Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Singh
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtMcDonald, J.
The phrase "no harm, no foul" derives from the idea that, if a foul committed in a basketball game does not affect the outcome, the referee should not call the foul. 1 It denotes harmless error in a sports context. The rules of professional conduct governing attorneys do not allow us to adopt that approach. Many of those rules are prophylactic in nature. We must call a foul when one is committed, although the severity of the harm - or a lack of harm - may affect the sanction.
Respondent Raj Sanjeet Singh is a Maryland attorney who primarily practices immigration law from an office in…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. DiCiccoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. PageCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Attorney Grievance v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Attorney Grievance v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
- Attorney Grievance v. Smith-ScottCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Attorney Grievance v. BonnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
- Attorney Grievance v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2021
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.