Attorney Grievance Commission v. Khandpur
25 A.3d 165
Md.2011Background
- Respondent Jagjot S. Khandpur is a Maryland-licensed solo immigration practitioner since 2001 with no staff.
- He opened an IOLTA at Bank of America in 2001 but failed to retain monthly statements and early deposit-source records from 2006–2008.
- In 2006 Subedi hired Respondent for a $1,500 fixed fee to handle asylum, to be paid in two $750 installments.
- The first $750 was paid in cash at an August 2006 meeting; the second $750, a check, was deposited into Respondent's personal account in February 2007.
- Subedi’s asylum application was filed March 27, 2007, after a delay and was later returned as incomplete; immigration proceedings ensued.
- A Conditional Diversion Agreement (CDA) governed Respondent’s production of financial records; he later failed to supply full records, leading to revocation of the CDA and this disciplinary action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Respondent violate MRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to lawful demands for records? | Bar Counsel argues Respondent knowingly failed to produce requested records. | Khandpur contends the demands were not clearly lawful or timely, and statements were not intentional deceit. | Yes; Court sustains 8.1(b) violation based on two clear lawful demands and nonproduction. |
| Was Respondent diligent in filing Subedi’s asylum application on time under MRPC 1.3? | Subedi’s late filing reflected Respondent’s lack of diligence. | Respondent claimed client delays and information gaps caused the lateness. | Yes; filing was late due to Respondent’s lack of timely action and explanation. |
| Did Respondent’s handling of client funds violate MRPC 1.15(a) and (c) regarding safekeeping and unearned fees? | Mismanagement and deposit of unearned portions into personal account breached trust rules. | Respondent argued some funds were earned and that records were imperfect but not intentional misappropriation. | Yes; substantial evidence supports violations of safekeeping and unearned-portion handling; misappropriation concerns acknowledged as careless, not proven intentional. |
| Is an indefinite suspension the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct? | Indefinite suspension is warranted to protect the public and deter future misconduct. | Respondent urges reprimand given mitigating factors and lack of intent to deceive. | Yes; indefinite suspension with right to reapply is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McCulloch, 397 Md. 674 (Md. 2007) (indefinite suspension for misappropriation/misconduct with mitigating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234 (Md. 2000) (notice to respond to disciplinary information demands)
- Attorney Grievance v. Obi, 393 Md. 643 (Md. 2006) (demand for information in investigation; broad bar counsel authority)
- Attorney Grievance v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (Md. 2007) (indefinite suspension for trust account mismanagement; record-keeping failures)
- Attorney Grievance v. Kramer, 325 Md. 39 (Md. 1991) (indefinite suspension for inattention and lack of records in trust account)
- Attorney Grievance v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (Md. 2002) (indefinite suspension for unintentional misappropriation and accounting failures)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (Md. 2008) (discipline for significant misconduct; comparative sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409 (Md. 2003) (indefinite suspension for client trust/account issues)