# Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wright

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 2, 1986 · 306 Md. 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765500

## Case

- **Full name:** ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. John Bacon WRIGHT
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** May 2, 1986
- **Citations:** 306 Md. 93; 507 A.2d 618; 1986 Md. LEXIS 228
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cole
- **Judges:** Cole, R0d0wsky
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9765500

## Opinion text

COLE, Judge,
concurring.
The majority opinion is a sterling admonition to counsel to charge a fee commensurate with the legal services rendered. However, it is not a review of the case presented to, *107 argued before, and decided by Judge Thieme. The issue before Judge Thieme was whether the fees charged by the respondent under the circumstances described were clearly excessive and unreasonable. As proof of each side’s position, three eminent and outstanding members of the Bar testified. Judge Thieme was unpersuaded by either side, and he thus concluded that Bar Counsel had not met his burden. The issue for us is simple: were Judge Thieme’s conclusions clearly erroneous? We cannot say that they were, and for this reason, we should affirm the judgment. Hence, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765500. Public record. Not legal advice.