Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hess
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
Between 1985 and 1987 the respondent, Stanford Donald Hess (Hess), while a partner in a major Baltimore law firm, consistently and falsely inflated the hours worked by attorneys at the firm on the matters of a dominant, but difficult, client. At least one purpose of the artificial increase was to offset a fifteen percent discount which the firm had agreed to give to the client for prompt payment which, as Hess anticipated, never materialized. The basic facts are not in dispute. Although each party has filed exceptions, our rulings thereon do not bear materially on the ultimate…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Disciplinary Proceeding v. NobleWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding against DannWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Matter of DannWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. VanderlindeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. HarringtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GallagherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.