACRO
shall remove the practitioner from the orphans’ court’s list. If the reason for
removal is relevant to the practitioner’s eligibility to serve in other courts,
MACRO shall notify the other courts of the practitioner’s removal.
Source: This Rule is new.
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 17-604 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
Subsection (a)(1) is amended so that ADR practitioners apply to MACRO
rather than the Chief Judge of the orphans’ court, using a form approved by
the State Court Administrator posted to the Judiciary website. A Committee
note referencing forms devised by the Chief Judge of the orphans’ court is
deleted.
The procedure in current section (b) is proposed to be deleted and
replaced. New subsection (b)(1) sets forth the determination to be made by
MACRO on receipt of an application. New subsection (b)(2) requires MACRO to
notify the applicant of the decision to either approve or disapprove the
application and the reasons for a disapproval. New subsection (b)(3) provides
that MACRO shall share the application and materials with the administrative
RULE 17-604
Rule 17-604
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
5
judge or the judge’s designee in each court where the applicant will seek
designation.
Subsection (c)(1) is amended to require MACRO to maintain lists of ADR
practitioners approved by an orphans’ court to conduct ADR.
New subsection (c)(2) creates a new procedure for designating a
practitioner as inactive for failure to document completion of continuing
education.
Current subsection (c)(2) is re-lettered as subsection (c)(3). New
subsection (c)(3) is amended to add “from List” to the caption. A provision is
added to require the Chief Judge of the orphans’ court or a designee to notify
MACRO of a determination that an individual should be removed from a list.
The Chief Judge is also authorized to designate another judge of the court to
make the determination.
RULE 9-205
Rule 9-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 9 – FAMILY LAW ACTIONS
CHAPTER 200 – DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ALIMONY, CHILD SUPPORT, AND
CHILD CUSTODY
AMEND Rule 9-205 by adding new subsection (a)(2)(C) defining
“MACRO”; by deleting references to individuals approved by the court and
replacing them with individuals on the list approved by MACRO in subsections
(c)(3), (d)(1)(A), and (d)(5); by adding a requirement that the court endeavor to
use a diverse range of qualified mediators to subsection (d)(4) and an
explanatory Committee note following subsection (d)(4); and by updating a
cross reference following section (f) as follows:
Rule 9-205. MEDIATION OF CHILD CUSTODY AND VISTATION DISPUTES
(a) Applicability; Definitions
. . .
(2) In this Rule, the following definitions apply:
(A) “Abuse” has the meaning stated in Code, Family Law Article, § 4-501.
(B) “Coercive control” means a pattern of emotional or psychological
manipulation, maltreatment, threat of force, or intimidation used to compel an
individual to act, or refrain from acting, against the individual's will.
(C) “MACRO” means the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office, and unit
within the Administrative Office of the Courts.
RULE 9-205
Rule 9-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
2
. . .
(c) Qualifications of Court-Designated Mediator
To be eligible for designation as a mediator by the court, an individual
shall:
(1) have the basic qualifications set forth in Rule 17-205 (a);
(2) have completed at least 20 hours of training in a family mediation
training program that includes:
(A) Maryland law relating to separation, divorce, annulment, child custody
and visitation, and child and spousal support;
(B) the emotional aspects of separation and divorce on adults and children;
(C) an introduction to family systems and child development theory;
(D) the interrelationship of custody, visitation, and child support; and
(E) if the training program is given after January 1, 2013, strategies to (i)
identify and respond to power imbalances, intimidation, and the presence and
effects of domestic violence, and (ii) safely terminate a mediation when
termination is warranted; and
(3) have co-mediated at least eight hours of child access mediation sessions
with an individual approved by the county administrative judge on the list
maintained by MACRO pursuant to Rule 17-207 (a)(5)(B), or, in addition to any
observations during the training program, have observed at least eight hours of
such mediation sessions.
(d) Court Designation of Mediator
RULE 9-205
Rule 9-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
3
(1) In an order referring a matter to mediation, the court shall:
(A) designate a mediator from a list of qualified mediators approved by the
court MACRO;
(B) if the court has a unit of court mediators that provides child access
mediation services, direct that unit to select a qualified mediator; or
(C) direct an ADR organization, as defined in Rule 17-102, to select a
qualified mediator.
(2) If the referral is to a fee-for-service mediation, the order shall specify the
hourly rate that the mediator may charge for mediation in the action, which
may not exceed the maximum stated in the applicable fee schedule.
(3) A mediator selected pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(B) or (d)(1)(C) of this
Rule has the status of a court-designated mediator.
(4) In designating a mediator, the court is not required to choose at random
or in any particular order. The court should endeavor to use the services of a
diverse range of as many qualified mediators as practicable, but the court may
consider, in light of the issues and circumstances presented by the action or
the parties, any special training, background, experience, expertise, or
temperament of the available prospective designees.
Committee note: Courts are encouraged to use a broad range of practitioners
that reflect the diversity of the parties who appear before the courts.
(5) The parties may request to substitute for the court-designated mediator
another mediator who has the qualifications set forth in Rule 17-205 (a)(1), (2),
(3), and (6) and subsection (c)(2) of this Rule, whether or not the mediator's
RULE 9-205
Rule 9-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
4
name is on the court's MACRO’s list, by filing with the court no later than 15
days after service of the order of referral to mediation a Request to Substitute
Mediator.
. . .
(f) Confidentiality
Confidentiality of mediation communications under this Rule is governed
by Rule 17-105.
Cross reference: For the definition of “mediation communication,” see Rule 17-
102 (h)(i).
Committee note: By the incorporation of Rule 17-105 by reference in this Rule,
the intent is that the provisions of the Maryland Mediation Confidentiality Act
are inapplicable to mediations under Rule 9-205. See Code, Courts Article, §
3-1802(b)(1).
. . .
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 9-205 implement a request by the
Judicial Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee and the Mediation
and Conflict Resolution Office (“MACRO”) in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
New subsection (a)(2)(C) defines “MACRO” as it is used in the Rule. The
definition is the same as the new definition proposed to be added to Rule 17-
102.
Subsection (c)(3) is amended to delete the reference to an individual
approved by the county administrative judge. Instead, co-mediation must have
been conducted with an individual on the list approved by MACRO pursuant to
Rule 17-207 (a)(5)(B).
Subsections (d)(a)(A) and (d)(5) are amended to refer to a list of qualified
mediators approved by MACRO.
RULE 9-205
Rule 9-205
ADR Subcommittee approved
For 6/20/2024 R.C.
5
Subsection (d)(4) is amended to require that the court should attempt to
use a diverse range of qualified practitioners. A Committee note following
subsection (d)(4) explains the intent of the “diverse range” addition.
The cross reference following section (f) is updated.
AGENDA ITEM 4
RULE 1-333
Rule 1-333
GCA S.C. approved
For 6/20/24 R.C.
1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 300 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
AMEND Rule 1-333 by adding a Committee note following subsection
(b)(2) pertaining to notice by a third party that an individual needs an
interpreter, as follows:
Rule 1-333. COURT INTERPRETERS
· · ·
(b) Spoken Language Interpreters
(1) Applicability
This section applies to spoken language interpreters. It does not apply to
sign language interpreters.
Cross reference: For the procedure to request a sign language interpreter, see
Rule 1-332.
(2) Application for the Appointment of an Interpreter
An individual who needs an interpreter shall file an application for the
appointment of an interpreter. To the extent practicable, the application shall
be filed not later than 30 days before the proceeding for which the interpreter is
requested on a form approved by the State Court Administrator and available
from the clerk of the court and on the Judiciary website. If a timely and
RULE 1-333
Rule 1-333
GCA S.C. approved
For 6/20/24 R.C.
2
complete application is filed, the court shall appoint an interpreter free of
charge in court proceedings in accordance with section (c) of this Rule.
Committee note: Nothing in this Rule precludes the parties to an action,
judges, court personnel, or other individuals who become aware of the
existence or potential existence of an individual who needs an interpreter from
providing prompt notice to the court of that fact. The court may construe the
notice as a request pursuant to section (b) of this Rule.
(3) When Additional Application Not Required
(A) Party
If a party who is an individual who needs an interpreter includes on the
application a request for an interpreter for all proceedings in the action, the
court shall provide an interpreter for each proceeding without requiring a
separate application prior to each proceeding.
Committee note: A nonparty who may qualify as an individual who needs an
interpreter must timely file an application for each proceeding for which an
interpreter is requested.
(B) Continued or Postponed Proceedings
Subject to subsection (b)(5) of this Rule, if an individual who needs an
interpreter filed a timely application and the proceeding for which the
interpreter was requested is continued or postponed, the court shall provide an
interpreter for the continued or postponed proceeding without requiring the
individual to file an additional application.
(4) Where Timely Application Not Filed
If an application is filed, but not timely filed pursuant to subsection (b)(2)
of this Rule, or an individual who may qualify as an individual who needs an
RULE 1-333
Rule 1-333
GCA S.C. approved
For 6/20/24 R.C.
3
interpreter appears at a proceeding without having filed an application, the
court shall make a diligent effort to secure the appointment of an interpreter
and may either appoint an interpreter pursuant to section (c) of this Rule or
determine the need for an interpreter as follows:
(A) Examination on the Record
To determine whether an interpreter is needed, the court, on request or
on its own initiative, shall examine a party, attorney, witness, or victim on the
record. The court shall appoint an interpreter if the court determines that:
(i) the party does not understand English well enough to participate fully
in the proceedings and to assist the party's attorney, or
(ii) the party, attorney, witness, or victim does not speak English well
enough to readily understand or communicate the spoken English language.
(B) Scope of Examination
The court's examination of the party, witness, or victim should include
questions relating to:
(i) identification;
(ii) active vocabulary in vernacular English; and
(iii) the court proceedings.
Committee note: Examples of matters relating to identification are: name,
address, birth date, age, and place of birth. Examples of questions that elicit
active vocabulary in vernacular English are: How did you come to court today?
What kind of work do you do? Where did you go to school? What was the
highest grade you completed? What do you see in the courtroom? Examples of
questions relating to the proceedings are: What do you understand this case to
be about? What is the purpose of what we are doing here in court? What can
you tell me about the rights of the parties to a court case? What are the
RULE 1-333
Rule 1-333
GCA S.C. approved
For 6/20/24 R.C.
4
responsibilities of a court witness? Questions should be phrased to avoid “yes
or no” replies.
(5) Notice When Interpreter Is Not Needed
If an individual who needs an interpreter will not be present at a
proceeding for which an interpreter had been requested, including a proceeding
that had been continued or postponed, the individual, the individual's attorney,
or the party or attorney who subpoenaed or otherwise requested the
appearance of the individual shall notify the court as far in advance as
practicable that an interpreter is not needed for that proceeding.
· · ·
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 1-333 add a Committee note following
subsection (b)(2) to clarify that other individuals involved in the proceeding,
court personnel, or anyone else who has knowledge that an individual needs an
interpreter may alert the court to that fact. This provision was requested by
the Court Access Committee as part of the Report and Recommendations of the
Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review Subcommittee.
