Legal Opinion
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Link
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided March 19, 2004No. Misc. Docket AG No. 97, Sept. Term, 2002PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BELL, Chief Judge.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 approved the filing by Bar Counsel of a Petition For Disciplinary or *407Remedial Action charging the respondent, Harold S. Link, Jr., with violating Rule 4.4, Respect for Rights of Third Persons,2 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”), as adopted by Maryland rule 16-812 and, in so doing, acting in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(d).3 We referred the case to the Honorable Robert E. Cadigan, of the Circuit Court…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Butts v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MonfriedCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HodesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. EllisonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. RandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.