Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance v. Viladegut

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 6, 2021No. 54ag/19PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Angel Arturo Viladegut Misc. Docket AG No. 54, September Term 2019 Attorney Discipline – Competence, Diligence, and Communication with Client – Mishandling of Client Funds – Misrepresentation – Disbarment. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction where an immigration attorney failed to represent numerous clients competently and diligently and failed to communicate with them adequately concerning their cases, made knowing and intentional misrepresentations to tribunals, his clients and their family members, accepted fees he did not earn, failed to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. AgbajeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. De La PazCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance v. DaileyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2021
  2. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2023
  3. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API