ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. Harlan
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
This bar disciplinary matter concerns a disbursement by the Respondents for their client, out of funds recovered in a tort action, to a creditor of the client. Respondents requested, received and retained a “fee” of one-third of the disbursement, without the knowledge or consent of the client.
The Attorney Grievance Commission filed charges against Joseph B. Harlan (Harlan) and Jac E. Knust (Knust), alleging violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 2-106(A), DR 5-101(A), DR 5-107(A)(l) and DR 7-101(A)(l) and (3). See former Maryland Rule 1230, Appendix F, Code of Professional…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. KorotkiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Collins v. United Pacific InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re HagerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HessCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. CappellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Philip Morris Inc. v. AngelettiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Philip Morris Inc. v. AngelettiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000