Judge Karen H. Abrams has owned 41620 Fenwick Street since 1989. Originally the address served as Abrams' law office, however, when she was appointed to the position of Circuit Court Judge, she decided to rent it to Daniel J. Guenther, Esquire, a local attorney. Judge Abrams practiced a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with regards to her financial relationship with Daniel J. Guenther, failing to disclose the partnership on the record, and not offering to recuse herself in cases in which Guenther was going before her.
Case #18C05000085, was one such case in which Daniel J. Guenther was practicing law before his landlord, where she failed to disclose the relationship to litigants on the record. Not surprisingly, Daniel J. Guenther and his clients prevailed, helped by the fact that Abrams omitted a controversial retainer check written to her colleague, friend, and judicial employee Master F. Michael Harris. The retainer check, absent from Judge Abrams' factual findings, created a void in her conclusions of law as well. After all, how can key witness F. Michael Harris's testimony be given such massive weight and be afforded unwavering credibility, when he committed violations of the MD Code of Attorney Conduct, directly related to the case at bar? This question is especially on point in a case where the finely calibrated judicial scale, which should have been utilized by Judge Abrams to decide a "preponderance of the evidence" case, was instead used to weigh the "risk versus reward" standard of local politics and an undisclosed financial conflict of interest.
After Judge Karen H. Abrams read her severely flawed, and strangely skewed factual findigs and conclusions of law, it was obvious that the right to a fair trial had been extinguished. Immediately after the arbitrary and capricious judicial order was given by Abrams, an appeal was filed with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (Case No. 916, September Term 2006). The briefs were submitted over a period of months, then on January 5, 2007, oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel made up of Judge Abrams' husband's (Judge James A. Kenney III) colleagues and friends. James A Kenney III, was appointed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in 1997, and has been praised by many as a real estate legal guru. In fact “Court of Appeals Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., a close friend of Kenney's who served with him on the intermediate appellate court, said that although all judges handle all types of cases, Kenney is the "go-to person for any real property issue."”
After almost 10 months and no word back from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals regarding case 916/2006, there was finally some action taken by Annapolis, however, it was not the much anticipated 916/2006 opinion. On September 25, 2007, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee issued published opinion (2007-10), obviously relating to St. Mary's County Circuit Court Case #18C05000085, and appelate case 916/2006. The MD Judicial Ethics Opinion 2007-10 ultimately came to this conclusion:
"Issue:
Is a judge required to disclose the nature of the relationship and/or recuse himself/herself from cases involving an attorney who leases office space from the judge?
Answer:
A judge must disclose the nature of the relationship to the parties and their clients so that the parties may have a chance to object or waive their objections. If the parties do not agree to waive the judge’s disqualification, the judge should recuse himself/herself unless there are compelling circumstances to the contrary."
It was later discovered that Judge Karen H. Abrams also failed to disclose her financial relationship with Daniel J. Guenther, Esq. on her Maryland State Financial Disclosure Statement. This statement is required to be filed by all judges in the State of Maryland in order to "disclose particularly relevant information concerning their financial affairs". During this time period, Judge Abrams' husband, Maryland Court of Special Appeals Judge James A. Kenney III, served as Vice Chair of the MD Judicial Ethics Committee, which "determines whether to allow a judge or judicial appointee to correct a deficiency as to a financial disclosure statement or to refer the matter, as to a judge, to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities".
When a judicial complaint was filed with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities in August of 2006, which detailed these violations of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, it was immediatley dismissed without any real explanation. What is also highly odd is that Maryland Court of Special Appeals Unreported Opinion 916/2006 was issued by the MD CSA on October 18, 2007, just three weeks after the MD Judicial Ethics Committee published Opinion 2007-10. What makes it even more odd is that the gestation period for MD CSA Opinion 916/2006 was 10 months post oral argument, which does not add up when you read the simplistic and less-than-extraordinary content of the opinion.
These strongly interrelated events, and their highly unusual timing and content, leave one with the strong impression that in this case, judicial politics trumped the proper administration of justice.
***If any readers have a different take on these events, their timing, and the relationships involved, we encourage you to voice your opinion on the blogs, or email your comments to comments@theretainercheck.com. New, or additional information is always welcome, so send in your comments!
|
