Court Opinion

ID: 9649598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:02:58.746885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:12.959818
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
HARRELL, J.,
which BATTAGLIA and RAKER, JJ., join.
Although I agree with the Majority opinion, I write separately to note my view that, although Bar Counsel may not have persuaded the Court to vacate Adams’s reinstatement under Rule 16-781(m), Bar Counsel is not foreclosed from initiating a new investigation and disciplinary action (if appropriate) as to alleged misconduct (if any) by Adams relating to the transactions involving Brooks occurring after the date of the Court’s 11 April 2007 order of reinstatement.
Judges BATTAGLIA and RAKER have authorized me to state that they join in the views expressed in this concurrence.