Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Singh

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 17, 2019No. 6ag/18PublishedCited by 21 opinions

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

  1. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. DiCiccoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. PageCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  2. Attorney Grievance v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
  3. Attorney Grievance v. Smith-ScottCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  4. Attorney Grievance v. BonnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
  5. Attorney Grievance v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2021

16 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