the court is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695, 717, 93 A.3d 262 (2014). This includes “[f]ail[ing] to represent a client in an adequate manner and lying to a client[,]” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209, 222, 892 A.2d 533 (2006), as well as “repeatedly failing] to respond in a timely manner to Bar Counsel’s inquiries[,]” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fox, 417 Md. 504, 538, 11 A.3d 762 (2010). An MLRPC 8.4(d) violation also includes faffing to disburse promptly settlement funds, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290, 315, 96 A.3d 122 (2014), and faffing to keep a client informed about the status of a case, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 556, 16 A.3d 181 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(d), in
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 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 holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he failed to perform any effective action on behalf of his client holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 11 by failing to take the necessary fundamental steps to further the clients case  holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he attempted to charge his client whom he had agreed to represent for free because defendants view of the judicial process would be tainted