Title: Attorney Grievance v. Singh

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Raj Sanjeet Singh 
Misc. Docket AG No. 6, September Term 2018  
 
 
Attorney Discipline – Diligence and Communication with Client – Conflict of Interest 
Settlement with Client – Attorney Trust Account – Suspension.  An attorney 
successfully represented an immigrant and his spouse (a United States citizen) in obtaining 
conditional permanent resident status for the immigrant, for a two-year period, based on 
their recent marriage.  The immigrant and his spouse later experienced marital difficulties.  
The attorney failed to communicate appropriately and to act diligently in advising the 
immigrant as to his options in removing the conditions on his permanent resident status 
before the expiration of the two-year period.  Given his prior representation of both 
spouses, the attorney had a conflict of interest when he undertook to advise the immigrant 
whether he could bring criminal charges against the spouse.  After the immigrant sent a 
complaint to Bar Counsel about a fee dispute with the attorney, the attorney refunded the 
legal fee to the client in return for a release without advising the client to seek independent 
advice concerning the release.  During Bar Counsel’s investigation of this matter, the 
attorney gave a misleading statement under oath about whether he usually complied with 
the rules requiring deposit of client funds in an attorney trust account.  A later review of 
his bank records revealed his non-compliance with those rules.  However, there was no 
evidence of misappropriation of client funds or other client harm.  Under these 
circumstances, a 60-day suspension is the appropriate sanction. 
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.7, 19-
301.8, 19-301.15, 19-308.1 & 19-308.4 (formerly Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 8.1 & 8.4); Maryland Rule 19-404 (formerly 
Maryland Rule 16-604). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No.  448654-V 
Argument:  February 28, 2019 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 6  
 
September Term, 2018 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
V. 
 
RAJ SANJEET SINGH 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
 
 
*Greene 
 
 
McDonald 
 
 
Watts 
 
 
Hotten 
 
 
Getty, 
 
 
Adkins, Sally D. (Senior Judge, 
 
 
Specially Assigned), 
 
 
 
 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by McDonald, J. 
Greene, Watts, and Hotten, JJ., dissent. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed:  July 17, 2019 
 
*Greene, J., now retired, participated in the 
hearing and conference of this case while an 
active member of this Court; after being recalled 
pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, Article 
IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the 
decision and adoption of this opinion. 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal 
Materials Act 
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 
 
 
 
 
 
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk 
2019-07-17 08:38-04:00
 
The phrase “no harm, no foul” derives from the idea that, if a foul committed in a 
basketball game does not affect the outcome, the referee should not call the foul.1  It denotes 
harmless error in a sports context.  The rules of professional conduct governing attorneys 
do not allow us to adopt that approach.  Many of those rules are prophylactic in nature.  We 
must call a foul when one is committed, although the severity of the harm – or a lack of 
harm – may affect the sanction.  
Respondent Raj Sanjeet Singh is a Maryland attorney who primarily practices 
immigration law from an office in Montgomery County.  In 2014, Mr. Singh successfully 
represented an immigrant and the immigrant’s spouse, who was a United States citizen, in 
obtaining conditional permanent resident status for the immigrant for a two-year period 
based on their recent marriage.  Mr. Singh advised them to return to him well before that 
status expired in order to remove the conditions and the time limit.   
The immigrant and the spouse later experienced marital difficulties.  Mr. Singh 
failed to respond promptly to the immigrant’s inquiries concerning his options as to 
permanent resident status.  When Mr. Singh acceded to the immigrant’s request in 2016 
that he research potential criminal charges against the spouse, Mr. Singh had a conflict of 
interest based on his prior representation of both spouses.  A fee dispute also ensued, and 
the immigrant filed a complaint with Bar Counsel.
                                              
1 The Proverbial Game: ‘The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs’ Uncovers the Origins 
of Sporting Terms (Yale Books Blog, June 8, 2012), https://perma.cc/5SUE-T5CT. 
 
2 
 
In response, Mr. Singh gave a refund to the immigrant and forwarded to Bar Counsel 
a release from the client that did not comply with the ethical rule governing attorney 
settlements with clients.  During the course of Bar Counsel’s investigation, Mr. Singh also 
made a misleading statement under oath concerning his general compliance with the rules 
requiring deposit of client funds in an attorney trust account. 
 
In the end, there was no evidence of misappropriation or any indication that client 
funds were used other than for their intended purpose.  The immigrant ultimately obtained 
unconditional permanent resident status, apparently using the strategy proposed by Mr. 
Singh.  While no one may have suffered harm from Mr. Singh’s violations of the ethical 
rules, those rules are designed to ensure that attorneys are conscientious in their 
representation of clients and do not take advantage of them.  Even in the absence of harm, 
we cannot ignore the foul.  Given the context of Mr. Singh’s otherwise unblemished career 
and successful representation of this client, the appropriate sanction for these violations is 
suspension for 60 days.   
I 
Background 
A. 
Procedural Context 
On May 24, 2018, the Attorney Grievance Commission (“Commission”), through 
Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Mr. Singh, 
alleging that he had violated numerous provisions of the rules of professional conduct.2  
                                              
2 During much of the period relevant to this case, the ethical rules governing 
attorneys were entitled the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 
3 
 
These included alleged violations of Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.2 (scope of 
representation); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rule 1.4 (communication); Rule 1.5 (reasonableness 
of fees); Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest – generally); Rule 1.8 (conflict of interest – specific 
rules); Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property); Rule 8.1 (false 
statement in connection with a disciplinary matter); Rule 8.4 (misconduct); as well as 
violations of Maryland Rules 19-404 (trust account – deposits) and 19-407 (trust account 
recordkeeping).  Bar Counsel later withdrew the charges pertaining to the reasonableness 
of fees and trust account recordkeeping. 
 
Pursuant to Rule 19-722(a), we designated Judge Kevin G. Hessler of the Circuit 
Court for Montgomery County to conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violations and 
to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Following a hearing in October 2018, 
the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Singh had violated Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4, Rule 1.7, Rule 
1.8, Rule 1.15(a) & (c), Rule 8.1, Rule 8.4(a), (c), & (d), and Maryland Rule 19-404.  The 
hearing judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence of violations of Rule 1.1, Rule 
1.2, and Rule 1.9.   
                                              
and were codified in an appendix to Maryland Rule 16-812.  Effective July 1, 2016, the 
MLRPC were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 
(“MARPC”) and recodified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules with the term “attorney” 
substituted for the term “lawyer.”  See Maryland Rules 19-300.1 et seq.  For simplicity, in 
this opinion, we shall use the shorter designations of the MLRPC – e.g., “Rule 8.4” rather 
than “Maryland Rule 19-308.4.”  As part of the same recodification, certain rules relating 
to attorney trust accounts that appeared in Title 16 of the Maryland Rules were transferred 
to Title 19.  We shall use the current codification of those rules in this opinion. 
 
4 
 
 
Bar Counsel did not except to the hearing judge’s findings or conclusions other than 
in minor respects.3  Mr. Singh filed a number of exceptions.  In particular, Mr. Singh took 
issue with the hearing judge’s conclusions concerning the alleged violations of Rule 1.3, 
Rule 1.4, Rule 1.7, Rule 1.8, Rule 8.1, and Rule 8.4.  Mr. Singh conceded, as he had at the 
hearing, that he had violated Rule 1.15 concerning safekeeping of client funds and 
Maryland Rule 19-404 concerning required deposits in his attorney trust account. 
B. 
Facts 
 
When no exception is made to a hearing judge’s finding of fact, we accept it as 
established.  Maryland Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A).  When a party excepts to a finding, we must 
determine whether the finding is established by the requisite standard of proof – in the case 
of an allegation of misconduct, clear and convincing evidence.  Maryland Rules 19-
741(b)(2)(B), 19-727(c).  We summarize below the hearing judge’s findings and other 
undisputed matters in the record.  We address any exceptions in relation to the findings to 
which they pertain. 
 
 
                                              
3 Bar Counsel noted certain typographical errors or discrepancies in the hearing 
judge’s conclusions of law relating to Rules 1.4 and 1.7.  Bar Counsel also observed that 
the finding of a violation of Rule 8.1(a) (false statement in connection with a disciplinary 
matter) could not be based on testimony that Mr. Singh gave at the hearing of this matter 
as that conduct was not the basis of the charges in the petition and, accordingly, Mr. Singh 
had not received the requisite notice to defend against such a charge.  See In re Ruffalo, 
390 U.S. 544, 551 (1968); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patton, 432 Md. 359, 378 
(2013).  Bar Counsel further observed, however, that any such false statements could be 
considered aggravating circumstances for purposes of a sanction.  There appears to be no 
dispute as to these exceptions, at least one of which is to Ms. Singh’s benefit.  Accordingly, 
we sustain those exceptions and have incorporated them in this opinion.  
5 
 
Mr. Singh’s Credentials and Practice 
Mr. Singh has been a member of the Maryland Bar since 1998.  He graduated from 
the University of Maryland with a degree in accounting and earned his law degree from 
the University of Richmond Law School.  He initially worked at PriceWaterhouseCoopers 
before starting his own law firm in Montgomery County in 2000.  As a solo practitioner, 
he has focused his practice primarily on immigration law, although he has also worked on 
family law matters and business transactions.  His immigration practice consists of family 
immigration, asylum applications, and deportation defense matters.  During the period 
relevant to this case, he employed a legal assistant, Linda Villanueva, who is fluent in 
Spanish as well as English.  
 
Mr. A – a Client with an Immigration Issue 
 
This case grew out of Mr. Singh’s representation of an individual who we shall refer 
to as Mr. A,4 an immigrant from Brazil.  Mr. A was born in Americana, Brazil, in 1984 and 
came to the United States in January 2007 on a J-1 cultural exchange visa.  Since coming 
to the United States, Mr. A has held a variety of jobs at fast food restaurants, pizzerias, and 
delivery and ride hailing services.  
Mr. A speaks Portuguese, Spanish, and some English, although he is not fully 
comfortable in English.  He testified through a translator at the hearing of this case, 
                                              
4 Because the underlying immigration matter involved relief based on allegations of 
domestic violence, federal law imposes certain confidentiality obligations on federal 
officials.  See 8 U.S.C. §1367.  Consistent with the intent of that statute, in this opinion we 
will refer to Mr. Singh’s client and his spouse by initials instead of their names.  
6 
 
although he was able to discuss exhibits that were in English – some written by Mr. A 
himself.  At Mr. Singh’s office, Ms. Villanueva sometimes functioned as a translator, 
speaking with Mr. A in Spanish, and then repeating the substance in English for Mr. Singh.   
 
On March 14, 2014, Mr. A married Mr. J, a citizen of the United States whom he 
had met in 2010 and who lived in Alexandria, Virginia.  At the time of the marriage, Mr. 
A’s visa was no longer valid.  To address Mr. A’s immigration status, Mr. A and Mr. J 
sought Mr. Singh’s assistance.   
 
Applying for and Obtaining a Conditional Green Card for Mr. A 
 
On April 1, 2014, Mr. A met with Mr. Singh at his office.  Mr. Singh agreed to 
represent Mr. A and his spouse in the effort to obtain permanent resident status for Mr. A, 
and the accompanying documentation, commonly known as a “green card.”5  Mr. Singh 
obtained relevant information from Mr. A and Mr. J in order to file an I-130 petition 
(“Petition for Alien Relative”) by Mr. J, an I-485 form (“Application to Register Permanent 
Residence”) by Mr. A, and related forms with the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (“USCIS”).6 
                                              
5 There was some dispute at the hearing as to whether the 2014 agreement provided 
for Mr. Singh to assist Mr. A in obtaining citizenship (Mr. A’s version) or just a green card 
(Mr. Singh’s version).  Mr. Singh testified that Mr. A signed a retainer agreement for this 
representation, but he was unable to locate the agreement in his records.  The hearing judge 
found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Singh had agreed to do 
more than assist with the application for a green card. 
6 The submission also included two G-28 forms (notifying the agency of Mr. Singh’s 
representation of Mr. A and Mr. J respectively); an I-864 affidavit (by Mr. J documenting 
his financial ability to support Mr. A); an I-765 form (requesting employment authorization 
for Mr. A); an I-131 form (seeking authorization for Mr. A to return to the United States 
7 
 
On May 15, 2014, Mr. Singh met with both Mr. A and Mr. J to ensure that the 
documents were complete and accurate.  That same day, he mailed to USCIS the relevant 
immigration forms, as well as tax transcripts, birth certificates, Mr. A’s passport and 
medical examination results, and their marriage license.  In connection with that filing, Mr. 
Singh entered his appearance as attorney on behalf of both spouses.  Mr. Singh followed 
up with additional documentation requested by USCIS.  In August 2014, USCIS approved 
Mr. A’s authorization for employment and also advised him that he and Mr. J had been 
scheduled for an interview on October 2, 2014.   
In September 2014, Mr. A and Mr. J met with Mr. Singh in his office to prepare for 
their USCIS interview.  Mr. Singh advised them as to the types of questions they would be 
asked during the interview and they reviewed their answers with him.  Mr. Singh did not 
accompany them to the interview.   
Shortly after the USCIS interview on October 2, 2014, Mr. A received a conditional 
green card with an expiration date two years hence – October 2, 2016.  Mr. A’s permanent 
resident status was conditional because the marriage was less than two years old at the time 
of application.  USCIS advised Mr. A to apply for removal of the conditions several months 
before his conditional green card would expire.  Mr. Singh told Mr. A and Mr. J to contact 
him three to six months before the expiration date for the purpose of preparing an I-751 
form (“Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence”).  
                                              
after foreign travel while his application was pending); and a G-325 form (containing 
biographical information for both spouses).   
8 
 
 
As we shall see, Mr. A eventually was able to remove the conditions from his green 
card, but neither the marriage nor the attorney-client relationship lasted to that time. 
 
The Breakdown of Mr. A’s Marriage  
 
In 2015, approximately one year into the marriage, Mr. A and Mr. J began to 
experience marital problems.  According to Mr. A, he believed that he was being abused 
by Mr. J.7  At some point during that year, Mr. A contacted Mr. Singh to ask how a 
separation or divorce would affect his ability to remove the conditions on his green card.   
During the fall of 2015, Mr. Singh discussed with Mr. A the possibility that Mr. A 
could file an I-751 petition by himself without Mr. J’s cooperation, based on a law that 
authorizes the filing of a solo petition in circumstances of domestic abuse.8  To succeed on 
such a petition, Mr. A would have to establish that the marriage had been contracted in 
                                              
7 According to copies of emails, texts, and social media entries that Mr. A sent to 
Mr. Singh, Mr. A was bothered by the deteriorating hygiene and cleanliness of Mr. J, and 
by the fact that he paid rent to Mr. J after moving in with him.  Mr. J in turn was frustrated 
that Mr. A tended to work at night and also became suspicious of some of Mr. A’s activities.  
According to documents sent by Mr. A, Mr. J created a fake social media profile, with Mr. 
A’s name and photo, in which Mr. A supposedly confessed to infidelity.  Mr. A also said 
that Mr. J had communicated with Mr. A’s Brazilian relatives on false pretenses during 
which, contrary to Mr. A’s wishes, he disclosed Mr. A’s sexual orientation.  In those 
communications, Mr. J complained about Mr. A not wearing his wedding band, Mr. A 
failing to pay his fair share for their Hawaii honeymoon, and the absence of intimate 
relations.  According to Ms. Villanueva, Mr. Singh’s legal assistant, Mr. A called Mr. 
Singh’s office frequently during 2015 and 2016 and discussed with her many of the details 
of these issues. 
8 Linda Dominguez, an expert in immigration law who was called by Mr. Singh as 
a witness at the hearing, testified that the federal Violence Against Women Act allows for 
an I-751 petition to be filed without the participation or knowledge of the citizen spouse in 
those circumstances.   
9 
 
good faith, that the spouses resided together for a period of time, and that the immigrant 
spouse was subject to battery or extreme cruelty by the citizen spouse.  See 8 U.S.C. 
§1154(a)(1)(A)(iii).  Mr. Singh advised Mr. A on the type of evidence and documentation 
that he would need for such a petition.  He also told Mr. A to contact the police if he felt 
afraid.  
 
In December 2015, Mr. A moved out of Mr. J’s home in Virginia and advised Mr. 
Singh that he had done so.  Mr. Singh told Mr. A to consult with a Virginia attorney 
concerning his domestic relations issues.  Mr. A responded that he did not know or trust 
anyone in Virginia and insisted on continuing to consult with Mr. Singh.  From the time he 
left Mr. J’s home in December 2015 through early March 2016, Mr. A sent Mr. Singh more 
than 100 pages of emails, texts, and social media entries relating to the alleged abuse by 
Mr. J.  As of that time, Mr. A had not formally retained Mr. Singh (or paid him) to represent 
Mr. A with respect to removing the conditions on his green card. 
 
The Breakdown of the Attorney-Client Relationship 
 
Sometime during the spring of 2016, Mr. A met with Mr. Singh at his office.9  At 
the meeting Mr. A paid Mr. Singh $900 for legal services in the form of a series of post-
dated checks.10  These were the first payments Mr. Singh had received from Mr. A since 
                                              
9 There appears to be some dispute about the exact date of this meeting.  Mr. Singh 
testified that it occurred during April, Bar Counsel placed it on May 31, and the hearing 
judge apparently split the difference, finding that it likely occurred on May 1, as 
represented in a fee dispute complaint later filed by Mr. A with the Maryland State Bar 
Association.   
10 There were four checks dated as of the last day of May, June, July, and August 
2016, respectively.  According to Ms. Villanueva, the firm would accept multiple post-
10 
 
2014.  Both Mr. Singh and Ms. Villanueva testified that there was an executed retainer 
agreement in connection with the $900 payment but they had not been able to locate it.  
Mr. A testified that no retainer agreement was executed at that meeting.  There is also a 
dispute as to what services were to be covered by the $900 payment.  
Mr. Singh testified that Mr. A paid him $900 to review the voluminous documents 
Mr. A sent concerning the alleged abuse, to do research as to Mr. A’s immigration options, 
and to investigate the possibility of pursuing criminal cyberstalking charges against Mr. J 
in Virginia for certain online conduct.  Mr. Singh testified that although he and Mr. A 
discussed the possibility of Mr. A eventually filing a solo I-751 petition and the importance 
of Mr. A documenting Mr. J’s abusive behavior for that purpose, he had not agreed to 
represent Mr. A in such a petition and the $900 payment was not for that purpose.11  
 
According to Mr. A, Mr. Singh agreed to begin working on his solo I-751 petition 
at the spring 2016 meeting and the $900 payment was for that purpose.  Mr. A thought that 
the cyberstalking research was a part of the work for the petition.   
In his discussion of his conclusions of law, the hearing judge found that there was 
not clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Singh was retained in the spring of 2016 to do 
                                              
dated signed checks from clients as a sort of installment payment plan, under which the 
firm periodically completed and deposited a check.  She said that, before depositing a 
check, the firm would always contact the client to confirm the payment.   
11 In that regard, Mr. Singh stated that he would have charged $2,500 to $2,700 to 
represent Mr. A on a solo petition, in addition to approximately $600 for the required filing 
fees.  The hearing judge noted, however, that the $900 payment could be viewed as 
consistent with Mr. Singh’s practice of requiring clients to pay one-third of his fee up front 
before he would begin work on a matter.   
11 
 
more than research possible criminal charges against Mr. J and provide advice on Mr. A’s 
options for removing the conditions on his green card.  
Mr. Singh did not meet again with Mr. A until September 14, 2016.  In the interim, 
Mr. A sent more documentation to Mr. Singh and called Mr. Singh’s office numerous 
times.  According to Mr. A, Mr. Singh’s office was largely non-responsive.  Mr. Singh 
testified that he spoke with Mr. A on two or more occasions and had advised him of the 
results of his cyberstalking research.  According to Ms. Villanueva, she also spent 
significant time speaking with Mr. A on the phone.  The hearing judge noted that, according 
to Mr. Singh, Mr. A was considering whether to reconcile with Mr. J and did not decide to 
proceed with the solo I-751 petition based on domestic abuse until Mr. A received an email 
from Mr. J in August 2016 stating that Mr. J was planning to be remarried to someone else.  
However, in his discussion of his conclusions of law, the hearing judge credited Mr. A’s 
testimony that he was not considering reconciliation with Mr. J after the spring 2016 
meeting and had wished to pursue a solo I-751 petition from at least that time.   
Mr. A met with Mr. Singh on September 14, 2016 to discuss a solo I-751 petition.  
At that meeting, Mr. A signed a consultation agreement and paid Mr. Singh a fee of $150 
– the amount required under that agreement for a one-hour consultation.  According to Mr. 
Singh, he told Mr. A at that meeting that he would charge Mr. A $2,700 to represent him 
in connection with the solo I-751 petition.  Mr. Singh declined Mr. A’s request that the 
$900 previously paid by Mr. A be applied against the $2,700 fee.  Mr. A later testified at 
the hearing that he did not understand the difference between a retainer fee and a 
12 
 
consultation fee and believed that the $150 payment was for work on the solo I-751 
petition.   
In connection with the solo I-751 petition, Mr. Singh suggested that Mr. A see a 
psychologist for an evaluation concerning the alleged abuse and that Mr. A prepare a 
written summary of the abuse for that purpose.12  Mr. A completed the summary on the day 
of their meeting and forwarded it to Mr. Singh, who found the rambling narrative difficult 
to follow and enlisted Ms. Villanueva to assist Mr. A in revising it.  Later, Mr. Singh 
reviewed and edited the final version and forwarded it to the psychologist to whom he had 
referred Mr. A.  On September 22, 2016, Mr. A met with the psychologist.  Mr. A paid the 
psychologist $1,500 for the evaluation plus $300 to expedite the report of the evaluation, 
in light of the impending October 2 expiration of his conditional green card.   
In the psychologist’s evaluation report, issued a few days after meeting with Mr. A, 
the psychologist found that while “[Mr. A] does not fully meet criterion A13 for a DSM-5 
diagnosis of [post-traumatic stress disorder] … his presentation and constellation of 
symptoms meet the requirements for all other criteria, which clearly indicate that he has 
experienced significant trauma based on emotional cruelty.”  
                                              
12 Mr. Singh and Mr. A disagreed in their testimony concerning the timing of this 
suggestion.  Mr. Singh testified that he made the suggestion prior to September 2016, but 
that Mr. A did not act on it until after the September meeting.  Mr. A claims that he first 
learned of that suggestion at the September meeting.  
13 According to the report, “criterion A” involves “exposure to actual or threatened 
death, serious injury or sexual violence” in certain listed ways. 
13 
 
Mr. Singh and Mr. A spoke by telephone after the psychologist issued the evaluation 
report and discussed the fee for Mr. Singh to complete I-751 petition filing process.  Mr. 
A again requested that his previous $900 payment be applied to the cost of the I-751 
petition filing.  Mr. Singh again declined to apply the $900 – which he said had been 
expended on the Virginia cyberstalking research – towards the $2,700 legal fee or $600 
filing fees.   
No petition was filed by the time Mr. A’s conditional green card expired on October 
2, 2016.  Mr. Singh admitted at the hearing that Mr. A lost his work authorization as of that 
date, that he could have been placed in deportation proceedings, and that he would have 
been unable to return to this country if he had traveled outside the United States.  On the 
other hand, both Mr. A and Mr. Singh testified that Mr. Singh had advised Mr. A that it 
was more important to send in a complete application with all the relevant materials than 
to simply meet the October 2, 2016 deadline.  An immigration law expert called as a 
witness by Mr. Singh agreed that filing a complete package with the I-751 petition was of 
primary importance.  She stated that the I-751 petition could still be filed after expiration 
of the conditional green card, that she had never seen a petition denied for failing to be 
filed before that date, and that the most significant practical consequence of missing the 
deadline was the limitation on travel outside the country.  
Mr. Singh and Mr. A had arranged to meet again on October 6, 2016.  However, on 
that morning, Mr. A texted Mr. Singh, “Hi, Raj.  This is [Mr. A].  I can’t make it today.  I 
have to reschedule to stop by office.  Probably next week I can stop by.  Thanks.”  A week 
later, Mr. Singh sent a letter to Mr. A stating that he was closing Mr. A’s file and 
14 
 
terminating his representation because “much of my advice has been ignored, and you have 
not done the necessary things in order to advance the process in a timely manner.”  The 
letter also referred to “an apparent miscommunication from you towards our office team 
whereby you have claimed that fees you paid for research of potential criminal charges 
against your spouse, should have been applied to . . . an application to remove conditions 
on your conditional resident status.”  Mr. Singh also wrote that he had heard from the 
psychologist that Mr. A was working with other counsel and offered to send his file to 
successor counsel.   
That same day, Mr. A responded in an email to Ms. Villanueva that “you charge me 
900 dollars only to read my spouse message and that’s it.”  He also wrote that Mr. Singh 
“didn’t even filed my petition for 90 days before my visa expires, which you supposedly 
should be done a long time ago, and now my visa is expired and now I can’t work nowhere 
because you late to file my petition.”  At the end of his email, Mr. A again requested a 
refund of his $900 payment.  In another email a few days later, Mr. A reiterated his request 
for a refund and asked for the return of his documents.  Mr. A received no immediate 
response to that email.   
A Complaint to Bar Counsel, a Refund, and a Release 
On November 17, 2016, Mr. A filed a fee dispute complaint with the Maryland State 
Bar Association, which apparently was forwarded to Bar Counsel.  In that complaint, Mr. 
A asserted that Mr. Singh had misled him as to the purpose of the $900 payment and that 
Mr. Singh had not diligently pursued a solo I-751 petition on Mr. A’s behalf.  On December 
2, 2016, Bar Counsel forwarded the complaint to Mr. Singh with a request that he respond 
15 
 
within 15 days.  Upon receiving that communication, Mr. Singh directed Ms. Villanueva 
to refund Mr. A the $900 that Mr. A had requested.14  She prepared a check in that amount, 
which Mr. Singh signed.  
Ms. Villanueva contacted Mr. A, who came to the firm’s office to pick up his $900 
check on December 12, 2016.  At that time, Ms. Villanueva had Mr. A sign a release, which 
read as follows: 
I, [Mr. A] in return for $900 tendered on this 12th day of December 
2016, hereby waive and release Attorney Raj S. Singh and his law 
office from any further professional responsibility or liability in the 
matter of my application to remove conditions on my residency in the 
United States. 
 
I also agree to withdraw any claims or grievances that are pending and 
agree to release him from any liability in this regard. 
  
Mr. A signed the release, which was notarized by Ms. Villanueva, and received the check.    
Two days later, in a timely response to Bar Counsel’s letter that had requested a 
reaction to Mr. A’s complaint, Mr. Singh sent a copy of the release to Bar Counsel.  In a 
cover letter, he wrote that “this matter has been resolved between the parties” and 
summarized briefly his view of the history and purpose of the $900 payment.   
There was some dispute in the testimony at the hearing as to how Mr. A came to 
execute the release.  Mr. A testified that the release had already been prepared when he 
arrived at Mr. Singh’s office and that Ms. Villanueva “said the check was available, but I 
                                              
14 According to Mr. Singh, he decided to make the refund because he could not 
locate the retainer agreement that he believed documented the purpose of the $900 
payment.   
16 
 
had to sign a contract before I get the check.”  He testified that, after signing the release 
and receiving the check, he told Ms. Villanueva he wanted to withdraw the complaint 
against Mr. Singh “because I thought that was the best way to resolve this.”   
Ms. Villanueva and Mr. Singh presented a slightly different narrative at the hearing.  
Ms. Villanueva testified that, after Mr. A expressed his regret over filing the complaint 
against Mr. Singh, she decided to document his change of heart and drafted the release.  
Both Ms. Villanueva and Mr. Singh testified that Mr. Singh was not aware of the release 
before it was signed.   
This testimony appeared to be somewhat at odds with a letter Mr. Singh’s then-
counsel had sent to Bar Counsel in March 2017 concerning Mr. A’s complaint.  In that 
letter, counsel stated: 
When he returned the fee, Mr. Singh had [Mr. A] sign a Release.  At 
that time, he was not aware of the dictates of [Rule] 1.8(h)(2), and 
therefore did not advise [Mr. A] in writing of his right and the 
desirability of seeking independent counsel.  During the conversation 
with [Mr. A] in which Mr. Singh advised that he would return the fee, 
Mr. Singh got the impression that [Mr. A] was in contact with other 
counsel and therefore he did not specifically advise him to seek 
independent counsel. 
 
Counsel stated further that Mr. Singh would not enforce the release and considered it to be 
void.  Mr. Singh had also signed his counsel’s letter, certifying that the events it recounted 
were “true and correct.”  Later, on cross-examination at the hearing, Mr. Singh explained 
that he had signed the March 2017 letter because “I was advised by my then-attorney that 
I had to take responsibility for the actions of my staff.  They were my agents.”  
17 
 
The hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that it was Mr. Singh’s 
idea to have Mr. A execute a release.15  In any event, there is no dispute that Mr. Singh 
made use of the release shortly after it was executed in an effort to truncate Bar Counsel’s 
investigation of Mr. A’s complaint.  Critically, there is no dispute that Mr. Singh failed to 
advise Mr. A, then or later, in writing or orally, that it was advisable for him to seek 
independent legal counsel in connection with a release of liability.   
Required Deposits to Trust Account 
 
Mr. Singh’s clients were at times required to advance funds for payment of filing 
fees – client funds that should be held in an attorney trust account until paid for that 
purpose.  In a May 2017 investigative deposition of Mr. Singh taken by Bar Counsel in 
connection with Mr. A’s complaint, Mr. Singh admitted that he had paid fees to USCIS for 
filings on behalf of Mr. A out of his operating account.  Mr. Singh explained that he did 
not typically write checks drawn on his attorney trust account, but instead transferred funds 
from the trust account to his operating account before writing a check on the operating 
account to pay filing fees.   
To follow up on Mr. Singh’s statement, Bar Counsel issued a subpoena for records 
of Mr. Singh’s bank accounts for a three-year period (April 2014 – May 2017).  An 
investigator for Bar Counsel reviewed those records and found that Mr. Singh had 
                                              
15 Mr. Singh excepted to this conclusion.  We overrule that exception.  The hearing 
judge is entitled to significant deference in assessing the credibility of witnesses and 
“picking and choosing” among the evidence presented and the inferences to be drawn from 
that evidence.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 627 (2013). 
18 
 
deposited client money for filing fees directly into his operating account in connection with 
25 client matters; she found only five matters in which such funds were first deposited in 
the trust account and then transferred to the operating account for payment of filing fees.16   
In his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Singh admitted that his deposition statement 
concerning his “usual” practice was incorrect, and that he had failed to comply with the 
rules concerning required deposits in attorney trust accounts.  He stated that he had hired a 
forensic accountant to identify and clean up any further issues with client funds that had 
not been placed in a trust account, and that he now always places client funds intended for 
filing fees in a trust account.  No evidence was presented that any of Mr. Singh’s clients 
had been harmed by his failure to comply with the rules governing trust accounts and client 
funds.  
Epilogue 
 
Mr. A retained successor counsel to pursue his solo I-751 petition and the removal 
of conditions from his green card and was successful in doing so, based on the same 
approach Mr. Singh had recommended and begun to execute.   
II 
Discussion 
 
We review a hearing judge’s conclusions of law de novo.  Maryland Rule 19-
741(b)(1).  We consider any exceptions as part of that review.     
                                              
16 Even in those instances, there was some delay in the payment of the funds for the 
filing fees. 
19 
 
The hearing judge did not find clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Singh 
violated Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.2 (scope of representation), or Rule 1.9 (duties to 
former clients).  Although we are not precluded from reaching different conclusions from 
those of the hearing judge, Bar Counsel has not excepted to the hearing judge’s conclusions 
concerning these alleged violations and we will not further address them.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Allenbaugh, 450 Md. 250, 255 n.4 (2016).   
 
We consider the remaining violations as falling into four categories:  (1) violations 
that relate generally to the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Singh and Mr. A during 
May through September 2016; (2) a conflict of interest that may have limited Mr. Singh’s 
research into potential criminal charges against Mr. J in 2016 as a result of his prior joint 
representation of Mr. A and Mr. J in 2014; (3) a violation arising from the release executed 
by Mr. A on December 12, 2016, in exchange for the $900 refund; and (4) violations related 
to Mr. Singh’s failure to comply, during the period 2014 through 2017, with the rules 
requiring deposit of client funds in a trust account.17 
A. 
Violations Relating to 2016 Attorney-Client Relationship with Mr. A 
Rule 1.3 (Diligence)  
 
Rule 1.3 states that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.”   
                                              
17 Rule 8.4(a) states that it is professional misconduct to violate any of the ethical 
rules.  Our conclusion that Mr. Singh violated some of the rules as alleged necessarily 
triggers the conclusion that he violated that rule as well.  Further analysis with respect to 
Rule 8.4(a) is unnecessary. 
20 
 
 
There is no contention that Mr. Singh violated this rule with respect to his 
representation of Mr. A and Mr. J in 2014 in the filing of the I-130 petition and the effort 
to obtain a conditional green card for Mr. A.  Nor is there any contention that he violated 
this rule when, beginning in September 2016, he initiated the process for pursuing a solo 
I-751 petition on Mr. A’s behalf to remove the conditions on his green card.  Rather, the 
question is whether Mr. Singh was sufficiently diligent in his representation of Mr. A in 
the interim – specifically, during the period between May 2016 and September 2016. 
 
As the hearing judge found, after the success in obtaining a conditional green card 
for Mr. A, Mr. Singh told Mr. A and Mr. J to contact him three to six months before the 
green card expired in October 2016 – i.e., sometime between early April and early July 
2016 – so that they could begin the process of removing the conditions.  In fact, Mr. A 
contacted Mr. Singh much earlier, during 2015, concerning his troubled marital 
relationship.  But Mr. A and Mr. Singh did not actually meet again, and Mr. A did not 
retain Mr. Singh for additional legal services, until the spring of 2016. 
The hearing judge found that, in May 2016, Mr. Singh agreed to conduct some 
research as to potential criminal charges against Mr. J and to advise Mr. A as to his options 
in removing the conditions from his green card.  The hearing judge found that Mr. Singh 
did not present Mr. A with the results of his research and the option to pursue a solo I-751 
petition until their subsequent meeting in September 2016.  That was well after the time 
Mr. Singh had originally advised that they should start the process for removing the 
conditions from Mr. A’s green card and only a few weeks before its expiration.  The hearing 
judge concluded that Mr. Singh did not act with reasonable diligence in advising Mr. A 
21 
 
concerning his options before the expiration of the green card and therefore violated Rule 
1.3. 
Mr. Singh excepts to this conclusion.  He argues that the expiration date of Mr. A’s 
green card was only a soft deadline for filing an I-751 petition, citing his expert’s testimony 
that it is more important to file a complete I-751 petition than a “timely” one.  He also 
points to the uncompensated time he and Ms. Villanueva spent responding to the many 
communications that his office received from Mr. A during 2015 and 2016.  He contends 
that Mr. A’s failure to follow through after their September 2016 meeting was primarily 
responsible for any delay in removing the conditions from his green card.  Finally, he states 
that Mr. A suffered no actual prejudice, as he ultimately was able to remove the conditions 
on his green card, based in part on the work and advice of Mr. Singh.   
While many of Mr. Singh’s contentions appear to be true, they do not negate the 
finding of a violation of Rule 1.3.  For example, while it is true that Mr. A could (and in 
fact did) succeed in removing conditions on his green card even though the I-751 petition 
was filed after the expiration of the green card, it is also true, as Mr. Singh’s own expert 
testified, that Mr. A could have faced potentially significant consequences from the 
expiration of his green card on October 2, 2016.18  Mr. Singh himself recognized the 
urgency of the situation when he expedited the psychological evaluation of Mr. A in 
September 2016.  The fact that there was ultimately a happy ending for Mr. A does not 
                                              
18 The expiration of the green card resulted in the loss of Mr. A’s work authorization, 
as well as his authorization to return to the United States after foreign travel, and rendered 
him subject to deportation proceedings. 
22 
 
mean that Mr. Singh acted diligently.  To the extent that some of Mr. Singh’s contentions 
are based on the premise that his version of events should be preferred to that of Mr. A, we 
cannot say that the hearing judge was clearly erroneous in his credibility determinations. 
Unlike many cases we see involving violations of Rule 1.3, this one does not involve 
wholesale neglect of a client for a lengthy period of time or outright avoidance of the 
attorney’s responsibilities to the client.  But there does not appear to be any reason in the 
record why Mr. Singh, after being retained by Mr. A in early May 2016 to explore Mr. A’s 
legal options, could not have completed any necessary research and provided Mr. A with 
those options sooner than September 14, 2016, given the impending expiration of his green 
card.  We thus agree with the hearing judge that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.3 during that 
period of 2016 and overrule his exception. 
Rule 1.4 (Communication) 
Rule 1.4 provides, in pertinent part: 
(a) A lawyer shall: 
 
* 
* * 
 
     (2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the     
matter; 
 
     (3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 
 
* 
* * 
 
 (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably 
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding the representation. 
 
23 
 
 
Again, there appears to be no contention that Mr. Singh violated this rule in his 
initial representation of Mr. A and Mr. J during 2014 or in his efforts to pursue a solo I-
751 petition after his September 2016 meeting with Mr. A.  The focus of this charge is the 
period between May 2016, after Mr. A retained Mr. Singh to explore his options, and 
September 2016, when they met to discuss those options.  
The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.4(a)(2) & (a)(3) 
because, during that period, Mr. Singh failed to keep Mr. A reasonably informed about the 
status of his efforts to explore Mr. A’s legal options based on alleged abuse and failed to 
comply with Mr. A’s reasonable requests for information.19  The hearing judge also 
concluded that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.4(b) in that he failed to explain adequately to Mr. 
A the limited nature of the legal work he had agreed to undertake at their May 2016 meeting 
– i.e., exploring potential criminal charges and options for Mr. A, as opposed to 
representing him on a solo I-751 petition.  The hearing judge faulted Mr. Singh for 
exacerbating Mr. A’s confusion on that subject.  
Mr. Singh excepts to these conclusions.  He reprises all the communications that 
occurred between Mr. A and Mr. Singh during 2014 through early 2016, as well as those 
between Mr. A and Ms. Villanueva, and suggests that they undermine any conclusion that 
Mr. Singh failed to communicate adequately with this client.  Mr. Singh asserts that he 
                                              
19 As noted by Bar Counsel in its exceptions, in stating this conclusion, the hearing 
judge’s opinion cites “Rule 1.4(b) and (c),” which appears to be a typographical error, as 
the opinion actually paraphrases Rule 1.4(a)(2) and (a)(3) and elsewhere refers to the latter 
sections of the rule. 
24 
 
advised Mr. A by phone as to the results of his cyberstalking research and that any delay 
on proceeding with advice on the I-751 petition was occasioned by Mr. A’s indecision 
about whether to reconcile with Mr. J or to pursue a solo petition.  Mr. Singh characterizes 
the hearing judge’s perspective on this attorney-client relationship as “myopic.”  
 
Much of Mr. Singh’s exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion is rooted in his 
disagreement with the hearing judge’s decision to credit Mr. A’s version of events during 
this period instead of that of Mr. Singh and his legal assistant.  As is usually the case, we 
rely on the fact findings and credibility determinations of the hearing judge.  We have no 
reason to regard them as clearly erroneous based on our review of the record.  We also note 
that, in his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Singh admitted that he avoided responding to Mr. 
A’s telephone calls and that, when Mr. A did get through on the phone, he usually ended 
up speaking with Ms. Villanueva.   
A review of the numerous emails and texts that Mr. A provided to Mr. Singh’s firm 
suggests that he may have been a “needy” client who was demanding attention beyond 
what he had agreed to pay for.  On the other hand, as the hearing judge observed, while 
Mr. Singh “was not required to accept every call from the client at all hours of day and 
night,” it was his duty to convey his advice “in prompt and timely fashion.”  Moreover, 
while Mr. Singh was careful to recite his position in writing when he “fired” this client in 
October 2016, there is scant documentation of any advice or communications by Mr. Singh 
to Mr. A during preceding months after he had been retained by Mr. A the second time.  
We overrule Mr. Singh’s exception. 
 
 
25 
 
Rule 8.4(d) (Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice) 
The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Singh’s failure to preserve the retainer letters 
that he claimed Mr. A had executed was “prejudicial to the administration of justice” – a 
violation of Rule 8.4(d).  The hearing judge particularly focused on the retainer letter 
allegedly executed by Mr. A in May 2016 that presumably would have clarified the scope 
of representation that Mr. Singh had undertaken at that time and the purpose of Mr. A’s 
$900 payment – a matter of dispute at the hearing.  The hearing judge observed that the 
retainer letter would have been critical evidence of some of the alleged violations, or of 
Mr. Singh’s defenses to those allegations.  
 
Mr. Singh excepted to the conclusion that he violated Rule 8.4(d), arguing his failure 
to locate the retainer letter was accidental, not intentional. 
 
We agree that Mr. Singh should have kept his retainer agreements – for his own 
sake.  His failure to locate them, provide them to Bar Counsel, and present them at the 
hearing operated to his detriment.  The hearing judge expressed some skepticism as to their 
absence from Mr. Singh’s client file, which clearly affected the hearing judge’s decision to 
credit the testimony of Mr. A over that of Mr. Singh in certain respects.  It was appropriate 
for the hearing judge to do so.  However, we decline to convert the amorphous catchall 
language of Rule 8.4(d) into a retroactive document retention requirement.  We sustain Mr. 
Singh’s exception.  
B. 
Conflict of Interest Arising from Prior Representation of Mr. J 
Rule 1.7 prohibits an attorney from representing a client if the representation 
involves a conflict of interest.  In pertinent part, Rule 1.7(a)(2) states that there is a conflict 
26 
 
of interest if “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will 
be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a 
third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”  (emphasis added).  In the face of such 
a conflict, the attorney may proceed with the representation if four specified conditions are 
met, including that “each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.”  
Rule 1.7(b)(4). 
Mr. Singh had represented both Mr. A and Mr. J in 2014 when he made the various 
filings with USCIS on their behalf to apply for permanent resident status for Mr. A and 
prepared both of them for their interview with that agency.  The hearing judge concluded 
that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) in 2016 when he undertook representation of Mr. A 
alone, which involved documenting and seeking relief based on alleged malfeasance by 
Mr. J.20  The hearing judge noted that, on Mr. A’s behalf, Mr. Singh conducted research 
and provided advice to Mr. A about pursuing a criminal prosecution of Mr. J.  The hearing 
judge reasoned that Mr. Singh was under a continuing obligation not to take action adverse 
to Mr. J, a former client.    
Mr. Singh excepts to this conclusion.  He asserts that nothing about his 
representation of Mr. J in 2014 would have limited his representation of Mr. A in 2016.  
He notes that Mr. J, as the sponsoring spouse in the 2014 filings, was obligated to provide 
                                              
20 The hearing judge also found that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.7(a)(1), which 
generally provides that it is a conflict of interest if “the representation of one client will be 
directly adverse to another client.”  Mr. Singh excepted to this conclusion on its merits and 
Bar Counsel, in its own exceptions, disclaimed that it had charged or proved a violation of 
that provision.  Accordingly, we will not further address Rule 1.7(a)(1).   
27 
 
only limited personal information to USCIS on the immigration forms and to attend an 
interview with Mr. A.  Mr. Singh denies receiving any truly confidential information from 
Mr. J during the course of his representation of both spouses in 2014.  He emphasizes that 
Mr. J was no longer his client at the time Mr. A consulted him in 2016.   
Under the circumstances of this particular case – where Mr. Singh undertook to 
research the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against Mr. J – we agree with the 
hearing judge that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.7(a)(2).  Mr. Singh himself testified at the 
hearing that he believed that he was limited in his research into criminal charges against 
Mr. J in Virginia, not only because he is not a Virginia lawyer, but also by a potential 
conflict of interest due to his prior representation of Mr. J.  Despite that belief, he did not 
obtain the informed consent of the two clients.  We overrule Mr. Singh’s exception.    
However, Rule 1.7(a)(2) does not prohibit an attorney from taking any action that 
may be “adverse” to a former client – just from undertaking representation of a current 
client that will be “materially limited” by a former attorney-client relationship.21  Thus, we 
decline to hold that any attorney who assists a married couple in filing the necessary forms 
with USCIS for the citizen spouse to sponsor the immigrant spouse as a permanent resident 
is necessarily foreclosed by this rule from later representing the immigrant spouse in a solo 
I-751 petition based on spousal abuse.    
 
 
                                              
21 In certain circumstances, Rule 1.9 prohibits an attorney from representing a client 
whose interests are “materially adverse” to those of a former client.  As noted earlier, the 
hearing judge concluded that the evidence did not establish a violation of that rule in this 
case and Bar Counsel has not excepted to that conclusion. 
28 
 
C. 
Violation Related to the Release 
 
Rule 1.8(h) provides that “a lawyer shall not:  (1) make an agreement prospectively 
limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice unless the client is independently 
represented in making the agreement; or (2) settle a claim or potential claim for such 
liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in 
writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the 
advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith.”   
As recounted above, shortly after Bar Counsel asked for a response from Mr. Singh 
concerning Mr. A’s complaint, Mr. Singh decided to provide the refund that Mr. A had 
been requesting and obtained a broad release from Mr. A in connection with that refund – 
which he then enclosed with his timely response to Bar Counsel.  That release did not 
comply with Rule 1.8(h), as it purported to limit Mr. Singh’s liability to Mr. A in 
connection with the I-751 petition, even though Mr. Singh had not advised Mr. A in writing 
of the desirability of obtaining independent legal counsel concerning the release. 
Mr. Singh initiated, or at the very least embraced, the idea of obtaining such a release 
as a way to defuse Bar Counsel’s investigation.  At some point after realizing that the 
release created an additional violation and exacerbated his issues with Bar Counsel, Mr. 
Singh apparently decided to distance himself from it.  Mr. Singh excepts to the hearing 
judge’s conclusion that he violated Rule 1.8, arguing that the hearing judge failed to 
account for Ms. Villanueva’s testimony that she initiated the idea of obtaining a release. 
29 
 
 
The question of who first thought of obtaining a release from Mr. A is of limited 
relevance22 as there is no question that Mr. Singh adopted that release and made use of it 
shortly after it was executed in an effort to truncate Bar Counsel’s investigation of Mr. A’s 
complaint.  Moreover, there is no dispute that Mr. Singh failed to advise Mr. A, then or 
later, in writing or orally, that it was advisable for him to seek independent legal advice in 
connection with such a release of liability.  As indicated earlier, to the extent that the 
witnesses at the hearing gave differing accounts as to how the release came to be executed, 
we defer to the hearing judge on which witnesses and which version to credit.  
 
We agree with the hearing judge that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.8(h) in connection 
with the release.  We overrule Mr. Singh’s exception to this conclusion. 
D. 
Violations Related to Required Deposits into a Trust Account  
Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping Property) and Maryland Rule 19-404 (Trust Account) 
In relevant part, Rule 1.15(a) mandates that a lawyer “hold the property of clients 
or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate 
from the lawyer’s own property.”  Such funds are to be placed in an attorney trust account 
in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-404,23 which independently requires that, except as 
                                              
22 Even if Ms. Villanueva had acted completely independently of Mr. Singh in 
obtaining the release from Mr. A, Mr. Singh ratified that conduct in his December 2016 
response to Bar Counsel in which he enclosed the release and in his counsel’s 
communication to Bar Counsel in March 2017 (also signed by Mr. Singh) in which he 
appropriately took responsibility for the release.  See Rule 5.3(c)(1) (attorney responsible 
for conduct of non-attorney employee that attorney ratifies). 
23 As noted earlier, at the time of most of the transactions at issue, Maryland Rule 
19-404 was codified as Maryland Rule 16-604. 
30 
 
may be otherwise permitted by law, all funds received from a client or on behalf of a client 
are to be deposited in an attorney trust account.  Rule 1.15(c) further provides that “a lawyer 
shall deposit legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance into a client trust 
account and may withdraw those funds for the lawyer’s own benefit only as fees are earned 
or expenses incurred.”  An attorney may adopt a different practice with respect to prepaid 
legal fees only if a client provides informed consent to that arrangement in writing. 
Mr. Singh concedes that he failed to comply with these rules not only with respect 
to funds received from Mr. A for filing fees, but also with respect to funds received from a 
number of other clients for filing fees over a three-year period.  In those instances, he 
deposited those funds in his operating account, thus failing to keep those client funds in his 
attorney trust account until the filing fees were due.  Although there is no allegation that 
these funds were not used for their intended purpose or that any of his clients suffered a 
loss, the premature deposit of client funds in an operating account can be a first step to 
defalcation and more serious misconduct.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blatt, ___ 
Md. ___, ___ (2019). 
 
We agree with the hearing judge that Mr. Singh violated Rule 1.15(a) & (c), as well 
as Maryland Rule 19-404.24  
                                              
24 Bar Counsel excepts to the hearing judge’s failure to find a violation of Rule 
8.4(d), which provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct 
“prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  Bar Counsel argues that Mr. Singh violated 
that rule when he failed to comply with the rules concerning required deposits in trust 
accounts and cites Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290 (2014).  Although 
a failure to safeguard client funds may violate Rule 8.4(d), in our view it is not the case 
that every violation of the trust account rules automatically generates a violation of Rule 
8.4(d).  In Mungin, there were unexplained cash withdrawals from the trust account and 
31 
 
Rule 8.1(a) (False Statements in a Disciplinary Matter) 
While Mr. Singh now concedes that he failed to comply with these trust account 
rules, that was not necessarily the case during Bar Counsel’s investigation of Mr. A’s 
complaint.  In an investigative deposition taken by Bar Counsel, Mr. Singh admitted that 
he had written checks for filing fees for the 2014 filings with USCIS on behalf of Mr. A 
and Mr. J from his operating account.  He explained that he “usually” maintained client 
funds in his trust account and transferred money for filing fees to the operating account 
shortly before payment was to be made.  The relevant testimony at the deposition was as 
follows: 
Bar Counsel: 
And these are the filing fees that went out with the I-
130 back in 2014 [and] the filing fee for the I-485….  
And both of these checks were written from your 
operating account? 
 
Mr. Singh: 
That’s right. 
 
Bar Counsel: 
Can you explain why? 
 
Mr. Singh: 
We do not usually write checks from the [trust] 
account.  We transfer from the [trust] account into the 
operating account before we write checks usually. 
. . . 
 
Bar Counsel: 
Okay.  So, when Mr. A and/or his spouse, Mr. J, gave 
you the money for the ﬁling fees, were those placed in 
the operating account?  
 
                                              
the trust account violations also involved the failure to properly account for, and properly 
disburse, funds to medical providers on behalf of multiple clients.  In Mr. Singh’s case, the 
trust account issues did not involve client harm and were largely independent of the 
primary violations arising out of his representation of one client, Mr. A.  We overrule this 
exception. 
32 
 
Mr. Singh: 
I would think that ﬁling fees would go into the [trust] 
account and then transfer into the operating account to 
make the payments. 
 
Bar Counsel: 
… And is that typically how you do it?  
 
Mr. Singh: 
Usually, yes. 
 
Bar Counsel: 
Okay. And how much — like, when would that transfer 
have occurred from your trust account to your 
operating account for the ﬁling fees? 
 
Mr. Singh: 
Probably — I don’t know.  Usually it’s a couple days 
before we write the check, just to make sure that we 
have the funds.  
 
As indicated earlier, a subsequent analysis of Mr. Singh’s bank records by Bar Counsel’s 
investigator revealed that what Mr. Singh described as his usual practice was more the 
exception than the rule. 
Rule 8.1(a) states that “in connection with a disciplinary matter,” a lawyer may not 
“knowingly make a false statement of material fact.”  The hearing judge concluded that 
Mr. Singh violated this provision when he stated during the investigative deposition that 
he “usually” would deposit client funds intended for filing fees into a trust account and 
then transfer the funds to his operating account when later writing a check for the filing 
fees.   
Mr. Singh excepts to this conclusion, arguing that while his testimony was 
inaccurate, it was not intentionally so.  He points out that not every inaccurate statement 
made to Bar Counsel violates the rule – only knowingly false statements – and that he 
admitted at the hearing of this matter that his deposition testimony was inaccurate. 
33 
 
It is true that Mr. Singh did not have the firm’s bank records in front of him at the 
time of his deposition, and that his answers were hedged – i.e., “usually,” “Probably – I 
don’t know,” “I would think.”  While these answers are guarded and qualified, they are 
also clearly an effort to get the questioner to draw the conclusion that funds “usually” first 
went into the trust account – a conclusion that Mr. Singh, as a solo practitioner who 
controlled the firm’s accounts must have known, and now concedes, was inaccurate.  This 
was not a misestimate; it was misleading.   
Mr. Singh’s later admission as to problems with his trust account practices came 
after Bar Counsel had obtained his bank records and conclusively documented that his 
deposition statement was incorrect.  While we appreciate his admission at the hearing of 
his non-compliance and of the inaccuracy of his May 2017 statement, we cannot accord 
that admission the weight that Mr. Singh seeks.  It is not as though he corrected the 
misstatement in his deposition testimony before it was disproven.25 
We agree with the hearing judge that the deposition testimony violated Rule 8.1(a) 
in this respect and overrule Mr. Singh’s exception. 
 
Rule 8.4(c) (Misrepresentation) 
 
In pertinent part, Rule 8.4 provides that, “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer 
to:  (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; [or] (d) 
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]” 
                                              
25 Cf. Rule 8.1(b) (attorney “shall not . . . fail . . . to correct a misapprehension” that 
the attorney knows to have arisen in a disciplinary matter). 
34 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Singh had violated both of these subsections 
of Rule 8.4 apparently on the ground that any violation of Rule 8.1(a) (false statement to 
Bar Counsel) also violates those provisions, without further elaboration.  We agree with 
the general proposition that a violation of Rule 8.1(a) also violates Rule 8.4(c) as a 
knowingly false statement to Bar Counsel qualifies as at least conduct involving 
misrepresentation.  We decline to make the same equation with Rule 8.4(d) in all cases. 
III 
Sanction 
The purpose of a sanction in an attorney discipline case is not so much to punish the 
attorney as “to protect the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession.” 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 163 (2014).  Our rules do not 
prescribe specific sanctions for specific transgressions, unlike the rules of football – i.e., 
five yards for offsides, 15 yards for a personal foul, and so on.  Judgment must be exercised.  
The sanction should be “commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and 
the intent with which they were committed.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stein, 373 
Md. 531, 537 (2003).  Any mitigating or aggravating factors peculiar to the respondent or 
the particular case should also be considered.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blatt, ___ 
Md. ___, ___ n.19 (2019) (listing aggravating and mitigating factors).  In the end, there is 
no rote formula.  To paraphrase an oft-quoted insight, each unhappy instance of attorney 
35 
 
misconduct is unhappy in its own way.26  Therefore, we must tailor the sanction to the 
particular facts and circumstances of each case. 
Bar Counsel has recommended that we indefinitely suspend Mr. Singh from the 
practice of law.  In support of that recommendation, Bar Counsel relies primarily on the 
violations related to the required deposit of client funds in trust accounts, and Mr. Singh’s 
deposition testimony on that subject.  Bar Counsel notes that this Court has stated that 
misappropriation of client funds usually results in disbarment of an attorney, but “[w]here 
there is no ﬁnding of intentional misappropriation . . . and where the misconduct did not 
result in ﬁnancial loss to any of the respondent’s clients, an indeﬁnite suspension ordinarily 
is the appropriate sanction.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662, 687 
(2002); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290, 320-22 (2014). 
 
Mr. Singh takes the position that his misconduct was less serious than in certain 
other cases involving attorneys who, like Mr. Singh, had no prior disciplinary record and 
received sanctions less than an indefinite suspension.  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86 (1998) (imposing 30-day suspension where an attorney, 
who had no prior disciplinary record, unintentionally mishandled client funds and no harm 
to clients resulted).  In his view, the sanction here should be a reprimand. 
With respect to aggravating factors, the hearing judge found clear and convincing 
evidence of several.  Chief among them were:  a dishonest or selﬁsh motive as illustrated 
                                              
26 Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina (“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family 
is unhappy in its own way.”).   
36 
 
by the ill-fated release; obstruction of the disciplinary process in Mr. Singh’s deposition 
testimony concerning his trust account practices; and a failure to acknowledge wrongful 
conduct in attributing some of the violations to the conduct of Mr. A or Ms. Villanueva.27  
The hearing judge also found that Mr. A, as an immigrant, was a vulnerable victim of some 
of these violations28 and that Mr. Singh had substantial experience in the practice of law, 
both of which are aggravating factors.  
                                              
27 The hearing judge found multiple violations and a pattern of misconduct as 
additional aggravating factors.  We give less weight to those two factors in these particular 
circumstances.   
 
It is true, in a literal sense, that Mr. Singh has been found to have committed more 
than one violation of the ethical rules, although that is also true in virtually every case in 
which professional misconduct is found.  However, in this case, unlike many other cases, 
most of the violations arise from one matter for one client.   
 
It is also true that Mr. Singh’s failure to deposit client funds for filing fees into his 
trust account could be considered a “pattern” of sorts.  However, had there been only one 
or two such incidents, it is highly unlikely that it would be treated as a matter for 
professional discipline.   
 
We accord greater weight to these two aggravating factors when the record reflects 
multiple incidents of misconduct resulting in harm to multiple clients, which unfortunately 
is sometimes the case. 
 
28 Mr. Singh has objected to the notion that Mr. A is a vulnerable victim simply 
because he is an immigrant, noting that Mr. A is a mature adult with lawful immigration 
status and an ability to communicate in English.  However, while Mr. A’s circumstances 
may be superior to those of many other immigrants, even in his case the ability to work, 
travel, and remain in this country depended on sound advice and conscientious efforts by 
an attorney.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Landeo, 446 Md. 294, 352-53 (2016) 
(stressing the importance of diligent representation and adequate communication in 
immigration cases).  
 
37 
 
There are at least two mitigating factors in Mr. Singh’s favor.  In addition to the 
absence of any prior discipline involving Mr. Singh, the hearing judge recognized that Mr. 
Singh had undertaken remedial efforts to rectify the consequences of his misconduct in 
hiring a forensic accountant to ensure that he was currently handling client funds 
appropriately and revising his office procedures to make sure he is in compliance with 
those rules.  The hearing judge also noted that there was no evidence that Mr. Singh 
misappropriated any client funds or failed to devote client funds to their intended purpose.29  
Bar Counsel’s recommendation of an indefinite suspension is not without 
justification.  We have imposed that sanction in other cases involving violations of Rule 
8.1(a), as noted by Bar Counsel.  However, the two cases primarily relied upon by Bar 
Counsel both involved significant harm to clients and false statements to Bar Counsel to 
conceal that harm.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385 (2006); Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23 (2014). 
In Lee, the respondent attorney failed to do any work on his client’s postconviction 
petition over a two-year period despite retaining the $3,500 he had been paid for that 
purpose and being contacted hundreds of times by the client.  The false statement 
                                              
29 A timely good faith effort to make restitution can also be a mitigating factor.  Here, 
Mr. Singh refunded to Mr. A the $900 that was the subject of their fee dispute.  Mr. Singh 
held to the not unreasonable view that he had earned at least that amount in his efforts to 
respond to Mr. A’s requests concerning his cyberstalking allegations and the preliminary 
work on the solo I-751 petition.  However, as the hearing judge noted, this refund was 
made only after Mr. Singh had received an inquiry from Bar Counsel about Mr. A’s 
complaint.  Moreover, the refund was made in return for a release that itself violated an 
ethical rule.  As the hearing judge suggested, any mitigating weight attributed to it must be 
discounted. 
38 
 
underlying the 8.1(a) violation was the excuse that the attorney gave to Bar Counsel for his 
inaction – that he had not received the transcripts of the original criminal proceeding.  In 
fact, the client’s wife had delivered the transcripts to him.  It is also notable that the 
respondent attorney in Lee had a prior disciplinary record.     
Brigerman involved multiple client complaints against the respondent attorney for 
ignoring requests from a client for his file, failing to turn over settlement proceeds to 
another client, charging a third client a flat fee of $2,500 and retaining that sum without 
performing any significant work.  In each instance, the respondent attorney ignored 
numerous client inquiries concerning his inaction.  He also falsely represented to Bar 
Counsel that he would turn over one client’s file to the client upon request.  
There is no question that any attempt to mislead Bar Counsel is a serious matter that 
warrants a sanction beyond a reprimand, regardless of whether the underlying violations 
caused any harm to clients.  Mr. Singh’s testimony in the investigative deposition – and 
other attempts to distance himself from violations of the ethical rules – magnified the 
seriousness of this case.  Nonetheless, the absence of client harm and certain other 
considerations lead us to locate this case at a different place than Lee and Brigerman on 
the continuum of sanctions for misconduct.   
Despite the violations enumerated above, Mr. A benefitted from his attorney-client 
relationship with Mr. Singh in 2016.  Mr. A not only had the results of Mr. Singh’s research 
concerning cyberstalking, but also apparently followed the course outlined by Mr. Singh 
to remove the conditions on his green card.  He had the benefit of Mr. Singh’s review and 
edit of his statement concerning the abuse and Mr. Singh’s referral to the psychologist for 
39 
 
an expedited report on the effects of that abuse.  In the end, he paid Mr. Singh only a $150 
consultation fee.  
We also note the important nature of Mr. Singh’s practice.  He serves clients of 
moderate means, like Mr. A, in Montgomery County in a practice largely devoted to 
immigration law.  No Maryland county has more immigrants or a higher percentage of 
foreign born residents; nearly one-third of Montgomery County’s residents were born 
abroad.  As noted earlier, immigrants, who may find themselves without counsel even 
when the stakes are highest, are a vulnerable class of client often at the margins of society.   
In an attorney discipline case, as we are fond of repeating, our primary goal is to 
protect the public and deter future misconduct.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 
456 Md. 483, 497-98 (2017).  In this case, a suspension is called for to deter Mr. Singh and 
others from misleading Bar Counsel or from adopting sloppy practices with client funds 
that, even if innocuous in the particular case, could lead to defalcation and serious harm to 
clients.  It is also critical that attorneys thoroughly and carefully communicate with clients 
from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and do their best to ensure that such 
clients completely understand their legal options.  That message can be sent without 
sidelining for an indefinite period an attorney who has no other record of discipline and 
who serves a vulnerable class of clients of moderate means.  A 60-day suspension achieves 
that balance.  The suspension shall begin 30 days after the date on which this opinion is 
filed. 
 
 
40 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.  RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL 
COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, 
INCLUDING 
THE 
COSTS 
OF 
ALL TRANSCRIPTS, 
PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 19-709(D), FOR 
WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 
AGAINST RAJ SANJEET SINGH. 
 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 6 
 
September Term, 2018 
______________________________________ 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
RAJ SANJEET SINGH 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
*Greene 
McDonald 
Watts 
Hotten 
Getty 
Adkins, Sally D. (Senior Judge, 
Specially Assigned), 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Dissenting Opinion by Watts, J., which Greene 
and Hotten, JJ., join. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: July 17, 2019 
 
*Greene, J., now retired, participated in the 
hearing and conference of this case while an 
active member of this Court; after being recalled 
pursuant to the Md. Constitution, Article IV, 
Section 3A, he also participated in the decision 
and adoption of this opinion. 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 448654-V   
Argued: February 28, 2019  
 
Respectfully, I dissent.  I would adopt Bar Counsel’s recommendation and 
indefinitely suspend Raj Sanjeet Singh, Respondent, from the practice of law in Maryland, 
or, in the alternative, indefinitely suspend Singh from the practice of law in Maryland with 
the right to apply for reinstatement after sixty days. 
As the Majority concludes, Singh violated numerous Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct (“MARPC”).  See Maj. Slip Op. at 20-34.  Chief among other 
misconduct, Singh violated MARPC 8.1(a) (Disciplinary Matters--False Statement of 
Material Fact) and 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation) by falsely 
testifying at a deposition in this attorney discipline proceeding that his practice was to 
deposit a client’s filing fees into his attorney trust account, transfer them to his operating 
account, and then, a couple days later, write a check to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services.  See id. at 31-34.  Bank records revealed that, in actuality, Singh’s practice was 
to deposit a client’s filing fees into his operating account, where they remained for weeks, 
months, or even years before he finally wrote a check to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services.1  
                                              
1The Majority sustains Singh’s exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that he 
violated MARPC 8.4(d) (Conduct That Is Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice) by 
failing to preserve retainer letters that he alleged Mr. A had signed.  See Maj. Slip Op. at 
25.  The Majority does not uphold the hearing judge’s conclusion that Singh committed a 
separate violation of MARPC 8.4(d) through his false statements to Bar Counsel, which 
also constituted a violation of MARPC 8.1(a).  See id. at 34.  I agree with the hearing 
judge’s conclusion that Singh engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration 
of justice by lying under oath to Bar Counsel.  Independent of the hearing judge’s 
conclusion, I would determine that Singh also violated MARPC 8.4(d) by testifying falsely 
at the deposition.  In any event, the existence of a violation of MARPC 8.4(d), or a lack 
 
- 2 - 
Additionally, as the Majority notes, the hearing judge found several aggravating 
factors, see Maj. Slip Op. at 35-36, including submission of false statements during this 
attorney discipline proceeding and bad faith obstruction of this attorney discipline 
proceeding.  The hearing judge found that Singh gave false testimony at the hearing in this 
attorney discipline proceeding.2  Specifically, Singh variously testified that: (1) he did not 
have his bank records when he testified at his deposition; (2) he had his bank records when 
he testified at his deposition, but he had not gone through them; and (3) he had either not 
ordered his bank records, or not gone through them.   
“[A]bsent compelling extenuating circumstances[,] disbarment ordinarily should be 
the sanction for intentional dishonest conduct.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Lefkowitz, 463 Md. 165, 175, 205 A.3d 17, 23 (2019) (cleaned up).  That said, this Court 
has imposed lesser sanctions on certain lawyers who lied only to Bar Counsel—as opposed 
to lying to a client, opposing counsel, and/or a court.  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385, 415, 903 A.2d 360, 378 (2006).  Relying on Lee, Bar 
Counsel recommends an indefinite suspension.  Bar Counsel’s recommendation is one of 
the factors that this Court considers when determining the appropriate sanction for a 
lawyer’s misconduct.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 169, 
91 A.3d 1066, 1076 (2014). 
                                              
thereof, does not affect my view as to the appropriate sanction based on his violations of 
multiple MARPC. 
2The hearing judge found that, while testifying at the hearing in this attorney 
discipline proceeding, Singh provided a false explanation for his false deposition 
testimony. 
- 3 - 
I would either adopt Bar Counsel’s recommendation of an indefinite suspension or 
impose an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement after sixty days.  
In sharp contrast to Bar Counsel’s recommendation, the Majority merely suspends Singh 
for sixty days.  See Maj. Slip Op. at 39.  I fear that a two-month suspension will not impress 
upon Singh and other lawyers the importance of not making false statements to Bar 
Counsel.  Indeed, Singh’s misconduct is even more egregious than that of lawyers who lie 
to Bar Counsel in correspondence, such as letters or e-mails.  Singh gave false testimony 
at a deposition, then gave false testimony at the hearing in this attorney discipline 
proceeding.  A sixty-day suspension is not sufficient to protect the public and send the 
message that repeatedly lying under oath is not acceptable behavior for a member of the 
Bar of Maryland. 
In its discussion of the appropriate sanction, the Majority distinguishes the cases on 
which Bar Counsel relies—i.e., Lee and Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 
Md. 23, 105 A.3d 467 (2014)—on the ground that those cases “involved significant harm 
to clients and false statements to Bar Counsel to conceal that harm.”  Maj. Slip Op. at 37 
(citations omitted).  To be sure, there are factual distinctions to be drawn between Lee and 
Brigerman and this case, as the Majority does.  But, Lee and Brigerman, unlike Singh, 
made false statements to Bar Counsel only, and did not give false testimony under oath.  
Although Singh’s misconduct did not directly harm anyone—and, by extension, there was 
no harm for him to conceal from Bar Counsel—Singh nonetheless lied to Bar Counsel 
while testifying falsely under oath at a deposition in an attempt to conceal his misconduct.  
Indeed, the Majority acknowledges that Singh’s deposition testimony was an “attempt[] to 
- 4 - 
distance himself from violations of the ethical rules” that “magnified the seriousness of this 
case.”  Maj. Slip Op. at 38.  In my view, Singh’s lies under oath are the most serious of his 
many instances of misconduct, and warrant adopting Bar Counsel’s recommendation of an 
indefinite suspension or an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement 
after sixty days. 
The Majority downplays the significance of Singh having made false statements 
under oath and repeatedly refers to the circumstance that Singh’s misconduct did not 
directly harm anyone.  See id. at 1, 2, 18, 31 n.24, 37, 38.  As grounds for the sanction 
imposed, the Majority indicates that we must “deter [] Singh and others from misleading 
Bar Counsel or from adopting sloppy practices with client funds that, even if innocuous in 
the particular case, could lead to defalcation and serious harm to clients.”  Id. at 39.  The 
Majority essentially requires that dishonesty in the form of false testimony result in harm 
to a client before an indefinite suspension may be imposed.  This is not consistent with our 
case law.  My concern is that the sixty-day suspension that the Majority levies will fail to 
deter an egregious form of misconduct—namely, lying repeatedly under oath. 
For the above reasons, respectfully, I dissent. 
Judges Greene and Hotten have authorized me to state that they join in this opinion.