292 A.3d 818
Md.2023Background
- Raj Sanjeet Singh was suspended for 60 days in July 2019; no conditions were placed on reinstatement.
- Singh filed a Verified Petition for Reinstatement in July 2021; on the same day Bar Counsel filed a separate Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging multiple MARPC and Maryland Rule violations (including false statements in the reinstatement petition, unauthorized practice, and failure to remove lawyer-identifying information while suspended).
- This Court reinstated Singh on January 14, 2022 "without prejudice" to Bar Counsel proving the disciplinary allegations by clear and convincing evidence; a hearing was held December 12–13, 2022.
- The hearing judge found violations of several rules (including MARPC 1.1, 1.15(a), 1.16(a), 5.4(d), 5.5(b), 7.2, 8.1(b), 8.4(a),(c),(d), and Md. Rules 19-407 and 19-742), but also significant mitigation: no client complaints, no misappropriation of client funds (personal expenses totaling $2,606.82 were paid from the firm operating account), remorse, cooperation, and an extended suspension period.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss the disciplinary petition (Feb. 16, 2023) citing the strong mitigation and Bar Counsel elected not to file exceptions; on Feb. 27, 2023 this Court dismissed the case with prejudice, denied Singh’s request for attorney’s fees, and ordered Petitioner to pay court costs; Singh was directed to file a statement of other recoverable costs under Md. Rule 19-709(b)(2)-(6).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Singh’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of dismissal given findings of misconduct | Despite some rule violations, mitigation and lack of client harm warrant dismissal | Dismiss with prejudice and recover fees/costs | Court dismissed with prejudice (exercising discretion due to mitigation, lack of client harm, and prolonged suspension) |
| Alleged false statements in reinstatement petition (perjury / 8.4(c)) | Reinstatement contained false statements and merits disciplinary sanction | Statements were not knowingly false; allegations unproven | Hearing judge did not find intentional dishonesty re: reinstatement statements; Court accepted dismissal despite limited finding of dishonesty limited to operating-account payments |
| Unauthorized practice / holding out while suspended (5.5) | Singh continued to hold out as admitted (firm and social media names) while suspended | Denied continuing practice; allegations were speculative | Hearing judge found violations limited to maintaining accounts/names (5.5(b)), not active unauthorized practice; Court dismissed case |
| Award of attorney’s fees and recoverable costs | Petitioner argued no obligation to pay Singh’s attorney’s fees | Singh sought fees under equitable principles (and hinted at Rule 1-341 standard) | Court denied attorney’s fees (American Rule applies; Md. Rule 19-709 excludes fees) but ordered Petitioner to pay court costs; Singh may recover other specified costs per Md. Rule 19-709(b)(2)-(6) upon filing statement of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Singh, 464 Md. 645 (2019) (original 60-day suspension opinion)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 477 Md. 482 (2022) (sanctions serve public protection; long post-suspension delay can undercut purpose of further sanction)
- Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443 (2008) (Maryland follows the American Rule that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees absent narrow exceptions)
- Nova Research, Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 405 Md. 435 (2008) (enumeration of the limited exceptions to the American Rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jackson, 477 Md. 174 (2022) (dismissal with costs assessed against Petitioner where dismissal warranted)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dyer, 453 Md. 585 (2017) (dismissal/reprimand outcomes and assessment of costs against Petitioner)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708 (2011) (disciplinary proceedings require independent review and clear-and-convincing proof)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mitchell, 386 Md. 386 (2005) (misappropriation of client funds via operating-account transfers constitutes serious misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Webster, 402 Md. 448 (2007) (depositing client/escrow funds into operating account can be misappropriation)