257 A.3d 611
Md.2021Background
- Edward E. Moawad was a founding partner and the managing director of Adams, Burton & Moawad (ABM); he handled the firm’s finances and oversaw immigration work.
- Three immigration clients complained: Madio Togbetse (marriage‑based adjustment/I‑485), Dr. Jing Hao (employment‑based I‑140 strategy), and Joy Liang / Juan Machado (I‑130 and provisional I‑601A waiver). All paid fees to the firm.
- Moawad or his staff filed incorrect or defective forms: Togbetse’s I‑485 was filed with USCIS though EOIR had jurisdiction; Dr. Hao’s I‑140 was filed under EB‑1B (employer‑filed) instead of EB‑1A (self‑petition); Liang/Machado’s I‑601A filings were repeatedly rejected and refilled with poor attorney oversight.
- Moawad frequently failed to communicate with clients, did not remediate known filing errors, retained fees for services not properly performed, and supervised non‑attorney staff inadequately.
- During Bar Counsel’s investigation Moawad (personally and through counsel) submitted letters that the hearing judge found contained knowing, material misrepresentations and drafted letters for his partner George Adams to sign that repeated those false claims.
- The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of multiple MARPC violations; the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings and disbarred Moawad, citing intentional dishonesty and absence of mitigating circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moawad was the clients’ attorney / responsible for their matters | Bar Counsel: Moawad acted as attorney of record or, as managing director, had direct responsibility for the representations | Moawad: he was not the attorney of record; Adams or others handled the work; engagement letters didn’t identify him personally | Court: upheld hearing judge — ample evidence Moawad represented or was responsible for each client (credibility findings deferred) |
| Competence, diligence, communication, and supervision (Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 5.3) | Bar Counsel: erroneous filings, failure to act to reopen proceedings, poor oversight of staff, and breakdowns in client communications | Moawad: errors were negligent at most or attributable to others; he did not prejudice clients as alleged | Court: clear and convincing proof of violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 5.3 based on filing errors, inaction, lack of communication, and supervisory failures |
| Fee reasonableness and restitution (Rule 1.5) | Bar Counsel: fees became unreasonable where services were not competently rendered or not completed; refunds were refused | Moawad: fees were agreed, services ultimately provided (or corrective filings were made without charge) | Court: fees were unreasonable in each matter because the firm failed to earn them and Moawad failed to offer refunds — Rule 1.5 violated |
| Knowingly false statements to Bar Counsel and general misconduct (Rules 8.1, 8.4) | Bar Counsel: Moawad knowingly misrepresented his role, drafted false letters, and used Adams to corroborate false narratives | Moawad: denied personal responsibility; characterized misstatements as misunderstandings or attributable to others | Court: found intentional, material misrepresentations to Bar Counsel; violations of Rules 8.1 and 8.4 (including dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the profession); aggravated misconduct justified disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 472 Md. 491 (2021) (standard of review and deference to hearing judge credibility findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Conwell, 462 Md. 437 (2019) (failure of thoroughness/preparation can violate Rule 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176 (2020) (deference to hearing judge credibility and evidence selection)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (intentional dishonesty typically warrants disbarment absent compelling mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (2009) (intentional misrepresentation to disciplinary authorities supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (2000) (comparison of sanctions where multiple ethics violations occurred)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chanthunya, 446 Md. 576 (2016) (immigration malpractice and suspension as sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lang, 461 Md. 1 (2018) (Rule 8.4(c) — dishonest acts constitute professional misconduct)