Loading...
The auditor of the circuit court for the county shall be allowed a minimum charge of ten dollars ($10.00) for each and every cause audited and reported to the court, and such additional charge as may be in keeping with proper compensation for services rendered in stating, auditing or settling any such cause or account, and as may be approved by the court upon final ratification thereof. Such charges shall be taxed as part of the costs of the suit, and paid by such parties as the court shall direct. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 7-6; 1943, ch. 342.)
The chief judge of the circuit court for Montgomery County is hereby authorized to fix the salaries of the crier of the circuit court and of the librarian of the law library of the circuit court of Montgomery County within the limits of the amounts appropriated therefor; provided, that, in no event, shall the amount of the salary exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1500.00) per annum for each of these positions. The salary paid shall be in lieu of any and all other allowances now authorized by law.
The chief judge is hereby authorized to appoint one (1) person as both crier of the circuit court and as librarian of the law library of the circuit court, if he so desires.
In case the person appointed as crier of the circuit court is also appointed as librarian of the law library of such court, his salary shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of this section and, in such an event, his salary for the combined positions shall not exceed a maximum of two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400.00) per annum.
The county council is authorized and directed to levy a tax on all assessable property in the county, sufficient for the payment of the salary of salaries of these positions. (Mont. Co. code 1965,
§ 7-7; 1908, ch. 31, § 67; 1912, ch. 790, § 168; 1939, ch. 348.)
Each of the judges of the appellate courts of the state resident in the county is authorized to set a salary supplement for his or her secretary over and above the amount of compensation provided in the state budget. The amount of the supplement shall be such that when combined with the compensation provided in the state budget the total salary will not exceed the salary for step E in grade 15 in the general salary schedule for employees of the county in effect when the salary supplement is set. The salary supplement shall be set annually and may be changed by the judge, within the foregoing limits, for year to year, without regard to length of service. Funds for the payment of the salary supplement may be appropriated annually by the county council. (1976 L.M.C., ch. 17, § 1.)
The circuit court for the county is hereby authorized and empowered to make rules of court relating to practice before such court and relating to admission of attorneys to practice before such court, and the circuit court is authorized and empowered to license attorneys to practice before the circuit court for the county and fix a fee for the issuance of such license in an amount not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00), and such license fee shall be paid to the clerk of the circuit court for the county and be disbursed by him for the purchase of law books for the court library as directed by the judges of the circuit court for the county.
No person shall practice law in the county or appear before any court in the county until he or she shall have first complied with the rules of practice established by the circuit court for the county and until he or she has procured a license for the same whenever so required. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 7-12; 1943, ch. 1004.)
Editor’s note—In Bastian v. Watkins, 230 Md. 325, 187 A.2d 304 (1963), it was held that that portion of a local rule of court as prohibits a Maryland attorney from filing a pleading in the circuit court unless he maintains a bona fide office in Maryland is invalid because it is contrary to and inconsistent with the Maryland Rules of Procedure. In Lakes v. Bar Ass’n of Montgomery County, Md., Inc., 35 Md. App. 442, 371 A.2d 669 (1977), it was held that a “personnel consultant” who respresented County employees in personal matters against the County was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Loading...