Preview:

HEADNOTE Bland v. Hammond, No. 1843, Sept. Term, 2006
Appellant's tort action w as dismissed without p rejudice as th e result of the unprofessional conduct of her attorney, who failed to respond to appellant; failed to provide discovery; and otherwise failed in his prof essional duty to her. After obtaining judgment against the attorney, appellant learned that he was uninsured and judgment-proof, and then moved to vacate the dismissal of her tort suit on the ground of fraud. On the facts of the record, her attorney's unprofessional conduct was primarily negligent (resulting in the dismissal of her suit) and later fraudulent (representing to her, after the dismissal, and after his suspension by the Court of Appeals, that he was still managing her tort case). The attorney's negligence and malpractice grew into a fraud, but not to the lev el of extrinsic fraud to support vacating the judgment, under Md. Code, CJ

Download Bland v. Hammond.pdf

Maryland Law