Attorney Grievance Commission v. Watson
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBell, C.J.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel filed, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751 1 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, a Petition For
Disciplinary Or Remedial Action, in which it alleged that the respondent, Barry K. Watson, the respondent, violated Rules 1.4, Communication, 2 1.15, Safekeeping Property, 3 and 8.4, Misconduct, 4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. Bar Counsel also alleged that, in addition, the respondent violated Maryland Rules 16-603, Duty to Maintain Account, 5 and 16-604, Trust Account —…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. VanderlindeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SheridanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BakasCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BernsteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MininsohnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GisrielCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. PrichardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MaignanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GisrielCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009