Legal Opinion · Dissent

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lanocha

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 14, 2006No. Misc. Docket AG, No. 16 September Term, 2005Published

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

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  2. Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  4. State v. HoranWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  5. State v. EisenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API