Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bahgat

MURPHY, J. On September 3, 2009, this Court ORDERED ... that the Respondent, Mina Bahgat be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the practice of law in this State and his name as an attorney has been stricken from the register of attorneys in this Court (Maryland Rule 16-713). Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-761 for which sum judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Mina Bahgat. This opinion states the reasons why that Order was entered. ⁵⁷¹ Background Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 15, 2004. On August 20, 2008, the Attorney Grievance Commission (Petitioner) filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action in which it asserted that Respondent violated several Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) and § 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code.

The record shows that, on October 4, 2008, Respondent was served personally with a copy of the Petition, as well as a copy of this Court’s August 21, 2008 Order directing that the charges against him “be heard and determined by Judge William J. Rowan, III of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-757[.]” On October 20, 2008, Respondent filed a response to the Petition, but did not thereafter comply with Bar Counsel’s discovery requests. On April 6, 2009, Judge Rowan held a hearing on the Petition. Respondent did not appear at that hearing. On April 10, 2009, Judge Rowan filed an Opinion that included the following findings and conclusions: There have been no disciplinary actions against [Respondent] except the present matter.

There is no evidence that he has maintained or does now maintain a Maryland office .... He was employed by Just Law International, a Virginia law firm, from September, 2004, until his termination on March 1, 2007. He is not a member of the Virginia Bar and during the time in question practiced “immigration law,” exclusively. All of the facts of which complaint is made apparently took place in Virginia.

He was supervised, if at all, by Annigje Buwalda, Esquire, a member of the Virginia Bar, a founder of Just Law International, and a Court determined expert in immigration law. The specific facts giving rise to this Complaint involve Bahgat’s interactions, or lack thereof, with Ely Rodriquez, an immigrant, and her husband, Raymond Rodriquez. The ⁵⁷² critical time period that Bahgat dealt with the clients was from November, 2005, to December, 2006. Complaint is also made of misrepresented filings by Bahgat with the National Student Center Public Institution Division in Ontario, Canada.

In these filings[,] Bahgat sought relief from interest payments on student loan repayments. Specifically, Bahgat represented in writing to the Student Center that he was unemployed and had received no income from July, 2005, through December, 2005; May, 2006, through December, 2006; January, 2007, and February, 2007____In fact, he was employed by Just Law International and was paid by the law firm $37,249.98 in 2005, $55,000.00 in 2006, and $8,750.00 in 2007. He was terminated by the firm on March 1, 2007____ Mr. Rodriquez was at all times a United States citizen. He met and married Mrs. Rodriquez, a German citizen.

In 2005, she came to the United States as an immigrant and sought permanent residency. As a result of certain filings with the United States Citizenship and Immigration services, on October 19, 2005, Mrs. Rodriquez was advised in a formal “decision” by the U.S. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services that her application for permanent residency was, because of lack of evidence, considered “abandoned and hereby denied.” ... Thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez were referred to Just Law International and began their dealings with Mr. Bahgat. In late 2005 or early 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez sent two $500.00 fee money orders and filing fee money order in the amount of $110.00 to Bahgat____Bahgat promised to file Form 1-130, a Petition for Alien Relative, and a Motion to Re-open the original “abandoned and denied” application, together with Form 1-485, an application to adjust status — One $500.00 money order was credited by Just Law International to the account of another Bahgat client by the name of “Atanna or Atunda”____Buwalda further testified there was no record at Just Law International of receipt of the second $500.00 money order or the $110.00 filing fee. ⁵⁷³ In his Response!,] Mr. Bahgat admitted receiving the $110.00 money order but claimed he “mistakenly believed the money order was for reimbursement of the filing fee”....

Although Bahgat claimed to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez that he filed various forms and a Motion to Re-open the Rodriquez case with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration ..., in fact nothing was filed on behalf of Mrs. Rodriquez with the United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration between October 19, 2005, the date of the decision denying the original application for permanent residency, and November 18, 2006, nor did anyone enter his or her appearance on behalf of the clients in the immigration file.... On November 18, 2006, a “Decision” was purportedly again issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denying the application for permanent residency of Ely Rodriquez---- This “Decision” was sent to the clients by Bahgat----This Decision was not genuine, was not issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and a copy of the same is not a part of the original Rodriquez immigration file____ In summary, the representatives of the United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services testified that no one ever entered their appearance on behalf of Ely Rodriquez, no Motion to Re-open the file on behalf of Mrs. Rodriquez was ever filed between October 19, 2005, and November 18, 2006, nor was there ever any appeal filed on behalf of Mrs. Rodriquez between October of 2005 and November, 2006.... In December, 2006, Ms. Buwalda received correspondence from the clients terminating the services of Just Law International. Upon investigation, Mrs. Buwalda learned that Bahgat represented Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez.

The law firm internal records reflected receipt of the $500 money order but credit to another Bahgat client. With regards to the $110.00 filing fee, Bahgat claimed to Mrs. Buwalda he did not have it and he did not know where it was. The law firm ⁵⁷⁴ returned to the clients one $500.00 money order and the $110.00 filing fee. Mrs. Rodriquez testified she was told by Bahgat she would have to return to Germany to re-file for permanent residency after the October 19, 2005, decision.

Mrs. Buwalda voiced the expert opinion that Bahgat did not competently represent Mrs. Rodriquez because he never determined why her case was considered abandoned. If she returned to Germany, she would have been subject to a “10 year bar” unless she received a waiver from the Department of Immigration Services. Conclusions of Law ... While all the incidents involving these violations occurred in the State of Virginia, the Respondent is subject to the disciplinary authority of the State of Maryland---- Rule 1.1 — Competence [1] MRPC 1.1 provides: “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.

Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Bahgat violated MRPC 1.1 because he agreed to represent Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez in their immigration matter wherein Ely Rodriquez sought permanent residency, and because he literally did nothing on their behalf with the United States Citizenship and Immigration services in connection with her application for permanent residency, Bahgat clearly did not provide competent representation to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez — beginning with his failure to even enter his appearance on their behalf and his subsequent lack of performing any services, whatsoever, on their behalf. Rule 1.3 — Diligence MRPC 1.3 provides: ⁵⁷⁵ “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” While no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination, here Bahgat did nothing whatsoever to advance the client’s cause or endeavor. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Bahgat violated Rule 1.3. Rule 1.4 — Communication MRPC 1.4 provides: “(a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is required by these Rules; (2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b) A lawyer