Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. Prof. Section(s) 10 605.1(a)(2). The district court granted Ficker and Boehm's motions for summary judgment, ruling that the challenged portions of the statute were unconstitutional. Ficker v. Curran, 950 F. Supp. 123 (D. Md. 1996). The court referenced a letter of Maryland's Attorney General to the Governor prior to the passage of the law, which concluded that: "No evidence in the files reflects that citizens generally find it offensive that attorneys offer information and services to traffic and criminal defendants who, in fact, desperately need them.
" Fortunately for them, and for American jurisprudence, the "ultimate goal of [this Court is] promoting the fair administration of justice. . . ." Ficker v. Curran, 950 F. Supp. 123, 124 (D. Md. 1996) (emphasis added). Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [105], Plaintiff's Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony [101], and Plaintiff's Motion in limine to Sanction Defendant [102].