Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ruhl

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ruhl

162 A.3d 835, 453 Md. 354, 2017 WL 2634002, 2017 Md. LEXIS 399

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJune 19, 2017

Docket122ag/16

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.3d 835 (Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ruhl) 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. Ruhl, 162 A.3d 835, 453 Md. 354, 2017 WL 2634002, 2017 Md. LEXIS 399 (Md. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension By Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, proposing such discipline as corresponding discipline for a suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the matter of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jesse Raymond Ruhl, No. 1313 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, it is this 19th day of June, 2017,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jesse Raymond Ruhl, Respondent, is hereby indefinitely suspended by consent from the practice of law in this State, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Jesse Raymond Ruhl from the register of attorneys in this Court, notify Respondent of such action, and comply with the notice provisions set forth in Maryland Rule 19—761(b); and it is further

ORDERED, as a condition precedent to reinstatement, that Respondent must be reinstated as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before seeking reinstatement to the Bar of this Court.

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

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension By Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, proposing such discipline as corresponding discipline for a suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the matter of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jesse Raymond Ruhl, No. 1313 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, it is this 19th day of June, 2017,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jesse Raymond Ruhl, Respondent, is hereby indefinitely suspended by consent from the practice of law in this State, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Jesse Raymond Ruhl from the register of attorneys in this Court, notify Respondent of such action, and comply with the notice provisions set forth in Maryland Rule 19—761(b); and it is further

ORDERED, as a condition precedent to reinstatement, that Respondent must be reinstated as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before seeking reinstatement to the Bar of this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.3d 835, 453 Md. 354, 2017 WL 2634002, 2017 Md. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-commission-v-ruhl-md-2017.