In re Vohra
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 381
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Respondent represented Jeho Choi and You Sun Kim (the Chois) in an immigration matter seeking E-2 visas tied to a UPS store investment.
- In January 2005 Respondent filed E-2 visa applications on incorrect forms, which were later rejected in February 2005; Respondent did not inform the Chois of the rejection.
- From June 1, 2005, the Chois’ H-1B1/H4 status expired, but Respondent allowed them to believe their original filings were under review and did not timely refile.
- In late 2005 Respondent refilled the visas using the correct forms without the Chois’ knowledge or authorization, signing their names to certifications that required the applicants’ personal certifications.
- USCIS required additional documentation; Respondent failed to notify the Chois of this, supplied some but not all requested docs, and again misrepresented status to the Chois.
- USCIS denied the resubmitted applications in January 2006; successor counsel later obtained nunc pro tunc relief; Respondent refunded $5,000, while the Chois paid successor counsel substantial additional fees, and retroactive status was eventually obtained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct | Bar Counsel proved numerous Rule violations | Vohra contested the violations, or minimal take | Violations proven across multiple Rules (1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 8.1, 8.4) |
| Whether the sanction should be disbarment or a lesser sanction | Bar Counsel seeks disbarment due to flagrant dishonesty | Vohra argues sanction less than disbarment | Three-year suspension with fitness requirement affirmed |
| Whether a fitness to practice requirement is warranted | Fitness requirement appropriate given lack of trust and misconduct | Fitness requirement unnecessary | Fitness requirement imposed as part of reinstatement condition |
| Whether the forgery and dishonesty justify enhanced sanctions given prior discipline | Board should impose strong sanction for forgery and deceit | Mitigating factors reduce severity | Sanction within range; three-year suspension with fitness, not disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Silva, 29 A.3d 924 (D.C. 2011) (three-year suspension with fitness for misconduct in single matter)
- In re Kanu, 5 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2010) (disbarment where attorney induced false information and misled clients)
- In re Kline, 11 A.3d 261 (D.C. 2011) (three-year suspension without fitness for misrepresentation and forgery amid aggravation)
- In re Slaughter, 929 A.2d 433 (D.C. 2007) (three-year suspension with fitness for elaborate deceit in litigation)
- In re Ukwu, 926 A.2d 1106 (D.C. 2007) (two-year suspension with fitness for neglect across multiple matters)
- In re Omwenga, 49 A.3d 1235 (D.C. 2012) (disbarment for serious and pervasive misconduct with flagrant dishonesty)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe II, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C. 2010) (disbarment for flagrant dishonesty and misuse of funds)