Attorney Grievance Commission v. Walter
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtMurphy, J.
On June 5, 2007, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the Commission) filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in which it asserted that Harold M. Walter, Respondent, violated Rule 8.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. 1 The Petition included the following assertions:
1. Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 21,1983----
2. During times relevant to this matter, Respondent maintained an office of the practice of law in Baltimore City, Maryland, and was a partner in the law firm of Tydings and Rosenberg, hereafter “the firm.”
% * *
7. From 2003…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MonfriedCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ReinhardtCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SiskindCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. UgwuonyeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ByrdCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. StinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- Motor Vehicle Administration v. CarpenterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. AmbeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.