Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 26, 1979No. [Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 21, September Term, 1978.]PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

The facts relative to this case are set forth in our earlier opinion in Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Bailey, 285 Md. 631, 403 A.2d 1261 (1979). We need not repeat them here. Bailey is a St. Mary’s County attorney who handled a real estate transaction in a most unsatisfactory manner.

The trial judge designated to hear the evidence pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b conducted a full hearing. As we stated in the first opinion, he submitted a lengthy and well reasoned report and opinion to us. He concluded that Bailey had violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102 (A) (1) and (4); 6-101 (A) (1) and (3); 7-101…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. LockhartCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. LevittCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. VanderlindeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  3. ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. KahnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002

20 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