Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Daniel R. Grindo

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that disciplinary factors are designed for the purpose of \achieving both consistency and fairness in lawyer disciplinary matters\
• \[T]he fact that Mr. Grindo failed to respond to the deadlines and entreaties of this Court regarding the filing of briefs certainly weighs heavily against\ him.
• “[T]he fact that Mr. Grindo failed to respond to the deadlines and entreaties of this Court regarding the filing of briefs certainly weighs heavily against Mr. Grindo.”
• “[T]he fact that Mr. Grindo failed to respond to the deadlines and entreaties of this Court regarding the filing of briefs certainly weighs heavily against Mr. Grindo.”
• “This Court finds in light of Mr. Grindo’s past history of being admonished by the Investigative Panel of the LDB, there is case law that supports a 30-day suspension of Mr. Grindo’s license. See e.g. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Sullivan, 230 W.Va. 460, 740 S.E.2d 55 (2013).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).