Legal Opinion
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shaw
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided July 9, 1999No. Misc. AG No. 75, Sept. Term, 1997PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BELL, Chief Judge.
The issues we address today are twofold. First, we decide whether an attorney who researches stocks for a disabled person’s estate is engaged in the practice of law. Second, we shall determine under what circumstances an attorney may be disciplined for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, occurring while not practicing law.
I
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, acting through Bar Counsel and at the direction of the Review Board, see Maryland Rule 16-709, 1 filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Pamela L. Shaw, the respondent,…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. AgnewCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Bar Ass'n v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND OF MARYLAND v. OwrutskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. BriscoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SiskindCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. HarringtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HodesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.