Legal Opinion
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Howard
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided May 10, 1978No. [Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 8, September Term, 1977.]PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Per curiam
The three-judge panel assigned to hear this attorney disciplinary matter pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 recommended, for reasons stated in its “Findings of Fact... Conclusions and Recommendations,” that Charles P. Howard, Jr., be reprimanded for his professional misconduct. After careful review of the record, we adopt the views of the panel and hereto append its opinion. Accordingly, we reject the exceptions filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Charles P. Howard, Jr., is, therefore, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV11 reprimanded. In addition, he is directed to pay to the Attorney Grievance…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. AgnewCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. PhoebusCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. PollackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Whitcomb v. HormanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
3Cited by25 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Donald G. Griffin v. Warden, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center Attorney General of the State of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. KahnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GoldsboroughCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.