Opinion ID: 1425371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Twilight Zone

Text: The significance of the federal overlay relied on in Harris-Smith is evident in Kennedy v. The Bar Ass'n of Montgomery County, 316 Md. 646, 561 A.2d 200 (1989). In Kennedy, the Bar Association of Montgomery County brought suit and obtained a permanent injunction directed at preventing continuation of the illegal conduct [(unauthorized practice of law)] in which the court found Kennedy to be engaged. Kennedy, 316 Md. at 668, 561 A.2d at 211. [17] Kennedy, who was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar and the Maryland federal court, had a law office in Silver Spring, Maryland. His partner, Edward Jasen, was a member of the Maryland and District of Columbia Bars. As we explained, Kennedy produced ninety percent of the business for the firm, and did eighty to ninety percent of the work done by the firm in the office.... Jasen and Kennedy almost always presented themselves together before the court. But Jasen rarely moved for Kennedy's pro hac vice admission.... Kennedy, 316 Md. at 653, 561 A.2d at 204. In modifying the broad injunction of the Circuit Court, we addressed Kennedy's claimed right to practice federal and non-Maryland law [in Maryland]. Kennedy, 316 Md. at 661, 561 A.2d at 207. While we acknowledged that the federal overlay permitted by Kennedy's admission to the federal court in Maryland enabled Kennedy to practice law before the local federal court, Kennedy, 316 Md. at 661, 561 A.2d at 208, we rejected Kennedy's contention that he was free to practice federal and non-Maryland law from his Silver Spring office. Stating that Kennedy's theory ... would ... permit the unadmitted attorney to advise the client concerning only a portion of the general legal spectrum but then prohibit the unadmitted attorney from advising as to the balance of the spectrum, Kennedy, 316 Md. at 662-63, 561 A.2d at 208, we further pointed out, similar to Harris-Smith, that [Kennedy] is not permitted to sort through clients who may present themselves at his Maryland office... because the very acts of interview, analysis and explanation of legal rights constitute practicing law in Maryland. Kennedy, 316 Md. at 666, 561 A.2d at 210. Even though we considered it practically impossible for Kennedy to maintain a principal office in Maryland exclusively for engaging in a practice before the courts to which he was admitted, Kennedy, 316 Md. at 667, 561 A.2d at 211, we suggested possible exceptions, indicating in a footnote that [f]or example, Kennedy might limit his practice from the Silver Spring office to Maryland federal and D.C. cases referred by other attorneys. Kennedy, 316 Md. at 668 n. 9, 561 A.2d at 211 n. 9.