Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sparrow

  • 314 Md. 421
  • 550 A.2d 1150
  • 1988 Md. LEXIS 166
Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Filed
Dec 20, 1988
Status
Published
Author
McAULIFFE
On the bench
Murphy, Eldridge, Cole, Rodowsky, McAuliffe, Adkins, Blackwell
Cited by
21 cases

reciprocating, although sanction was not consistent with Maryland practice, due to mitigating circumstances presented to, and considered by, the original court

How later courts described this case

  • reciprocating, although sanction was not consistent with Maryland practice, due to mitigating circumstances presented to, and considered by, the original court

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

McAULIFFE, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment. Because the respondent should not be prejudiced by the delay in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings in this State, for purposes of any subsequent petition for reinstatement I would treat the disbarment as if it had occurred at the time the disciplinary sanction was imposed in California.

MURPHY, C.J., and RODOWSKY, J., join in this opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.