Opinion ID: 2326693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The MRPC 8.1 Violation

Text: MRPC 8.1 provides, inter alia, that a lawyer ... in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not ... (b) ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from ... [a] disciplinary authority[.] Judge Souder concluded that Respondent violated MRPC 8.1, because [w]ith respect to both the Lewis complaint to Bar Counsel and the Pridgen complaint[ [16] ] to Bar Counsel, [Respondent] failed to respond to the demands of Bar Counsel for information. Respondent does not challenge Judge Souder's conclusion that he violated MRPC 8.1, and we find uncontroverted evidence in the record that he did. Consequently, we conclude that Respondent violated MRPC 8.1, in addition to the rule violations already mentioned.