Attorney Grievance Commission v. Childress

I agree with the majority’s determination that Childress has violated MRPC 8.4(d), based upon the applicability of the *68Virginia statute. I disagree with the majority’s holding that Childress did not violate the provisions of CJ section 3-831. I also disagree with the sanction imposed in this case.

In respect to CJ section 3-831, the majority holds, in effect, that the evidence did not support a finding that Childress had performed acts rendering the child there at issue in need of supervision. The majority states: “Nevertheless, there is no evidence in this case, at least to the clear and…