Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cannon

619 A.2d 531, 329 Md. 306
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedFebruary 9, 1993
DocketMisc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 30
StatusPublished

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 A.2d 531, 329 Md. 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-commission-v-cannon-md-1993.