In re Omwenga, 49 A.3d 1235

Board found respondent Samuel N. Omwenga committed fifty-eight violations of twenty Rules in four paired matters and recommended disbarment for intentional misappropriation in Shifaw matter and pervasive misconduct across all four matters.
Bar Counsel charged sixty-eight violations; fifth matter dismissed; four matters focus on Gitau, Mwihava, Hailu, and Shifaw.
Shifaw matter: Omwenga withdrew $2,050 not authorized, later refunded $1,500, retaining $550; funds were misappropriated from client trust and used inappropriately.
In Gitau, Mwihava, and Hailu immigration cases, respondent’s failures caused removals or jeopardized status; he filed false affidavits and engaged in deceit toward courts and clients.
Hearing Committee held ten-day evidentiary hearing with 12 Bar Counsel witnesses; Board adopted Hearing Committee findings and recommended disbarment.
This Court adopted the Board’s findings, disbarment is ordered effective 30 days from decision; restitution of $550 to Shifaw with interest; reinstatement after five-year waiting period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Omwenga committed intentional misappropriation	Shifaw; Shifaw argues misappropriation occurred.	Omwenga contends no clear and convincing misappropriation established.	Yes; clear and convincing evidence of intentional misappropriation found.
Whether flagrant dishonesty warrants disbarment even absent misappropriation	Board/Public interest supports disbarment for dishonest conduct.	Respondent challenges severity and record.	Disbarment warranted for flagrant dishonesty across matters.
Whether the conduct in Gitau, Mwihava, and Hailu supports discipline beyond misappropriation	Pattern of serious and pervasive misconduct justifies sanction.	Argues record insufficient for disbarment absent misappropriation.	Yes; misconduct in multiple matters supports disbarment.
Appropriate sanction and restitution	Disbarment with restitution to Shifaw as condition of reinstatement; broader restitution deferred pending reinstatement.	N/A	Disbarment ordered; restitution to Shifaw $550 with interest; reinstatement after five years; restitution for other clients deferred.
Impact of non-citizen clients and public protection considerations	Misconduct endangered non-citizen clients and public trust; aggravating factor.	N/A	Aggravation recognized; public protection factors support severity.

In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (presumptive disbarment for intentional misappropriation absent extraordinary circumstances)
In re Pierson, 690 A.2d 941 (D.C.1997) (misappropriation harms fiduciary duty; supports severe sanction)
In re Howes, 39 A.3d 1 (D.C.2012) (flagrant dishonesty can justify disbarment)
In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C.2010) (disbarment for flagrant dishonesty)
In re Kanu, 5 A.3d 1 (D.C.2010) (aggravating factor: difficulty of detecting misconduct against non-citizen clients)
In re White, 11 A.3d 1226 (D.C.2011) (strong presumption in favor of board-imposed sanction; public interest)
In re Morrell, 684 A.2d 361 (D.C.1996) (restitution considerations relevant to reinstatement)