Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 1196 September Term, 2010 ______________________________________ BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND v. VIRGINIA W. BARNHART ______________________________________ Eyler, Deborah S., Watts, Salmon, James P., (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. ______________________________________ Filed: October 27, 2011

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the Circuit Court for

Baltimore County in an action for declaratory judgment brought by Baltimore County, Maryland (the "County"), appellant, against Virginia W. Barnhart, appellee. The County sought a ruling as to whether appellee, the former County Attorney, violated the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MLRPC") by providing legal representation to David Willis, Jr. ("Willis"), a former County employee, in an administrative appeal of the County's calculation of his retirement benefits, and sought to have appellee disqualified from representing Willis. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. The County appealed and presented one question, containing multiple parts, which we rephrased into four questions, as follows:1 I. Did the circuit court err in finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether appellee violated MLRPC 1.9 and 1.11, and thereby in granting summary judgment? Did the circuit court err in finding that the County waived its right to request disqualification of appellee from representing Willis in the administrative appeal? Did the circuit court err in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether appellee violated MLRPC 1.9 and 1.11? Did the circuit court err in finding that declaratory

II.

III.

IV.
1

The County phrased the question thus: I. Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore County improperly grant summary judgment in favor of Ms. Barnhart when Baltimore County clearly established that: (1) multiple issues of material fact exist; (2) the County did not waive their right to raise Ms. Barnhart's conflict of interest; (3) jurisdiction is appropriate; and (4) there is a justiciable issue.

judgment was an inappropriate vehicle for determining whether appellee violated MLRPC 1.9 and 1.11?2 We answer the first three questions in the negative, and therefore shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Between May 1995, and 2001, appellee was the County Attorney for Baltimore County. In that capacity, appellee represented the County's Employee Retirement System ("ERS"), an agency of the County government that provides pension benefits to retirees. Rowe Appeal In March 2007, appellee notified the County that she intended to provide legal representation to a retiring County employee, Brian J. Rowe, in an administrative appeal contesting the calculation of his retirement benefits. Rowe accrued service time as a member of a noncontributory pension benefit system prior to joining the County. The County utilizes a contributory pension benefit system.3 Md. Code (2002)

Download Baltimore County v. Barnhart.pdf

Maryland Law