of Ms. Copper. Respondent’s Misconduct Based upon our de novo review of the hearing judge’s remaining conclusions of law, we conclude that Respondent violated MLRPC 1.1; MLRPC 1.3; MLRPC 1.4(a) and (b); MLRPC 1.15(a), (c), and (d); MLRPC 1.16(d); MLRPC 8.1(a) and (b); MLRPC 8.4(a), (c), and (d); and Maryland Rule 16-604. MLRPC 1.1 MLRPC 1.1 states that “[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” We have held that “[a] failure to make the proper and required filings in a client matter demonstrates a lack of the appropriate preparation and thoroughness necessary to provide competent representation.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 205, 46 A.3d 1162 (2012); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223, 46 A.3d 1169 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Respondent violated MLRPC 1.1, in connection
holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 84d by faffing to inform his client of the dismissal of his clients complaint holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 81b when he failed to respond to two letters from the attorney grievance commission holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 11 by failing to take the necessary fundamental steps to further the clients case  holding attorney violated rule 3213 when he neglected clients dissolution of marriage proceeding by failing to make filings and by failing to appear at the scheduled trial holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 13 when he did not prosecute his clients claim after filing a complaint or protect against expiration of the statute of limitation for his clients complaint and caused discovery sanctions to be filed for his failure to respond to discovery requests