Attorney Grievance v. Tun

288 A.3d 1235, 482 Md. 543
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJanuary 24, 2023
Docket47ag/22
StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.3d 1235 (Attorney Grievance v. Tun) 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. Tun, 288 A.3d 1235, 482 Md. 543 (Md. 2023).

Opinion

* IN THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * COMMISSION OF MARYLAND SUPREME COURT * OF MARYLAND v. * Misc. AG Docket No. 47 HARRY TUN * September Term, 2022 * ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed by

Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, and Respondent, Harry

Tun, on January 23, 2023, in which the parties advise that by an opinion filed

December 22, 2022, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred the

Respondent for violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct

3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(b), (c), and (d), and the parties agree that the Respondent engaged

in misconduct that violates the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct

set forth above and the Respondent consents to disbarment as the appropriate

sanction, it is this 24th day of January 2023,

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that, effective immediately,

the Respondent, Harry Tun, is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of

Maryland for violation of Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(b), (c), and (d) of the Maryland

Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Harry Tun from

the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of 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); and it is further ORDERED that the Show Cause Order issued on January 10, 2023, directing

the parties to show cause why corresponding discipline should not be imposed on the

Respondent is satisfied.

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. /s/ Shirley M. Watts Senior Justice 2023-01-24 08:32-05:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.3d 1235, 482 Md. 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-v-tun-md-2023.