Letter To The Editor: Why I Am Voting For Judge Amy Lorenzini

Since 2015, I have interacted with each of the judicial candidates. Mrs. Lewis/Armitage was opposing counsel in my divorce, as well as opposing counsel during a post-divorce matter, in which I represented myself for a period of time. While I have respect for Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s legal acumen and networking abilities, I also have significant concerns about her legal behavior and networking abilities. During my divorce, I noticed disturbing trends in Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s method of performing in her role as an attorney, and these issues need to be addressed for residents of St. Mary’s County to make informed voting decisions. Mrs. Lewis/Armitage is a solo practitioner, primarily focusing on family law cases in St. Mary’s County. During our initial case, Mrs. Lewis/Armitage engaged in repeated discovery disputes, delaying our case unnecessarily and driving up court fees/costs.

Discovery is a process described in Maryland Rule 2-400 and can include depositions, written interrogatories, production or inspection of documents or other tangible things, mental or physical examinations, and requests for admissions of facts and genuineness of documents (Md R. 2-401). There are specific remedies listed in Rule 2-432, Motions upon Failure to Provide Discovery, and Rule 2-433, Sanctions.

(a) Immediate Sanctions for Certain Failures of Discovery. A discovering party may move for sanctions under Rule 2-433(a), without first obtaining an order compelling discovery under section (b) of this Rule, if a party or any officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rule 2-412(d) to testify on behalf of a party, fails to appear before the officer who is to take that person’s deposition, after proper notice, or if a party fails to serve a response to interrogatories under Rule 2-421 or to a request for production or inspection under Rule 2- 422, after proper service. Any such failure may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless a protective order has been obtained under Rule 2-403.

When discovery violations are not overseen appropriately in a court case, it delays the process, drives up fees/costs, and postpones the healing process for a family going through divorce. Upon hearing of additional discovery violations and unnecessary emergency motions in other cases, I wanted to see if this was a singular/rare event, or if this was widespread practice for Mrs. Lewis/Armitage. I decided to perform extensive research utilizing the Maryland Judiciary Case Disclaimer website for Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s past and current cases. It is worthy of noting Sue Ann has cases listed under “Armitage” as well as her maiden surname “Lewis.” I analyzed 742 of Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s cases from 2010 to present, during my 50+ hours of detailed research. During my inquiry, I discovered 154 total cases containing discovery violations, as well as a plethora of emergency motions. In Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s case history, 21% (1 in 5) cases contain discovery violations as well as emergency motions, which is statistically significant. When litigants do not receive all necessary information in good faith, it will negatively affect the accuracy of a final divorce settlement.

After years of research and conversations with various residents in St. Mary’s County, it was discovered that Mrs. Lewis/Armitage has filed frivolous emergency motions with the intent to place minor children subject to divorce into local private schools. Mrs. Lewis/Armitage performed a similar action in my divorce case, and I only discovered that my children had been registered at a private school without my knowledge or consent on their first day of school. While we have wonderful private schools in and surrounding St. Mary’s County, is it necessary or appropriate for parents to be forced to place their children into a private school, when Mrs. Lewis/Armitage is a board member of one of the largest private schools in the local area? The appearance of a conflict of interest needs to be addressed to the residents of St. Mary’s County. Mrs. Lewis/Armitage states that she is on the board of one of the largest private high schools in the area. It is my opinion that Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s inappropriate utilization of emergency motions forcing unnecessary private school enrollment is a conflict of interest. It is this author’s opinion that Mrs. Lewis/Armitage should address the potential for a conflict of interest, as well as why emergency motions are filed for non-emergency purposes.

The most significant issue regarding Mrs. Lewis/Armitage’s legal performance is her willful violation of the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery. This willful disregard of civil procedure by Mrs. Lewis/Armitage has caused unnecessary and intentional delays in a substantial number of cases (1 in 5 or 21%) as well as placing costly and unnecessary financial burdens on both of the parties to said litigation. It was quite common, in my experience and from the data, to see Mrs. Lewis/Armitage respond to a motion to compel (i.e., force) discovery with an air of flippancy toward the legal process, as well as handing off incomplete information to opposing counsel.

Late last year, I spoke with an acquaintance who had gone through a highly contentious divorce case with Mrs. Lewis/Armitage as opposing counsel. Unsurprisingly, Mrs. Lewis/Armitage has continued to engage in numerous discovery disputes, as well as attempting to force the litigant’s minor children into a local private school. Mrs. Lewis/Armitage routinely violates and has violated the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure with no appearance of accountability. One should wonder how this behavior would translate if Mrs. Lewis/Armitage were to be elected to a 15-year judicial appointment in St. Mary’s County. Additionally, Sue Ann’s caseload focuses on family law litigation, minimal relevant criminal law/appellate experience, as well as minimal to zero jury trial experience. For the reasons outlined in this article, it is my opinion that Mrs. Lewis/Armitage is unqualified for the position of Circuit Court Judge in St. Mary’s County.

It is imperative that St. Mary’s County place a highly qualified individual on the bench, and that individual is Judge Amy Lorenzini. Already endorsed by Maryland’s former Governor Larry Hogan, Judge Lorenzini has over 20 years of experience in the St. Mary’s County Circuit Court. Judge Lorenzini clerked for the Honorable Marvin S. Kaminetz, and her legal acumen has been vetted by her peers through the rigorous Gubernatorial Judicial Selection Process. Better yet was how Judge Amy Lorenzini was kind enough to answer my questions and concerns, in person at one of her events. The Lewis/Armitage campaign has yet to answer any questions posed on their Facebook page about an abundance of discovery disputes that have remained unanswered at the time of the publishing of this article.