Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 15, 2005No. Misc. Docket AG No. 10, September Term, 2004PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, C.J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the “Commission”), through Bar Counsel and pursuant to Mary land Rule 16-751, 1 as a result of two complaints received with respect to Wayne M. Mitchell, the respondent, filed against him a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action. In that petition, it was alleged that the respondent violated Rules 1.1 (Competence); 2 1.3 (Diligence); 3 1.4 (Communication); 4 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); 5 5.4 (Professional Independence of a Lawyer); 6 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law); 7 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s services); 8 7.5 (Firm Names…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. VanderlindeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. VlahosCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. HermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GisrielCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. CarithersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GoodmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. KumCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MaignanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

3 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