MD Court of Appeals to review ban on disbarred lawyers working as

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Aug 22, 2005 by Ann Parks

Top court to review

ban on working

as paralegals

A lawyer who was disbarred in December for wrongfully keeping $13,000 of his client's settlement funds is now fighting to keep his job as a paralegal.

In a request for emergency relief filed earlier this month, Stuart M. Blum asked the Court of Appeals to either amend his disbarment order to allow him to continue in his present line of work - or to put off the reinstatement of a Maryland Rule that prohibits disbarred attorneys from being employed as paralegals.

Maryland Rule 16-760(d)(2), first enacted in June 2001, was suspended two months later.

Word came about that one or more persons acting as paralegals were going to lose their jobs, Melvin Hirshman, bar counsel for the Attorney Grievance Commission, explained Friday of the 2001 hold. There it sat for four years - for whatever reason.

The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure eventually recommended that the rule be reinstated, according to Court of Special Appeals Chief Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr., who chairs the committee. The top court passed an order to that effect on June 2 of this year, stating its intent to reinstate the rule on Sept. 2.

The problem that the rule is intended to address is the lawyer who gets disbarred and pretends to be a paralegal, Murphy explained. The public policy was to protect from the unauthorized practice of law.

But on Aug. 8, the top court stayed its June order reinstating the rule - granting Blum something of a reprieve. It directed Blum and the commission to collect data on the number of disbarred attorneys working as paralegals and the extent to which other states restrict the practice. The top court will hear oral arguments in the matter Sept. 6.

My sense is that the Court of Appeals is concerned with the situation in which the rule creates unfairness to a former lawyer who is trying to get his license back, Murphy noted, adding that a one-size fits all approach could create problems for certain people.

Unreasonable?

Blum is claiming to be one of those people. If the rule is reinstated, his former partners, Jerome Blum and Harold Weisbaum, will be obligated to terminate Stuart Blum's job as a paralegal in their firm.

Not only will many of these former attorneys lose jobs as paralegals that they have had for years, but it will create an unreasonable hardship on many of these attorneys by depriving them of their only means of livelihood, as well as of the opportunity to maintain current, knowledgeable and competent in the legal profession to which they hope some day to return as attorneys, Blum's attorney, David Freishtat, wrote in his memorandum supporting the emergency motion.

Blum, who was admitted to the bar in 1990, consented to disbarment last December after it was discovered that he had mishandled a client's personal injury settlement. According to court filings, Blum obtained a $13,000 reduction in his client's medical bills and kept the money for himself.

After his disbarment, he continued to work as a paralegal for Blum & Weisbaum P.A., where he once worked as a partner. He worked under Weisbaum's direct supervision and there are no allegations that he has been unlawfully practicing law.

Necessary?

Hirshman said he knows of at least 14 disbarred or indefinitely suspended attorneys who have worked as paralegals, three of whom have been reinstated. And of the states that responded to his questioning, 18 have some sort of prohibition against disbarred or suspended attorneys working as paralegals; 24 do not.

But no state has ever applied the rule retroactively - so that a disbarred attorney who is currently working as a paralegal should be allowed to do so, he said.

Moreover, under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3, we've got the tools to deal with a firm who would hire a disbarred attorney and not supervise, he said. Against the individuals, bar counsel may seek an injunction if a person is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Hirshman's ultimate recommendation, in fact, is that the top court lift the stay but determine on a case-by-case basis if a disbarred attorney may work as a paralegal.

There might be a case if they were disbarred for murdering a person, Hirshman said. It wouldn't look great if they were working in a law office.

Traci M. Radice, president of the Maryland Association of Paralegals, felt that disbarred attorneys should not be allowed to practice as paralegals, based on the association's Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility.

We have duties to our clients and we have to protect their assets, she said, noting that Blum had, according to his joint petition for disbarment by consent, wrongfully retained a client's money. A settlement is clearly an asset.

Blum and Freishtat declined to comment directly before oral arguments.