members bar (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

members bar in Maryland

8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2014 0 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Horngreen
iowa · 1985 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Assoc. v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 8 (1985).

2000See, e.g., Committee on Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n. v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1985) (“It is vital to the *256 accused lawyer, the members of the bar, and the general public that a complaint against a lawyer be promptly investigated and evaluated.”); In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo.1986) (stating that the disciplinary authorities give time and service to maintain high standard in the legal profession and are entitled at a minimum to courteous response and prompt cooperation); In re Rogovoy, 100 N.J. 556 , 498 A.2d 769, 772 (1985) (stating that, when a lawyer

22
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sweitzergreen
md · 2006 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586, 606 , 911 A.2d 440, 452 (2006), the petitioner asks this Court to suspend the respondent indefinitely from the practice of law.

2013Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586, 606 , 911 A.2d 440, 452 (2006), the petitioner asks this Court to suspend the respondent indefinitely from the practice of law.

11
Stratagene v. Invitrogen Corp.green
mdd · 2002 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009Thus, this Court must not weigh the competing issues with hairsplitting nicety but, in the proper exercise of its supervisory power over the members of the bar and with a view of preventing an appearance of impropriety, this Court is to resolve all doubts in favor of disqualification.” Stratagem v. Invitrogen Corp., 225 F.Supp.2d 608, 610 (D.Md.2002) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

11
In Re Stormentgreen
mo · 1994 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006One of the meanings of “correspond” is to be “equivalent in function,” another is “having an obvious similarity, although not agreeing in every detail.” 13 The Supreme Court of Missouri has made it clear that the court “makes its own independent judgment as to the fitness of the members of its bar.” In re Storment, 873 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Mo.1994) (en banc) (finding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who had been suspended in Illinois).

11
In Re Staabgreen
mo · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See, e.g., Committee on Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n. v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1985) (“It is vital to the *256 accused lawyer, the members of the bar, and the general public that a complaint against a lawyer be promptly investigated and evaluated.”); In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo.1986) (stating that the disciplinary authorities give time and service to maintain high standard in the legal profession and are entitled at a minimum to courteous response and prompt cooperation); In re Rogovoy, 100 N.J. 556 , 498 A.2d 769, 772 (1985) (stating that, when a lawyer

11
In Re the Disciplinary Action Against Lincegreen
nd · 1972 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000See, e.g., Committee on Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n. v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1985) (“It is vital to the *256 accused lawyer, the members of the bar, and the general public that a complaint against a lawyer be promptly investigated and evaluated.”); In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo.1986) (stating that the disciplinary authorities give time and service to maintain high standard in the legal profession and are entitled at a minimum to courteous response and prompt cooperation); In re Rogovoy, 100 N.J. 556 , 498 A.2d 769, 772 (1985) (stating that, when a lawyer

11
Matter of Rogovoygreen
nj · 1985 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000See, e.g., Committee on Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n. v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1985) (“It is vital to the *256 accused lawyer, the members of the bar, and the general public that a complaint against a lawyer be promptly investigated and evaluated.”); In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo.1986) (stating that the disciplinary authorities give time and service to maintain high standard in the legal profession and are entitled at a minimum to courteous response and prompt cooperation); In re Rogovoy, 100 N.J. 556 , 498 A.2d 769, 772 (1985) (stating that, when a lawyer

2000See, e.g., Committee on Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n. v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1985) (“It is vital to the *256 accused lawyer, the members of the bar, and the general public that a complaint against a lawyer be promptly investigated and evaluated.”); In re Staab, 719 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo.1986) (stating that the disciplinary authorities give time and service to maintain high standard in the legal profession and are entitled at a minimum to courteous response and prompt cooperation); In re Rogovoy, 100 N.J. 556 , 498 A.2d 769, 772 (1985) (stating that, when a lawyer

11
Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Agnewgreen
md · 1974 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
2 sentences

1975The purpose of such proceedings has been characterized “as a catharsis for the profession and a prophylactic for the public.” See Maryland State Bar Ass’n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 549 , 318 A. 2d 811, 814 (1974).

1975The purpose of such proceedings has been characterized “as a catharsis for the profession and a prophylactic for the public.” See Maryland State Bar Ass’n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 549 , 318 A. 2d 811, 814 (1974).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Vanderlinde green
md · 2001
2 sentences

2014The remainder of the cases cited by Hodes are no longer part of our modern attorney discipline jurisprudence, 21 because, as we noted in Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 418 , 773 A.2d at 488 : With our opinion today, we impress upon the members of the bar that the Court does not consider Hess or the pre Kenney cases to be authority for an argument for leniency in attorney disciplinary matters involving intentionally dishonest conduct.

2014The remainder of the cases cited by Hodes are no longer part of our modern attorney discipline jurisprudence, 21 because, as we noted in Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 418 , 773 A.2d at 488 : With our opinion today, we impress upon the members of the bar that the Court does not consider Hess or the pre Kenney cases to be authority for an argument for leniency in attorney disciplinary matters involving intentionally dishonest conduct.

12014–2014
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garcia green
md · 2009
2 sentences

2013With our opinion today, we impress upon the members of the bar that the Court does not consider Hess or the pre-Kenney cases to be authority for an argument for leniency in attorney disciplinary matters involving intentionally dishonest conduct.” Based on that rule, in Garcia, 410 Md. at 521 , 979 A.2d at 154 , we opined “[w]hen an attorney’s conduct involves intentional dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, we do not discuss ‘degrees’ of dishonesty, but generally order disbarment, absent compelling extenuating circumstances.” Alternatively, relying on Attorney Griev.

2013With our opinion today, we impress upon the members of the bar that the Court does not consider Hess or the pre-Kenney cases to be authority for an argument for leniency in attorney disciplinary matters involving intentionally dishonest conduct.” Based on that rule, in Garcia, 410 Md. at 521 , 979 A.2d at 154 , we opined “[w]hen an attorney’s conduct involves intentional dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, we do not discuss ‘degrees’ of dishonesty, but generally order disbarment, absent compelling extenuating circumstances.” Alternatively, relying on Attorney Griev.

12013–2013
Bar Ass'n v. Marshall green
md · 1973
1 sentence

1975To fail to do so will impliedly represent to the public that the attorney continues to possess the basic qualities . . . associated with the members of the bar of this State.” Bar Ass’n v. Marshall, supra, at 519-20, 307 A. 2d at 682 .

11975–1975
Davis v. Reed green
md · 1859
1 sentence

1929In Davis v. Reed, 14 Md. 152 , it was said: “When a practice has become inveterate, it is better to- adhere to it, until changed by a prospective rule, than to incur the risk of doing injustice to a party who may have followed it, and especially where the opposite side has not been injured by the alleged irregularity.” Again, in the case of Gregg v. Baltimore, 14 Md. 504 , it was said: “Rules of practice are a part of the law governing all judicial tribunals.

11929–1929

Where else courts name it

PA 40 (1836–2023) CT 27 (1983–2022) LA 24 (1924–2015) CA 19 (1907–2021) WA 17 (1914–2018) MO 16 (1870–2013) NJ 15 (1923–2025) MI 13 (1927–2018) IL 12 (1894–2010) FL 12 (1913–2010) DC 11 (1970–2022) NY 10 (1908–2014) AZ 10 (1920–2018) OK 9 (1911–2025) WV 9 (1898–2021) MD 8 (1929–2014) MT 7 (1895–2007) KY 7 (1873–2026) KS 7 (1896–2007) IN 6 (1942–1993) SD 5 (1909–1990) OR 5 (1923–2011) AR 5 (1924–2010) GA 5 (1907–1982) NV 5 (1949–2012) AL 5 (1937–2026) OH 4 (1932–2025) WI 4 (1967–2016) NM 4 (1895–2020) WY 4 (1936–2000) TN 4 (1953–2013) MS 4 (1991–2004) TX 4 (1948–2023) NE 3 (1908–1990) SC 3 (1951–2026) RI 3 (2001–2015) ND 2 (1903–1910) NC 2 (1932–2006) NH 2 (1986–1990) MN 2 (1900–2016) VA 2 (1937–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check