Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Harris-Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that hearing judge was not clearly erroneous in finding no violation of MRPC 8.4(b
• acknowledging that the deterrence of other non-admitted attorneys from undertaking a federal practice from an office in Maryland was achieved when the firm dissolved after bar counsel’s investigation commenced
• remarking that the cases where we have imposed disbarment involved “purely a territorial issue, with no federal overlay”
• finding a violation of Rule 7.1 where a business card gives a Maryland address and does not advise prospective clients that the lawyer is not admitted to practice in Maryland
• finding a violation of Rule 7.1 where a business card gives a Maryland address and does not advise prospective clients that the lawyer is not admitted to practice in Maryland
• acknowledging the principal objective of sanction in that case, deterrence of other non-admitted attorneys from undertaking a federal practice from an office in Maryland, was achieved when firm dissolved after bar counsel’s investigation commenced

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).