Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Watson

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 4, 2004No. Misc. Docket AG No. 17, Sept. Term, 2003PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. VanderlindeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SheridanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BakasCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BernsteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MininsohnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GisrielCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  2. Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. PrichardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MaignanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GisrielCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API