Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kimmel
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
HARRELL, Judge.
These attorney disciplinary actions examine alleged shortfalls by partners in a law firm in supervision of a relatively-inexperienced associate and client communication that followed the establishment by their out-of-state law firm of a beachhead office in Maryland. To extend its automobile warranty and “lemon law” civil practice into the Maryland market, Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. (“K & S”) hired a young Maryland attorney to open a branch of the Pennsylvania-based firm in Owings Mills, Maryland. When matters ultimately went to Hades in a handbasket with the associate’s handling…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GuidaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZuckermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarfieldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SiskindCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. DoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ByrdCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.