# Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sparrow

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · December 20, 1988 · 314 Md. 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650066

## Case

- **Full name:** ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Victor H. SPARROW, III
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** December 20, 1988
- **Citations:** 314 Md. 421; 550 A.2d 1150; 1988 Md. LEXIS 166
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McAULIFFE
- **Judges:** Murphy, Eldridge, Cole, Rodowsky, McAuliffe, Adkins, Blackwell
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650066

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650066. Public record. Not legal advice.