Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Webster

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 17, 1998No. Misc. AG No. 71, Sept. Term, 1996PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RAKER, Judge.

Acting through Bar Counsel, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a petition for disciplinary action against Arthur Dixon Webster for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709(b) 1 we referred the matter to Judge Thomas C. Groton, III of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Groton concluded that Webster had violated Rule 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 2 Rule 1.8(a) (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), 3 Rule 1.15(a)…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  2. ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  4. ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MillikenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SheridanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GallagherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BlumCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. AwuahCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003

32 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