Legal Opinion
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided September 5, 1980No. [Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 1, September Term, 1979.]PublishedCited by 60 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV 9, the Attorney Grievance Commission acting through Bar Counsel filed a petition with us praying that disciplinary action be taken against Leonard Jules Kerpelman, a member of the Bar of this State. The complaint grew out of his representation of three individuals. Those relative to one individual ultimately were dropped. The disciplinary rules involved in the two remaining complaints were DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5), and (6); 2-106(A); 2-110(A)(2) and (B)(4); 6-101(A)(2) and (3); 7-102(A)(7); and 7-106(A). Pursuant to Rule BV9 b we designated the Honorable Marshall…
2Cases cited71 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Maness v. MeyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Ex Parte WallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Ex Parte BurrSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
- State v. ClawsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
- Fraidin v. WeitzmanCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MonfriedCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. KahnCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.