Immediate Disbarment Necessary When Attorney Performed No Services
(November 2009) By Lydia S. Hu, Associate.
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mina Bahgat,
Misc. Docket AG No. 20 (Md. Nov. 18, 2009)
Mina Bahgat was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 15,
2004. Approximately four years later, he was ordered disbarred from Maryland
when he misappropriated clients' funds, performed no services for clients, lied
to clients about the status of their case, and provided clients with a falsified
administrative agency "Decision."
On October 20, 2009, the Attorney Grievance Commission
("AGC") filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action when Bahgat allegedly violated
several provisions of the MARYLAND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ("MRPC").
Baghat answered the petition on October 20, 2008, but failed to comply with
discovery requests thereafter. A hearing was held on the petition on April 6,
2009 and Baghat did not appear.
The Honorable Judge Rowan filed an opinion on April 10,
2009, ordering Baghat's disbarment and issuing a number of findings. Although
Baghat was admitted to Maryland, it appears he never maintained an office in the
State. He was employed by Just Law International in Virginia until his
termination in March 1, 2007.
Through that employment, Baghat was referred two clients,
Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez, to assist them in obtaining permanent residency status
for Mrs. Rodriquez. They had previously filed an application for permanent
residency, which was denied. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez sent two $500.00 fee money
orders and a filing fee money order in the amount of $110.00 to Baghat. He
promised to file an application to re-open the original application and an
application to adjust the status.
One of the $500.00 money orders was credited to the account
of another Just Law client and there are no records of the second $500.00 money
order, nor the $110.00 money order. Baghat told Mr. and Mrs. Rodriquez that he
filed their forms and motions with the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, but in fact, nothing was filed and no one entered an appearance on
their behalf. On November 18, 2006, Baghat sent them a copy of a decision
purportedly issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
denying the application for permanent residency. This decision was fabricated by
Rodriquez.
The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review of the
record, and concluded that immediate disbarment was required to protect the
public interest. Baghat violated numerous provisions of the MRPC. Specifically,
Baghat violated MRPC Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.15
(Safekeeping Property), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.4
(Misconduct), and MD. CODE ANN., BUS. OCC. & PROF. § 10-306 (misuse of trust
money).
Top
