Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alonso

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alonso

108 A.3d 394, 441 Md. 366, 2015 Md. LEXIS 17

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

DocketMisc. Docket AG No. 82

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.3d 394 (Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alonso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alonso, 108 A.3d 394, 441 Md. 366, 2015 Md. LEXIS 17 (Md. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment By Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, it is this 28th day of January, 2015,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jaime Arthuro Alonso, Respondent, be, and he hereby is, disbarred by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective January 31, 2015, for committing professional misconduct in violation of Rule 8.4(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court, in accordance with Rule 16—772(d), shall strike the name of Jaime Arthuro Alonso from the register of attorneys in this Court as of January 31, 2015 and certify to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the clerks of all court in this State that the name of Jaime Arthuro Alonso has been so stricken.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment By Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, it is this 28th day of January, 2015,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jaime Arthuro Alonso, Respondent, be, and he hereby is, disbarred by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective January 31, 2015, for committing professional misconduct in violation of Rule 8.4(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court, in accordance with Rule 16—772(d), shall strike the name of Jaime Arthuro Alonso from the register of attorneys in this Court as of January 31, 2015 and certify to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the clerks of all court in this State that the name of Jaime Arthuro Alonso has been so stricken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.3d 394, 441 Md. 366, 2015 Md. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-commission-v-alonso-md-2015.