Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Middleton

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 26, 2000No. Misc. Docket AG No. 31, Sept. Term, 1999PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RODOWSKY, Judge.

The petitioner, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against the respondent, Michael G. Middleton (Middleton), alleging misconduct arising out of Middleton’s representation of the persons respectively accused in four separate criminal cases over a two-year period. Based on Middleton’s default, the hearing judge found that Middleton had committed all of the violations charged, the most serious of which, intentional misrepresentation to a court, is evidenced by a judgment of criminal contempt. Middleton,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  2. Banegura v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. KentCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995
  4. Maryland Lumber Co. v. Savoy Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  5. Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1995

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZdravkovichCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ChildressCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  5. Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. David J. Joseph Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001

6 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