Attorney Grievance v. Armstrong
This text of 241 A.3d 885 (Attorney Grievance v. Armstrong) 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.
Opinion
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-19-005273
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG No. 35 September Term, 2019
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
DARRYL RUSSEL ARMSTRONG
Barbera, C. J., McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran
JJ.
PER CURIAM ORDER
Filed: November 20, 2020
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic.
Suzanne Johnson 2020-11-20 11:31-05:00
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * IN THE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND * COURT OF APPEALS
v. * OF MARYLAND
* Misc. Docket AG No. 35
DARRYL RUSSEL ARMSTRONG * September Term, 2019
For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 20th day of
November 2020
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Darryl
Russel Armstrong be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the further
practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Darryl Russel
Armstrong from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-761, shall
certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial
tribunals in the State; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this
Court, including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-709, for which
sum judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland
against Darryl Russel Armstrong.
/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera Chief Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
241 A.3d 885, 471 Md. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-v-armstrong-md-2020.