Memorandum Opinion - the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

In July 2008 Rothstein and Steven N. Lippman, another lawyer at RRA, moved foradmission Pro Hac Vice to appear on behalf of defendants Whitney and WIN. Although theMotions were initially granted, the parties filed a Consent Motion to Strike the Ordergranting admission, and the Order was stricken. 1On July 24, 2008 Plaintiffs filed anOpposition to the Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice, arguing that Rothstein and RRA“participated personally and actively in the tortious course of conduct for which this actionhas been brought, and, after the Plaintiffs have conducted initial discovery, they may verywell be joined as Defendants.” 2At the request of the parties the case was stayed pending mediation. 3 On October 27,2008 Plaintiffs amended their complaint adding Rothstein and RRA as defendants. OnlyCounts II-V are alleged against RRA and Rothstein: Count II (Injurious falsehood); CountIII (Abuse of process): Count IV (Tortious interference with prospective businessadvantage); and Count V (Invasion of privacy – false light). 4On January 5, 2009 Rothstein1The Motions were granted before plaintiffs time to respond had expired.2Plaintiff also argued that “Rothstein participated in the underlying transactions of this casein a manner that was remarkably abusive, unprofessional and violative of the applicable rules ofprofessional conduct[,]” and thus they should be denied admission pro hac vice. Plaintiffs alsoargued Rothstein and [RRA] had an irreconcilable conflict of interest with Whitney and WIN in that:It is in the interests of Whitney and WIN to claim that they reliedupon Rothstein and his law firm in connection with these events andto contend that they believed that Rothstein and his firm, in taking theabove-described actions, were performing services that mightlegitimately be expected of a lawyer. The interests of Rothstein andhis firm, to the contrary, are to shift as much blame as possible toWhitney and WIN.3Shortly before the parties joint request for a stay, Defendants Whitney and WIN filed aMotion to Abstain. Before a response to the Motion to Abstain was filed, the stay was entered.4Count I is a defamation count against other defendants.2