Attorney Grievance Commission v. De La Paz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that an attorney violated Rule 1.1 when he failed to appear before the court in his client’s case
• finding that an attorney violated MLRPC 1.1 when he failed to appear before the court in his client’s case
• violating MLRPC 1.4 by failing to inform a client that the case had been dismissed
• violating MLRPC 1.4 by failing to inform a client that the case had been dismissed
• noting that because the attorney “failed to file an answer to Bar Counsel’s Petitions or respond to its Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents; thus, the factual averments in those Petitions were deemed admitted, in accordance with Md. Rules 2-323(e), 2-613, and 16-754(c
• noting that because the attorney “failed to file an answer to Bar Counsel’s Petitions or respond to its Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents; thus, the factual averments in those Petitions were deemed admitted, in accordance with Md. Rules 2-323(e), 2-613, and 16-754(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).