From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Stringer

Maryland Supreme Court
Mar 24, 2023
No. 52-2022 (Md. Mar. 24, 2023)

Opinion

52-2022

03-24-2023

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. DAVID H. STRINGER


ORDER

Matthew J. Fader, Chief Justice

In its Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Attorney Grievance Commission requested that the Court impose reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the State Bar of Arizona, specifically Rule 8.2(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to Rule 19-737(e), 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. Both parties filed responses. In his response, Mr. Stringer argues that exceptional circumstances exist to not impose reciprocal discipline. The Court concludes that Mr. Stringer did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant substantially different discipline.

Accordingly, it is this 24th day of March 2023, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, ORDERED that David H. Stringer is reprimanded for violation of Rule 8.2(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.


Summaries of

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Stringer

Maryland Supreme Court
Mar 24, 2023
No. 52-2022 (Md. Mar. 24, 2023)
Case details for

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Stringer

Case Details

Full title:ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. DAVID H. STRINGER

Court:Maryland Supreme Court

Date published: Mar 24, 2023

Citations

No. 52-2022 (Md. Mar. 24, 2023)