Opinion 24-158

October 30, 2024

Digest:  The Committee does not answer hypothetical or speculative questions.

Rules:   Opinion 21-169.

Opinion:

Several judges ask if it is ethically permissible for them to appoint an attorney pursuant to County Law Art. 18-B to represent indigent adult clients.  At this time, however, the attorney has not even applied for admission to the 18-B panel.  Given the facts described in the inquiry, it would be highly speculative to assess the ethical propriety of such an appointment before this attorney’s application has been reviewed and passed on by the 18-B panel. 

As we do not answer hypothetical or speculative questions (see e.g. Opinion 21-169), we must decline to respond.

We note the judges may write in for guidance once they have more information and the situation is no longer purely hypothetical.