212 A.3d 888
Md.2019Background
- Raj S. Singh, Maryland attorney (immigration practice), represented a married couple in 2014 to obtain conditional permanent residency for the immigrant husband (Mr. A); Singh appeared for both spouses.
- Marital breakdown ensued; in 2016 Mr. A sought Singh’s help to remove conditions (I-751) and to research potential criminal charges against his spouse; Singh accepted $900 (disputed purpose) and later a $150 consultation fee.
- Singh delayed advising Mr. A about options between May and September 2016, and did not file an I-751 before the conditional card expired (October 2, 2016); Mr. A later obtained removal of conditions via successor counsel.
- After Mr. A complained to Bar Counsel, Singh refunded $900 in exchange for a broad release but did not advise Mr. A to seek independent counsel as required by Rule 1.8(h).
- Bar Counsel’s bank-record subpoena showed Singh often deposited client filing-fee funds into his operating account rather than the attorney trust account; Singh gave misleading deposition testimony claiming his usual practice was to use the trust account.
- Hearing judge found multiple MARPC and rule violations (diligence, communication, conflict of interest, improper settlement with client, safekeeping/trust account, false statement), and this Court imposed a 60-day suspension (starting 30 days after opinion), costs taxed to Singh.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance Commission/Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Singh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diligence (Rule 1.3) / Communication (Rule 1.4) — delay May–Sept 2016 | Singh failed to act promptly or keep Mr. A informed about I-751 options before expiration, impairing client protection | Deadline was a "soft" one; Singh did substantial work and eventual lack of prejudice (conditions removed) mitigates fault | Court upheld hearing judge: violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 for insufficient, untimely advice and poor communications |
| Conflict of interest (Rule 1.7) — advising on criminal charges against former joint client | Prior joint representation of both spouses created significant risk that representation of Mr. A would be materially limited when researching charges/adverse action against spouse | Singh had limited contact/confidential information from the spouse and J was no longer a client, so no material limitation existed | Court agreed with hearing judge: Rule 1.7(a)(2) violation; Singh should have obtained informed, written consent |
| Settlement/release with client (Rule 1.8(h)) | Singh used a release obtained when refunding $900 to try to truncate Bar Counsel’s inquiry and failed to advise client, in writing, to seek independent counsel | Singh blamed staff for drafting/requiring the release and later disavowed enforcement; also refunded the fee | Court held Singh violated Rule 1.8(h) — the release was improper because client was not advised to seek independent counsel |
| Trust account management (Rule 1.15 / Md. Rule 19-404) & False statement in disciplinary matter (Rule 8.1) | Singh habitually deposited client filing-fee funds into operating account; his deposition statement that he “usually” used the trust account was misleading/false | Singh said his deposition was inadvertent/hesitant and later admitted noncompliance; no client funds were misappropriated and no client loss shown | Court found violations of Rule 1.15 and Md. Rule 19-404; also violated Rule 8.1 (false statement). Misappropriation not found; sanction: 60-day suspension (mitigating: no prior discipline; remedial steps; no client loss) |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (2002) (where no finding of intentional misappropriation and no client loss, indefinite suspension often appropriate)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385 (2006) (false statements to Bar Counsel and client harm warrant severe sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23 (2014) (false statements to Bar Counsel combined with client harm supported significant discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290 (2014) (trust-account failures can violate Rule 8.4(d) where client funds mismanaged or harm likely)