290 A.3d 951
Md.2023Background
- Kevin Mbeh Tabe, a Maryland‑admitted lawyer practicing immigration law from Texas, represented two Cameroonian asylum seekers detained in U.S. immigration custody (Fon and Nkwizi).
- Both clients paid flat fees that Tabe did not deposit into his attorney trust account as required.
- In Fon’s matter Tabe: missed a master calendar hearing, provided an asylum application with material errors, failed to prepare or adequately communicate the asylum process to his client, and lost the client’s only photo ID; immigration court denied asylum and ordered removal.
- In Nkwizi’s matter Tabe: failed to read/act on a denial of a venue transfer, causing both attorney and client to miss the merits hearing; his subsequent motion to reopen omitted a required supporting affidavit and was denied, yielding removal.
- Bar Counsel charged violations of MARPC and the Federal Immigration Rules of Professional Conduct for Practitioners (FIRPCP); the hearing judge found multiple violations.
- The Supreme Court of Maryland applied MARPC 8.5(b) (choice of law), concluded trust‑account breaches fall under Maryland rules but tribunal‑connected conduct is governed by FIRPCP, and imposed a 90‑day suspension with a one‑year attorney monitor on reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Tabe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law: whether MARPC or FIRPCP govern conduct arising from immigration proceedings | MARPC violations were charged for competence and other conduct; but petition included both MARPC and FIRPCP counts | Tabe argued tribunal‑connected substantive misconduct should be judged under FIRPCP; Bar Counsel initially sought MARPC findings too | Court: Apply MARPC 8.5(b): conduct connected to a tribunal is governed by the tribunal’s rules (FIRPCP); trust‑account issues may be pursued under Maryland rules when no federal counterpart exists |
| Trust‑account and safekeeping obligations (deposit of client funds) | Funds paid were not placed in trust account; this violates MARPC 1.15 and Maryland Rule 19‑404 and supports MARPC 1.1 breach | Tabe lacked intent to steal; claimed eventual restitution and that fees were reasonable | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Tabe violated MARPC 1.15(a), Maryland Rule 19‑404; failure to maintain trust account also supports MARPC 1.1 and 8.4(a)/(d) violations |
| Competence, diligence, communication (substantive representation in immigration court) | Tabe’s missed hearings, inadequate preparation, lost ID, application errors, failure to include affidavit, and failure to keep client informed violated competence/diligence/communication rules | Tabe claimed he performed work (applications, briefs), attended some hearings, later attempted restitution and training | Held: Tribunal‑connected failures violate FIRPCP (8 C.F.R. §1003.102 sections): competence (o), diligence (q), communication (r), prejudicial conduct (n), and failures to appear (l); fee reasonableness violation affirmed under FIRPCP (a) for Nkwizi matter |
| Appropriate sanction | Bar Counsel sought indefinite suspension | Tabe sought reprimand or probation; cited mitigation, training, therapy, remorse, and lack of dishonest motive | Held: 90‑day suspension, suspension to start 30 days after opinion, with requirement of an attorney monitor for one year upon reinstatement; court weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and declined indefinite suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Slate, 457 Md. 610 (Md. 2018) (sanctioning principles and purposes for discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tatung, 476 Md. 45 (Md. 2021) (applying MARPC 8.5(b) choice‑of‑law to immigration tribunal matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bonner, 477 Md. 576 (Md. 2022) (discrete acts may invoke different jurisdictions’ rules under Rule 8.5(b))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Taniform, 482 Md. 272 (Md. 2022) (pattern of misconduct and severe sanctions in immigration practice context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moawad, 475 Md. 424 (Md. 2021) (vulnerability of immigrant clients and reasonableness of fees)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Riely, 471 Md. 458 (Md. 2020) (distinguishing pattern findings and severity when misconduct isolated)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 447 Md. 253 (Md. 2016) (indefinite suspension where incompetence and communication failures endangered clients)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 457 Md. 159 (Md. 2018) (failure to maintain client trust account can support incompetence violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Silbiger, 478 Md. 607 (Md. 2022) (safekeeping client funds and impact on public perception)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dailey, 474 Md. 679 (Md. 2021) (unreasonable fee upheld where attorney failed to perform and did not refund retainer)