Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Frammgreen2 sentences2026See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620, 664 (2016) (citation modified) (“We have held that, when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates M[A]RPC 8.4(a).”). 2022Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620, 664 , 144 A.3d 827, 853 (2016) (“We have held that, when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates [MARPC 19-30]8.4(a).[14]”) (citation and internal quote omitted). | 9 | 9 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Younggreen2 sentences2022Furthermore, by violating those rules, Ms. Maiden also necessarily violated Rule 8.4(a), pursuant to which “[i]t is professional misconduct for an attorney to . . . violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct[.]” See Framm, 449 Md. at 664 (“We have held that, when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates [Rule] 8.4(a).” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Young, 445 Md. 93, 106 (2015))). 12 B. 2022Furthermore, by violating those rules, Ms. Maiden also necessarily violated Rule 8.4(a), pursuant to which “[i]t is professional misconduct for an attorney to . . . violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct[.]” See Framm, 449 Md. at 664 (“We have held that, when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates [Rule] 8.4(a).” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Young, 445 Md. 93, 106 (2015))). 12 B. | 2 | 3 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Powersgreen2 sentences2021As we often note, “when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates M[A]RPC 8.4(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620, 664 , 144 A.3d 827, 853 (2016); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powers, 454 Md. 79, 107 , 164 A.3d 138, 154 (2017) (citation omitted) (“An attorney violates Rule 8.4(a) when he or she violates other Rules of Professional Conduct.”). 2021As we often note, “when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates M[A]RPC 8.4(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620, 664 , 144 A.3d 827, 853 (2016); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powers, 454 Md. 79, 107 , 164 A.3d 138, 154 (2017) (citation omitted) (“An attorney violates Rule 8.4(a) when he or she violates other Rules of Professional Conduct.”). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Rosegreen1 sentence2021Further, we have found a violation of Rule 8.4(d) when an attorney participates in conduct “which tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute[.]” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rose, 391 Md. 101, 111 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Browngreen2 sentences2012See Patterson, 421 Md. at 737 , 28 A.3d at 1213 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent took no effort to serve process on the defendant and failed to undertake discovery); Brown, 426 Md. at 322-24 , 44 A.3d at 359-60 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent did not respond to discovery requests). 2012See Patterson, 421 Md. at 737 , 28 A.3d at 1213 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent took no effort to serve process on the defendant and failed to undertake discovery); Brown, 426 Md. at 322-24 , 44 A.3d at 359-60 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent did not respond to discovery requests). | 1 | 1 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2012See Patterson, 421 Md. at 737 , 28 A.3d at 1213 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent took no effort to serve process on the defendant and failed to undertake discovery); Brown, 426 Md. at 322-24 , 44 A.3d at 359-60 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent did not respond to discovery requests). 2012See Patterson, 421 Md. at 737 , 28 A.3d at 1213 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent took no effort to serve process on the defendant and failed to undertake discovery); Brown, 426 Md. at 322-24 , 44 A.3d at 359-60 (finding a violation of MLRPC 3.2 when the respondent did not respond to discovery requests). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Lang
green
1 sentence2021Turning to subsection (d) of Rule 8.4, we have stated that an attorney violates this rule “when his or her conduct impacts negatively the public’s perception or efficacy of the courts or legal profession.” Lang, 461 Md. at 66 (citing Barnett, 440 Md. at 267 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barnett
green
1 sentence2021Turning to subsection (d) of Rule 8.4, we have stated that an attorney violates this rule “when his or her conduct impacts negatively the public’s perception or efficacy of the courts or legal profession.” Lang, 461 Md. at 66 (citing Barnett, 440 Md. at 267 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Rand
green
1 sentence2018Therefore, we overrule this exception and find that Samuel did not violate 8.4(b) and (c). 8.4(d) prohibits an attorney from engaging in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." An attorney violates this rule when his or her conduct negatively impacts "the public's perception or efficacy of the courts or legal profession." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand , 411 Md. 83 , 96, 981 A.2d 1234 (2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2018Therefore, we overrule this exception and find that Samuel did not violate 8.4(b) and (c). 8.4(d) prohibits an attorney from engaging in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." An attorney violates this rule when his or her conduct negatively impacts "the public's perception or efficacy of the courts or legal profession." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand , 411 Md. 83 , 96, 981 A.2d 1234 (2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2017An attorney violates this rule “whenever an attorney makes intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mitchell, 445 Md. 241, 259 , 126 A.3d 72 (2015). 2017An attorney violates this rule “whenever an attorney makes intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mitchell, 445 Md. 241, 259 , 126 A.3d 72 (2015). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Khandpur
green
2 sentences2015When imposed, a sanction “should be commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case and any aggravating or mitigating factors.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1, 18 , 25 A.3d 165 (2011) (internal quotations omitted). 2015When imposed, a sanction “should be commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case and any aggravating or mitigating factors.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1, 18 , 25 A.3d 165 (2011) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brigerman
green
2 sentences2015We have held that, “when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates MLRPC 8.4(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 442 Md. 14, 36 , 109 A.3d 1184 (2015); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23, 41 , 105 A.3d 467 (2014) (concluding that, “[b]ased on Respondent’s numerous other violations of the MLRPC, Respondent also violated MLRPC 8.4(a)”). 2015We have held that, “when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates MLRPC 8.4(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 442 Md. 14, 36 , 109 A.3d 1184 (2015); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23, 41 , 105 A.3d 467 (2014) (concluding that, “[b]ased on Respondent’s numerous other violations of the MLRPC, Respondent also violated MLRPC 8.4(a)”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith
green
2 sentences2015We have held that, “when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates MLRPC 8.4(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 442 Md. 14, 36 , 109 A.3d 1184 (2015); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23, 41 , 105 A.3d 467 (2014) (concluding that, “[b]ased on Respondent’s numerous other violations of the MLRPC, Respondent also violated MLRPC 8.4(a)”). 2015We have held that, “when an attorney violates a rule of professional conduct, the attorney also violates MLRPC 8.4(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 442 Md. 14, 36 , 109 A.3d 1184 (2015); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23, 41 , 105 A.3d 467 (2014) (concluding that, “[b]ased on Respondent’s numerous other violations of the MLRPC, Respondent also violated MLRPC 8.4(a)”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.