Attorney Grievance Commission v. Narasimhan
92 A.3d 512
Md.2014Background
- Sudha Narasimhan, admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2007, formed a joint-venture immigration practice (ILG) with Edmundo Rogers in 2009 and submitted a proposal and résumé to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to obtain representation work for Dr. Laurie Samuel.
- Narasimhan’s résumé and proposal represented immigration experience ("documentary immigration processes," "litigation," "Family petitions," "Citizenship applications") that she did not actually have; MPD selected ILG in part based on Rogers’s experience and Narasimhan as local counsel.
- Narasimhan left for India shortly after engagement, delegated lead responsibility to Rogers, missed a key December 10, 2009 conference call, and repeatedly failed to timely provide accurate filings and client communications.
- Narasimhan filed an incomplete Form 9089 (Application for Permanent Employment Certification); DOL denied certification on May 3, 2010 (and again later); MPD terminated ILG on July 20, 2010; administrative appeal upheld denial.
- Hearing judge found violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)–(b), 7.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d); Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed those findings and suspended Narasimhan for 60 days (suspension to begin 30 days after opinion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (MLRPC 1.1) | Narasimhan lacked required immigration knowledge/skill; incompetence caused DOL denial. | She associated with experienced Rogers and acted as local liaison; any incompetence was due to inexperience, not misconduct. | Held: Violation established — Narasimhan was responsible for representation and failed to provide competent, thorough representation. |
| Diligence & Communication (MLRPC 1.3, 1.4) | She failed to keep client informed, missed calls, did not timely respond to requests, and did not explain options (e.g., visa extension). | She facilitated communications with Rogers (lead expert); delays were limited, and MPD knew Rogers was lead counsel. | Held: Violations of 1.3 and 1.4(a)–(b) proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| False/misleading communications (MLRPC 7.1; 8.4(c)) | Her résumé and proposal materially misrepresented immigration experience and were submitted to obtain the contract. | Statements were prospective or in lay terms; any inaccuracies were immaterial or typographical. | Held: Violations established — material misrepresentations on résumé/proposal; intent to deceive not required. |
| Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d)) | Incompetent representation and dishonest misrepresentations eroded public confidence and prejudiced the administration of justice. | Rule 8.4(d) should be reserved for more serious/systemic misconduct; this was mistakes by a young attorney. | Held: Violation established — misconduct reflected negatively on profession and public confidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (discusses competence and thoroughness under MLRPC 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (competence; failure to apply requisite thoroughness supports 1.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brady, 422 Md. 441 (competence; inadequacy can show 1.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685 (dishonesty/misrepresentation under 8.4(c) and conduct prejudicial under 8.4(d); intent not required for misrepresentation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1 (sanctioning guidance where inexperience and multiple violations warranted suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (failure to represent adequately is conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rand, 411 Md. 83 (role of lawyer as counselor under MLRPC 1.4(b))