Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tinsky

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that failure to respond to a client’s inquiries regarding his or her case is a violation of MLRPC 1.4
• concluding that the attorney’s failure to appear at two criminal proceedings was incompetent and showed a lack of diligence
• holding that an attorney violated Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to perform “any effective action on behalf of his client”
• concluding that attorney’s failure to supply additional materials requested by the court demonstrated a lack of diligence
• [holding that] an attorney engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice is in violation of MLRPC 8.4(d
• ordering disbarment for an attorney who abandoned one client in a single bankruptcy proceeding and failed to return unearned fees in violation of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) and 8.4(d)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).