Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Korotki

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 21, 1990No. Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 24, September Term, 1988PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RODOWSKY, Judge.

This professional discipline matter arises out of the personal injury claims of five persons, asserted in a single action. Plaintiffs’ counsel in that action, the respondent herein, Abraham Paul Korotki (Korotki), charged his clients a contingent fee of seventy-five percent of the gross amount recovered after trial and appellate review. Two of the clients were charged fees totaling $471,424.36 on their combined gross recoveries of $628,565.81. Their complaints to Bar Counsel led to charges against Korotki which were heard before Judge Dana M. Levitz of the Circuit Court for…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. United States v. PetrilloSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Aravanis v. EisenbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
  5. Houghton v. County Comm'rs of Kent Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1986

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Eriks v. DenverWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Friolo v. FrankelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  3. Fraidin v. WeitzmanCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  5. State v. GarrettWashington Supreme Court · 1994

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

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

Powered by the Exa API