Not So Special

In what I believe is a first-of-its kind case (see corrections below), a District of Columbia Hearing Committee recommends the revocation of a limited license

These claims arise from Respondent’s conduct while allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as a licensed attorney when, in fact, he is licensed as a “Special Legal Consultant” pursuant to Rule 46 of the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules. See D.C. App. R. 46(c)(4)(D)(5)-(7) (2008). Disciplinary Counsel contends that Respondent committed all of the charged violations and, as a sanction for his misconduct, Respondent’s Special Legal Consultant license should be revoked and he should be required to pay restitution to those clients who paid him after falsely being led to believe he was a licensed attorney. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Disciplinary Counsel has not proven any of the charges by clear and convincing evidence, and that no sanction should be applied.

…the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (“Hearing Committee”) finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 1.4(b), 1.16(d) 5.5(a), 8.4(b) (theft in violation of D.C Code § 22-3211), and 8.4(c). The Hearing Committee, however, finds that the evidence is insufficient to find that Respondent violated Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(d). Additionally, as a factor in aggravation of sanction, the Hearing Committee finds that Respondent knowingly gave false testimony during the evidentiary hearing

 The Hearing Committee recommends revocation of Respondent’s designation as a Special Legal Consultant, without any right to reapply for the license for a five year period. Upon any reapplication after the five-year period has expired, Respondent must pay restitution and prove his fitness to practice as a Special Legal Consultant.

The case is In re Ahmed M. Elhillari and can be found at this link.

Thanks for the Michigan information linked to the comment. Here’s one I found on this blog from Illinois. (Mike Frisch)