Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sweitzer

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 20, 2006No. Misc. Docket AG No. 69, Sept. Term, 2005PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*589BATTAGLIA, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel and pursuant to Maryland Rule l6-75l(a),1 filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action against Respondent, Barry E. Sweitzer, on December 30, 2005, in which there were two complaints included, one by Bar Counsel, and the other by a client, James L. Sebold. With respect to the Complaint of James L. Sebold, it was alleged that Respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (Diligence)2 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in recording a deed…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. VanderlindeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. AgnewCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SheridanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WalmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BleeckerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. KremerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. CoppolaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. NussbaumCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WhiteheadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008

45 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