Report: #1493652

Complaint Review: Patricia B Jefferson, Miles & Stockbridge - Baltimore Maryland

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Joy — Pikesville Maryland United States
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Patricia B Jefferson, Miles & Stockbridge 100 Light Street Baltimore, Maryland United States

Patricia B Jefferson, Miles & Stockbridge Derek P. Roussillon John R. Goodridge COVID19 Violations, Law Firm Ignores Governors Order Spreading Virus And Law Firm Chief Judges Order Baltimore Maryland

*Consumer Comment: Your Opinion Is Irrelevant

*Consumer Comment: Corona Virus Safety

*Author of original report: Nice Try

*Consumer Comment: What a load of crap

*Consumer Comment: Nice Try

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at approximately 3:15 p.m., Jonathan Resnick advised that he had gone out the side door to empty the trash when a man who identified himself that he was an employee and a private process server for Miles & Stockbridge and that he was looking for Joy , Darcell Atkinson and Cheryl Felders.  All office doors were locked and clearly marked with signs advising that due to the Coronavirus the office was closed to all outsiders. 

Jonathan  came back into the building looking for me and discovered that I had not left for the day unlike Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Felders who were not working due to the virus scare.  I went to see the process server who questioned whether I was Joy  and advised that he had been waiting outside for awhile and would have waited till the end of the business day.  He came up to me and got within one (1) foot of my face, he then handed me a paper and advised that I was being served a subpoena to appear for a deposition on April 8, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. 

He then questioned me as to whether Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Felders were also inside the building.  I told him that due to the virus scare that they had not come to work.  He then wanted to know their home addresses and if I could it.  I walked into the office and could not get their home addresses.  I then went back to him and stood at the door and advised same.  He then advised that he was going to call his boss, Derek P. Roussillon to see if he could serve the subpoenas on me on their behalf. 

I heard him call his boss who advised that he could not serve the subpoenas for Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Felders to me.  He then requested that I telephone them to give them his name and number so that he could speak with them to see if it would be ok to serve me on their behalf.  I then went back into the building but could not get in contact with either Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Felders.  I went back to the private process server and advised him that I was unable to contact them and didn’t feel comfortable with trying.  I felt physically threatened by this man for my health and safety.



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, Article IV § 18, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is granted authority as the administrative head of the Judicial Branch of the State;

WHEREAS, In instances of emergency conditions, whether natural or otherwise, that significantly disrupt access to or the operations of one or more courts or other judicial facilities of the State or the ability of the Judiciary to operate effectively, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals may be required to determine the extent to which court operations or judicial functions shall continue; and

WHEREAS, Technology applications may be used, consistent with the Administrative Order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings filed June 18, 2018, to mitigate the impact of an emergency situation upon the Judiciary and its ability to provide access to justice; and

WHEREAS, Due to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, and consistent with guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control, an emergency exists that poses a threat of imminent and potentially lethal harm to vulnerable individuals, including some Judiciary personnel, who may come into contact with a court or judicial facility and personnel; and

WHEREAS, To the extent possible, the courts and judicial offices and units shall remain operational and provide scheduled and required events while balancing the health and safety needs of court visitors and personnel; and

WHEREAS, There are certain activities that, in the event of such emergency conditions, may be considered non-essential and therefore require suspension,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mary Ellen Barbera, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and administrative head of the Judicial Branch, pursuant to the authority conferred by Article IV, § 18 of the Maryland Constitution, do hereby order this 12th day of March, 2020, that, effective immediately,

(a) The following activities are considered non-essential:

(1) In-State Travel. Travel within the State on official business is to be minimized to the greatest extent possible without disrupting the essential functions of the Judiciary, consistent with official directives by health and law enforcement officials.

Page 1 of 3

  1. (2)  Out-of-State Travel. All out-of-state business travel shall be suspended until further notice.

  2. (3)  Out-of-Country Travel. All out-of-country business travel shall be suspended until further notice.

  3. (4)  Judicial College. All in-person judicial education, professional development, and technology education classes shall be suspended until further notice.

    1. (A)  To the extent that classes might be delivered using remote means, such classes shall be offered to those personnel who are enrolled.

    2. (B)  To the extent that these courses were necessary to fulfill judicial education requirements, a suspension of such requirements may be determined to be necessary at a later date.

  4. (5)  Committee Meetings. In-person meetings of committees, subcommittees, workgroups, and other similar judicial governance entities shall be conducted by conference call or other remote hosting technology. The Chief Judge may make an exception where the administrative head of a committee, subcommittee, workgroup, or other similar judicial governance entity provides written justification that the committee cannot fulfill its essential purposes.

  5. (6)  Gatherings. Unless there is an emergent need, judicial personnel shall refrain from attending and/or hosting non-essential work-related gatherings.

(b) Alternative Work Arrangements. During this emergency, the authority to approve temporary alternative work arrangements for judicial personnel, subject to considerations under this Order, is delegated as follows:


Circuit Courts.

  1. (A)  In the Circuit Courts, County Administrative Judges, after first notifying and obtaining the approval of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals;

  2. (B)  In the Offices of the Clerks of Circuit Courts, the Clerk, consistent with statewide policies and, to ensure continuity of operations, in coordination with the County Administrative Judge and the Court Administrator.

In District Court locations, District Administrative Judges, with the approval of the Chief Judge of the District Court.


Page 2 of 3

  1. (3)  In the Court of Special Appeals, its Clerk’s Office and applicable judicialunits, with the approval of the Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals.

  2. (4)  In the Administrative Office of the Courts, the State Court Administrator.

(c) Exposure Mitigation.

  1. (1)  No person who has been diagnosed and remains ill with or is aware of having been exposed to COVID-19 may enter a Judicial Branch facility.

  2. (2)  No person who has been advised by a doctor, hospital or local health department to self-quarantine or ordered to quarantine may enter a Judicial Branch facility during the quarantine period.

  3. (3)  To the extent that, during this emergency, any person attempts to enter a Judicial Branch facility and appears to be ill with a respiratory illness, protocols developed as part of extant continuing operations plans shall be employed to provide to that person, to the extent possible, the services needed without placing other court visitors and staff at risk.

  4. (4)  Any such person and/or his or her attorney, if applicable, who has a scheduled proceeding, event, or services in a Judicial Branch facility must contact the appropriate office regarding his or her status.

(d) Conflicting Orders. To the extent that this Administrative Order conflicts with any extant Administrative Order, this Order shall prevail during the duration of the emergency.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera
Mary Ellen Barbera
Chief Judge
Court of Appeals of Maryland

Filed: March 12, 2020

/s/ Suzanne C. Johnson Suzanne C. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 3 of 3

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/04/2020 08:54 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/patricia-b-jefferson-miles/altimore-maryland-stockridge-1493652. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#5 Consumer Comment

Your Opinion Is Irrelevant

AUTHOR: Jim - (United States)

POSTED: Tuesday, April 07, 2020

The process of being served actually requires the process server to physically hand the subpoena directly to the named individual.  A subpoena cannot be mailed or delivered in some other fashion; that would constitute an improper service.  The legal process is an essential business, so for those who have the opinion this was wrong - are wrong. 

This is the law folks.  In fact, the order you listed below by the court, does not include process servers, who are often law enforcement officers, but can be private individuals as well exercising the authority of the court.

Nobody cares about what anyone thinks is right or wrong.  In this case, it's only the law that matters and you were properly served.  However, if you do become ill - take heart.  I'm sure the deposition will likely be postponed again and again.

You were not threatened.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Corona Virus Safety

AUTHOR: allan - (United States)

POSTED: Tuesday, April 07, 2020

After reading the complaint filed I agree with the issue of putting peoples lives in jeopardy by violating state and government orders that people should stay a minimum 6 feet apart, whos to say that this process server wasn't infected with this potentially deadly virus at the time of service jeopardizing this individual and any other people she might come in contact with including co-workers and family. Personally, I feel this is an abuse of the justice system during a state of emergency.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

Nice Try

AUTHOR: Anonymous - (United States)

POSTED: Tuesday, April 07, 2020

Joy is not being sued. She works at the law firm. It was not essential business for her to receive a subpoena in person. The subpoena could have been mailed, faxed or emailed to her at the law firm if it was essential buisness. Miles and Stockridge was aware of that . They were directed previously in hearings by the Court to use social distancing and to avoid contact. The Court house in Maryland is closed except for emergency matters which are conducted thru Zoom conferencing.

Patricia Jefferson endangered Joy's life, others in the firm, yours and mine by not practicing social distancing violating the Governors Stay Safe order in additon to not practicing common sense. She should be sanctioned by the Maryland Judiciary at the very least or be disbarred from practicing law. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

What a load of crap

AUTHOR: Stacey - (United States)

POSTED: Sunday, April 05, 2020

You can post all the case law you want but you were served papers and I have never heard anything about "social distancing" or such when it comes to being served papers from a Court of LAW. You are being sued therefore it is up to you to hire an attorney to represent your best interests in this matter.

I agree with Robert - if you fealt threatened how come you did not call 911? Because you knew you were in the wrong and you were not threatened in the least. COVID - 19 has nothing to do with the fact you are trying to skirt this issue. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Nice Try

AUTHOR: Robert - (United States)

POSTED: Saturday, April 04, 2020

This just sounds like you were upset about being served court papers. The Order you posted made it very clear what was considered "non-essential" court business. Continuing with Depositions and serving summons is NOT in that list nor does it appear subject to those restrictions. Nice try though.

If you haven't already, I would highly suggest you contact an attorney ASAP to represent you during your deposition. Oh and don't say you already did, because the first thing they would tell you is to NOT post this on a PUBLIC website. By the way if you don't show up the courts will likely issue  you another order. But this time it will be in the form of a Failure to Appear notice, which will turn into a Warrant if you don't take care of it.

I felt physically threatened by this man for my health and safety.
- Then why didn't you call 9-1-1?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now