In re Moawad

• Decision Date: 03 February 2022
• Docket Number: 21-BG-778
• Parties: IN RE Edward Emad MOAWAD A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 998755
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

268 A.3d 820

IN RE Edward Emad MOAWAD

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 998755

No. 21-BG-778

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

FILED—February 3, 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that state; the November 18, 2021, order suspending respondent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent's response thereto wherein he states reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; respondent's reply thereto; and it appearing that respondent filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit on December 15, 2021, it is

ORDERED that Edward Emad Moawad is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to December 15, 2021. Although respondent is correct that the state of Maryland presumptively disbars an attorney for any intentional dishonesty, a presumption this court does not apply, we review the findings of the originating state to determine, without consideration of the Maryland presumption, the range of discipline this court would impose for the misconduct if this were an original action. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(4). In doing so we accept the factual findings and aggravating circumstances of the state of Maryland, as described in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moawad , 475 Md. 424, 257 A.3d 611 (2021), and apply our case law to that misconduct, see In re Guberman , 978 A.2d 200 (D.C. 2009).

Although we have limited the sanction of presumptive disbarment to cases involving reckless or intentional misappropriation and the conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude, we have also disbarred counsel in those cases where the underlying facts and aggravating circumstances require such a sanction including when we have determined that the attorney's intentional dishonesty rises to the level of flagrant dishonesty. See, e.g., In re Bleecker , 11 A.3d 1224 (D.C. 2011) (disbarring an attorney as reciprocal discipline where the state of Maryland disbarred respondent after it found that in filing a civil complaint he misrepresented the day of the injury to hide his failure to file a complaint within the statute of limitations and that his actions were detrimental to his client and wasted court time). Contrary to respondent's arguments, we have previously held that flagrant dishonesty does not require an associated misappropriation or that the dishonest statement be made either under oath or as part of a court proceeding. See, e.g., In re Bynum , 197 A.3d 1072, 1074 (D.C. 2018) (court accepted the Board's findings and conclusion that respondent's multiple violations rose to flagrant dishonesty absent a lack of an attempt to fraudulent obtain client or public funds, where the intentional dishonesty is...