Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lanocha

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 14, 2006No. Misc. Docket AG, No. 16 September Term, 2005PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BELL. Chief Judge.

Rule 1.8 (c)1 Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions, of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812, addresses the situation in which a lawyer drafts, for a non-related client, a will that grants a substantial gift to the lawyer or a covered relative and the conflict caused thereby. It provides:

“(c) A lawyer shall not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer as parent, child, sibling, or spouse any sub*237stantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, except…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. BriscoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MillikenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  5. In Re PolevoySupreme Court of Colorado · 1999

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  2. Attorney Grievance v. KeatingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SaridakisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. LanochaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SaridakisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API