Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission and Jason D. Lamm jointly petitioned for corresponding Maryland discipline based on Arizona disciplinary proceedings.
The parties agreed that Lamm violated Arizona rules governing lawyer conduct and corresponding Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules concerning use of former-client information, safekeeping property, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted corresponding discipline under Maryland Rules 19-736 and 19-737. It suspended Lamm from practicing law in Maryland for 30 days, effective August 19, 2026.
After reinstatement, Lamm must serve two years of probation. The probation requires compliance with all terms and conditions imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona in In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Jason D. Lamm, No. 24-3031.
Key Takeaways
- Maryland imposed reciprocal discipline based on Lamm’s Arizona misconduct.
- The Maryland suspension lasts 30 days and took effect immediately.
- Reinstatement is followed by two years of probation tied to the Arizona probation conditions.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates Maryland’s use of corresponding discipline when an attorney has been sanctioned in another jurisdiction. It also shows that Maryland may condition a lawyer’s return to practice on continued compliance with the originating jurisdiction’s probation requirements.