No. 23-747
Marylin Pierre v. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland
Amici (1)Response Waived
Tags: actual-malice civil-rights disciplinary-proceedings due-process first-amendment free-speech judicial-discipline legal-ethics new-york-times-v-sullivan professional-conduct rules-of-professional-conduct
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
FirstAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2024-02-16
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does the actual malice test of New York Times v. Sullivan protect lawyers' First Amendment rights in disciplinary proceedings?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the actual malice test of New York Times v. Sullivan protect lawyers' First Amendment rights in disciplinary proceedings?
Docket Entries
2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-06
Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)
2024-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-24
Letter of petitioner submitted.
2024-01-19
Waiver of right of respondent Attorney Grievance Commission Maryland to respond filed.
2024-01-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 9, 2024)
2023-11-02
Application (23A386) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 13, 2024.
2023-10-26
Application (23A386) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 14, 2023 to January 13, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Attorney Grievance Commission Maryland
Kevin M. Cox — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
First Amendment Lawyers Association
Marylin Pierre, et al.
Irwin Raphael Kramer — Kramer & Connolly, Petitioner