Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Midlen

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 4, 2006No. Misc. Docket AG No. 4, September Term, 2006PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOpinion by Wilner, J.

This is a reciprocal discipline case governed by Maryland Rule 16-773. In April, 2006, Bar Counsel, having learned that, in November, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had found that respondent, John Midlen, Jr., violated certain D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (DCRPC) and had suspended him from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, filed a petition seeking reciprocal discipline in Maryland. The petition, filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(b), alleged that, based on the findings of the D.C. Court, Midlen had violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. In Re MicheelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. In Re SlosbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Matter of GoldbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ParsonsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GoldbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Peters-HamlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MaignanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  4. In re the Virgin Islands Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API