Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Raj Sanjeet Singh Misc. Docket AG No. 6, September Term 2018 Attorney Discipline – Diligence and Communication with Client – Conflict of Interest Settlement with Client – Attorney Trust Account – Suspension. An attorney successfully represented an immigrant and his spouse (a United States citizen) in obtaining conditional permanent resident status for the immigrant, for a two-year period, based on their recent marriage. The immigrant and his spouse later experienced marital difficulties. The attorney failed to communicate appropriately and to act diligently in advising the immigrant as to his options in removing the conditions on his permanent resident status before the expiration of the two-year period. Given his prior representation of both spouses, the attorney had a conflict of interest when he undertook to advise the immigrant whether he could bring criminal charges against the spouse. After the immigrant sent a complaint to Bar Counsel about a fee dispute with the attorney, the attorney refunded the legal fee to the client in return for a release without advising the client to seek independent advice concerning the release. During Bar Counsel’s investigation of this matter, the attorney gave a misleading statement under oath about whether he usually complied with the rules requiring deposit of client funds in an attorney trust account. A later review of his bank records revealed his non-compliance with those rules. However, there was no evidence of misappropriation of client funds or other client harm. Under these circumstances, a 60-day suspension is the appropriate sanction. Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.7, 19- 301.8, 19-301.15, 19-308.1 & 19-308.4 (formerly Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 8.1 & 8.4); Maryland Rule 19-404 (formerly Maryland Rule 16-604). Circuit Court for Montgomery County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Case No. 448654-V OF MARYLAND Argument: February 28, 2019 Misc. Docket AG No. 6 September Term, 2018 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND V. RAJ SANJEET SINGH _____________________________________ Barbera, C.J. *Greene McDonald Watts Hotten Getty, Adkins, Sally D. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by McDonald, J. Greene, Watts, and Hotten, JJ., dissent. ______________________________________ Filed: July 17, 2019 *Greene, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act active member of this Court; after being recalled (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, Article 2019-07-17 08:38-04:00 IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The phrase “no harm, no foul” derives from the idea that, if a foul committed in a basketball game does not affect the outcome, the referee should not call the foul.1 It denotes harmless error in a sports context. The rules of professional conduct governing attorneys do not allow us to adopt that approach. Many of those rules are prophylactic in nature. We must call a foul when one is committed, although ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals