60-Day Suspension for Md. Lawyer Who Misled Bar Counsel

A Maryland immigration lawyer was given a 60-day suspension by a state appeals court for lying to bar counsel but stopped short of imposing the counsel’s recommendation of an indefinite suspension.

It’s possible to deter Raj Sanjeet Singh and other attorneys from ethics violations “without sidelining for an indefinite period an attorney who has no other record of discipline and who serves a vulnerable class of clients of moderate means,” Judge Robert N. McDonald wrote for the court.

In 2014, Singh took on clients Mr. A, a Brazilian in the U.S. on an expired visa, and Mr. J, a U.S. citizen. They had recently married and Singh helped Mr. A obtain a conditional permanent resident status for a two-year period based on the recent marriage.

The two had marital issues and Mr. A came to Singh in 2016, asking for help. He alleged that Mr. J had abused him and he wanted to know how a separation would affect his immigration status.

Singh advised Mr. A on how to file a petition by himself without Mr. J’s cooperation, based on a law that authorizes the filing of a solo petition in circumstances of domestic abuse. He also advised him to see a psychologist to get an evaluation on the alleged abuse.

Ultimately, Singh withdrew from representing Mr. A. in late 2016, after his conditional green card expired and before the petition was completed and filed. Mr. A then filed a fee dispute complaint with the state bar counsel, alleging Singh had misled him as to the purpose of one of his payments and that Mr. Singh had not diligently pursued his solo petition.

Mr. A successfully completed his application with another lawyer. Even though this was a “happy ending” for him, there was period when his conditional green card had expired that rendered him subject to deportation proceedings, the court said, finding that Singh violated his duty of diligence.

Singh also didn’t safeguard Mr. A’s money, depositing it into his operating account and not his client trust account, the court said. This happened with a few other of Singh’s clients, the court pointed out, and even though it appears the funds were used for their intended purpose, “the premature deposit of client funds in an operating account can be a first step to defalcation and more serious misconduct,” it said.

Perhaps the most egregious violation was Singh’s explanation to the bar counsel of how often he deposited client funds into the trust account, the court said.

Singh told the counsel that he “usually” deposited them into the trust account, but an analysis of his bank records shows that “his usual practice was more the exception than the rule,” it said.

“There is no question that any attempt to mislead Bar Counsel is a serious matter that warrants a sanction beyond a reprimand, regardless of whether the underlying violations caused any harm to clients,” the court said.

“In this case, a suspension is called for to deter Mr. Singh and others from misleading Bar Counsel or from adopting sloppy practices with client funds that, even if innocuous in the particular case, could lead to defalcation and serious harm to clients,” it said.

Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, and Judges Sally D. Adkins and Joseph M. Getty joined the opinion. Judge Shirley M. Watts dissented, joined by Judges Clayton Greene, Jr. and Michele D. Hotten.

The case is Atty. Griev. Comm’n of Md. v. Singh, 2019 BL 263171, Md., No. Misc. Docket AG No. 6September Term2018, 7/17/19.