Legal Opinion
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kent
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 10, 1995No. Misc. (Subtitle BV), No. 48PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RAKER, Judge.
In this disciplinary proceeding, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, charged the respondent, Michael Gayhart Kent, with violations of Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), Rule 4.2 (Communication with Person Represented by Counsel), and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. These charges stem from respondent’s representation of Paul Holland and Anthony Gray, defendants in a first degree murder, robbery, and rape case in…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. AgnewCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Bar Ass'n v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MonfriedCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. HarringtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GallagherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.