Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Page v. Penrose

8 Citing cases

  1. Tahir Erk v. Glenn L. Martin Co.

    32 F. Supp. 722 (D. Md. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    And it may be arranged by express contract, or the obligation to pay may be implied from circumstances from which an expectation of payment may be inferred. Brantly, Contracts, (2d Ed.) 21; Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 127 A. 748. On the other hand, the arrangement may be that the agent is to earn compensation only by procuring the result.

  2. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes

    105 A.3d 533 (Md. 2014)

    Certainly, an attorney-client relationship still can be found even though the attorney renders services or advice that is not strictly legal in character. See, e.g., Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 227–28, 127 A. 748, 749 (1925). Moreover, a personal relationship or close friendship with a purported “client” does not preclude a court from finding that an attorney-client relationship exists.

  3. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes

    441 Md. 136 (Md. 2014)

    Certainly, an attorney-client relationship still can be found even though the attorney renders services or advice that is not strictly legal in character. See, e.g., Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 227–28, 127 A. 748, 749 (1925). Moreover, a personal relationship or close friendship with a purported “client” does not preclude a court from finding that an attorney-client relationship exists.

  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edib

    415 Md. 696 (Md. 2010)   Cited 36 times
    Recognizing that clients were harmed in two cases in which attorneys took fees for no work or incompetent work

    [W]hile his services may not, and so far as we can see were not, of a strictly legal character, nevertheless, it is just that he should have been compensated for the services he gave at the same rate as he would have been had they been strictly legal in character. 147 Md. 225, 225, 127 A. 748, 749 (1925). We hold alternatively that Respondent did not violate MRPC 1.5(a) based on a weighing of its applicable factors.

  5. Attorney Grievance v. Shoup

    410 Md. 462 (Md. 2009)   Cited 19 times
    Recognizing that the potential client "never intended for the [R]espondent to provide her with legal services"

    Certainly, an attorney-client relationship still can be found even though the attorney renders services or advice that is not strictly legal in character. See, e.g., Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 227-28, 127 A. 748, 749 (1925). Moreover, a personal relationship or close friendship with a purported "client" does not preclude a court from finding that an attorney-client relationship exists.

  6. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shaw

    354 Md. 636 (Md. 1999)   Cited 39 times
    Concluding that the "respondent's use of the term 'Esq.' in correspondence" "provide[d] an insufficient basis for the finding that the respondent held herself out as a lawyer"

    On the other hand, an attorney-client relationship may be found to exist even when the services performed by the attorney are not strictly legal in character. See Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 227-28, 127 A. 748, 749 (1925). The attorney in Page was retained as an attorney, although the work to be performed could have been completed by a non-lawyer.

  7. Folly Farms I, Inc. v. Trustees

    282 Md. 659 (Md. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    In Folly Farms, 282 Md. 659, 387 A.2d 248, we adopted a "but for" construction of the Fund coverage for losses caused by the services of an attorney, and we referred to the Smith-Baldwin colloquy, inter alia, for support for that holding.

    Our predecessors concluded in Penrose v. Page, 145 Md. 1, 125 A. 549 (1924), that a Baltimore attorney employed as "special counsel" in an effort to save a failing bank was entitled to a fee for his extensive services. The matter returned to this Court in Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 127 A. 748 (1925). What Judge Offutt said for the Court there is significant because the Court found Mr. Penrose to be entitled to attorney's fees even though his services were not of a legal character and could have been performed by a non-lawyer bank executive:

  8. Cleaves v. Sharp Dohme, Inc.

    171 A. 374 (Md. 1934)   Cited 9 times

    And it may be arranged by express contract, or the obligation to pay may be implied from circumstances from which an expectation of payment may be inferred. Brantly, Contracts (2nd Ed.) 21; Page v. Penrose, 147 Md. 225, 127 A. 748. On the other hand, the arrangement may be that the agent is to earn compensation only by procuring the result. And that is the ordinary arrangement with commission agents and brokers.