Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tayback

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 5, 2003No. Misc. AG No. 28, Sept. Term, 2002PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CATHELL, Judge.

On March 3, 2001, an Inquiry Panel, at the direction of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, petitioner, commenced an investigation of Matthew G. Tayback, respondent. On June 12, 2002, the petitioner, by Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, and Glenn M. Grossman, Deputy Bar Counsel, filed, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709, 1 a petition for disciplinary action against respondent for violating the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). Specifically, petitioner alleged that respondent, based upon his failure to timely file both his federal and state income tax returns…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SheridanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MonfriedCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SweitzerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. NussbaumCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WeissCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. O'TooleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

23 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