Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-BG-778 IN RE EDWARD EMAD MOAWAD 2017 DDN 337 A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 998775 BEFORE: Thompson * and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior Judge. 1 ORDER (FILED—February 3, 2022) On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that state; the November 18, 2021, order suspending respondent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent’s response thereto wherein he states reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; respondent’s reply thereto; and it appearing that respondent filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit on December 15, 2021, it is ORDERED that Edward Emad Moawad is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to December 15, 2021. Although respondent is correct that the state of Maryland presumptively disbars an attorney for any intentional dishonesty, a presumption this court does not apply, we review * Judge Thompson’s term expired on September 4, 2021; however, she will continue to serve as an Associate Judge until her successor is confirmed. See D.C. Code § 11-1502 (2012 Repl.). She was qualified and appointed on October 4, 2021, to perform judicial duties as a Senior Judge and will begin her service as a Senior Judge on a date to be determined after her successor is appointed and qualifies. No. 21-BG-778 the findings of the originating state to determine, without consideration of the Maryland presumption, the range of discipline this court would impose for the misconduct if this were an original action. See D.C. Bar R. XI, §11(c)(4). In doing so we accept the factual findings and aggravating circumstances of the state of Maryland, as described in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moawad, 257 A.3d 611 (Md. 2021), and apply our case law to that misconduct, see In re Guberman, 978 A.2d 200 (D.C. 2009). Although we have limited the sanction of presumptive disbarment to cases involving reckless or intentional misappropriation and the conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude, we have also disbarred counsel in those cases where the underlying facts and aggravating circumstances require such a sanction including when we have determined that the attorney’s intentional dishonesty rises to the level of flagrant dishonesty. See, e.g., In re Bleecker, 11 A.3d 1224 (D.C. 2011) (disbarring an attorney as reciprocal discipline where the state of Maryland disbarred respondent after it found that in filing a civil complaint he misrepresented the day of the injury to hide his failure to file a complaint within the statute …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals