Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shryock

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that attorney who engaged in the unauthorized practice of law committed a criminal act that constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(b) and (c)
• concluding that attorney who engaged in the unauthorized practice of law committed a criminal act that constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(b) and (c)
• concluding that the continued use of attorney trust account, which identified Shryock as an attorney, following indefinite suspension violated Rule 5.5(b)(2)
• concluding that a lawyer’s unauthorized practice of law while already suspended violated Rule 8.4(b)
• concluding that Rule 8.4(c) was violated by a suspended attorney’s filing of pleadings for another because “there was no reasonable basis on which Shryock could have thought that his conduct was lawful”
• commenting that sanctions are intended to “protect the public, deter other lawyers from engaging in violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).