A 60 Day Suspension Lasted Over Two Years; Court Approves Dismissal Of Follow On Petition
A per curiam order of the Maryland Supreme Court
On July 17, 2019, this Court suspended Raj Sanjeet Singh, Respondent, from the practice of law in Maryland for 60 days, to begin 30 days after the date on which the opinion was filed. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Singh, 464 Md. 645, 682, 212 A.3d 888, 910 (2019). This Court did not place any conditions on Respondent’s reinstatement. On July 8, 2021, after an almost two-year period of Respondent’s former counsel communicating with and providing information to former Bar Counsel, Lydia Lawless, in an attempt to resolve concerns she had raised about Respondent’s potential reinstatement, Respondent filed in this Court a Verified Petition for Reinstatement. See In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Raj Sanjeet Singh to the Bar of Maryland, Misc. Docket AG No. 103, September Term, 2020. On July 30, 2021, Bar Counsel filed a response to the petition for reinstatement, raising numerous objections and requesting that this Court deny the petition.
Former Bar Counsel on that same date filed a Petition alleging a laundry list of alleged ethics violations.
The petition consisted of, among other things, allegations that Respondent had violated the MARPC by making false statements in the petition for reinstatement, and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to divest his law firm and social media accounts of information identifying him as a lawyer while suspended.
Respondent responded aggressively
On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed a reply to Bar Counsel’s response to his petition for reinstatement, contending that Bar Counsel had effectively turned his 60-day suspension into a 2-year one, that Bar Counsel’s allegation that he continued to practice law after being suspended was merely based on “suspicions” and “information and belief” and he had substantially complied with what is now Maryland Rule 19-741, and that Bar Counsel was improperly attempting to preempt his reinstatement by bringing a disciplinary action and falsely accusing him of perjury.
Then after hearing oral argument (linked below) on January 10, 2022
On January 14, 2022, this Court issued an order reinstating Respondent as a member of the Bar of Maryland. In the order, this Court stated that Respondent’s reinstatement was “without prejudice to Bar Counsel establishing the violations alleged in the Petition for Disciplinary and Remedial Action in Misc. Docket AG No. 17 (Sept. 2021 Term) by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-727(c)[.]”
The hearing judge found some ethics violations
The hearing judge found numerous mitigating factors, including the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, good faith efforts to rectify any misconduct, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character and reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, remorse, and unlikelihood of repetition of any misconduct. In finding the mitigating factor of imposition of other penalties or sanctions, the hearing judge found that Respondent had remained suspended for over 2 years after the term of his original 60-day suspension.
Deputy (not former) Bar Counsel moved to dismiss, prudently concluding
In the motion, Petitioner stated that, “in light of the significant mitigation found and that [it] d[id] not intend to file any exceptions,” it requested “that this Court exercise its discretion and dismiss th[e] matter.”
The court agreed
On February 27, 2023, this Court issued an Order granting Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and dismissing the case with prejudice. This Court denied Respondent’s request for reimbursement of attorney’s fees.
Reasoning
Given the approximate 2 years and 5 months that Respondent had been suspended since the imposition of the 60-day suspension in July 2019, any sanction that the Court might have imposed would have served no purpose in furthering the goal of protecting the public.
The court directed Respondent to submit a statement of costs.
Footnote 2:
Ms. Lawless resigned from the position of Bar Counsel, effective March 17, 2023. For purposes of this Order, to avoid repetition of the term “former,” we will refer to Ms. Lawless hereafter as “Bar Counsel.”
As an (inactive) member of the Maryland Bar, I am looking forward to new leadership that exercises mature judgment and is committed to fairness toward attorneys charged with misconduct.
Oral argument linked here. (Mike Frisch)