Skip to main content

(a) Appointment. Within 30 days after receiving a copy of a Statement of Charges filed with the Commission, the Chair of the Peer Review Committee shall (1) appoint a Peer Review Panel, (2) notify the Commission, Bar Counsel, and the attorney of the appointment of the Panel and the names and addresses of its members, (3) cause a copy of the Statement of Charges and documentation and information filed by Bar Counsel to be sent to the members of the Panel, and (4) in accordance with Rule 19-720 (b), schedule a meeting of the Peer Review Panel.

(b) Composition of Panel.

(1) The Peer Review Panel shall consist of at least three members of the Peer Review Committee.

(2) A majority of the members of the Panel shall be attorneys, but at least one member shall not be an attorney.

(3) If practicable, the Chair shall appoint to the Panel members from the circuit in which the attorney who is the subject of the charges has an office for the practice of law or, if there is no such office, the circuit in which the last known address of the attorney, as reflected on the records of the Client Protection Fund, is located.

(c) Panel Chair. The Chair of the Peer Review Committee shall appoint an attorney member of the Panel as the Panel Chair.

(d) Removal and Recusal of Members. The Chair of the Peer Review Committee may remove a member of the Peer Review Panel for cause. A member of a Peer Review Panel shall not participate in any proceeding in which the member's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A member who is required to recuse or who cannot attend the Peer Review meeting shall immediately notify the Chair of the Peer Review Committee, who shall promptly appoint another member.

(e) Quorum. The presence of any three members of the Peer Review Panel constitutes a quorum, whether or not a non-attorney member is present. With the consent of the Panel members who are present, Bar Counsel and the attorney may waive the quorum requirement. The concurrence of a majority of the members present is necessary to a recommendation to the Commission.

Attorney Grievance defense attorney specializes in defending lawyers in disciplinary proceedings before the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission and the D.C. Bar's Board on Professional Responsibility involving professional misconduct, legal ethics, disbarment, suspensions of law licenses, petitions for disciplinary action, reprimands and sanctions for unethical conduct. If you receive a letter from Bar Counsel Lydia Lawless, Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox, or from any attorney disciplinary board in Maryland or the District of Columbia, retain experienced attorneys with expertise in lawyer discipline and breach of ethics cases to avoid sanctions for professional misconduct. We help lawyers avoid disbarment, suspension, reprimands, censure and informal admonitions by drafting responses to client grievances and ethical complaints; representing lawyers in peer reviews, evidentiary hearings, and oral arguments before the BPR and the Court of Appeals; filing petitions to reinstate an attorney's license to practice law; conducting law firm ethical compliance audits; and drafting legal ethics opinions to protect lawyers from ethics charges. In many cases, disciplinary proceedings may be dismissed, dismissed with a warning, or result in a conditional diversion agreement with Bar Counsel to rectify misconduct. Lawyers may need help in managing their law firm attorney escrow IOLTA trust account and complying with attorney trust accounting rules to avoid charges of ethical misconduct. Do not represent yourself in responding to an attorney grievance, law firm client complaint, or other allegation of ethical impropriety. Attorney grievance defense counsel may help you comply with legal ethics rules, avoid sanctions like suspension or disbarment, and avoid future attorney grievances.


By The Lawyer's Lawyers | Kramer & Connolly and Irwin R. Kramer who are responsible for the content of this informational website.   This website is designed for lawyers faced with attorney grievances. As cases do differ, past performance does not guarantee future results.