Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kimmel

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 2, 2008No. Misc. Docket AG Nos. 20, 21PublishedCited by 17 opinions

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

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GuidaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZuckermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarfieldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SiskindCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. DoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  2. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ByrdCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013

12 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