Cross reference: See Md. Const., Art. IV § 4B(a)(1)(ii) and Code, Courts Article, § 13-403.
Committee note: The need for a grant of immunity in order to compel the production of evidence may arise at any stage. Placing a reference to it here is not intended to preclude an application to the Commission in a later stage of the proceeding.
Committee note: If, pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A) or (B) of this Rule, the judge had received notice of the opening of a file, the judge also must be given notice that the complaint was dismissed or that any inquiry by Investigative Counsel pursuant to Rule 18-421(f) was terminated.
Committee note: A complaint may be dismissed outright and without a letter of cautionary advice for various reasons, at different stages, and by different entities. Investigative Counsel may dismiss a claim on Investigative Counsel's own initiative, without opening a file, pursuant to Rule 18-421(b). In that instance, no notice need be given to the judge. If Investigative Counsel opens a file pursuant to Rule 18-421(e) or (f) and performs an investigation under this Rule, Investigative Counsel may recommend dismissal without a letter of cautionary advice because, as a factual matter, there is insufficient evidence of a disability, impairment, or sanctionable conduct or because the complaint is stale. In that situation, if the Commission, or, in the case of a stale complaint, the Board adopts the recommendation, there is no need for notice to the judge unless the judge has requested such notice. If a matter other than a stale complaint proceeds to the Board, the judge must receive notice, even if the ultimate decision is to dismiss the complaint.
Md. R. Jud. & Judi. Appts. 18-422
This Rule is in part derived from former Rule 18-404(e) and (f) (2018) and is in part new.