Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Singh

1

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. RAJ SANJEET SINGH

Misc. AG No. 17-2021

Case No. 486684V

Maryland Supreme Court

April 7, 2023

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth below, in an Order issued on February 27 2023, this Court granted Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss assessed court costs against Petitioner, and denied Respondent's request for an award of attorney's fees in the above-captioned case.

On July 17, 2019, this Court suspended Raj Sanjeet Singh, Respondent from the practice of law in Maryland for 60 days, to begin 30 days after the date on which the opinion was filed. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Singh, 464 Md. 645 682, 212 A.3d 888, 910 (2019). This Court did not place any conditions on Respondent's reinstatement. On July 8, 2021, after an almost two-year period of Respondent's former counsel^[1] communicating with and providing information to former Bar Counsel, Lydia Lawless,^[2] in an attempt to resolve concerns she had raised about Respondent's potential reinstatement, Respondent filed in this Court a Verified Petition for Reinstatement. See In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Raj Sanjeet Singh to the Bar of Maryland, Misc. Docket AG No. 103, September Term, 2020. On July 30, 2021, Bar Counsel filed a response to the petition for reinstatement, raising numerous objections and requesting that this Court deny the petition.

On the same day, July 30, 2021, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Petitioner, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent, charging him with violating Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC) 1.1 (Competence), 1.15(a) and (c) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(a)(1) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 5.4(a), (b), and (d) (Professional Independence of an Attorney), 5.5(a) and (b) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi-Jurisdictional Practice of Law), 5.7 (Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services), 7.1(a) (Communications Concerning an Attorney's Services), 7.2(a) and (d) (Advertising), 8.1(a) and (b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(a) (Violating the MARPC), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Conduct that is Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice), and Maryland Rules 19-404 (Trust Account - Required Deposits), 19-407 (Attorney Trust Account - RecordKeeping), and 19-742(b) and (c) (Order of Disbarment or Suspension) (now Maryland Rule 19-741(b) and (c)). The petition consisted of, among other things, allegations that Respondent had violated the MARPC by making false statements in the petition for reinstatement, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to divest his law firm and social media accounts of information identifying him as a lawyer while suspended.

On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed a reply to Bar Counsel's response to his petition for reinstatement, contending that Bar Counsel had effectively turned his 60-day suspension into a 2-year one, that Bar Counsel's allegation that he continued to practice law after being suspended was merely based on "suspicions" and "information and belief" and he had substantially complied with what is now Maryland Rule 19-741, and that Bar Counsel was improperly attempting to preempt his reinstatement by bringing a disciplinary action and falsely accusing him of perjury.

On January 10, 2022, this Court heard argument on Respondent's petition for reinstatement, at which Respondent's counsel requested that this Court grant Respondent's reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland and dismiss the pending Petition for Disciplinary and Remedial Action. On January 14, 2022, this Court issued an order reinstating Respondent as a member of the Bar of Maryland. In the order, this Court stated that Respondent's reinstatement was "without prejudice to Bar Counsel establishing the violations alleged in the Petition for Disciplinary and Remedial Action in Misc. Docket AG No. 17 (Sept. 2021 Term) by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-727(c)[.]"

On August 15, 2022, this Court issued an order designating the Honorable Jeannie E. Cho as the hearing judge.^[3] On August 16, 2022, the parties filed in this Court a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Hearing of Charges. This Court granted the joint motion and ordered that the time to complete the hearing be extended through December 15, 2022. On December 12 and 13, 2022, the hearing judge conducted a hearing.

On January 26, 2023, the hearing judge issued an Opinion and Order, which was filed in this Court on January 30, 2023. In the Opinion and Order, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 1.1, 1.15(a), 1.16(a), 5.4(d), 5.5(b), 7.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d), and Maryland Rules 19-407 and 19-742. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent did not violate MARPC 5.4(a), 5.5(a), and 8.4(b), or Maryland Rule 19-404. The hearing judge found numerous mitigating factors, including the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, good faith efforts to rectify any misconduct, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character and reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, remorse, and unlikelihood of repetition of any misconduct. In finding the mitigating factor of imposition of other penalties or sanctions, the hearing judge found that Respondent had remained suspended for over 2 years after the term of his original 60-day suspension.

In the Opinion and Order, when addressing the allegation that Respondent had engaged in the practice of law while suspended, the hearing judge stated: "The Court is concerned by Petitioner's repeated claims where there [was] no evidence in support of the same, nor any citation to controlling legal authority. This practice detracts from the points well taken. Petitioner's duty is to protect clients and not to lightly make unproven bald allegations." The hearing judge also concluded that during the period of his suspension, Respondent had not been required "to remove his identifying information from [his firm's] website pursuant to Rule 19-742(c)(2)(E)" (now Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(2)(E)). The hearing judge did not address the allegations that Respondent made false statements in the petition for reinstatement by stating that he was not the subject of a current disciplinary action and by stating that he had complied with Maryland Rule 19-742.

On January 30, 2023, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice advising the parties that any exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of the hearing judge, recommendations concerning the appropriate disposition, or statements of costs to which a party may be entitled under Maryland Rule 19-709 needed to be filed on or before March 1, 2023.

On February 16, 2023, on behalf of Petitioner, Deputy Bar Counsel filed Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, requesting that this Court enter an order dismissing the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and directing each party to bear its own costs. In the motion, Petitioner stated that, "in light of the significant mitigation found and that [it] d[id] not intend to file any exceptions," it requested "that this Court exercise its discretion and dismiss th[e] matter."

On February 17, 2023, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action. In the response, Respondent requested that the Court dismiss the Petition with prejudice, and that Petitioner be ordered to reimburse Respondent for costs and reasonable attorney's fees that Respondent incurred in the action.

On February 27, 2023, this Court issued an Order granting Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and dismissing the case with prejudice. This Court denied Respondent's request for reimbursement of attorney's fees. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-709(b)(1), the Court ordered Petitioner to pay all court costs, including any court costs resulting from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, as taxed by the Clerk of this Court under the dismissal ordered by the Court. The Court stated that it would address other costs to which each party may be entitled under Maryland Rule 19-709(b) in a forthcoming order. The Court ordered the mandate to issue forthwith.

Prior to entry of the order, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-740(b) this Court reviewed the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law and, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-740(c)(1)(F), determined that no sanction was appropriate and that dismissal of the disciplinary action was warranted. In her Opinion and Order, the hearing judge did not find violations of MARPC 8.4(c) pertaining to intentional dishonesty with respect to Respondent allegedly having made false statements in the petition for reinstatement by claiming that there was no pending disciplinary action and by claiming he had complied with Maryland Rule 19742. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 8.4(c) in one instance, specifically, that "Respondent engaged in dishonest behavior by paying personal expenses in the total amount of $2,606.82 from the Firm's operating account."^[4] In the instances in which the hearing judge concluded that Respondent had violated other MARPC or Maryland Rules, the violations did not involve complaints by clients or any client harm.^[5] In addition, the hearing judge found that allegations that Respondent practiced law during the suspension were baseless.^[6] Petitioner's motion to dismiss the Petition for...