In re Elhillali, 010319 DCCA, 17-BG-1430
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||In re Ahmed M. Elhillali, Respondent. A Special Legal Consultant Licensed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Registration No. 446927)|
|Judge Panel:||Before Fisher and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.|
|Case Date:||January 03, 2019|
Submitted December 17, 2018
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Board Docket No. 16-BD-030) (Bar Docket Nos. 2012-D330 and 2014-D029)
Before Fisher and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.
The Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") recommends that respondent Ahmed M. Elhillali's license as a Special Legal Consultant be revoked, without any right to reapply for this license for five years. The Board also recommends that respondent not be granted a license after the revocation period unless he pays restitution and proves his fitness to practice as a Special Legal Consultant. Although respondent contested the charges before the Hearing Committee, he withdrew his exceptions to its report and did not file any exceptions to the Board's report. Disciplinary Counsel did not file any exceptions to the Board's report either. For the following reasons, we adopt the Board's recommendation.
I. Factual Summary
Since no exceptions have been filed, the Board's findings of fact are undisputed. This court admitted respondent as a Special Legal Consultant in 1995; he is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States. Special Legal Consultants are allowed to provide advice about the law of the foreign country in which they are licensed, but are not permitted to provide "legal advice on or under the law of the District of Columbia or of the United States or of any state, territory, or possession thereof." D.C. App. R. 46 (c)(4)(D)(5) (2008).1
Respondent falsely held himself out as an attorney licensed to practice in the District of Columbia by maintaining a website for "The Law Office of Ahmed Elhillali," with offices in Virginia and the District of Columbia. While representing clients, respondent referred to himself as "attorney of record," "counselor," and "attorney and a member in good standing" and formally entered his appearance as an attorney in immigration cases on at least ten occasions. For example, respondent misrepresented himself to be an attorney and accepted fees in an immigration matter for Mr. Jamal Jubara Ragab Kabu and held himself out as an attorney to Mr. Omer...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP