Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tinsky

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 10, 2003No. Misc. AG No. 7 & 20, Sept. Term, 2002PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BATTAGLIA, Judge.

The Respondent, Craig Robert Tinsky, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 15, 1994. He presently does not maintain a law office in Maryland.

On March 19, 2002 and April 17, 2002, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-712(b)(5), 1 filed two petitions with this Court for disciplinary action against Tinsky, Respondent, alleging violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter “MRPC”). In its petition filed on March 19, 2002, the Commission charged Respondent with violations of MRPC 1.1…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. AgnewCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  2. ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND OF MARYLAND v. OwrutskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  5. Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. PhoebusCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. KremerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. De La PazCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011

33 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