EDITED BY:
Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor
PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
PUBLICATION DATE: October 30, 2026
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 10
FEATURE ARTICLE: Time, Rules and Reform
The last major reform of the Rules of Professional Conduct occurred more than a quarter of a century ago. Much in the world of law has changed radically since then. Law firms are undergoing massive changes financially, technologically, and even structurally, with greater lawyer mobility and, in some cases, huge earnings. A few law firms have become larger than many of their clients. Twenty-five years ago, so-called “baby boomers” were leading law firms. Some continue to do so, but younger generations, with very different ideals and values, have replaced them in many firms. This makes one wonder whether it is time for the Bar to enter a period of self-reflection and evaluation and undertake a thorough reexamination of the Rules to see if and how they need reform and updating.
The LEMR contributors would recommend attention to a few specific areas.
. . .
NEW AUTHORITY: Attacking Judges & Recusal
In our increasingly litigious and angry society, judges have been coming under recent attacks both by lawyers and the public. One of the ways in which these attacks manifest themselves is demands that judges recuse themselves from cases. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee issued two formal opinions during August and September 2026, which both illustrate the problems judges face and one state’s way of dealing with them. The facts in both cases present familiar problems.
In Published Opinion 2026-22 the Opinion outlines the factual basis for its analysis as follows:
The Requester is a circuit court judge. The Requester has presided in custody and protective order proceedings involving a self-represented litigant. The litigant has now moved to disqualify the Requester and every other active judge and magistrate in the Requester’s jurisdiction. In the motion, the litigant describes the “entire bench” as “future DEFENDANT [sic] in Federal Court” and refers to what appears to be a case number in in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The litigant also attaches to the motion electronic mail messages that purport to confirm the litigant’s filing of complaints against the Requester and other judges with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities. The Requester asks specifically whether recusal is required based on the litigant’s disclosure that the litigant has filed an action in federal court or a judicial disabilities complaint against the Requester.
In Published Opinion 2026-28, the Committee discusses another scenario involving a request for a broad requirement for recusal:
The Requester relates that an attorney appeared before the Requester for the first time since the Requester’s appointment to the bench and orally moved that the Requester recuse from the attorney’s case that day and from all future cases in which the attorney appears. The attorney stated that the attorney had actively opposed the Requester’s appointment and had openly contacted members of the judicial nominating commission and anyone else who would listen regarding the attorney’s opposition to the judge’s appointment. The attorney also described what the attorney characterized as a contentious professional relationship with the Requester over the years and identified criticisms and allegations the attorney had previously expressed concerning the Requester’s work ethic, ethics, honesty, candor, and professional conduct when the Requester was an attorney.
Prior to the hearing, the Requester knew the attorney had contacted at least one member of the judicial nominating commission, but the Requester was not advised of the substance of the attorney’s communications, other than that they were unfavorable. The Requester was not previously aware of the full extent or nature of the attorney’s opposition as the attorney described at the hearing, did not share the belief that they had a contentious professional relationship, and categorically denied the allegations of professional impropriety.
Following a recess, the Requester stated on the record that the Requester believed the Requester could be fair and impartial and did not have personal knowledge of all the matters the attorney had described. The Requester further stated that, even after hearing the attorney’s allegations and criticisms, the Requester believed the Requester could preside fairly and impartially over matters involving the attorney. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Requester advised the parties that another member of the court would resolve the matter scheduled for that day and that the Requester would seek an ethics opinion on whether future recusal is appropriate or required. The Requester submitted an audio recording of the proceeding.
In both situations, the alleged grounds for recusal rely on the actions of the litigants over which the judges had no control.
The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee took the opportunity presented by these scenarios to explain the basis for recusing a judge with reference to the following provisions in the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct:
Maryland Rule 18-101.2 provides in part:
(a) Promoting Public Confidence. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
(b) Avoiding Perception of Impropriety. A judge shall avoid conduct that would create in reasonable minds a perception of impropriety.
Maryland Rule 18-102.2(a) makes clear that “[a] judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office impartially and fairly.”
Maryland Rule 18-102.7 requires that “[a] judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge unless recusal is appropriate.”
Maryland Rule 18-102.11(a) addresses disqualification and provides in part:
(a) A judge shall recuse in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including the following circumstances:
- The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning … a party’s attorney…
The Committee explained that these rules create two tests to see whether recusal is warranted: an objective test and a subjective test. The subjective test requires that the judge to examine her own feelings and beliefs and determine whether recusal is necessary. The objective test looks to the principle that a judge’s actions avoid the “appearance of impropriety,” normally involving the judge’s prior actions or interactions or the judge’ family or business or social connections that might give rise to doubt of her impartiality. It is a sensible approach, and it is consistent with the rules in most states.
Both Maryland opinions are excellent guides for judges and lawyers confronted with recusal issues.
ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Article on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
1.) Symposium, Upholding the Rule of Law in a Backsliding Democracy: Taking Stands, Pushing Back, and the Role of the Public, 54 Hofstra L. Rev. 233 (2026).
Since the days of Monroe Freedman, Hofstra Law School has been a leader in teaching legal ethics. This symposium of leading scholars of legal ethics is timely.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Annals of Incivility
Sir John Fortescue-Aland was disfigured by a nose which was purple, and hideously misshapen by morbid growth. Having checked a ready counsel with the needlessly harsh observation, “Brother, brother, you are handling the case in a very lame manner,” the angry advocate gave vent to his annoyance by saying, with a perfect appearance of sang-froid, “Parden me, my lord; have patience with me, and I will do my best to make the case as plain as—as—the nose on your lordship’s face.” In this case the personality was uttered in hot blood, by a man who deemed himself to be striking the enemy of his professional reputation.
— John Cordy Jeaffreson, A Book about Lawyers 325 (1867).
Incivility in the legal profession obviously is not a new phenomenon.
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 10
About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.
We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.
When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.
