Attorney Grievance v. Bah

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mohamed Alpha Bah, Misc. Docket AG No. 3, September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT — Respondent Mohamed Alpha Bah violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19- 301.1 (Competence), 19-301.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19- 301.4 (Communication), 19-301.15(a) and (c) (Safekeeping of Property), 19-301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation), 19-305.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). Additionally, Respondent violated Maryland Code (2000, 2018 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-304(a) and 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.

These violations arose from Respondent’s pattern of neglect of client affairs, including his failure to communicate with his clients or respond to Bar Counsel; failure to deposit and maintain client funds in an attorney trust account until earned; failure to provide clients with refunds of unearned fees; and deceitful and dishonest conduct related to the misappropriation of funds. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-19-002935 Argued: March 5, 2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 3 September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. MOHAMED ALPHA BAH Barbera, C.J., McDonald Hotten Getty Booth Biran Harrell, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Barbera, C.J. Filed: April 10, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2020-09-09 11:12-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk On April 29, 2019, Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent, Mohamed Alpha Bah. The Petition concerned ten separate complaints filed by former clients against Respondent and alleged violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct1 (“MARPC”) 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.15(a) and (c) (Safekeeping of Property),2 19-301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation),3 19-305.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). Additionally, Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated Maryland Code (2000, 2018 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-304(a) (Deposit of trust money) and 10-306 (Misuse of trust money) of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.

On May 14, 2019, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), this Court transmitted this matter to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and designated the Honorable Althea M. Handy (“the hearing judge”) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact 1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and recodified without substantive changes in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules. Respondent’s alleged misconduct occurred both before and after the recodification. Because the majority of Respondent’s misconduct took place after the recodification, we will refer to the MARPC throughout this opinion. 2 Petitioner withdrew its allegation that Respondent violated Rules 19-30l.15(d) and (e). 3 Petitioner incorrectly cited 19-302.2 as the Rule concerning expediting litigation. and conclusions of law in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-727. On July 11, 2019, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-723(b), Respondent was served with the following: Writ of Summons issued May 17, 2019, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; Order of the Court of Appeals; Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; Petitioner’s Interrogatories; Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents; and Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.

On August 5, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order of Default after Respondent failed to answer. On August 14, 2019, the hearing judge issued an Order of Default and scheduled a hearing for September 24, 2019. The Order provided notice informing Respondent that the Order of Default had been entered and that he may move to vacate the Order within thirty days. Respondent failed to file any response to the notice of default.

The circuit court held a hearing on September 24, 2019. Jessica T. Ornsby, Esquire appeared at the hearing to request a continuance of the hearing date on behalf of Respondent, who did not appear.4 Ms. Ornsby represented to the court that Respondent had not been served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and, having only recently become aware of the disciplinary case against him, would need additional time to retain counsel. The circuit court noted that Petitioner had made several attempts to personally serve Respondent at his home in the District of Columbia and at his office in Baltimore City. Pursuant to Rule 19-723(b), Petitioner served the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland (“CPF”) on July 11, 2019.

On July 12, 2019, the CPF mailed the 4 Ms. Ornsby entered her appearance on behalf of Respondent the day of the hearing. Her representation was limited solely to requesting a continuance of the hearing date. 2 Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Writ of Summons, Transmittal Order, Petitioner’s Interrogatories, Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, and Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents to both Respondent’s home and office addresses. On August 14, 2019, the court mailed the Notice of Default Order to both Respondent’s home and office addresses; neither was returned undelivered. The hearing judge, having found that Respondent had been properly served and had already been afforded ample time to retain counsel prior to the hearing date, denied Ms. Ornsby’s continuance request.

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-424(b), the hearing judge admitted and received as evidence Petitioner’s Request for Admissions. Respondent is deemed to have admitted both the averments in the Petition and the facts set forth in the exhibits attached to Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, so those matters are treated as conclusively established. See Md. Rules 2- 323(e), 2-424(b), (d); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 456 Md. 227, 231 (2017). The hearing judge issued written findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law, concluding that Respondent had violated the aforementioned provisions of the MARPC and the Business Occupations and Professions Article.

Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed exceptions. Respondent made no written recommendation regarding sanction; Petitioner recommended disbarment. On March 5, 2020, we heard oral argument, at which only Petitioner appeared. We thereafter issued a per curiam order disbarring Respondent.

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bah, 467 Md. 561, 561-62 (2020), 2020 WL 1181283 , at ¹ (Md. March 12, 2020). We explain in this opinion the reasons for that action. 3 I. The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact We summarize here the hearing judge’s findings of fact, which are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Background Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 13, 2011. Respondent is not, nor has he ever been, a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

At all relevant times, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the District of Columbia until approximately 2016 when he moved his law office to Baltimore City, Maryland. Representation of Thomas Milton Irvin In June 2015, Thomas Milton Irvin retained Respondent to assist him in establishing a District of Columbia business, including the preparation and filing of the necessary paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Agency”) to obtain 501(c)(3) non- profit status. Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Irvin for a flat fee of $5,500. In June 2015, Mr. Irvin paid Respondent $3,000 and then an additional $2,500 in July 2015.

Respondent failed to deposit and maintain Mr. Irvin’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned. In August 2016, Mr. Irvin received a letter from the IRS informing him that additional documentation was required. Mr. Irvin contacted Respondent and advised him that additional documentation needed to be filed with the IRS. Respondent failed to take any action towards filing the required documentation. 4 In September 2016, the IRS informed Mr. Irvin that his file had been closed because the Agency had not received the required documentation.

The IRS explained that the case could be reopened for $400 and that the requested documents still needed to be submitted. Mr. Irvin contacted Respondent and supplied him with the information needed to submit the required documentation. Respondent failed to file the required documentation. In February 2017, Mr. Irvin received another letter from the IRS informing him that the Agency had not received the required documents and that his case once again would be closed.

Between February and July 2017, Mr. Irvin made numerous attempts to contact Respondent. Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Irvin and failed to provide Mr. Irvin with a refund. Representation of Tracy Delyn Burton In July 2015, Tracy Delyn Burton retained Respondent to represent her in filing a lawsuit against Marcus Smoot for breach of contract and fraud. On September 6, 2015, Ms. Burton executed a retainer agreement which provided that she would pay Respondent a flat fee of $5,245 and that Respondent would receive an additional contingency fee if any recovery was received.

Ms. Burton paid Respondent $4,500 at the outset of the representation and then later paid an additional $745. Respondent failed to deposit and maintain Ms. Burton’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned. On October 13, 2015, an associate of Respondent, Luke McQueen, Esquire, filed a complaint on behalf of Ms. Burton in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint identified that Ms. Burton was represented by “Bah Legal and 5 Consulting” and included counts of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

On October 14, 2015, the district court issued a summons for Mr. Smoot. Neither Respondent nor Mr. McQueen took any action to ensure that service was timely effectuated. On March 8, 2016, Respondent entered his appearance as lead counsel for Ms. Burton and filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant and Request for New Summons. On March 14, 2016, the court issued an order granting the Motion.

On March 21, 2016, the court issued a new summons. On March 22, 2016, Ms. Burton emailed Respondent and requested that he refund $3,000 of the retainer if the case was not concluded in a timely manner. On March 23, 2016, Ms. Burton received an automatic response from Respondent stating, in part, that he was “not regularly responding to emails and other forms of communication until April 15, 2016.” On July 14, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion for Service by Publication. By order on August 18, 2016, the court granted the Motion.

Respondent failed to effectuate service on Mr. Smoot. On October 13, 2016, the court directed Ms. Burton to show cause, within fourteen days, as to why the complaint should not be dismissed due to failure to effect service. On October 26, 2016, Respondent filed a response to the Order to Show Cause and represented to the court that he had made attempts to serve Mr. Smoot via mail and electronic mail but was unsuccessful. Following a status conference on November 7, 6 2016,5 the court ordered Ms. Burton to serve Mr. Smoot within sixty days.

Respondent failed to take any action to serve Mr. Smoot. On January 16, 2017, Ms. Burton received a mass email from Respondent stating: Dear Bah Legal Clients and Friends, You are receiving this note because you are a potential client, current client, or a former client of Bah Legal and Consulting. Please review the entire message as the information is pertinent to you. For the last several months Bah Legal has undergone several changes with respect to its operations and management.

Going forward, Bah Legal will only perform services for its current clients, former clients, and parties within their networks. For the foreseeable future we are not accepting any new clients (unless they are referred to us from our current client pool). For the next month we will be solely focused on addressing each and every client as noted below. Please understand, and accept, that we will not be able to respond to anyone, or address any concerns, via email, phone, or text . . . outside of the agenda detailed below.

Potential Clients Thank you for considering us to provide services on your behalf. Between Wednesday January 18, and Monday January 23, Attorney Nnamdi Nwaneri6 will contact you directly and provide you with 2-3 appropriate referrals for you to consult with. For the record, Bah Legal, and its attorneys, have no financial interest with any referral that we provide to you. Current Clients Many current clients need a status communication or disengagement letter.

Several clients have outstanding services with us. If you are a current client, I will contact you directly about your case. If there are outstanding services, please note that we do not need any further information to complete your 5 The hearing judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law incorrectly state that the status conference was held on November 7, 2017. The docket sheet reflects that the status conference was held on November 7, 2016. 6 The hearing judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law spelled the attorney’s name as Nnamdu Nwaneri; the email from Respondent states the attorney’s name as Nnamdi Nwaneri. 7 matter.

In the event that additional information is needed, I will contact you directly. I will contact each current client according to the following schedule: • Litigation (lawsuits) Cases: January 18, 2017 - January 31, 20l7 • Non-Litigation Cases: February 1, 2017 - February 10, 2017 In the event that I am, or have been, tardy with respect to providing you with communications, you can also expect a gift of firm credit for services when I contact you. Again, I wish to remind you that we have your matter under control. However, due to time considerations, I simply cannot respond or address anyone directly, beyond the schedule that has been provided.

Former Clients I will contact you between March 1, 2017 and April 15, 2017, to discuss your current and foreseeable needs to determine if Bah Legal can help provide services. To everyone, thank you for your attention and Bah Legal looks forward to continuing to be your legal service provider. On February 22 and February 23, 2017, Ms. Burton sent Respondent emails in which she requested a refund, an accounting, and a copy of her client file. Respondent received Ms. Burton’s emails but failed to respond and failed to provide her with a refund.7 On September 5, 2018, the district court dismissed Ms. Burton’s case.

Representation of BizTech Fusion, LLC/Xadean Ahmasi On November 11, 2015, BizTech Fusion, LLC (“BizTech”), through Xadean Ahmasi, President and CEO, retained Respondent to represent the company in a civil suit against NucoreSolutionz, Inc. (“Nucore”). BizTech paid Respondent a flat fee of $7,500. 7 Although the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action states that Respondent failed to provide Ms. Burton with a copy of her client file, accounting, and refund, the hearing judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents only specify that Respondent failed to provide Ms. Burton a refund. 8 Respondent failed to deposit and maintain BizTech’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned. On December 15, 2015, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of BizTech in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against Nucore alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. While representing BizTech, Respondent amended the fee agreement to require that BizTech pay an additional $5,000 flat fee and a 15% contingency fee.

Respondent failed to obtain BizTech’s informed consent, in writing, to the modification of the fee agreement. On January 26, 2017, BizTech and Nucore executed a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required Nucore to pay BizTech a total of $60,000; $45,000 payable on or before January 27, 2017, and an additional $15,000 payable on or before June 30, 2017. The settlement agreement also contained a consent judgment article in which Nucore agreed to an entry of a judgment against it in the amount of $150,000 if Nucore failed to make any of the scheduled payments.

In June 2017, Mr. Ahmasi received a check from Respondent’s law office in the amount of $37,000 as their share of the first Nucore payment. Nucore failed to make the second payment in the amount of $15,000 as scheduled. In July 2017, Respondent and Mr. Ahmasi exchanged emails regarding the possibility of pursuing the consent judgment. Respondent offered to represent BizTech in the consent judgment if BizTech agreed to pay him a new contingency fee.

After July 2017, BizTech made numerous attempts to contact Respondent regarding the consent judgment. Respondent failed to respond to BizTech in any manner. 9 Representation of Hanna Jenneh Kanu On June 1, 2016, Hanna Jenneh Kanu retained Respondent to represent her in a landlord-tenant matter. Ms. Kanu paid Respondent a fee of $3,000, which Respondent failed to deposit in an attorney trust account until earned. Later that month, when Ms. Kanu contacted Respondent to inquire about the status of her case, Respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Ms. Kanu that he needed an additional $365 from her for “filing fees.” Ms. Kanu agreed to pay the additional charge, but the record does not indicate whether Ms. Kanu paid the fee.

In July 2016, Ms. Kanu received a notice to appear in court for a hearing. Ms. Kanu attempted to contact Respondent regarding the hearing. Respondent failed to attend the hearing and Ms. Kanu was forced to represent herself pro se. The court ruled in favor of the landlord and ordered Ms. Kanu evicted from the property.

In August 2016, Respondent negotiated a settlement agreement with Ms. Kanu’s landlord that allowed Ms. Kanu to pay the landlord $11,000 to bring her up to date on her payments. On December 23, 2016, Ms. Kanu’s case was called for another hearing. Ms. Kanu attempted to contact Respondent regarding the second hearing but was unsuccessful. Respondent failed to attend the second hearing, so, again, Ms. Kanu was forced to represent herself pro se.

The court entered a judgment against her in the amount of $26,000. On January 16, 2017, Ms. Kanu received the same mass email that Ms. Burton received. On February 1, 2017, Ms. Kanu terminated the representation and requested a refund of $3,000, which Respondent failed to provide. 10 Representation of Betsey Tyner In January 2017, Betsey Tyner retained Respondent to represent her as the landlord in an eviction proceeding in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Prince George’s County. Ms. Tyner paid Respondent a flat fee of $995, which Respondent failed to deposit or maintain in an attorney trust account until earned.

On April 17, 2017, Respondent appeared with Ms. Tyner in District Court for a hearing in the eviction case. The court ordered the tenant to vacate the property. In or about June 2017, Ms. Tyner learned that a hearing had been scheduled for later that month. She contacted Respondent, who then knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to her that he needed an additional $500 for “filing fees,” which Ms. Tyner paid.

Respondent failed to deposit and maintain Ms. Tyner’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned. Respondent then misappropriated the $500 he received from Ms. Tyner and used the funds for his personal benefit. Ms. Tyner arranged a meeting with Respondent to take place on June 15, 2017. Ms. Tyner, who resides in New York, drove to Maryland for the meeting.

Respondent cancelled the meeting at the last minute and failed to advise Ms. Tyner of the status of the matter. Respondent did not perform any additional required work in the eviction matter. During the pendency of the representation, Respondent failed to respond to Ms. Tyner’s numerous requests for information and failed to keep her informed of the status of the matter. 11 Representation of Marie and Morgan Prince On April 24, 2017, Marie Prince and her husband, Morgan Prince (“the Princes”), retained Respondent to represent them in a claim against an unlicensed architect and contractor regarding an addition to their home. The Princes paid Respondent an initial fee of $495 and then an additional $1,580 on May 16, 2017.

Respondent failed to deposit and maintain the Princes’ funds in an attorney trust account until earned. On June 9, 2017, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of the Princes against FEM Construction, LLC, Sun Arch, LLC, and the Prince George’s County Department of Inspection and Enforcement (collectively “the Defendants”) in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Prince George’s County. After filing the complaint, however, Respondent failed to perform any substantive work in the case, including failing to propound any discovery. Throughout the pendency of the representation, Respondent failed to provide timely responses to the Princes’ requests for information.

The Princes made at least three attempts to schedule a meeting with Respondent, but he failed to meet with them in person. In December 2017, the Princes informed Respondent that they were terminating his services and requested a full refund along with a copy of their client file. Respondent failed to provide the Princes with a refund or a copy of their client file. Representation of The W Hair Loft, Inc./Wade Menendez On October 25, 2016, The W Hair Loft, Inc., through its owner, Wade Menendez, retained Respondent to file two trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and to prepare a non-disclosure agreement.

On October 26, 12 2016, Mr. Menendez paid Respondent a flat fee of $2,695 and $700 for estimated expenses. Respondent failed to deposit and maintain Mr. Menendez’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned. Between November 2016 and March 2017, Respondent failed to take any action to advance the representation. Respondent filed two trademark applications with the USPTO: one application for “Wade the Barber” on April 6, 2017, and another application for “The W Hair Loft” on June 2, 2017.

On June 27, 2017, the USPTO sent Respondent notice that the “Wade the Barber” trademark application was deficient and that additional information was required. The USPTO advised Respondent that a response was required within six months or the application would be deemed abandoned. Respondent failed to respond to the USPTO. Respondent also failed to advise Mr. Menendez of the June 27 correspondence and his subsequent lack of response to the USPTO.

On September 10, 2017, the USPTO sent Respondent notice that “The W Hair Loft” trademark conflicted with a previously registered trademark. The USPTO offered Respondent an opportunity to present argument in favor of registration by addressing the potential conflict between the two trademarks. The USPTO advised Respondent that a response was required within six months or the application would be deemed abandoned. Respondent failed to respond to the USPTO.

Respondent also failed to advise Mr. Menendez of the September 10 correspondence and his subsequent lack of response. The USPTO deemed the “Wade the Barber” and “The W Hair Loft” trademark applications abandoned on January 23, 2018, and March 13, 2018, respectively. In addition 13 to Respondent’s failures to secure the trademark applications, Respondent also failed to prepare the non-disclosure agreement Mr. Menendez requested. In March 2018, Mr. Menendez terminated the representation and retained successor counsel.

On several occasions throughout the representation, Mr. Menendez requested a refund, which Respondent failed to provide. Representation of Harry King Sr. On June 29, 2017, Harry King Sr. retained Respondent to represent him in a billing dispute involving Hair Club for Men. Mr. King paid Respondent a flat fee of $920, which Respondent failed to deposit and maintain in an attorney trust account until earned.8 Respondent failed to perform any substantive work in Mr. King’s matter. Between July 2017 and May 2018, Mr. King made several attempts to contact Respondent.

Mr. King wrote to Respondent and requested a refund. Respondent received Mr. King’s correspondence but failed to respond or provide a refund. Representation of MBK Trucking, LLC/Khayyam Khan On July 20, 2017, MBK Trucking, LLC (“MBK”), through Khayyam Khan, one of MBK’s owners, retained Respondent to represent MBK in renegotiating loan payments with various lenders and to pursue a civil suit against Central Truck Center, Inc. On July 20, 2017, Mr. Khan paid Respondent $l,500, which Respondent failed to deposit and maintain in an attorney trust account. On July 28, 2017, Mr. Khan paid Respondent an 8 Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents states that Mr. King paid Respondent a flat fee of $995.

The hearing judge’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as well as the record show that Mr. King paid a flat fee of $920 (reflecting a fee of $995 minus a $75 senior citizen discount). 14 additional $3,000. Respondent deposited the $3,000 payment into his attorney trust account, but he withdrew the funds prior to earning them and used those funds for his personal benefit. Respondent contacted the lenders on behalf of MBK but failed to resolve the matter to Mr. Khan’s satisfaction. Respondent also failed to file a complaint or take any other action against Central Truck Center, Inc. Between August 14, 2017 and April 2018, Mr. Khan and his wife, Ana Soto, attempted to contact Respondent several times and inquire about the status of the pending matters.

Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Khan or Ms. Soto and failed to provide Mr. Khan with a refund. Representation of Carolyn Williams In 2016, Carolyn Williams retained Respondent to represent her in an employment discrimination matter on a contingency fee basis. Respondent and Ms. Williams had a disagreement regarding the representation, so Ms. Williams terminated the representation. On April 3, 2018, Ms. Williams retained successor counsel, Alan R. Kabat, Esquire, to represent her in the matter.

On April 5, 2018, Mr. Kabat requested a copy of Ms. Williams’ complete client file from Respondent in a letter sent via first class mail and by email. Respondent received Mr. Kabat’s April 5 correspondence but failed to respond. On April 12, 2018, having received no response, Mr. Kabat faxed a copy of the April 5 letter to Respondent. Respondent received the April 12 facsimile but failed to respond or provide Mr. Kabat with a copy of Ms. Williams’ client file. 15 Bar Counsel’s Investigation On May 1, 2017, Ms. Burton filed a complaint with Bar Counsel.

On May 11, 2017, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, provided him a copy of Ms. Burton’s complaint, and requested a written response within fifteen days. Respondent received Bar Counsel’s letter dated May 11, 2017, but failed to respond. On June 19, 2017, having received no response, Bar Counsel sent Respondent a certified letter requesting a response to Ms. Burton’s complaint within ten days. Respondent received Bar Counsel’s certified letter dated June 19, 2017, but failed to respond timely.

On June 30, 2017, Ms. Tyner filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On July 6, 2017, Mr. Irvin filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On July 11, 2017, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, provided him a copy of Ms. Tyner’s written complaint, and requested a written response within fifteen days. Respondent received Bar Counsel’s letter dated July 11, 2017, but failed to respond timely.

On July 17, 2017, Respondent sent an email to Bar Counsel requesting an extension through July 31, 2017, to provide a response to Ms. Burton’s complaint. Bar Counsel granted Respondent’s extension request. On July 20, 2017, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, provided Respondent with a copy of Mr. Irvin’s complaint, and requested a written response within fifteen days. On July 31, 2017, Respondent provided Bar Counsel with a written response to Ms. Burton’s complaint.

On August 18, 2017, Bar Counsel received a letter from Respondent’s then-attorney, Tito 16 Castro, Esquire, advising that he would be representing Respondent in his grievance matters.9 On September 25, 2017, Ms. Kanu filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On October 3, 2017, Bar Counsel wrote to Mr. Castro, provided him with a duplicate copy of Mr. Irvin’s written complaint, and requested a written response within twenty-one days. Mr. Castro received Bar Counsel’s letter dated October 3, 2017. On October 10, 2017, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, provided him a copy of Ms. Kanu’s complaint, and requested a written response within twenty-one days.

Respondent received Bar Counsel’s letter dated October 10, 2017, but failed to respond. On November 17, 2017, having received no response regarding Ms. Kanu’s complaint, Bar Counsel sent Respondent a second letter, this time via certified mail, again requesting a written response to the complaint. Respondent received Bar Counsel’s certified letter dated November 17, 2017, but failed to respond. On November 17, 2017, having not received a response regarding Mr. Irvin’s complaint, Bar Counsel mailed a certified letter to Mr. Castro and requested a written response to the complaint.

Mr. Castro received Bar Counsel’s letter dated November 17, 2017, but failed to respond. Also on November 17, 2017, Mr. Ahmasi filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On November 30, 2017, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, provided him a copy of Mr. 9 Mr. Castro directed Bar Counsel to send him “all future communications regarding all of the existing investigations, as of August 18, 2017[.]” As of August 18, 2017, the Irvin, Burton, and Tyner matters were the only Bar Counsel investigations pending. 17 Ahmasi’s complaint, and requested a written response within twenty-one days. Respondent received Bar Counsel’s letter dated November 30, 2017, but failed to respond.

On December 15, 2017, the Princes filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On January 25, 2018, after receiving no response regarding Mr. Ahmasi’s complaint, Bar