Trusted for Integrity.
Chosen for Results.
Recent Blog Posts
Probation Before Judgement, 3 Years Supervised – Assault 2nd Degree
Attorney: Creston Smith
Baltimore City Circuit Court
September 30-October 4
Case Dismissed – Driving an Uninsured Vehicle
Attorney: Creston Smith
Patapsco District Court
September 30-October 4
Probation Before Judgement, 6 Months Unsupervised Probation – Sexual Abuse of a Minor, Sex Offense 3rd/4th Degree
Attorney: Creston Smith
Patapsco District Court
September 30-October 4
Case Dismissed – Sexual Abuse of a Minor, Sex Offense 3rd/4th Degree
Attorney: Patrick Seidel
Baltimore County District Court
September 30-October 4
Probation Before Judgement, 1 Year Supervised – DUI
Attorney: Brian Thompson
Baltimore County Circuit Court
September 30-October 4
Case Dismissed – Assault 2nd Degree
Attorney: Brian Thompson
Essex District Court
September 30-October 4
Case Dismissed – Assault 1st/2nd Degree
Attorney: Brian Thompson
Towson District Court
September 30-October 4
Probation Before Judgement, 1 Year Suspended – DUI
Attorney: Brian Thompson
Harford County District Court
September 30-October 4
Indictment Dismissed: Frederick Sheriff Chuck Jenkins is Vindicated
This week, the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Maryland dismissed the five-count indictment that has been pending since early April 2023 against Frederick County Sheriff Charles "Chuck" Jenkins. Jenkins is currently serving his fifth term as the elected sheriff of Frederick County. The dismissal was "with prejudice" – a resounding end to the prosecution. This dismissal followed the complete acquittal by a jury of Jenkins’ co-defendant, Robert Krop, owner of The Machine Gun Nest on October 22, 2024. These two men, who were alleged to have conspired to violate ATF regulations between August 2015 and May 2022, barely knew each other.
Read the Baltimore Banner’s reporting here
A New Era of Accountability for Attorney Fees in Debt Collection: Anderson, et al. v. Hammerman, et al.
In a landmark decision in Kathleen Anderson, et al. v. Evan Hammerman, et al., the Maryland Supreme Court ruled that attorneys can be held liable under consumer protection statutes like the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) for submitting false or inaccurate fee affidavits in debt collection lawsuits. This holding is a departure from the traditional protections afforded by the litigation privilege and signals a shift in the legal landscape surrounding attorney fees in debt collection lawsuits.
The case involved a putative class action lawsuit filed by Kathleen Anderson and Bianca Diehl (the Consumers) against a group of medical providers and related entities (the Collectors) alleging violations of the (MCDCA) and the (MCPA). Consumers alleged in their Complaint that Hammerman, acting as general counsel for some of the Collectors, falsely stated under oath in his affidavits filed in each case, that "he dedicated approximately six (6) hours including but not limited to client communication, review and analysis of client file documents, the drafting of the Complaint, and Motion for Summary Judgment." Consumers averred that Hammerman did not spend six hours preparing the action, given numerous mistakes in the complaint, and identical attorneys’ fees in another case that did not involve drafting a summary judgment.







