Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Moawad

Decision Date11 August 2021
Docket NumberMisc. Docket AG No. 11, Sept. Term, 2020
Citation257 A.3d 611,475 Md. 424
Parties ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION of Maryland v. Edward Emad MOAWAD
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by Raymond A. Hein, Deputy Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

Argued by Bernard J. DiMuro (DiMuro Ginsberg PC), Alexandria, VA, for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth and Biran, JJ.

Getty, J.

Throughout the course of representing three different clients in various immigration matters, Edward Emad Moawad, Respondent, failed to deliver competent legal services, thereby prejudicing his clients, and then repeatedly failed to remediate his mistakes. Additionally, he failed to communicate with each of his three clients, forcing them to seek other counsel, and ignored multiple requests to refund unearned legal fees. When the various clients filed complaints with the Attorney Grievance Commission, Mr. Moawad declined to accept any responsibility for his actions, and instead deflected all blame to his business partner, George Adams, and other attorneys at his law firm. To further compound his misconduct, Mr. Moawad submitted a series of letters to Bar Counsel—on his own behalf, through his counsel, and, most remarkably, under the pretext of his business partner—containing many knowing and intentional misrepresentations about his involvement in the various complainants' cases. For the reasons discussed below, we shall disbar Mr. Moawad.

BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Context.

On April 8, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("Petition") with the Court of Appeals, alleging that Mr. Moawad and his business partner, Mr. Adams, violated the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC" or "Rules").

Concerning the conduct of Mr. Moawad and Mr. Adams in relation to three separate immigration clients,1 the Petition alleged that Mr. Moawad and Mr. Adams violated the following Rules: 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Non-Attorney Assistants), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (Misconduct).2

On April 13, 2020, this Court designated the Honorable Cheryl A. McCally ("hearing judge") of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. See Md. Rule 19-722(a). Mr. Moawad was personally served with process on April 28, 2020 and filed an answer to the Petition on May 13, 2020. Mr. Adams was also served and filed a separate answer on May 11, 2020.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, judicial operations in Maryland were restricted until the Maryland Judiciary entered Phase III of the Coronavirus Phased Reopening Plan, effective July 20, 2020. Under Phase III, circuit courts were permitted to schedule matters including attorney disciplinary proceedings. On July 27, 2020, the parties in this case participated in a remote scheduling conference, and a hearing was scheduled to be held from December 18, 2020 through December 23, 2020.

The Co-Respondent in the case, Mr. Adams, was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland as a result of a Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by Consent filed by Bar Counsel on September 17, 2020. The matter then proceeded solely against Mr. Moawad.

On December 1, 2020, the hearing judge held a remote status conference, during which Mr. Moawad's counsel made an oral motion to continue the hearing, premised on his objection to the court's plan to conduct the hearing virtually. Mr. Moawad argued that a virtual hearing would deprive him of due process and the ability to adequately confront the witnesses, while also hindering the court's ability to assess witness credibility. The hearing judge issued findings of fact allowing Mr. Moawad to present his opposition to the virtual hearing in a written motion to continue, which was filed in the Court of Appeals on December 3, 2020. This Court denied Mr. Moawad's motion by an Order dated December 9, 2020.

The evidentiary hearing spanned four days: December 18, 21, 22, and 23, 2020. Following the hearing, the hearing judge submitted her findings of fact and conclusions of law by a written opinion to this Court. In her recommended conclusions of law, the hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Moawad violated Rule 1.1, Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4, Rule 1.5, Rule 5.3, Rule 8.1, and Rule 8.4.3

On March 10, 2021, Mr. Moawad filed extensive exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law in this Court. Bar Counsel filed no exceptions but responded to Mr. Moawad's exceptions on March 25, 2021. We heard oral arguments on this matter on April 12, 2021.

B. Factual Findings.

We begin by summarizing the hearing judge's factual findings. Mr. Moawad was admitted to the Maryland Bar on July 20, 2015. He was previously admitted to the Virginia State Bar in October 2009 and the District of Columbia Bar in January 2011.4

On July 15, 2014, Mr. Moawad established a law practice located in Chevy Chase, Maryland, under the firm name of Adams, Burton & Moawad ("the ABM firm" or "ABM"). The other named principals of the firm were George Adams and William Burton. In addition to the firm's office in Chevy Chase, the firm also maintained an office at Mr. Moawad's home in McLean, Virginia.

The ABM firm was formed with a division of responsibilities whereby Mr. Adams "would handle the high net worth clients, Mr. Burton would handle the civil cases, and Mr. Moawad would do the immigration work." However, as the business progressed, much of the firm's practice was in the field of immigration law. Thus, Mr. Adams started doing immigration work "under the tutelage of Mr. Moawad" who primarily practiced immigration law. In addition, Mr. Moawad's title was "managing director" of the firm and he handled all the financial

matters, including approval of legal fees assessed by the firm and the management of the firm's attorney trust account.

Around February 1, 2016,5 Mr. Adams left the ABM firm and intended to retire from the practice of law. However, in December 2016, Mr. Adams returned to the ABM firm to work as an independent contractor. This arrangement continued until the end of 2017. In January 2018, Mr. Moawad and Mr. Burton established a new practice under the firm name of Moawad & Burton, P.C., which was operated out of the ABM firm's office space. In addition, Mr. Adams established his own solo practice at the same location under the firm name of Adams Law Firm, P.C.

In addition to making factual findings regarding Mr. Moawad's misconduct alleged in each of the three complaints, the hearing judge made factual findings regarding various letters Mr. Moawad sent to Bar Counsel in response to the three complaints. We will review the facts regarding the representation of each of the complainants as well as Mr. Moawad's letter responses to Bar Counsel separately below.

1. Mr. Moawad's Representation of Mr. Madio Kossi Togbetse.

Madio Kossi Togbetse is an immigrant from Togo who originally came to the United States in January 2005 as a twenty-four-year-old refugee seeking to continue his education. He entered the country on an F-1 student visa and then applied for asylum. The asylum application went before the Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") and was assigned to an immigration judge for trial. Mr. Togbetse's attorney at that time withdrew his application for asylum before the conclusion of the trial, causing Mr. Togbetse to be placed in a removal proceeding within the jurisdiction of EOIR. Mr. Togbetse's prior attorney applied on Mr. Togbetse's behalf for withholding of removal, which was granted on May 8, 2006. After this, Mr. Togbetse remained in the

United States and obtained annual renewal of work permits to maintain employment. In 2013, he married his wife, Heather Togbetse, who is an American citizen.

In 2014, Mr. Togbetse conducted an online search for an immigration attorney and located Mr. Moawad. On July 2, 2014, Mr. and Ms. Togbetse met with Mr. Moawad at his office in Chevy Chase to discuss Mr. Togbetse's goal of obtaining permanent resident status in the United States. At the meeting, Mr. Togbetse explained to Mr. Moawad the history of his withdrawn asylum application and showed him a letter from the Immigration Court confirming that he had been granted withholding of removal in May 2006. Mr. Moawad told Mr. Togbetse that they would need to file a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to obtain Mr. Togbetse's entire immigration file.

Mr. Togbetse agreed to hire Mr. Moawad for that purpose and signed an engagement letter printed on the letterhead of Moawad, P.C., Mr. Moawad's solo law practice which existed prior to the ABM firm. This letter specified the services to be provided as "U.S.C.I.S FOIA Request only" and contained a signature block that identified Mr. Moawad as "president" of Moawad, P.C. Mr. Moawad did not sign the document. The agreement provided that the firm would file Mr. Togbetse's FOIA request for a fee of $500, which Mr. Togbetse paid. Subsequently, Mr. Togbetse received an electronic copy of his immigration record on a compact disk ("CD") from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") in response to the FOIA request. Mr. Togbetse made a duplicate copy of the CD for himself and mailed the original to Mr. Moawad, with delivery confirmed by tracking through the U.S. Postal Service.

Sometime in the fall of 2014, Mr. and Ms. Togbetse went to Mr. Moawad's office in McLean for a scheduled appointment with Mr. Moawad. Mr. Moawad was not present, and instead they met with a paralegal named "Margarita." Mr. and Ms. Togbetse provided Margarita...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. White
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 12, 2022
    ...violates Rule 1.3 when he or she does ‘nothing whatsoever to advance the client's cause or endeavor.’ " Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Moawad , 475 Md. 424, 469, 257 A.3d 611 (2021) (quoting Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. De La Paz , 418 Md. 534, 554, 16 A.3d 181 (2011) ). The hearing judge concluded......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Tatung
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 26, 2021
    ...or in other jurisdictions where the application of Rule 8.5(b) might have been argued or raised. See, e.g. , Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Moawad, 475 Md. 424, 257 A.3d 611 (2021) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Riely , 471 Md. 458, 242 A.3d 206 (2020) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ambe , 46......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Taniform
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 2022
    ...this vulnerable class, and hence attorneys who provide substandard services to immigrants should, in turn, face significant consequences. Id. at 485. will ultimately tell whether we spoke too broadly in Moawad and in prior cases, but we are not persuaded on these facts that Mr. Taniform's c......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kalarestaghi
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2023
    ... ... there is any competent evidence to support the finding of ... fact." Att'y Grievance Comm'n v ... Moawad , 475 Md. 424, 458, 257 A.3d 611, 631 (2021) ... (citation omitted); McDonald , 437 Md. at 16, 85 A.3d ... at 125 ("A hearing judge's ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT