Latest news with #HB1378
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court likely next stop as overhaul of Child Victims Act is signed into law
A bill that lowers damages for survivors of institutional sex abuse was one of more than 140 bills signed into law by Gov. Wes Moore (D) on Tuesday. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) Lawyers representing men and women who were abused as children while in state custody said newly signed legislation will lead to court challenges and a wave of lawsuits over the next five weeks. Gov. Wes Moore (D) and legislative leaders on Tuesday signed House Bill 1378 into law, which will cut in half potential awards to victims that were promised just two years ago in legislation that was hailed for giving survivors another chance to have their day in court. But that led to claims by thousands of men and women who were sexually abused while in state custody, opening the door to potentially budget-crushing financial awards and sparking the rush to pass HB1378, which takes effect June 1. D. Todd Mathews, an attorney with Bailey & Glasser, said his firm would be part of a challenge to the new law. 'We will vigorously oppose this clearly unconstitutional bill, in order to protect the Survivors, as the State and Governor Moore have clearly failed them,' Mathews said in an email. Washington, D.C.-based Bailey & Glasser is one of nearly two dozen firms representing more than 4,500 plaintiffs. The coalition of firms has been in active negotiations with the Maryland Attorney General's office since 2023. Mathews and Ryan S. Perlin, an attorney at Baltimore-based Bekman, Marder, Hopper, Malarkey & Perlin, said the newly signed law could face several potential constitutional challenges. 'It's all but a certainty that this will be challenged,' Perlin said Tuesday morning. With a June 1 effective date, survivors have until May 31 to file a lawsuit under the old law, which caps damages at $1.5 million per occurrence for private institutions and $890,000 per occurrence against government entities. On June 1, those caps fall to $700,000 and $400,000, respectively. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Perlin said those reductions, as well as the five-week filing window, will likely be challenged, along with the difference in how the law treats lawsuits against private and public institutions. The bill also caps the fees that can be paid to attorneys representing survivors. 'That will have a chilling effect, making it harder for survivors to find a lawyer who will represent them,' said Perlin, whose firm announced last week that it had filed a new group of lawsuits against Towson-based Calvert Hall College High School under the current law The bill was one of 142 signed into law at the second ceremony following the 2025 session. That second tranche of new laws included bills affecting expungement of criminal records, the Second Look Act and legislation to aid federal workers whose jobs have been eliminated by President Donald Trump. Moore did not comment on the Child Victims Act changes during remarks delivered before the bill signing. When asked for comment, a spokesperson for the office repeated a statement from last week, that 'acknowledged the trauma' survivors have faced, but said the bill would 'continue to allow the survivors to seek justice while preserving the long-term fiscal stability of the state.'' Lisae Jordan, executive director and counsel at Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said she hoped the state would make more services available to people who were abused in state facilities. 'House Bill 1378 will save the state a lot of money, but it remains to be seen whether some of the savings will be used to help prevent future abuse or to provide services for survivors who can't prove their case in court,' Jordan said in an email. 'Helping people who were sexually abused while in state custody doesn't require a lawsuit, but it will require more resources.' The muted comment at Tuesday's signing was a vastly different affair than two years ago when Moore praised passage of the Child Victims Act and throngs of survivors traveled to Annapolis for the bill signing. That 2023 law eliminated time restrictions during which survivors of institutional sexual abuse had to file lawsuits. It also set the $1.5 million and $890,000 caps on awards per 'occurrence' of abuse — a term over which plaintiff's attorneys and some lawmakers disagree. At the time, the focus was on the substantial number of cases expected to arise out of the Catholic church sex abuse scandal, and the Archdiocese of Baltimore filed for bankruptcy protection in advance of the 2023 law taking effect. At the same time, hundreds of cases against the state, including the Department of Juvenile Services, began to surface. Lawmakers were warned in January of billions in potential liabilities from an estimated 3,500 cases. Those alone would have dire budgetary consequences. Since then, a coalition of attorneys has said they have nearly 6,000 cases. And those cases are believed to be just the start. Two weeks ago, Levy Konigsberg, a New York-based law firm that is part of the coalition, filed lawsuits on behalf of 221 men and women in connection with sexual abuse allegations at 15 state juvenile detention facilities. The lawsuits bring the number of claims handled by Levy Konigsberg alone to roughly 2,000, according to the firm. Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), who sponsored the 2023 bill, stepped in to author the changes in HB1378, which he called an attempt to ease the potential financial burden to the state while giving survivors the opportunity to seek justice. 'This bill does nothing to change the amounts [government] is going to pay out,' said Perlin, who said lawyers will rush 'thousands of cases' to the courthouses in the next five weeks in order to come in under the current, higher caps. That rush of cases could potentially slow the judicial system and its existing workload of criminal and civil cases to a crawl. It is likely that victims' claims and legal challenges to the new law will move simultaneously. Lawyers could seek a temporary injunction before the end of May, to put the law on hold while courts determine its constitutionality; or attorneys representing the survivors could hold off on a challenge until June 1, when the new law takes effect. A third scenario would bring a challenge to the law after survivors start appealing the resolution of individual cases, according to Perlin. Mathews agreed, adding that scenario could take years to resolve.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Moore rejects call for veto as wave of sex abuse cases head to the courthouse
Attorney Robert K. Jenner holds a copy of House Bill 1378, passed last week, that reduces the financial awards for victims of institutional child sex abuse. Jenner called on Gov. Wes Moore to veto the bill, but the governor's office said he will sign it in the coming weeks. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) A group of lawyers is urging Gov. Wes Moore (D) to veto legislation that reduces the financial awards to victims of institutional abuse — but also rushing other claims to court before a May 31 deadline in case he signs it. The call for a veto came as those same attorneys announced nearly two dozen new lawsuits Monday against one Catholic high school in Baltimore County. Robert K. Jenner, managing partner at Baltimore-based Jenner Law, called on Moore to reject the bill that was rushed through the final days of the 2025 Maryland General Assembly session. 'It breaks the faith with the thousands of survivors who have come forward believing that the state of Maryland was on their side and ready to hold perpetrators accountable,' said Jenner, one of roughly a half-dozen attorneys who spoke during a news conference at his firm's Baltimore office. But a Moore spokesperson said Monday that while the governor 'acknowledges the trauma survivors of child sexual assault have endured and the difficult and unprecedented circumstances surrounding this legislation,' a veto is off the table. 'The General Assembly has carefully crafted legislation that will continue to allow the survivors to seek justice while preserving the long-term fiscal stability of the state,' the spokesperson said in an emai. 'The governor will sign this legislation.' House Bill 1378 passed both the House and Senate by veto-proof majorities. While the attorneys decried the passage of House Bill 1378 , they said they are not waiting for Moore to veto the bill. The attorneys — part of a coalition calling themselves the Calvert Hall Lawyers Working Group — announced roughly two dozen new lawsuits against Towson-based Calvert Hall College High School. Emily C. Malarkey, a partner at Baltimore-based Bekman, Marder, Hopper, Malarkey & Perlin, said the new lawsuits represent what could potentially be a rush to file before the new law — with its lower caps on damages — takes effect. 'We're working 24/7, for the next six weeks to get all our clients' cases filed,' Malarkey said in an interview. 'If we wait until June 1, their cap is going to drop in half, and we're not going to do that to them. We're going to work our butts off to get it done.' Jenner praised the 2023 law, sponsored by Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles) as well as a Supreme Court of Maryland ruling this year that held the law was constitutional. Wilson also sponsored HB1378, out of concern that potential settlements under the 2023 law could bust the state budget. It's legislation that Jenner and other attorneys opposed. 'Finally, we thought we had a path to justice but here we are. A landmark victory for survivors that we thought ended the question has now been gutted. But this isn't about budget math. This is about moral clarity. This is about a promise that the state of Maryland made and is now poised to break,' Jenner said. The 2025 bill as passed 'slashes the amount survivors can recover by jury, verdict or by settlement, and it limits them to a single payment when they have been abused several times, multiple times by the same perpetrator,' he said. Malarkey's firm on Monday filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 clients against Towson-based Calvert Hall College High School. The lawsuit also names as defendants the Brothers of the Christian Schools, District of Eastern North America, and the Christian Brothers of Frederick. Both entities were responsible for managing and operating Calvert Hall. The 45-page filing includes allegations of abuse against four members of the clergy — Brother Geoffrey Xavier Langan and the Revs. Laurence Brett, Jerome Toohey and Francis LeFevre. All four were named in a 463-page report on child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore released in 2023 by the Office of the Attorney General. Stephen E. Arnold, a lay science instructor at Calvert Hall is also named as an abuser in the lawsuit filed Monday. The claims filed Monday would come in under the current law, which said victims of abuse in private institutions could file a lawsuit at any time, and capped damages at $1.5 million per 'occurrence' — a term over which plaintiff's attorneys and some lawmakers disagree. For state and local government entities, the cap was set at $890,000 per occurrence. Assuming Moore makes good on his promise to sign HB1378 into law, claims filed after June 1 would be capped at $700,000 for private institutions and $400,000 for public institutions The changes came after legislative analysts warned of the potential 'enormous liability' stemming from claims against state institutions. Those analysts said in January that there could be as many as 3,500 claims. And while they did not provide a potential price tag, conservative estimates initially set the amount at about $3.1 billion — an amount roughly equal to the structural budget deficit. The actual amount of potential liability is not fully known. The Child Victim's Act, passed in 2023, was the result of a decade of effort to allow victims — who were children at the time they were assaulted — to file lawsuits that were otherwise time-barred. At the time, most of the focus was on survivors of abuse who made allegations against the Catholic Church. The bill was praised at the time by Moore and Attorney General Anthony Brown (D). But the potential for liabilities grew as attorneys for those with claims argued that 'per occurrence' meant each individual instance of sexual assault. Others argued for a more conservative definition that would combine assaults based on other factors. The result would be a reduction of the total amount a jury could potentially award. The Archdiocese of Baltimore quickly sought bankruptcy protection before the law could take effect in October 2023. At the same time, cases against the state were also making their way to the courthouse. One group of attorneys earlier this year told Maryland Matters they were representing roughly 4,500 claimants. If each one had just one claim of abuse and received the maximum award, the potential liability to the state is an estimated $4 billion. 'I could have never comprehended 4,500 claimants, and it's an open door with another 1,500 in the hopper,' Wilson said in an interview earlier this year. He wondered aloud about 'how much are taxpayers going to be on the hook for this?' Those attorneys said many clients have more than one allegation of abuse. They also said that they have been in settlement discussions with the attorney general's office. Those attorneys declined to provide details on the amount they were seeking, but said it was less than even what legislative analysts hinted at in January. The Maryland attorneys are not the first to move cases to the courthouse. Levy Konigsberg, a New York-based law firm, filed lawsuits on behalf of 221 men and women the day after Maryland lawmakers adjourned the 2025 legislative session. All of the cases focus on allegations of sexual abuse at 15 state juvenile detention facilities. The lawsuits bring the number of claims to roughly 2,000, according to the firm. Levy Konigsberg represents about 1,000 people who allege they were sexually abused while in state custody. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate panel holds hearing on bill to limit state's exposure to sex abuse claims
David Lorenz, the Maryland director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, also called SNAP, talks about his opposition to a bill that would limit claims from sex abuse cases. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters) Critics told a Senate panel Friday that a bill aimed at protecting the state from billions in potential sex abuse claims is ill-advised and being rushed through in the waning days of the legislature. The comments came during a hearing by the Judicial Proceedings Committee on House Bill 1378, which just passed the House on Thursday and could be before the full Senate as early as Saturday. Legislative leaders are rushing to beat the final day of the 2025 session on Monday. 'This is a really, really important piece of legislation. It is terrible that it's being handled in such a quick way at the end of the session with two people speaking,' said Tom Yost, a Baltimore attorney with clients who said they were sexually abused as children while in state custody. Corey Stern, the other witness against the bill, said it is likely unconstitutional. 'It is well settled under Maryland law that plaintiffs have a vested right in an accrued cause of action,. whether it's based on statute or common law,' said Stern, an attorney with Levy Konigsberg, which is representing child sexual abuse clients. 'The minute that Gov. Moore signed the bill into law, those rights vested for individuals who have been sexually abused.' The law he's referring to is the 2023 Child Victims Act that removed time limits on lawsuits by survivors of child sexual abuse against the institutions that employed their abusers. The law capped awards for such suits at $890,000 for public institutions, like state agencies, and $1.5 million for private institutions, like the Catholic Church or scouting organizations. Thousands of claimants, representing a potentially budget-busting bilions in payouts, have since lined up against the state alone for abuse they suffered while children in state care. Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), himself a survivor of childhood physical and sexual abuse, had pushed for years for the Child Victims Act before winning it in 2023. But when the budget implications became clear, he introduced HB1378 a month into this year's session. The bill would lower the cap on lawsuits filed after June 1, from $890,000 to $400,000 for public institutions and from $1.5 million to $700,000 for private institutions. It also narrows the scope of the term 'incident' so that all crimes by one abuser against one victim would count as one incident, rather than one incident for every separate assault. The bill would also cap fees for attorneys at 20% for cases that settle out of court and 25% for cases that result from a court judgment. Now lawmakers are racing the clock to pass the measure, with the time left in the legislative session being measured now in hours instead of days. Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who testified Friday on behalf of Wilson, said about 1,500 lawsuits have been filed so far and another 4,000 cases are waiting to go forward. He said it's unclear how many are against public or private entities and when they would be filed. 'We're at a situation, we're at a point where I believe and the House believes that it's important for us to begin to figure out how many of these claims are out there,' he said. Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery), vice chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, asked Clippinger if a suit was filed by May 31 and amended after June 1, would the suit still be eligible for any possible payments from the current law. 'I believe the rules relating to the claims initially put in would hold,' said Clippinger, who added he's a criminal attorney and not a civil lawyer. David Lorenz, the Maryland director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, also known as SNAP, attended Friday's hearing but was not invited to testify, as the committee limited witnesses to keep the process moving along. He said that decreasing the cap amounts will also decrease the number of people who 'would be otherwise willing to come and speak out against the abuse they endured,' at a time when what we need is 'more accountability against these abusers.' Sen. William G. Folden (R-Frederick) said Friday night the proposed bill seeks to do two things. 'I think what this bill is trying to do is find a balance between allowing those that have been victimized to have some sense of relief for their continued treatment,' he said. 'But also have a balance that we're already in a fiscal crisis to cause additional irrecoverable financial strains on the state.'
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Plan to cap sexual abuse survivors' payout called ‘insulting,' unconstitutional
Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles) said his 2023 bill meant to help victims of sexual abuse get justice could potentially bankrupt the state. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) Attorneys representing hundreds of people with allegations of sexual abuse while in state custody said a late-session attempt to limit financial damages is insulting and likely unconstitutional. The state faces what could be billions in potential financial settlements under the 2023 Child Victims Act, which made it easier for child sex abuse victims file claims against public and private institutions. The House Judiciary Committee, which passed that law, is now being asked to consider changes in an effort to limit liabilities some believe could bankrupt state government. 'We're in a very different situation, and as stewards, fiduciaries of taxpayers money, you really have to think things through on this,' said Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County), a member of thec ommittee. 'I voted wholeheartedly for CVA, and I believe in it. At the same time, I've got to say this is impacting the state of Maryland … in a really challenging way.' The committee held a hearing Wednesday on House Bill 1378 by Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), the sponsor of the 2023 law. He said HB1378 is an attempt to hold the state 'accountable for all the atrocities committed within the facilities, while recognizing the financial constraints that come with governance.' 'We're not a private corporation. We do not have endless reserves, nor can we shift the cost to the shareholders,' Wilson said of the potential impact of the 2023 law. 'You must maintain a responsible budget, while safeguarding the central services that millions of people depend upon, including education, public safety and health care.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The passage of the 2023 law was personal for Wilson, who himself is a survivor of physical and sexual abuse as a child. He said the law, which he worked more than a decade to pass, was not about the money. 'I just wanted people to have an opportunity to come and tell their story,' Wilson said. 'That's what they begged for — giving survivors a voice, allowing them to acknowledge their pain, and making sure they know that Maryland hurt them, however, but what's definitely changed is our understanding of the fiscal realities.' The bill proposed this session by Wilson, chair of the House Economic Matters Committee, would reduce the maximum payout that each plaintiff could receive. It also would require each case to go through a mandatory arbitration process before seeking a civil jury trial. Amendments provided to the committee ahead of Wednesday's hearing establish a mandatory arbitration process that plaintiffs would participate in before they could seek a jury trial. Payouts made through the arbitration process would be public, though victims could request their identities be withheld. The new draft of the bill substantially reduces potential claims. First, it removes a plaintiff's ability to seek damages for each instance of abuse. Instead, awards would be based on the individual claimant, regardless of the number of times they alleged abuse. The maximum award would remain at the current $890,000 for those who sue before Oct. 1, 2025, but drop to a $400,000 award for those who file after then. The changes would not lower liability caps for private institutions. Wilson said he had assurances from Attorney General Anthony Brown that the proposed changes would pass constitutional muster. Neither Brown, who was on a list of witnesses for the hearing, nor anyone from his office appeared Wednesday. With 12 days remaining in the 2025 legislative session, Wilson's efforts are also in a race against the clock. Lawmakers, concerned about the potential of billions in damages, are motivated to move quickly. But the bill must clear the Judiciary Committee and full House before heading to the Senate to begin the process again. Opponents of the bill said the ever-changing proposal should be tabled for the session to allow a more thoughtful review. 'This is very 'ready, shoot, aim' legislation,' said Tom Yost, founder of Baltimore-based Yost Legal Group. 'The bill was one thing on Saturday, a different thing on Sunday, a different thing on Wednesday.' Wilson became emotional as he faced questions from Del. Robin L. Grammer Jr. (R-Baltimore County) about the fairness of reining in liability for the state but not for private institutions. Wilson said state victims are 'people who are trapped, not only being detained but being raped. When you compare that to a situation where they're in a church, it's a little bit different. It seems to me that the state seems to be the biggest offender here.' He said that if Grammer wants to 'punish and bankrupt the state, God bless you. You can do that, if that's your goal, but it's not mine.' 'It's what you want to do to the taxpayer, I've told you what I want to do. I don't have to explain any more than this,' he continued. 'I'm sorry to be this way. I'm not going to sit here and go back with you. If you don't like this and you want to go to the taxpayer, you screw them, because I'm not.' When Grammer said he worried victims were getting lost in the debate, Wilson shot back, 'Holy sh-t…. Who are you talking to? No, no, no, no.' 'Do you really think for a minute that I don't know? Do you think I don't know what the victims go through and do you think there's any amount of money that's going to make it better?' he said. 'You can lie to yourself, but it's not.' House Judiciary Chair Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore), attempted to tone down the exchange and called on another member of the committee to ask questions. Wilson later apologized for the heated exchange. Wilson's proposal also faced criticism from attorneys representing clients with potential cases against the state. Andrew Freeman, a partner at Brown, Goldstein & Levy told the committee the current law is 'inadequate' to compensate survivors of institutional abuse. Reducing the amount to $400,000 per claimant 'is more than inadequate consulting. It also is retroactive to the extent that we're taking away the expectations that people have built.' The change is also likely unconstitutional, he said, adding that it 'would still be unconstitutional, no matter what it costs taxpayers.' Freemen downplayed the potential for bankrupting the state. But he said taxpayers were responsible for the system that locked victims up and failed to protect them. That, he said, makes taxpayers 'responsible for some sort of fair compensation to them. Is that going to cost money? Yes. Is that going to bankrupt the state? No.' Ben Crump, a national civil rights and personal injury attorney, said he and other attorneys want to work with Wilson to help 'these victims right these historical wrongs.' 'While this is a human rights issue, I believe this is a civil rights issue as well because a substantial majority of the plaintiffs — over 90% of them — are African Americans,' Crump said. 'The proposed amendment with the $400,000 ceiling I believe is an insult to them because these African American men and women were abused and raped as boys and girls when they were in the full custody of the Maryland juvenile detention facilities.' Capping the damages on a per claimant basis is 'not just denial of equal justice, I believe it is a shame before God.' The size of the financial risk to the state is both an academic discussion lacking a lot of specifics and a budgetary boogeyman. The 2023 law lifted limitations on filing lawsuits against institutions involved in hiding sexual abuse allegations and protecting abusers. It capped liability at $890,000 per occurrence. It also raised the liability limit on claims against private institutions for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to $1.5 million. Much of the original focus was on the Roman Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Baltimore filed for federal bankruptcy protection in September 2023, one month before the new law took effect, because of mounting claims. But Wilson's law also opened the door to lawsuits against state and local governments despite warnings from some lawmakers including Sen. Justin Ready (R-Carroll and Frederick). Lawmakers were warned in January about the 'enormous liability' facing the state. Legislative analysts at the time said there were 3,500 cases against the state alleging sexual abuse, some dating back as far as the 1960s. The potential value of a settlement was not given to lawmakers at the time. Based on current law and the potential for a payout of $890,000 for each instance of abuse — which some lawmakers said remains an open legal question — the minimum payout approaches $3.1 billion, about as much as the structural budget deficit lawmakers were already facing in the coming budget year. That amount could be much higher if claimants could collect on more than one occurrence. It could also be much lower depending on the outcome of settlement negotiations with plaintiffs' attorneys, which have been ongoing. One group of nearly two dozen firms claims it currently has 5,000 clients with potential claims against state agencies, including the Department of Juvenile Services. Those attorneys said many of those clients have multiple instances of abuse. The potential liability to the state could run in the multiple billions of dollars. Those attorneys said they have been in negotiations with the Office of the Attorney General since 2023 and have asked for a fraction of the potential full value. The attorneys declined to provide specifics of the potential liability or a settlement demand citing ongoing negotiations.
