Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marano

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 15, 1986No. Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 19, September Term, 1985PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Judge.

The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9, seeking disciplinary action against Philip S. Maraño, a member of the Maryland Bar since November 9, 1956. Bar Counsel charged violations of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6); 5-104(A); 6-101(A)(l), (2) and (3); 7-101(A)(l), (2) and (3); 9-102(A)(l), (2) and (B)(1), (3) and (4). 1 He also was charged with violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1981 Repl.Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.) Art. 10, § 44. 2 We shall disbar.

I

Pursuant to Rule BV9 b we referred the matter…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. PhoebusCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. PattisonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MaranoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1984

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZdravkovichCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SingletonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. PowersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. TrillingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
  5. Maryland Attorney General Opinion 98 OAG 023, Maryland Attorney General Reports2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API