Attorney Griev. Comm'n of Maryland v. Protokowicz

While I concur in the result, I do not agree with all that is set forth in either the majority opinion or in Judge Bell’s concurring opinion. The majority has clearly departed from the interpretation and application of Rule BV16 which had *721been adhered to in our prior opinions and orders. In particular, the majority has expanded the purpose of the interim suspension rule without explaining why this departure from our prior cases is warranted.

With respect to the purpose of the interim suspension provisions of Rule BV16, the majority states as follows (at 716, emphasis added):

“The purpose of…