I periodically blog about judicial nominations and vacancies on Maryland's trial courts because I think a working knowledge of the local bench is important to properly advise clients in personal injury cases.
This is less important for cases in the Circuit Courts because those are usually jury cases where the injured victim's damages are determined by the jury, rather than by the judge. In contrast, in District Court cases, damages are determined by the judge hearing the case. Because of this, knowing your factfinder is essential to evaluating a settlement proposal or tailoring your presentation to your audience.

As I have noted in previous entries, there is a vacancy now on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and there is an upcoming vacancy on the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Today I was reviewing the nominees for the Baltimore City vacancy and I noticed something I can't quite figure out.

In Maryland judges are appointed by the Governor, and then must run for retention in the next general election for a full fifteen year term. Putting aside the issue of whether electing judges makes any sense in the first place, there are some things about the process that make no sense to me.

The Governor selects from a pool of applicants that have been vetted by the Trial Courts Nominating Commission for each jurisdiction. Once the vacancy is filled, the unsuccessful applicants are put in a "pool" which is then automatically submitted to the Governor for every vacancy on the same court for the next two years. Why? Since new applicants emerge with every vacancy, at least some new applicants are submitted every time. If the idea is to submit to the Governor only the best qualified applicants, why send the same names as before with a few new faces added?

I think the issue of judicial selection is a complicated on on both the state and federal level. It clearly makes no sense to have judges elected by the public, since only a very small pool of litigation attorneys has a real appreciation of the skill level and aptitude of trial court judges. The process of judicial appointment by a President or Governor is also inherently political. I wonder if there may be a better way to ensure that the public gets the best judges? I don't know, but I can't help feeling there must be a way to improve this process.

There's an old saying that you should never put anything in writing that you don't want to see as an exhibit someday. There is a lot of wisdom in this.

Yesterday I was taking a deposition in a collateral dispute related to a car accident injury case. I was cross examining a witness about a very strongly worded letter he had sent to one of the people involved. The witness was not happy to be asked about every intemperate thing he had said in the letter, and whether he had any factual basis to say those things. Maybe it will not ultimately affect the litigation, but it sure made him look bad.

Write this down: don't write correspondence when you are mad! Now, you will most likely do this anyway, but do it in a way that doesn't cause harm or embarrassment. If you write angry, don't mail angry. Let it sit for a day and then reread it. Or show it to a colleague to see if it should be toned down. Angry missives seldom contribute to a real resolution of anything, and can be embarrassing when you have to explain them in a deposition or respond to them as exhibits to a motion.

Be especially aware of email. People tend to write email very conversationally. Don't email something you don't want to see again.

The Maryland Judiciary has announced that there is an upcoming opening on the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

This vacancy will be created by the retirement of the Hon. Dana M. Levitz. Maryland judges face a mandatory retirement age of seventy. I got to know Judge Levitz while I was interning for the late Hon. Edward A. DeWaters, because at the time the two judges shared chambers. Judge Levitz is very bright, and will be a loss for the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

I will keep an eye out to see who applies for the vacancy. It will be interesting to see who Governor O'Malley appoints to the seat.

Yesterday I spent the morning in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. I was there for a trial on an injury case from a Baltimore car accident. The defendant driver was a Russian immigrant who did not speak English. His defense attorney from Geico Insurance had done what she was supposed to do- file a request for an interpreter with the court. In fact, she had done it three times, because the first two times the court sent the request back to her, even though she had done it correctly. Ultimately the case got postponed because the interpreter the court selected had car trouble and wasn't able to get to the courthouse.

But the problems defense counsel had getting the interpreter scheduled in the first place got me thinking about how efficiently different Maryland courts are administered. For example, the District Court of Maryland is a statewide unified system. There are District Court locations in all of Maryland's counties and Baltimore City, but the system itself is funded and administered at the state level. This is great in that all of the locations have similar procedures, and share a common set of forms and rules.

But on the other hand, I think most experienced Maryland lawyers have shared my experience that some of these courts seem to work more efficiently than others. For example, in a multi-defendant case, some locations automatically continue a trial date when a new summons is requested for an unserved defendant, while others do not. This can be really confusing if you often practice in a variety of locations. At Miller & Zois, we practice in every locality in the state. This means we have to pay close attention to the procedures each locality uses in setting cases for trial.

It also seems like the procedures for specially setting cases varies by district. In some counties your case will be set on its own docket, in a particular courtroom. Other places, specially set means more than one case will be on the docket, but the docket will be only specially set cases. I have also had specially set cases that were for some reason left on the regular afternoon docket.

I can't figure out why there are so many differences in what is essentially a unified court system. It would have to be more efficient if these kinds of things worked the same statewide.

Today's Maryland Daily Record reports on the possible effects the recent Presidential election may have on appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Apparently there is one seat that has been open for over eight years. I won't pretend to understand all of the political aspects of the federal judicial selection process. But the lawyer in me can't believe that in eight years nobody could find a lawyer in Maryland who was experienced enough and acceptable enough to both ends of the political system to make it through the appointment process. I mean, at some point, this has to affect the quality of justice in the court system.

Today's article mentions that the Hon. Andre Davis, who currently sits on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, may be considered for one of the several open seats. Judge Davis was formerly a judge on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He is known for being an excellent judge, and was previously nominated for a seat on the Fourth Circuit by President Clinton.

I think it will be interesting in the coming months to see how President-elect Obama addresses the issue of judicial appointments, particularly since I expect the Democratic majority in the Senate will speed the selection process.

I just finished writing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Maryland Association for Justice. The name of the case is Grady v. Brown, which is pending in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. This is a Boulevard Rule case.

The Boulevard Rule is the name of a legal doctrine in Maryland and elsewhere governing the right of way of drivers at intersections. Certain roads are favored, and any traffic entering those roads must stop and yield the right of way.

The issue in the case is that the defendant driver entered the favored roadway, but only to a degree that he didn't think would interfere with the flow of traffic. He was wrong, and there was an accident.

The trial judge in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City allowed the question of the defendant's negligence to go to the jury, despite the Boulevard Rule. The appeal is on the issue of the court's denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the issue of the defendant's negligence. Plaintiff contends that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law.

The plaintiff in the case is represented by my colleague and fellow MAJ member Irwin I. Weiss, of Baltimore County. The defendant is being represented by Mark Brown of H. Barritt Peterson & Associates, also in Baltimore County. Talented, hardworking lawyers on both sides. I am involved in this case as counsel for the Maryland Association for Justice.

Because the resolution of this issue may affect the rights of car accident injury victims across Maryland, the MAJ petitioned for and was granted permission to file a brief as a "friend of the court." This means that I wrote a brief for the court's consideration addressing the policy implications of this decision for all drivers in the state.

I have done this before- I have served on the MAJ's Amicus Committee for three years. I also wrote the amicus brief in Mundey v. Erie Insurance. I love appellate writing, and writing as amicus often allows a little more creativity than representing one of the parties to the case. Plus, this is a way to directly affect the development of the law in my primary area of practice.

The trick in writing an effective amicus brief is to remember that you have a different goal than the attorneys representing the parties. The parties are stuck with their facts, good or bad. You're not. Amicus have the ability to change the facts or argue hypotheticals in order to illustrate to the court the potential policy implications of the matter before them.

For example, in Mundey, the issue was a requirement that an insured must "physically reside" in the covered household in order to be eligible for uninsured motorists benefits. Unfortunately, the plaintiff in the case had bad facts. He had been kicked out of his parents house for getting in trouble with the law, and other misbehavior. I argued in my brief that the court should ignore the reason the plaintiff was temporarily not residing in his parents household. I argued that what was important was that the decision would affect other people who were temporarily absent from their households for a variety of beneficial reasons, and that it wouldn't be fair to issue a decision making all of those people uninsured. In order to do this I contacted the Peace Corps, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Marayland National Guard. They were more than happy to send me statistics showing the number of Marylanders who were temporarily absent from their households for national service, religious missions, or military service. I included these statistics in the Appendix of my brief. I think this was effective because even though Mundey lost his case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland limited its holding to the facts of that particular case.

In writing amicus briefs it is also important to remember to avoid filing what is called a "me too" brief. The court's time and attention is valuable. It doesn't help them to read a regurgitation of the arguments and analysis made by the parties. Brevity is key.

I think it is a lot more difficult to write an amicus brief where the parties are represented by quality appellate counsel. In the Grady case, Mr. Weiss did such a good job that there were policy arguments I avoided entriely in the amicus brief, simply because they had been ably addressed, and I didn't think there was value in telling the court "yeah, what he said."

The only part of writing as amicus I don't like is that under the Maryland Rules, only the parties get to present oral argument to the court. I am not sure exactly when this case will be argued, but I will be watching closely for a decision because this is an important issue in determining the rights of Maryland drivers.

Last night I attended the final membership meeting of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association. Following the lead of our national association, the membership voted to change our name to the Maryland Association for Justice.

The rationale for this decision is that our organization is better served with a name that describes our mission and what we do. And that is advocate for justice for our clients.

There is also an element of branding in this decision. Apparently nobody likes trial lawyers, but everyone is in favor of justice. I guess there's a reason the Patriot Act wasn't named the Civil Rights Deprivation Act of 2001.

I am and always have been proud to be called a trial lawyer. I think convincing the six people in the box is more than enough of a check on so-called "frivolous lawsuits". Anyone who disagrees should try it sometime- its harder than you think it is.

But on balance, I think anything that makes the public more receptive to our message is a good thing for us, for our clients, and for the civil justice system.

For the last two weeks I've been working on several written projects involved in different stages of personal injury cases. I'm working on a Motion for New Trial, a Response to Motion to Dismiss, and an Amicus Curiae brief to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Because this has occupied a big chunk of my time lately, I have a few thoughts on legal writing in general. Beware, these aren't presented in any organized form.

First remember that punctuation marks generally go inside the quotation marks. I am constantly messing this one up. Not because I don't know the rule, but through a combination of habit and poor proofreading skills. It doesn't help the every time I miss one of these, Ron Miller makes fun of me.

Don't use the phrases "the case at bar", "the instant case" or the like. It's "this case." This one comes to you straight from Justice Scalia's book, once again filtered through our friend "call me Ron" Miller.

One book you should have is the hated Bluebook. I think the concept of a several hundred page manual on citation is ludicrous, but it's really useful for citation forms you may not use every day. For example, I last used it to figure out the rule on the capitalization of court names. I don't know how much trial and appellate courts in Maryland care about this stuff as opposed to the content of the argument, but I am convinced getting it right makes you look better than getting it wrong.

The Motion for New Trial I am working on centers on the application of a few of the Maryland Rules. A fantastic resource on this topic is the book Maryland Rules Commentary, by Paul V. Neimayer and Linda M. Schuett. Both of the authors were heavily involved in the drafting of the Maryland Rules, so their commentary and practice tips carry great weight with the Maryland courts.

Courts value brevity. Trial and appellate courts are required to digest a staggering volume of paper. Oftentimes a compelling argument can be made concisely. There's no value in repetition, particularly if the court gets annoyed that you didn't think they understood your argument the first three times you made it.

An amicus brief isn't just a chance to regurgitate the arguments already made by the party whose viewpoint you favor. The value of an amicus brief is that you aren't limited to the facts of the case in the way the actual parties are. This is a great chance to tell the court all of the public policy reasons behind the position you advance, and to run out the parade of horribles that will happen if the opposite position is accepted. I like to use the amicus brief to show the court in real terms what possible effect its decision can have. This is also a good chance to try and limit a prospective decision to its own facts, if you can show that slightly different facts would mandate a much different result. I also like using these to show how the particular area of law has developed historically, especially where its a concept with long historical roots. I like the phrase "since 1854 (or whatever) it has been the law in this state that...." Then follow it up with something like "Appellants are asking this Court to depart from one hundred and fifty years of settled law and countenance a new exception which would result in (very bad things)."

I also am not a fan of the shotgun approach where every argument that can theoretically apply is made. I like to pick the best two or three arguments and put all my weight behind them.

I just finished a trial in a car accident injury case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. This was a case involving a really nice lady who had suffered a soft tissue injury in a car accident. She was (I swear) just leaving church with her daughter when she was in a car crash.

There were two sides to this story, however. The defendant alleged that the accident was my client's fault, claiming she deprived him of his right of way. He retained his own personal injury lawyer and countersued, claiming his own injuries of comparable severity.

Well, the upshot is that I lost this case. The jury just thought the other side of the case seemed more likely. I'm not sure what I could have done differently that might have affected the outcome. I am going to keep thinking though. I think the property damage pictures influenced the jury's view of the mechanics of the accident.

Because of the counterclaims, there were four lawyers if this case- a plaintiff's lawyer and a defense attorney representing each side. A lot of people would say the likelihood of an experience being disagreeable is proportional to the number of lawyers involved. Actually, all counsel were people I like and found enjoyable to work with, and were experienced, competent attorneys. Everyone was civil and respectful, and did their best to do their job.

Nobody likes to lose. I hate it. I have a hard time getting past a bad result, turning it over in my mind trying to assess what went wrong, or what I could have done differently to change the outcome. But, at the same time you'll never win a fight if you're scared to take a punch.

In the end, I think I'd rather be the kind of lawyer who takes a hard loss too seriously than the kind who doesn't care.

My colleague Rod Gaston always says that only the tough cases get tried, but I can't help feeling like Reese Bobby- "If you ain't first, you're last."

Every personal injury lawyer I know has a pile of stories about the outrageous things that happen at depositions. This is the part of the pre-trial discovery process that is most subject to abuse. I think this is because it happens face to face, often in front of the client, and without a judge to play referee.

I was in a deposition in a car accident injury case this morning. The case is pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. My client is a nice 25 year-old woman who was in a pretty serious accident with a gasoline tanker truck. Her right leg was more or less destroyed in the acccident.

The female defense attorney for some reason found the following questions appropriate:

"You had an abortion 2 weeks before your accident?"

"Did that upset you?"

"How far along were you?"

"Who was the father?"

Needless to say, I instructed my sobbing client not to answer these questions. The ostensible reason these were proper questions was that if my client were upset from the abortion two weeks prior, perhaps that emotional upset caused her to run the red light. What a pile of garbage.

I am confident that there isn't a judge in the state that would order my client to answer those questions.

I believe I was justified in instructing the client not to answer. In Maryland, the Discovery Guidelines of the State Bar are reprinted just before the section of the Maryland Rules pertaining to discovery. They are not part of the Maryland Rules, but are generally given the force of law by trial court judges.

Guideline Eight addresses instructions not to answer at depositions. It states that an attorney should not question a deponent in a manner "he knows or should know would serve merely to harass or annoy the deponent." Guideline Eight also says instructions not to answer are presumptively improper unless "the question is completely irrelevant or intended to embarrass the witness." I think the line of questioning I described is exactly what I am supposed to be preventing by instructing the witness not to answer.

I hope this results in the filing of a motion to compel. I want to see defense counsel try to justify this to a judge.

I was thinking about this topic because Monday morning I found myself in a very unusual place for a personal injury lawyer- United States Bankruptcy Court. How did I end up there?

I have an auto accident injury case pending in the Circuit Court for Charles County. I represent a plaintiff who was injured when another driver rear-ended her. During the course of that litigation, it came out that the defendant had a pending bankruptcy claim.

Defense counsel filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in the state court case. Pursuant to federal law, that case was stayed until resolution of the bankruptcy. This would be a bad thing, because it would mean that my injured plaintiff would be waiting more or less indefinitely to get her case moving.

There's a way around this problem. Upon proper motion, the bankruptcy court may lift the stay, where the loss is covered by insurance, up to the limit of the policy. This is because under those circumstances, the claim has no potential impact of the bankrupt estate. Once the bankruptcy court enters an order lifting the stay, the thing to do is file a motion in the state court asking that the action no longer be stayed, and that if needed, the court amend the scheduling order to account of all the time that went by due to the bankruptcy stay. Hopefully that will get my case moving again.

The experience got me thinking about appearing in unfamiliar courts in general. I'm no bankruptcy lawyer. Over my career, I've set foot in a bankruptcy court precisely one other time. So what I did Monday is what I do every time I have to appear in a court I don't know very well.

First, I got there early. This lets me get the lay of the land, and allows for a trip to the clerk's office if I need help figuring out what room the hearing is in (which in this case, I did). Second, I get into the courtroom as early as possible and check in with the clerk. I do this for two reasons. It lets me tell the clerk that I am there, and inform them as to the nature of my appearance before the court. This matters, because in terms of docket efficiency, the court will often take uncontested or preliminary matters at the beginning of the docket. Most importantly, this is my chance to ask the clerk how the court is run. What does this judge need? Where am I to stand? Are there any procedures particular to this court?

Court clerks always seem happy to help polite and respectful attorneys with this sort of "scouting report". It really does help, as I was able to get my matter called second on the docket, I knew the court's preferred procedure, and I found out that in the future, if the motion was uncontested, I could call ahead and the matter would be handled with no need for me to appear. It ended up being a very useful five minutes talking with the clerk. I recommend doing this any time you have to appear in a court you don't know very well.

1. Non-lawyer team members hate being called “staff”. They say the sergeants run the Army. Admins and para-professionals run courts and law firms. Be nice to these people. They know what they’re doing, and you don’t.

You will get nowhere in your professional life looking down on anyone who doesn’t have the letters ESQ after their name. For you to succeed, everyone on your firm’s team has to succeed. Nobody wants to be part of a team that treats them as being less important or not as good as other people. Treat the non-lawyer members of your team like what they are- valuable, skilled professionals. If you are a new lawyer, it’s more than likely that the legal secretaries, paralegals and admins know more about the procedural aspects of your own firm and the courts than you do. They are the keepers of a lot of institutional knowledge. If you treat them with respect, they will be an invaluable asset to you. If you don’t- well, maybe you won’t get the message from Judge Whoever to be in chambers at 8:30 a.m., sharp! Trust me on this, I know what I’m talking about. I was raised by a legal secretary.

2. Some judges answer their own phone. This is a corollary to #1 above. Always treat whoever answers the phone in chambers as if it were the judge. It might be. I’ve had this happen several times. Always be polite. You’ll be happy the one time the judge answers the phone.

3. Get a Maryland State Bar Association Security Identification Pass. I was reminded of this yesterday. While at a hearing in the Circuit Court for Charles County, I met a young lawyer, who has just begun practicing after completing a judicial clerkship. He was lamenting not having a cell phone, because the Charles County courthouse does not allow them. However, if you are an attorney and have a state bar security pass, you don’t go through security and are allowed to bring in your phone. This is a big deal for lawyers like me, who keep their calendar and contacts on a Blackberry or similar device. The state bar pass is accepted in most courthouses in Maryland, and saves a ton of time waiting in line.

4. If you don’t know, ask. Everybody was new once. Most lawyers are more than happy to share their experience with new members of the bar. We all gain by raising the level of competence of the bar as a whole. First, look for help within your firm. If that doesn’t work, find a lawyer who is likely to know the answer and give them a call! If they aren’t willing to talk to you (which won’t happen), call me!

5. Polish your shoes. I read in Jay Foonberg’s How to Get Good Clients and Keep Them that there is an easy way to spot the good lawyers when you go to court. Look around. The ones who look sharp, put together and polished are more likely to be skilled attorneys. Perception matters.

6. Join a professional association. This is a valuable way to make contacts, gain referrals, and keep up your level of professional knowledge. You will generally find that the lawyers who are active in some form of professional association are more informed, more successful, and better regarded within the legal community. For new members of the plaintiff’s bar, the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association has a rejuvenated Young Lawyers Section.

7. Never sign in black ink. This makes it hard to tell the original from the copies. Blue ink stands out on the original so you won’t get confused. When you accidentally file a copy in place of the original, or mail the original out when you should have kept it, you’ll remember I said this.

8. Get a date-stamped copy. Sometime there can be a long delay between filing a pleading with the clerk and it making it into the docket entries or the court file. This can be a lifesaver if someone thinks you missed a SOL or summary judgment deadline.

I’m sure I will think of more of these. I’ll post them up as I think of them.

We always have a few cases going on in the office involving car accident injuries caused by uninsured motorists. One of these cases had something interesting happen today.

The defendant insurance company had identified two doctors as expert witnesses. They secured an order compelling plaintiff to submit to an "independent medical examination" (three lies for the price of one, since it's not independent, nothing medical takes place, and there's barely any examination). After obtaining opinions from both doctors, the insurer withdrew one as a witness. Unsurprisingly, it was the one whose opinon was more favorable to the plaintiff.

There's a real argument to be made that this practice exhibits a lack of good faith. Shouldn't the insurer have to stand by the "independent" opinion they asked for?

Ultimately, it may not matter since there is a real chance we will call this doctor as our own expert now.

Yesterday, The Daily Record had a feature asking local attorneys their opinion on the biggest way technological advances have impacted the practice of law. Also, last Friday, my colleague Rod Gaston attented the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association's Technology Seminar. This got me thinking about some of the ways we use technology at Miller & Zois to make our personal injury trial practice more efficient and successful:

Case management- we use a program called TimeMatters for case management. This allows us immediate access to just about all of the information that would be contained in a paper file. This puts us on an even footing with the insurance adjusters, who usually work from a detailed claims database. We can collate client data, emails, documents, medical records and bills, and pleadings all in the same place, and have it all available instantly. This program also allows us to more easily keep track of litigation deadlines. This is a big advantage in keeping a busy practice running smoothly.

Off-site access- we use www.gotomypc.com. This allows our personal injury lawyers and staff to have full access to our office systems from home or wherever we happen to be. All I have to do is log in, and I can do nearly anything I can do at the office. Our lawyers also all carry Blackberries, meaning we are nearly always reachable by phone and email.

Using these systems means that we can accomplish our tasks without lugging a mountain of paper everywhere we go. It also lets us work collaboratively, by sharing documents and ideas instantly, no matter where we are. This makes it easier to be successful using a team concept. One of the things Ron Miller is always talking about is maximizing the skills we have in the office to get the best results for our clients. Using technology, we can involve all of our team members when needed, and quickly and efficiently take advantage of the built-in knowledge we all have in different areas. I think being able to work together quickly is a big advantage in the fast-moving world of personal injury litigation.

As I mentioned a few days ago, Ron Miller tagged me to participate in an internet meme passed along by the Drug and Medical Device Law Blog. The idea is that I am to talk about my five favorite legal and non-legal blogs. So away we go.

Non-Legal:

Profootballtalk.com- This is a blog dedicated to the daily happenings in the NFL. I'm a huge NFL fan, having been a Baltimore Ravens season ticket holder since the day the team came here. I'm still mad that Bob Irsay stole my football childhood. This blog is written by Mike Florio, Jr. His day job is being an attorney, but the rest of the time he does a stellar job of keeping me informed on what's happening in my favorite sport.

Freakonomics- this blog is written by the authors of the book of the same name. I like it for its occasionally irreverent, out of the box view on the economic and financial topics of the day. This is particularly good lately, because of the apocalyptic state of the U.S. economy.

Carol's Corner Office- this is an excellent blog for anyone who uses Microsoft office software. It is full of helpful hints and shortcuts to make using Microsoft's office software easier and more productive. It is particularly useful for law office administrators as the author, Carol Bratt, has over 35 years experience in law office administration and is a Certified Microsoft Office Expert. (Full diclosure: Mommy. In case the incredibly common last name didn't give it away.)

Ravens Insider- This is the Baltimore Sun's excellent blog on the hometown team. Since the Baltimore Ravens are a central part of my life this time of year, I check this blog just about every day to see what's going on with my favorite team. If you make it out to M&T Bank Stadium this Sunday, look for me in Section 103, Row 5, Seat 22. Go Ravens!

Baltimore Crime Blog- I'm a Baltimoron through and through. Its not an accident that my home town has starred in Homicide, The Wire and The Corner. We're hard here. Cop: "Mr. Little, how does a man rob drug dealers for eight or nine years and live to tell about it?" Omar (the baddest man on TV, ever.): "One day at a time, I suppose?". The Baltimore Crime Blog shows you how unfortunately realistic these TV shows are. And, hopefully how things are improving.

OK. Now my five favorite legal blogs:

Trial Lawyer Resource Center: This is what it sounds like. It's an excellent tool for trial attorneys looking to improve their advocacy skills, or just looking for new ideas on trial presentation. It's written by a group of experienced trial lawyers, including our very own Ron Miller, so it contains a variety of ideas and viewpoints.

The Art of Advocacy- This is written by an outstanding local attorney, Paul Mark Sandler. He is full of useful thoughts on the legal profession. The best thing he offers are his thoughts on written and oral advocacy. I have used his books Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer: State & Federal, and Pleading Causes of Action more times than I can count. This is great for lawyers who care about advocacy, and want to do it the right way. His work is an incredible benefit to the Maryland Bar.

Maryland Law- This originally named blog is focused on legal research. It is written by Trevor Rosen, a researcher at the Baltimore law firm Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler. It is full of useful tips for lawyers who do research. The plaintiff's personal injury bar has a (deserved) reputation for less-than-stellar written advocacy. More plaintiff's lawyers should add this blog to their bookmarks.

Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog- This is a new Miller & Zois blog written by Laura Zois. Laura is a wonderful trial lawyer, and I'm sure her new blog will be a great success.

Maryland Judiciary Case Search- OK, I'm cheating. This isn't a blog at all. I have included it because its arguably the single most important tool on the internet for Maryland Personal Injury Lawyers. All court filings in Maryland are public record and are available on this site. So this is where to go to find out if your defendant has a criminal record, or has been sued before, or how active your opposing counsel is in trying cases. I use it every day.