Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Oswinkle

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 11, 2001No. Misc. AG No. 3PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRaker, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, charged Respondent, George Milton Oswinkle, with violating Rule 8.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.1 Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709(b), we referred the charge to Judge M. Brooke Murdock of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent had violated Rule 8.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition and four exceptions to the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. FezellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. HallmonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  4. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. TolarCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. CassidyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Van NelsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. JeterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  3. Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. SandersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
  4. Attorney Grievance v. O'NeillCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ButlerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015

8 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