Attorney Grievance Commission v. Herrity-Faust

**Attorney Disciplinary Case: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Herrity-Faust** This case involved a disciplinary action against attorney Herrity-Faust brought by Maryland's Attorney Grievance Commission. The commission, which oversees attorney conduct in the state, filed proceedings against the attorney for reasons related to their ability to practice law safely and competently. The court decided to place the attorney on inactive status by mutual agreement while they work to restore their health. During this time, the attorney's name was removed from the official register of practicing attorneys in Maryland, meaning they cannot represent clients or practice law until further notice. **What This Means for Workers:** If you work with attorneys or are considering legal representation, this case highlights the importance of checking whether your lawyer is in good standing. State bar associations maintain public records of attorney disciplinary actions and licensing status. Workers should verify that any attorney they hire is actively licensed and has no serious disciplinary issues. This case also demonstrates that the legal profession has oversight mechanisms to protect clients when attorneys face health or other issues that could affect their ability to serve clients properly.