Attorney Grievance v. Hardnett

44 A.3d 424, 426 Md. 433
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMay 9, 2012
DocketMisc. Docket AG No. 64, Sept. Term, 2011
StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.3d 424 (Attorney Grievance v. Hardnett) 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 v. Hardnett, 44 A.3d 424, 426 Md. 433 (Md. 2012).

Opinion

44 A.3d 424 (2012)
426 Md. 433

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner
v.
Charlene Sukari HARDNETT, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG No. 64, Sept. Term, 2011.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 9, 2012.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent submitted by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Petitioner, and Charlene Sukari Hardnett, Respondent, by her attorney, Melvin G. Bergman, Esquire. The Court, having considered the Petition, it is this 9th day of May, 2012,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the Respondent, Charlene Sukari Hardnett, be, and she hereby is, reprimanded for her violation of Rule 5.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.

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

Related

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hardnett
44 A.3d 424 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A.3d 424, 426 Md. 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-v-hardnett-md-2012.