Pro Bono Group

2004 - Olukoya vs. Olukoya - A Single Threat Sufficient to Find in Favor of Petitioner Based on Fear of Imminent Bodily Harm

Olukoya vs. Olukoya, Court of Special Appeals No. 138, September Term, 2003, Filed May 24, 2004, Record Fax # 2-0524-09
 
UNREPORTED
 
One threat of violence is sufficient to find abuse based on fear of imminent bodily injury.  In this case, only one witness, the petitioner, testified at trial as to respondent’s threat on her life; respondent denied making the threat.

2003 - Nikasad vs. Kovats – Assault Requires Fear of Imminent Bodily Injury or Fear, Nut Not Both

Nikasad vs. Kovats, Court of Special Appeals No. 2446, September Term, 2002, Filed November 12, 2003, Record Fax # 3-1112-10
 
UNREPORTED
 
The law does not require a person requesting protection from domestic violence to prove assault in any degree plus fear of imminent bodily harm.  In this case the petitioner testified that the respondent had grabbed her wrist and twisted it until her fingers became numb.  The COSA found an un-consented touching and, as such, an assault making the petitioner eligible for relief.

2003 – Massey vs. Massey - Assault in Any Degree

Massey vs. Massey, Court of Special Appeals, 0490/02, September Term, 2002, Filed February 13, 2003, Record Fax # 3-0213-04

UNREPORTED

Court found there was sufficient evidence of abuse in that an assault – under Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law, § 4-501(b)(iii) – had occurred; respondent had grabbed the minor child, pushing her against a wall.

2001- Katsenelenbogen vs. Katsenelenbogen

Katsenelenbogen vs. Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 775 A.2d 1249 (2001)
 
A protective order in favor of wife was entered by the Circuit Court, pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act, and husband appealed. The Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding that: 
  1. The trial court fashioning appropriate relief in domestic violence case should not be concerned with consequences such relief might have in other litigation, and
  2. The proper standard for determining whether victim's fear of imminent serious bodily harm is reasonable, thus warranting protective order, is individualized objective one.

 If, after considering the relevant factors set forth in the domestic abuse statute, the court believes that protection of the petitioner requires that the parties be physically separated and that the respondent vacate the home, the court should not hesitate to order that relief, along with any ancillary relief provided for in the statute, regardless of any potential impact on future litigation.

 
Although the issuance of a protective order under the domestic abuse statute and the provision of relief therein may have consequences in other litigation, that is not the concern of the court in fashioning appropriate relief in a domestic violence case; the concern there is to do what is reasonably necessary-no more and no less-to assure the safety and well-being of those entitled to relief.
 
The proper standard for determining whether the victim’s fear of imminent serious bodily harm is reasonable, thus warranting a protective order under the domestic abuse statute, is an individualized objective one-one that looks at the situation in the light of the circumstances as would be perceived by a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position.
   
AttachmentSize
Katsenelenbogen vs Katsenelenbogen.pdf52.2 KB

2001 - Barton vs. Hirshberg - Purpose of the DV Statute is Preventive, Not Punitive

Barton v. Hirshberg, 137 Md.App. 1, 767 A.2d 874 (2001)
 
Father filed complaint for child custody and for enforcement and modification of parties’ “Custody, Child Support and Housing Agreement.” The Circuit Court upheld agreement, and awarded the parties joint legal custody, awarded Mother $793 per month in child support, denied Mother’s request for a permanent order of protection, and denied her request for attorney fees. Mother appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that:
 
  1. In determining Father’s child support obligation, trial court properly declined to consider Father’s total assets, as opposed to his net income;
  2. The record supported denial of Mother’s petition for permanent order of protection;
  3. The evidence supported and award of joint custody; but
  4. The fact that mother’s requested attorney fee award was extraordinarily high did not justify total denial of attorney fees on that basis alone.
 
Mother alleged that, during a visitation exchange, Father purposely backed his car into her.  Father said he not only didn’t do it on purpose, but didn’t do it at all.  Mother got an ex parte protective order and the matter was consolidated with the custody case.
 
 “The purpose of the domestic abuse statute is to protect and ‘aid victims of domestic abuse by providing an immediate and effective’ remedy.” Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 252, 674 A.2d 951 (1996) (quoting Barbee v. Barbee, 311 Md. 620, 623, 537 A.2d 224 (1988)). “The primary goals of the statute are preventive, protective and remedial, not punitive. The legislature did not design the statute as punishment for past conduct; it was instead intended to prevent further harm to the victim.” Coburn, 342 Md. at 244, 674 A.2d 951.
 
The fact that the Respondent hit the Petitioner with his car might be reckless endangerment, but it is not necessarily “abuse.”  A finding of abuse requires a showing of the Respondent’s intent to hit Petitioner.
 
Interesting note:  The custody evaluator found “Parent Alienation Syndrome.”
AttachmentSize
Barton vs Hirshberg.pdf67.04 KB

2012 - Richardson vs. Boozer - Definition of "Secondary School" for Child Support Purposes

Richardson vs. Boozer, Court of Special Appeals, 2012
 
Father filed motion for modification of child support payable incident to judgment of absolute divorce, seeking to compel mother to pay child support and to reimburse father for overpayment of child support. The Circuit Court granted motion, but ordered father to pay outstanding child support balance of $7,101. Following denial of his motion for reconsideration, father appealed.  The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that:
 
  1. As matter of first impression, child’s enrollment at community college in attempt to make up courses required for his high school graduation constituted enrollment in secondary school for child support purposes;
  2. Father had obligation to pay child support from time child returned to live with his mother until child reached age of 19;
  3. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating parties’ respective child support obligations and exercising discretion to determine that father owed mother total of $7,101; and
  4. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to address father’s claim with respect to alleged overpayment of tuition.
 
“Our consideration of the language of the Age of Majority Bill, including the Revised Fiscal Note, and Webster’s Dictionary, leads us to reasonably conclude that the General Assembly intended that “enrolled in secondary school” encompassed a broader view of obtaining a high school diploma by the means of alternative, equivalency educational programs. Furthermore, other jurisdictions have accepted vocational-technical, GED programs, and equivalency courses as sufficient schooling to satisfy their statutes’ secondary school requirements. We are not concerned with the structural facility, but rather, concerned with the course of education being taught. We do not deduce that the General Assembly intended to have child support automatically terminated because a child did not graduate from high school in a timely manner, or because the child obtained his or her high school diploma via an alternative, non-traditional course of study.”
 
AttachmentSize
Richardson vs Boozer.pdf41.38 KB

2012 - Cutts vs. Trippe

Cutts vs. Trippe, Md. Court of Special Appeals, December 20, 2012
 
Background: Mother moved to modify father’s child support obligations. The Circuit Court granted modification. Father appealed.  The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, saying:
 
  1. Adult child’s trust fund could not be considered as an available resource in determining if she was a destitute adult child;
  2. Evidence was sufficient to support trial court’s finding that adult disabled child was incurring reasonable expenses that triggered parental support under the destitute adult child statute;
  3. Trial court was not required to weigh adult child’s financial resources against her expenses to determine if she qualified as a destitute adult child; and
  4. Trial court did not abuse discretion in declining to depart downward from child support guidelines based on fact that children spent a significant time at boarding schools.
 
Adult child’s trust fund could not be considered as an available resource in determining if she was a destitute adult child whom her parents were required to support; child had no right to access the trust funds, nor had any funds ever been disbursed to her.
 
Evidence was sufficient to support trial court’s finding that adult disabled child was incurring reasonable expenses that triggered parental support under the destitute adult child statute; mother filed a financial statement with the court listing her monthly expenses for adult child, which included medical expenses, tuition for private school, transportation to and from school, and housing expenses.
 
Trial court was not required to weigh adult child’s financial resources against her expenses in order to determine if she qualified for support from her parents as a destitute adult child, where the court determined that child had no job, received no disability benefits or other assistance, and had no other available financial resources.
 
The mere fact that an adult with physical or mental infirmities has a job or other source of income is not an automatic bar to parental support under destitute adult child statute; in cases where a child has financial resources, the court must weigh the child’s total reasonable living expenses against her existing available resources, and, if it finds a net deficit, it may then order such support.
AttachmentSize
Cutts vs Trippe.pdf32.73 KB

2008 - Thrower vs. BOSE - Evidence of Present Ability to Pay Necessary for Incarceration for Failure to Pay

Thrower vs. Bureau of Support Enforcement, 358 Md. 146, 747 A.2d 634 (2008)
 
Fathers were charged with constructive civil contempt for failing to maintain contact with the State Bureau of Support Enforcement (BOSE). Cases were referred to domestic relations master who recommended incarceration if the fathers did not timely pay the purge amounts. The Circuit Court adopted the findings and recommendations. Fathers appealed. The Court of Appeals held that evidence failed to establish ability to pay purge amounts within time set.Reversed.

Evidence in proceeding to hold fathers in contempt for failing to maintain contact with the State Bureau of Support Enforcement (BOSE) failed to establish ability to pay purge amounts within time set; father who received $69 weekly in unemployment compensation was ordered to pay $840 within one month, a father with a weekly income of $75 was ordered to pay $900 in three weeks, and an unemployed father with no assets except jewelry was ordered to pay $4,190.76 in three weeks.
 
Domestic relations master in proceeding to hold father in contempt for failing to maintain contact with the State Bureau of Support Enforcement (BOSE) improperly took judicial notice that jewelry worn by father, who had no other assets and no employment and who was being supported entirely by his mother, was worth $4,190.76.
AttachmentSize
Thrower vs. BOSE.pdf48.51 KB

Legal Nonprofit Seeks Executive Director

AWARD WINNING NON-PROFIT LAW FIRM SEEKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Civil Justice Inc., a Maryland non-profit legal services program, is seeking a full time Executive Director.

Civil Justice provides legal services, including in impact cases, to people throughout Maryland and supports a network of small firm and solo attorneys to help meet the legal needs of historically underserved Marylanders.

About Civil Justice

Civil Justice was established in 1998 to increase the delivery of legal services to clients of low- and moderate-income while promoting a statewide network of community based lawyers who share a common commitment to access to justice.

Since it was founded, Civil Justice has become a recognized leader nationally and in Maryland by: (i) helping solo and small firm lawyers integrate public interest and private practices; (ii) successfully pursuing impact ligation on consumer and housing issues affecting Marylanders; (iii) providing policy advocacy at all levels of government; and (iv) providing other essential services to homeowners in foreclosure, debtors in bankruptcy, and other vulnerable consumers who have been victims of predatory practices.

About The Position & Qualifications

The Civil Justice Board of Directors seeks applications from candidates who have the commitment and capacity to lead the organization, including in new ways. It will give preference to candidates who have five years of related professional experience (including a background in consumer, foreclosure and/or housing law and solo or small firm practice), and three years or more of active litigation practice (federal and/or state courts), and who are licensed or eligible to practice law in Maryland within one year of the hire date.

Candidates should have the ability to:

• Provide support and vision to the organization’s network of solo and small firm attorneys;
• Direct/manage the organization’s active litigation practice, create and implement a litigation plan, and coordinate with staff and outside counsel;
• Oversee the organization’s various projects;
• Lead the organization’s Development Program (which heavily relies on grant proposals);
• Direct the administration and financial management of the organization;
• Lead and implement strategic planning initiatives; and
• Exercise creativity and vision in leading the organization and developing new legal services delivery mechanisms.

To Apply:

Interested candidates should apply by sending a confidential resume and cover letter detailing (i) the candidate’s interest in this opportunity and (ii) salary requirements and expectations for a position to: Civil Justice Inc., Attention: Executive Director Search, 520 W. Fayette Street, Suite 410, Baltimore, MD 21201, or via E-mail at cj@civiljusticenetwork.org.

 

AttachmentSize
Final ED Job Description.pdf98.32 KB

Foreclosure Project Manager Job Announcement

Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service

Foreclosure Prevention Project Manager

 Summary

Immediate opening for an experienced lawyer to manage Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service’s (MVLS) Foreclosure Prevention Project.  This project serves low-income homeowners in multiple Maryland counties by providing pro bono and reduced-fee legal services through a panel of trained volunteer lawyers.

The mission of MVLS is to provide quality legal services to Marylanders of limited means.  MVLS is the largest pro bono legal services provider in the state both in terms of volunteers, over 3,000 lawyers on its panel, and clients served, over 65,000 since its founding in 1981.  Our core pro bono program helps approximately 3,000 Marylanders every year.

Job Responsibilities

  • Manage intake and placement of pro bono and reduced fee foreclosure cases with MVLS volunteer lawyers.
  • Administer all aspects of MVLS foreclosure prevention grant compliance, including timely submission of monthly, quarterly, and annual grant reports to DHCD or other project funders.
  • Represent clients in foreclosure mediations on an as-needed basis or when MVLS is unable to place a client with a volunteer or reduced-fee lawyer.
  • Provide brief advice to clients when our housing counselor is unable to assist.
  • Mentor less experienced foreclosure volunteers or assign mentors. 
  • Interview experienced foreclosure lawyers to represent clients on a reduced-fee basis.  Monitor these volunteers to ensure quality legal services are provided to clients.
  • Review reduced-fee lawyer invoices and handle other administrative aspects of reduced-fee foreclosure panel.
  • Supervise MVLS housing counselor to ensure client access to loan modifications and other programs available through Maryland’s mortgage settlement or other DHCD programs intended to help distressed homeowners. 
  • Recruit and supervise experienced foreclosure lawyers to provide case review services to housing counseling agencies on a reduced-fee basis.
  • Attend all DHCD Legal Partners team meetings, trainings, webinars, etc. and stay informed about developments in state and federal housing programs that prevent foreclosure and provide loss mitigation assistance.
  • Coordinate services with other Foreclosure Project Legal Partners to ensure clients receive appropriate legal services and MVLS is not duplicating services.
  • Identify volunteer training needs and work with Pro Bono Resource Center to ensure MVLS volunteers and reduced fee lawyers receive up-to-date foreclosure prevention training 
  • Other project management duties as assigned.

Job Skills

  • Strong written and oral communication skills
  • Must possess strong time management and organizational skills
  • Able to work with diverse client population and to collaborate with legal partners
  • Skilled in case management, dealing with multiple priorities and deadlines
  • Ability to identify and resolve problems quickly.
  • Ability to work independently and manage a team.

 Professional Experience: 

  • J.D. from an accredited law school.
  • At least three years of housing/foreclosure legal experience.
  • Must be admitted to practice in Maryland and in good standing.
  • Demonstrated commitment to public interest
  • Strong computer skills, especially Microsoft Office Suite and case management software
  • Outside practice of law is not permitted

 Compensation:

Salary commensurate with experience, in the mid $50,000 range.  Generous benefits, including paid health insurance.  Full-time exempt position funded through a three-year grant with Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development and the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.  Employment is dependent upon grant funding.

How to Apply:

Please write “Foreclosure Prevention Project Manager” in e-mail subject line and attach cover letter and resume in Microsoft Word format. 

Send email with attachments to mvls@mvlslaw.org

Please no telephone calls.

Frederick County Pro Bono Day

Date: 
Thu, 01/24/2013 - 4:00pm - 8:00pm

Pro Bono Day--a free legal clinic--will be held January 24th, 2013, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. located at 22 South Market Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701.

Volunteer attorneys will provide individual free legal consultations in the areas of family law, landlord/tenant, wills & advance directives, bankruptcy, workers compensation, foreclosures, business law, employment, real estate, tax law, Social Security disability, consumer, immigration, criminal, expungements, government benefits, and serious traffic and MVA issues.

There is no charge to attend and registration is not required. Bring any relevant documents with you. For more information call 301-694-7414 or email Nina Shore at nshore@mdlab.org.

Pro Bono Day is sponsored by The Bar Association of Frederick County in partnership with Maryland Legal Aid and is funded in part by a grant from The Bar Association of Frederick County Justice for All Fund, a component fund of The Community Foundation of Frederick County.

Location
Location Name: 
Legal Aid Bureau - Midwestern Office
Address1: 
22 South Market Street
Address2: 
Suite 11
City: 
Frederick
State: 
Maryland
Zip: 
21701
Contact
Name: 
Nina Shore
Phone: 
301-694-7414

Countrywide lending discrimination SETTLEMENT *** DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 1/25/13 ***

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice settled a case against Countrywide for discrimination in fair lending practices among Hispanic and African-American borrowers who received loans from Countrywide between 2004 and 2008.  Awards range from $200-$15,000.  

Letters were sent to borrowers in November 2012 with a deadline of January 7, 2013.  (See sample letters attached.)  THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED for two weeks UNTIL JANUARY 25, 2013. 

Only borrowers contacted as part of the settlement are eligible.  Sample letters are attached.  Questions about the settlement should be directed to (800) 843-5148 or info@CWFLSettlement.com.

AttachmentSize
National single borrower sample letter.pdf399.97 KB
National multiple borrower sample letter.pdf416.82 KB

Family Law Related Legislative Update as of 1/9/12

Welcome to the 2013 session of the Md. General Assembly!  On day one, here's what I found relating to family law.  The search function on the state website is pretty bad, so if you know of something I haven't listed, let me know and I'll add it.  The good news this year is that there is now a much better bill-tracking function so I'll (allegedly) get up-to-date information in my email every morning.

AttachmentSize
2013 1-9 Legislation Update.doc39.5 KB

Civil Justice, Inc. is looking for a new Executive Director

Civil Justice Inc., a Maryland non-profit legal services program, is seeking a full time Executive Director. Civil Justice provides legal services, including in impact cases, to people throughout Maryland and supports a network of small firm and solo attorneys to help meet the legal needs of historically underserved Marylanders.

About Civil Justice

Civil Justice was established in 1998 to increase the delivery of legal services to clients of low- and moderate-income while promoting a statewide network of community based lawyers who share a common commitment to access to justice. Since it was founded, Civil Justice has become a recognized leader nationally and in Maryland by: (i) helping solo and small firm lawyers integrate public interest and private practices; (ii) successfully pursuing impact ligation on consumer and housing issues affecting Marylanders; (iii) providing policy advocacy at all levels of government; and (iv) providing other essential services to homeowners in foreclosure, debtors in bankruptcy, and other vulnerable consumers who have been victims of predatory practices.

About The Position & Qualifications

The Civil Justice Board of Directors seeks applications from candidates who have the commitment and capacity to lead the organization, including in new ways. It will give preference to candidates who have five years of related professional experience (including a background in consumer, foreclosure and/or housing law and solo or small firm practice), and three years or more of active litigation practice (federal and/or state courts), and who are licensed or eligible to practice law in Maryland within one year of the hire date. Candidates should have the ability to:

  • Provide support and vision to the organization’s network of solo and small firm attorneys;
  • Direct/manage the organization’s active litigation practice, create and implement a litigation plan, and coordinate with   staff and outside counsel;
  • Oversee the organization’s various projects;
  • Lead the organization’s Development Program (which heavily relies on grant proposals);
  • Direct the administration and financial management of the organization;
  • Lead and implement strategic planning initiatives; and
  • Exercise creativity and vision in leading the organization and developing new legal services delivery mechanisms.

To Apply:

Interested candidates should apply by sending a confidential resume and cover letter detailing (i) the candidate’s interest in this opportunity and (ii) salary requirements and expectations for a position to: Civil Justice Inc., Attention: Executive Director Search, 520 W. Fayette Street, Suite 410, Baltimore, MD 21201, or via E-mail at cj@civiljusticenetwork.org

AttachmentSize
Civil Justice ED Job Description.pdf92.21 KB

New Free Online Toolkit Aims to Inform Lawyers Who Work With Traumatized Youth

Find this new resource at: http://www.safestartcenter.org/resources/toolkit-court-involved-youth-exposure-violence.php 

From the ABA press release and website:

Research shows that most young people entering the juvenile or adult justice system have been exposed to violence and other traumatic events, and often they have experienced trauma multiple times. Research also shows that the greater the degree of exposure, the more likely the child will suffer physically, socially and emotionally, says Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.

These factors led to the creation of a free toolkit, available online and intended for use by the justice system. The toolkit, titled “Identifying Polyvictimization and Trauma Among Court-Involved Children and Youth: A Checklist and Resource Guide for Attorneys and Other Court-Appointed Advocates,” is designed to make legal representation of children in delinquency, dependency (abuse/neglect) and other cases more focused on addressing the victimization a child client has experienced, and on how that client has been affected by multiple traumas, Davidson says.

Lawyers can use the toolkit’s checklist to identify and better understand what violence and other distress their child clients have experienced, he says. The checklist provides a vehicle to help lawyers determine whether the youth they represent has one of more than 20 adverse symptoms that may indicate their client is suffering from severe traumatic stress.

“If their client has traumatic stress, there is a flowchart to help the lawyer understand what trauma-informed referrals and services the child may need,” Davidson says.

Accompanying the toolkit is the issue brief “Victimization and Trauma Experienced by Children and Youth: Implications for Legal Advocates.” Among the topics the document covers are: understanding the symptoms of traumatic stress; the role of legal advocates, judges and court staff; screening instruments for identifying past trauma and exposure to violence; descriptions of relevant state and local initiatives; and considerations related to developing a trauma-informed legal practice.

The tools stand to benefit lawyers and their child clients, Davidson explains. “Many children and youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems have experienced or witnessed violence or other traumatic events and suffered the fear of ongoing exposure to harm,” he says. “Trauma-informed care and evidence-based mental health treatments are a crucial part of recovery. These tools were developed to increase awareness of these issues among the legal profession, especially court-appointed lawyers for children in juvenile and family courts.”

Davidson encouraged development of the documents and facilitated support for them through the Safe Start Center, a program funded by the Department of Justice. The final products represent a partnership between the ABA, Safe Start, Child and Family Policy Associates and the Chadwick Center for Children and Families.

“I hope that these documents will be widely disseminated and utilized, so that we will truly have trauma-informed legal advocacy for vulnerable children and youth across the country,” Davidson says.

New Self Help forms for Identity Theft

The Maryland Crime Victim's Resource Center (MCVRC) has developed some new tools for people faced with identity theft.  You can find some good material about identity theft on the People's Law Library, written by MCVRC staff, at http://www.peoples-law.org/node/3338.

In addition, MCVRC has created an online interactive interview for clients to help them prepare the documents needed to try to correct problems arising from identity theft, as described in the article on the People's Law Library above.

The directions from the article above specifically for using the interviews:

To use the interactive interview for responding to someone collecting a bill that is in your name, but a bill you did not authorize, you will need a copy of the bill in hand when you start the interview. 

You will also need to provide a copy of your proof of your identity. 

Click below to use the interactive interview for a Letter to a Creditor, directly collecting their own bill.  This might be a credit card statement you received that contains charges you didn’t make or authorize.  It can be any situation where your credit or identity was used without your permission.

Letter to Creditor

To use the interactive interview for responding to a company or law firm that is a Debt Collector, or collecting a bill that is in your name but you did not authorize, you will need a copy of their letter in hand when you start the interview. 

You will also need to provide a copy of your police report and proof of your identity, by copying these and putting them in the letter.  Click below to use the interactive interview for a Letter to Debt Collector.

Letter to Debt Collector


To use the interactive interview to create a letter to a Credit Bureau, seeking investigation and removal from your credit report of items that are the result of identity theft, you will need a copy of your credit report in hand when you start the interview. 

You can obtain a free copy of your credit report from each credit bureau here. You do not have to pay for a copy of your credit report.  One credit report from each company is available to you free each year.  You can get a copy of your credit report from Annual Credit Report.

You will mail the letter and attachment, a copy of your credit report with the incorrect items circled, a copy of the police report you made of the identity theft and proof of your identity with the letter. 

Click below to use the interactive interview for a Letter to a Credit Bureau.

Letter to Credit Bureau

Identity theft by domestic violence perpetrators - Consumer Issues

Date: 
Mon, 12/17/2012 - 2:00pm - 3:30pm

On December 17, 2012 at 2 pm EST, NITVAN will be hosting a free webinar on the use
of identity theft by domestic violence perpetrators
as a method of
power and control. Featured speakers include Erika A. Sussman, the Executive
Director of the Center for Survivor Agency and Justice, Sara Shoener, Project
Manager of the Consumer Rights for Domestic Violence Survivors Initiative at
CSAJ, and Deirdre Keys, the coordinator of the Minnesota Identity Theft
Coalition.   Contact Merry O'Brien on 301-952-0063 or merrry@mdcrimevictims.org



Location
Location Name: 
Webinar
Contact
Name: 
Merry O'Brien
Phone: 
301-952-0063
Sponsor: 
Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc.

MVLS "March Madness" Benefit

Date: 
Thu, 03/28/2013 - 6:00pm

Back by popular demand, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service will host a “March Madness” themed benefit.  Attendees can watch the NCAA basketball tournament games on multiple screens, enjoy a sports fan menu of food and drink and play interactive basketball games.  Please save the date for this popular annual event that raises critically-needed funds for MVLS.  

M&T Bank Stadium

March 28, 2013
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Location
Location Name: 
M&T Bank Stadium
City: 
Baltimore
State: 
MD
Contact
Name: 
Stephanie Austin
Phone: 
443-451-4065
Sponsor: 
Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service

LGBT Law 101

Date: 
Tue, 12/04/2012 - 12:00pm - 1:30pm

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A TRAINING REGISTRATION FORM!

 

Free Training Opportunity for Pro Bono Attorneys:

LGBT LEGAL 101

Co-Sponsored by FreeState Legal Project, Brown Goldstein & Levy, and Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland

Tuesday, December 4, 2012
12:00 PM - 1:30 PM

Brown, Goldstein & Levy
120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21202

Faculty:

  • Aaron Merki, Esq., FreeState Legal Project
  • Jessie Weber, Esq., Brown, Goldstein & Levy
  • Mark Scurti, Esq., Pessin Katz Law

Topics:

  • Working with LGBT clients;
  • Transgender Basics: Name & gender changes; and
  • Current landscape of LGBT Family Law.

Participating attorneys must be barred in Maryland and agree to take at least one pro bono case from FreeState Legal Project. Mentors, case support and malpractice insurance will be available to attorneys taking pro bono cases.

Questions? Contact Kiah Elmore, Recruitment & Training Coordinator, at 443-703-3046 or kelmore@probonomd.org.

 

 

Location
Location Name: 
Brown, Goldstein & Levy
Address1: 
120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
City: 
Baltimore
State: 
MD
Zip: 
21202
Contact
Name: 
Kiah Elmore
Phone: 
443-703-3046
Sponsor: 
FreeState Legal Project, Brown Goldstein & Levy, and Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland
AttachmentSize
LGBTReg.pdf270.1 KB
Syndicate content

Feedback

We welcome your comments and suggestions