Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Snyder

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 9, 2008No. 13, September Term, 2007Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurphy, J.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by MURPHY, J.

I agree that a reprimand is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s violation of Rule 1.16. I am persuaded, however, that dismissal is the appropriate disposition for the Rule 1.1 violation.

As to the appropriate sanction for the violation of Rule 1.16(d), the case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Rees, which involved a lawyer who (1) withdrew from her escrow account $2,140 in unearned fees, and (2) had not made a full refund of unearned fees as of the date on which this Court imposed a thirty day suspension. Rees, supra, 396 Md. at…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ReesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SaridakisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API