ethical violation in Maryland

2013Moreover, this Court has consistently regarded neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interests to be [an ethical violation] warranting the imposition of some disciplinary sanction.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 76 , 753 A.2d 17 (2000) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Montgomery, 296 Md. 113, 120 , 460 A.2d 597 (1983)).

2013Moreover, this Court has consistently regarded neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interests to be [an ethical violation] warranting the imposition of some disciplinary sanction.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 76 , 753 A.2d 17 (2000) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Montgomery, 296 Md. 113, 120 , 460 A.2d 597 (1983)).

2018See *509 In re Ruffalo , 390 U.S. 544 , 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222 , 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968).

2018See *509 In re Ruffalo , 390 U.S. 544 , 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222 , 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968).

2015“We have said in applying MLRPC 1.3 that this Court has consistently regarded neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interests to be [an ethical violation] warranting the imposition of some disciplinary sanction.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223 , 46 A.3d 1169, 1177 (2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2015“We have said in applying MLRPC 1.3 that this Court has consistently regarded neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interests to be [an ethical violation] warranting the imposition of some disciplinary sanction.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223 , 46 A.3d 1169, 1177 (2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2014Under Maryland law, “[cjlaimed ignorance of ethical duties ... is not a defense in disciplinary proceedings.” Attorney Grievance Commission v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435 [ 697 A.2d 446 ] (1997).

2014Under Maryland law, “[cjlaimed ignorance of ethical duties ... is not a defense in disciplinary proceedings.” Attorney Grievance Commission v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435 [ 697 A.2d 446 ] (1997).

2012Comm’n v. Gisriel, 409 Md. 331, 371 , 974 A.2d 331, 354 (2009) (quoting Att’y Griev.

2012Comm’n v. Gisriel, 409 Md. 331, 371 , 974 A.2d 331, 354 (2009) (quoting Att’y Griev.

2011Attorney Grievance v. Ruddy, 411 Md. 30, 78 , 981 A.2d 637, 665 (2009).

2011Attorney Grievance v. Ruddy, 411 Md. 30, 78 , 981 A.2d 637, 665 (2009).

2011The Fifth Circuit explained that a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel may be disqualified for an ethical violation only if, “ ‘in light of the interests underlying the standards of ethics, the social need for ethical practice outweighs the party’s right to counsel of his choice.’ ” Id. at 375 (quoting United States v. Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1979)).

2011The Fifth Circuit explained that a criminal defendant's choice of counsel may be disqualified for an ethical violation only if, "`in light of the interests underlying the standards of ethics, the social need for ethical practice outweighs the party's right to counsel of his choice.'" Id. at 375 (quoting United States v. Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1979)).

2011The Fifth Circuit explained that a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel may be disqualified for an ethical violation only if, “ ‘in light of the interests underlying the standards of ethics, the social need for ethical practice outweighs the party’s right to counsel of his choice.’ ” Id. at 375 (quoting United States v. Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1979)).

2011The Fifth Circuit explained that a criminal defendant's choice of counsel may be disqualified for an ethical violation only if, "`in light of the interests underlying the standards of ethics, the social need for ethical practice outweighs the party's right to counsel of his choice.'" Id. at 375 (quoting United States v. Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900, 903 (5th Cir.1979)).

2011Youngblood v. Sanders, 212 W.Va. 885, 892 , 575 S.E.2d 864, 872 (2002) ("[B]efore disqualification of counsel [due to a prospective attorney-client relationship], the court must satisfy itself from a review of the available evidence, including affidavits and testimony of affected individuals, that confidential information was discussed."). [15] The Comments to Rule 4.2 state that "[t]he prohibition on communications with a represented person applies only if the lawyer has actual knowledge that the person in fact is represented in the matter to be discussed." [16] We have mentioned that a subse

2011Youngblood v. Sanders, 212 W.Va. 885, 892 , 575 S.E.2d 864, 872 (2002) ("[B]efore disqualification of counsel [due to a prospective attorney-client relationship], the court must satisfy itself from a review of the available evidence, including affidavits and testimony of affected individuals, that confidential information was discussed."). [15] The Comments to Rule 4.2 state that "[t]he prohibition on communications with a represented person applies only if the lawyer has actual knowledge that the person in fact is represented in the matter to be discussed." [16] We have mentioned that a subse

2009In Attorney Grievance v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 516 , 823 A.2d 651, 658 (2003), we determined that a lawyer violated Rule 1.3 after “failing to file a timely motion and/or appeal on behalf of his client.” In Attorney Grievance v. Zdravkovich, 362 Md. 1 , 762 A.2d 950 (2000), we disciplined a lawyer who repeatedly failed to return phone calls, respond to letters, or provide accounting for earned fees; in finding that the lawyer violated Rule 1.3, we stated, “this Court has consistently regarded neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interests to be [an ethical violation] warranting the impositi

2009In Attorney Grievance v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 516 , 823 A.2d 651, 658 (2003), we determined that a lawyer violated Rule 1.3 after “failing to file a timely motion and/or appeal on behalf of his client.” In Attorney Grievance v. Zdravkovich, 362 Md. 1 , 762 A.2d 950 (2000), we disciplined a lawyer who repeatedly failed to return phone calls, respond to letters, or provide accounting for earned fees; in finding that the lawyer violated Rule 1.3, we stated, “this Court has consistently regarded neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interests to be [an ethical violation] warranting the impositi

2002See Article 66B, § 4.07 (a)(5); see also Zoning Ordinance § 20.3(3). 8 In Reddick , the Court of Appeals did not find it necessary to decide the dual representation issue, since the Deputy Attorney General involved was present at the hearing as a potential witness rather than as counsel. 213 Md. at 200 . 9 The court reasoned that the ethical rule addressing conflicts of interest was not designed to address the conflict in question.

2000The confidentiality umbrella of the ethical rule encompasses “all situations except where the ‘evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law.’ ” In re Criminal Investigation No. 1/242Q, 326 Md. 1, 5 , 602 A.2d 1220, 1222 (1992)(citing RPC 1.6 Comment)(emphasis in opinion).

2000The confidentiality umbrella of the ethical rule encompasses “all situations except where the ‘evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law.’ ” In re Criminal Investigation No. 1/242Q, 326 Md. 1, 5 , 602 A.2d 1220, 1222 (1992)(citing RPC 1.6 Comment)(emphasis in opinion).

1999See Peat, Marwick, 284 Md. at 96 , 394 A.2d 801 (citing Central Milk Producers, 573 F.2d at 991 ; W.T. *204 Grant Co., 531 F.2d at 676 ; Waters v. Western Co. of N. Am., 436 F.2d 1072, 1073 (10th Cir.1971)).

1999See Peat, Marwick, 284 Md. at 96 , 394 A.2d 801 (citing Central Milk Producers, 573 F.2d at 991 ; W.T. *204 Grant Co., 531 F.2d at 676 ; Waters v. Western Co. of N. Am., 436 F.2d 1072, 1073 (10th Cir.1971)).

1999See id. at 391.

1999The court’s conclusion that an ethical violation occurred is “a legal conclusion subject to full appellate review.” Schlumberger Techs., 113 F.3d at 1561; cf. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gavin, 350 Md. 176, 189 , 711 A.2d 193 (1998) (in disciplinary matters, Court of Appeals will make ultimate decision as to whether a lawyer has violated professional rules); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 93 , 706 A.2d 1080 (1998) (same).

1999See Peat, Marwick, 284 Md. at 96 , 394 A.2d 801 (citing Central Milk Producers, 573 F.2d at 991 ; W.T. *204 Grant Co., 531 F.2d at 676 ; Waters v. Western Co. of N. Am., 436 F.2d 1072, 1073 (10th Cir.1971)).

1999See Central Milk Producers Coop. v. Sentry Food Stores, Inc., 573 F.2d 988, 991 (8th Cir.1978) (citing Meat Price Investigators Ass’n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163 (8th Cir.1978); W.T.

1999See Central Milk Producers Coop. v. Sentry Food Stores, Inc., 573 F.2d 988, 991 (8th Cir.1978) (citing Meat Price Investigators Ass’n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163 (8th Cir.1978); W.T.

1999See Peat, Marwick, 284 Md. at 96 , 394 A.2d 801 (citing Central Milk Producers, 573 F.2d at 991 ; W.T. *204 Grant Co., 531 F.2d at 676 ; Waters v. Western Co. of N. Am., 436 F.2d 1072, 1073 (10th Cir.1971)).