Steven B. Vinick has been in practice for 25 years in Maryland and the District of Columbia. He has been a Maryland and District of Columbia Super Lawyer from 2012-1017. Mr. Vinick was awarded the Maryland Association for Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2011.
Mr. Vinick has tried numerous cases in Maryland which resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts. In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Mr. Vinick obtained a $2.5 million dollar verdict on behalf a woman whose feet were burned by a home health aide. In the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, he obtained an $11.5 million dollar verdict for a client whose husband was shot and killed by police officers. In the same court a few years earlier, Mr. Vinick obtained a $6 million verdict in a civil rights lawsuit which exonerated a man wrongly accused of raping and killing his estranged wife. This case was upheld on appeal. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, he obtained a $3 million dollar verdict for a case involving a birth trauma. Mr. Vinick has settled more than thirty multi-million dollar civil cases for a variety of medical malpractice and personal injury matters. It is worth noting that Mr. Vinick has tried cases in Federal courts in both Washington, D.C., and Maryland, the District of Columbia Superior Court, and courthouses all over the State of Maryland.
Mr. Vinick is also active with his local bar association. He presently serves on the Prince George’s County Bar Association’s Board of Directors, and was selected to serve on the Judicial Nominations Committee of the Prince George’s County Bar Association.
Mr. Vinick also regularly gives seminars and presents programs for the Maryland State Bar Association and the National Business Institute. The topics on which he has spoken include: Deposition Skills, Plaintiff’s Personal Injury from Start to Finish, Handling the Auto Injury Claim, Managing Liens and Subrogation, Medicare, Ethics, Ethics of Electronically Stored Information, The Affordable Care Act’s Impact on Medical Malpractice Damages, Applying the Rules of Evidence, The Effects of Bias and Its Elimination, Legal Ethics: Confidentiality and Third Parties, Search and Seizure, Smartphone and Text Technology, Closing Arguments and Using Expert Reports.
Mr. Vinick clerked for the Honorable L. Leonard Ruben of the Montgomery County Circuit Court from 1992-1993. After practicing insurance defense for two years, he joined Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. in 1995, where he presently practices. As a principal in their Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Civil Litigation, and Criminal Defense practice groups, he has 25 years of experience in representing clients in matters including medical malpractice, automobile accidents, trucking accidents, civil rights, employment discrimination, and both misdemeanor and felony criminal offenses. Over the course of his career, Mr. Vinick has earned a reputation as a skilled litigator and highly effective courtroom advocate.
After graduating in 1988 from the University of Maryland at College Park with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, magna cum laude, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa as a junior, Mr. Vinick attended the University of Baltimore School of Law where he earned his J.D. and graduated cum laude in 1991.
CLE Accreditation:
mylawCLE seeks approval in all states except VA.
|
CLE 2.00 – AK
CLE 2.00 – AL
CLE 2.00 – AR
CLE 2.00 – AZ
CLE 2.00 – CA
CLE 2.40 – CO
CLE 2.00 – DE
CLE 2.40 – FL
CLE 2.00 – GA
CLE 2.00 – HI
|
CLE 2.00 – IA
CLE 2.00 – ID
CLE 2.00 – IL
CLE 2.00 – IN
CLE 2.00 – KS
CLE 2.00 – KY
CLE 2.00 – LA
CLE 2.00 – ME
CLE 2.00 – MN
CLE 2.40 – MO
|
CLE 2.00 – MP
CLE 2.00 – MS
CLE 2.00 – MT
CLE 2.00 – NC
CLE 2.00 – ND
CLE 2.00 – NE
CLE 2.00 – NH
CLE 2.40 – NJ
CLE 2.00 – NM
CLE 2.00 – NV
|
CLE 2.40 – NY
CLE 2.00 – OH
CLE 2.40 – OK
CLE 2.00 – OR
CLE 2.00 – PA
CLE 2.00 – PR
CLE 2.40 – RI
CLE 2.00 – SC
CLE 2.00 – TN
CLE 2.00 – TX
|
CLE 2.00 – UT
CLE N/A – VA
CLE 2.40 – VI
CLE 2.00 – VT
CLE 2.00 – WA
CLE 2.40 – WI
CLE 2.40 – WV
CLE 2.00 – WY
|
Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE will seek credit where attending attorneys are primarily licensed for all of its live webinars and live teleconferences, except in states which allow for reciprocity (see reciprocity section below). Credit for CLE in a self-study format is sought for in most states; however, some states do not allow for CLE credit to be earned in a self-study format (see the self-study section below). Many states typically decide whether a program qualifies for MCLE credit in their jurisdiction 4-8 weeks after the program application is submitted. For many live events, credit approval is not received prior to the program. Credit hours granted are subject to approval from each state.
Reciprocity
Additionally, some states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, PR, and SD. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.
On-demand CLE
myLawCLE will seek on-demand approval in all states except Virginia and Arkansas (outside reciprocal provisions stated above).
myLawCLE Credit Guarantee
myLawCLE offers a program and credit approval guarantee. If a registered attendee is unhappy with a CLE program they have attended, myLawCLE will offer that attended access to another complimentary CLE or a full refund in order to insure the attendeeís satisfaction.
Additionally, on all online CLE programs application for approval will be made in all states where attending attorneys are primarily licensed in. If a registered attorney does not receive credit from their state for any reason, a full refund will be granted.
Section I. Confidentiality v. Privilege
Section II. The Duty of Confidentiality
Section III. Limits and Exceptions to the Duty of Confidentiality, including
a) Preventing reasonably certain death or bodily harm
b) Preventing crime or fraud
c) Preventing, mitigating or rectifying substantial injury
d) Consulting with another lawyer about ethical duties
e) Responding to allegations
f) Complying with law or other court orders
Section IV. Everyday Communication with Third Parties that Put Attorneys at Risk
Section V. Confidentiality and Social Media
Section VI. Inadvertent Disclosures
Section VII. Dealing with Clients’ Family Members
Section VIII. Presence of Family Members and Other Third Parties
Section IX. Potential Problems When Confidentiality Waiver is Worded Too Broadly or Too Narrowly
Section X. The Dangers of Informal Investigation
Section XI. Protecting Confidentiality in Cases of Client’s Diminished Mental Capacity
Section XII. Maintaining a Normal Client Relationship
Section XIII. Reasonably Necessary Protective Action
Section XIV. Taking Protective Action
Section XV. Representing a Minor
