Legal Opinion
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Childress
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided April 19, 2001No. Misc. AG No. 22, Sept. Term, 1999PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
This is the second time in which the instant Petition for Disciplinary Action has been before this Court. It charges the respondent, James F. Childress (Childress), with having violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 8.4(d), prohibiting engaging “in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The charges stem from Childress’s having been found guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (1994), proscribing interstate travel with intent to engage in a sexual…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. AgnewCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- In re WongAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND OF MARYLAND v. OwrutskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Commonwealth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1998
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- In Re ChildressDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SheinbeinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GreenleafCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. MarcalusCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.