Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lanocha
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Dissent
BATTAGLIA, J.,
files a dissenting opinion joined by CATHELL, J.
*247Dissenting Opinion by WILNER, Judge.
1 concur in the Court’s sustaining of Bar Counsel’s exception and its overruling of Lanocha’s exception. Subject to one critical caveat, 1 agree as well that, under the facts here, a reprimand would be the appropriate sanction to be imposed. The caveat is the one that I noted in my dissent in Attorney Grievance v. Stein, 378 Md. 531, 545-49, 819 A.2d 372, 380-82 (2003). In my view, the only effective and practical way to enforce MRPC 1.8(c) is to require the errant lawyer to disgorge the fruits…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- State v. HoranWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- State v. EisenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.