Attorney Grievance v. Hammer

293 A.3d 453, 483 Md. 433

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Decided: April 21, 2023
• Docket: 51ag/22
• Status: Published

Opinion

* IN THE * ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE SUPREME COURT COMMISSION OF MARYLAND * OF MARYLAND v. * AG Docket No. 51 RACHAEL-ANNE HAMMER * September Term, 2022 *

ORDER

In its Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Attorney Grievance

Commission requested that the Court impose reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the

Virginia State Disciplinary Board, that is, a 60-day suspension. Pursuant to Rule 19-737(c),

the Court required the Commission to serve the respondent with the petition and required

the Commission and the respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be

imposed. On March 13, 2023, the Commission served the respondent by alternative

service. The Commission filed a response contending that no exceptional circumstances

exist to warrant different discipline, and that reciprocal discipline should be imposed.

Respondent did not file a response to the order to show cause.

Accordingly, it is this 21st day of April, 2023, by the Supreme Court of Maryland,

ORDERED that, effective immediately, the respondent, Rachael-Anne Hammer, is

suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for a period of 60 days for

violation of Rules 1.15, 1.16, and 8.4(b); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Rachael-Anne

Hammer from the register of attorneys authorized to practice law in the State of Maryland

and shall certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all

Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761(b).

/s/ Matthew J. Fader Chief Justice

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2023-04-21 16:03-04:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk