Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cannon

619 A.2d 531, 329 Md. 306
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided February 9, 1993·No. Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 30·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Petition for Reprimand by Consent filed herein, it is this 9th day of February, 1993,

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Winifred E. Cannon, be, and she is hereby reprimanded for her violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Respondent’s practice be monitored for a period of one (1) year by a member of the Maryland Bar, acceptable to Bar Counsel, while Respondent remains in private practice as a sole practitioner, and it is further

ORDERED, that said monitor shall provide Bar Counsel with written reports on a quarterly basis, and it is further

ORDERED, that should Respondent cease solo practice she shall have the right to petition this Court for a modification of the necessity of the monitor.

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

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cannon, 619 A.2d 531, 329 Md. 306 (Md. 1993).

619 A.2d 531 (Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cannon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.