Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sait

PER CURIAM. This disciplinary proceeding comes before us on exceptions by Bar Counsel to the trial judge’s findings that the Respondent, Mohammed Farook Sait (Sait), had not committed any of the violations of the Disciplinary Rules with which he was charged. We shall overrule Bar Counsel’s exceptions for the reasons hereinafter set forth. Charges against Sait arise out of the abduction of two children by their father which occurred on February 22, 1979, in Birmingham, Alabama.

A team of private detectives participated with the father in carrying out the abduction plan. The children were taken from the home of their maternal grandmother where they were residing with their mother following her separation, prior to divorce, from the father. The mother’s complaint against Sait ultimately resulted in these charges. Bar Counsel contends that there was an attorney-client relationship between Sait and the ²⁴¹ father at all relevant times and that Sait assisted in or counseled illegal activity.

The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County heard the charges and made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. “1. Azeez Khaleeli and Sheila Khaleeli, the complainant in this matter, were married in India in 1973. Mr. Khaleeli is a native of that country and Mrs. Khaleeli, a citizen of the United States, had been a student there. “2. Two children were born of the marriage, Mahamad and Jenann.

In December, 1978, the ages of the two children were four and two respectively. “3. In December, 1978, Mrs. Khaleeli had made known to her husband her desire to terminate the marriage. This information had been communicated from Mrs. Khaleeli to Mr. Khaleeli while she was staying with her mother, Mrs. Jane Christian, in Birmingham, Alabama and Mr. Khaleeli had joined them there on a visit from India. The desire to terminate the marriage was not shared by Mr. Khaleeli.

Each party wished custody of the children. “4. In December, 1978, Mr. Khaleeli was able to persuade his wife to accompany him to Boston, Massachusetts in the hope that if Mrs. Khaleeli were away from her mother, he might be able to alter her thinking about the marriage. The two minor children also made the trip to Boston. “5. Matters in Boston did not progress satisfactorily; and Mr. Khaleeli took his children to Toronto, Canada, advising Mrs. Khaleeli of his whereabouts. “6.

Mrs. Khaleeli and her mother, Jane Christian, went to Toronto, called the police, and confronted Mr. Khaleeli. Although the police took no specific action, Mr. Khaleeli relinquished custody of the children to his wife, who returned to Birmingham, Alabama, to the home of her mother, Jane Christian____ “7. Mrs. Khaleeli consulted counsel in Alabama, Mr. William Myers, and obtained through the Alabama Family Court an ex parte order giving her custody of the children. ²⁴² There is no evidence that Mr. Khaleeli was served with a copy of the proceedings or had any other official notice of that custody order____ “8. There is no evidence that Mr. Sait had any knowledge of the Alabama Family Court’s ex parte order giving Mrs. Khaleeli custody of their children. “9.

The families of Mr. Khaleeli and the respondent, Mr. Sait, were friends in India; and on an earlier occasion, Mr. Khaleeli had met the respondent at a party in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. “10. Mr. Khaleeli knew that the respondent was an attorney and, therefore, called upon him for advice concerning his marital difficulties and his desire to obtain custody rights to his children. “11. Respondent, Mohammed Farook Sait, had been admitted to the Bar of Maryland in 1973. “12. When Mr. Khaleeli consulted Mr. Sait, Mr. Sait advised him that because he was not licensed to practice in Alabama, it would be necessary for Mr. Khaleeli to seek local counsel there. “13.

At the time of the initial contact of the respondent by Mr. Khaleeli and thereafter, both Mr. Sait, the respondent, and Mr. Khaleeli testified that no oral or written retainer agreement existed between them nor was any fee paid for legal services. Mr. Khaleeli did pay or reimburse Mr. Sait for all expenditures during the events hereinafter related____ “14. Respondent obtained the name of counsel in Alabama, Dean Lee Hodges____ Respondent conferred generally with Mr. Hodges on the telephone concerning Alabama law regarding divorce, residence and custody, and put Mr. Khaleeli in touch with Mr. Hodges. “15. Mr. Khaleeli conferred with Mr. Hodges by telephone about his maritál problems and the anticipated results of a custody hearing in Alabama.

The advice given to Mr. Khaleeli was, and it led Mr. Khaleeli to believe, that he ²⁴³ had little or no chance to prevail in a custody hearing in Alabama; and his right to visit with his children would be denied, at least as far as taking them to India. “16. Mr. Hodges and Mr. Khaleeli discussed the use of a private investigator to locate Mrs. Khaleeli and the children and to take such action as necessary to protect the rights of Mr. Khaleeli. “17. On or about January 28, 1979, the respondent and Mr. Khaleeli took a plane to Atlanta, Georgia and had a meeting in the Atlanta airport with Dean Lee Hodges, Esquire, and Thomas Skinner, an investigator. Mr. Hodges and Mr. Skinner had taken a flight to Atlanta from Birmingham, Alabama to attend the meeting. “18.

At that meeting, two retainer agreements resulted---- Mr. Hodges was paid the sum of $500.00 and Mr. Skinner the sum of $2,500.00. Hodges and Skinner returned to Alabama and respondent and Mr. Khaleeli returned to the Washington area. “19. Between January 28, 1979 and February 17, 1979, Mr. Skinner had located and surveyed the activities of Mrs. Khaleeli and the children and had been in communication with Mr. Hodges and Mr. Khaleeli. Mr. Hodges also testified that the respondent was also advised during this period of time, which the respondent denied. “20.

On Saturday, February 17, 1979, respondent and Mr. Khaleeli took a plane to Birmingham, Alabama. The respondent rented a motor vehicle, and the parties drove to and checked into a motel. “21. The next day, Sunday, February 18, 1979, a meeting took place at the apartment of Thomas Skinner, at which time a plan was made to regain possession of the minor children. Attending that meeting were Mr. Skinner, a Mr. Payne, a Mr. [Mooney], a Ms. [Lowder], and Mr. Khaleeli.

Mr. Hodges, counsel in Alabama, testified that respondent was at the meeting____ Respondent denied being at the meeting although he does admit attending a movie that day, February 18, 1979, with Mr. Hodges. The ²⁴⁴ Court finds that either while at the movie with Mr. Hodges or at the Skinner apartment, respondent was made aware of the general nature of what was to transpire but that he was not aware of the particulars and was not a participant in the planning. At the Inquiry Panel hearing regarding this complaint, ... respondent indicated ... that he knew there was a plan to obtain the children ‘wherever they were.’ “22. Respondent left Birmingham to go to Huntsville, Alabama for several days to visit old friends.

It was during respondent’s stay in Huntsville when the details of the plan to take Mr. Khaleeli’s children were formulated. After receiving a telephone call from Mr. Khaleeli on the evening of February 21, 1979, respondent returned to Birmingham on the morning of February 22, 1979, sometime before 8:00 a.m. Respondent and Mr. Khaleeli checked out of their motel and were picked up by Mr. Hodges in .his motor vehicle and taken to the Skinner apartment. The car which had been rented by the respondent was driven to the home of Mrs. Jane Christian by Thomas Skinner and Mr. Khaleeli was in that car.

Respondent stayed in the Hodges’ vehicle and that vehicle also went to the home of Mrs. Jane Christian. A third vehicle in which Thomas Payne and Ms. [Lowder] were occupants also went to the Christian home. “23. The rental vehicle and the Payne vehicle had the license tags on the vehicles removed. The