Problem Case 1
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Original Matters
IN RE SAMUEL N. OMWENGA. Bar No. 461761. August 16, 2012. In five consolidated cases, the D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Omwenga for intentional misappropriation in one matter. In addition, the court required Omwenga to make restitution to one client in the amount of $550, with interest at the legal rate, as a condition of reinstatement and deferred consideration of the issue of restitution to Omwenga’s other clients pending an application for reinstatement. The court adopted the Board on Professional Responsibility’s report that found Omwenga committed intentional misappropriation in one matter and 57 other violations of the disciplinary rules in four matters. The fifth was dismissed.
In the first matter, Omwenga represented a client in connection with her immigration removal proceeding and in her application for permanent residence status. Omwenga failed to communicate with the client or to file papers with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Omwenga advised the client not to appear at an immigration hearing, which Omwenga also did not attend and at which the immigration court ordered the client removed in absentia from the United States. Omwenga then drafted an affidavit for the client’s signature that falsely stated the reason the client did not attend the hearing. Omwenga did not advise the client that his incorrect advice not to attend the hearing might have formed a basis for relief from the removal order. In addition, Omwenga made numerous false statements in his answer to the ethical complaint, and testified falsely before the Hearing Committee.
In the second matter, Omwenga was retained to file an I-130 immigration application to adjust a client’s immigration status, but Omwenga failed to file the application. In addition, Omwenga lied when he told the client on multiple occasions that he had filed the I-130 petition. Thereafter, immigration authorities arrested the client and placed him in removal proceedings. The client then retained Omwenga to represent him at the immigration removal hearing in addition to the adjustment of status matter. Omwenga told the client that he would be out of the country, but that he had filed a request for a continuance, and Omwenga advised the client that he had to attend the hearing, but Omwenga failed to prepare the client for it. At the hearing, the immigration judge, after questioning the client, ordered him removed from the United States, noting that an I-130 petition has not been filed and that Omwenga had not been excused from attending the hearing. Omwenga thereafter appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), but he did not file a timely brief. Omwenga failed to return his client’s property upon termination of the representation. Finally, Omwenga was untruthful in his responses to Bar Counsel and testified falsely at the hearing.
In the third matter, Omwenga was retained to represent a client in an asylum case before the immigration court. Omwenga advised the client of the incorrect time of the hearing, resulting in the immigration court ordering the client to be removed in absentia because of the client’s failure to appear at the hearing; in addition, Omwenga failed to appear at the hearing. Omwenga thereafter drafted an untruthful affidavit for the client to sign in support of a motion for reconsideration and filed that affidavit with a false notarization page. Omwenga’s several post hearing motions were denied because, inter alia, Omwenga failed to comply with applicable rules. Omwenga thereafter notified the client of the denials and that the client would need to pay him an additional $1,000 to appeal the case to the BIA. Omwenga filed a brief with the BIA without reviewing the brief with the client or giving him a copy. Omwenga was untruthful with the immigration court, the BIA, and in his testimony to the Hearing Committee.
In the fourth matter, a client retained Omwenga to represent him in connection with the purchase of a laundromat business. Omwenga negotiated for the purchase of the equipment at a price of $48,050, and the client delivered a certified check in that amount to Omwenga. After signing a bill of sale, Omwenga continued to negotiate with the seller and reached agreement on a reduced price of $46,000. Omwenga then paid the $46,000 to the seller and withdrew the remaining $2,050 in cash without the client’s knowledge or consent. Omwenga did not transfer the funds to another account or provide them to the client. The client repeatedly asked for copies of the laundromat sales documents, but Omwenga failed to provide them to the client. The client repeatedly asked for copies of the laundromat sales documents, but Omwenga failed to provide them. At a subsequent meeting, the client demanded the return of the $2,050. Omwenga gave the client a check for $1,500, but stated that he was retaining the remaining $550 as additional legal fees because he had negotiated a better sales price. At hearing, the client testified that he did not agree to pay the additional legal fees, but he did not challenge Omwenga for fear that he would not provide the client with documentation of the sale. In addition, Omwenga made false statements to his client, the courts, and Bar Counsel. Omwenga also testified falsely at the hearing.
Omwenga violated numerous rules in the four client matters, which in the aggregate included Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 1.3(b)(2), 1.3(c), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.7(b)(4), 1.7(c), 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(d), 1.16(d), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
Problem Case 2
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Original Matters
IN RE RICHARD A. SAMAD. Bar No. 462384. September 5, 2012. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Samad for three years with fitness and a requirement that he make restitution to one of his clients in the amount of $2,500, plus interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum from the date when the client paid the fee, as conditions of reinstatement. Samad committed 40 violations of the rules in connection with six cases. Specifically, in the first case, while representing a client charged with a felony drug violation, Samad violated: (1) Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) by failing to investigate or prepare for the client’s trial; (2) Rule 1.3(a) by not visiting the scene or filing motions to suppress the client’s confession and other evidence; (3) Rule 1.4(b) by not keeping the client informed about the status of his case; (4) Rule 1.16(d) by failing to return the client’s fee; (5) Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) by falsely telling the presiding judge that he was unavailable because he was in trial, when in fact the trial was over and the case was before the jury; and (6) Rule 8.4(d) by insinuating to prosecution counsel that he would be in trial in another case, failing to put his name on the conflicts list, arriving late to court, and falsely telling the court that he was in another trial.
In the second case, while representing a client in a criminal matter, Samad violated Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) by failing to appear in the presiding judge’s court at the scheduled hour to begin jury selection.
In the third case, while representing a client to obtain a sentence reduction, Samad violated: (1) Rules 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 1.3(c), and 1.4(a) by not filing a motion to reduce the client’s sentence in a timely manner, by not taking any steps to preserve his client’s procedural rights, and by not taking his client’s telephone calls or otherwise keeping him informed of the status of the matter; (2) Rule 1.4(b) by not advising the client that he would not file the motion to reduce sentence unless the client paid the remainder of his fee and an additional $300; and (3) Rule 1.16(d) by not explaining the limitations of his retainer agreement and by not advising the client or the client’s family that he would not continue to represent the client unless his full fee was paid.
In the fourth case, while representing a client in custody without bond on felony charges, Samad violated: (1) Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) by failing to appear at the second and third status conferences; (2) Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), and 1.3(b)(2) by abandoning the client and by failing to attend two scheduled court hearings while he was still counsel of record and before replacement counsel had entered an appearance; (3) Rule 1.4(a) by not keeping the client informed as to the status of his matter; (4) Rule 1.4(b) by not advising the client that he was terminating the representation; (5) Rule 1.16(d) by not taking reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests after he terminated his representation; and (6) Rule 8.4(d) by not advising the client that he had terminated the representation.
In the fifth case, while representing a client in an immigration matter, Samad violated: (1) Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) by failing to explore alternatives to the H-1B visa that might permit the client to remain in the country; (2) Rules 1.3(a) and 1.3(c) by failing to file the necessary papers to protect the client’s ability to remain in the country and by failing to keep her informed of developments; (3) Rule 1.4(a) by not keeping the client informed of the status of her matters and by not taking or returning her telephone calls; and (4) Rule 1.4(b) by not informing the client that there was a quota associated with H-1B visas.
In the sixth case, while representing a client who at 16 years of age was arrested and charged with armed carjacking, Samad violated: (1) Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) by failing to investigate a complicated case in which his juvenile client was facing trial as an adult and a significant period of incarceration if convicted; (2) Rules 1.3(a) and 1.3(b)(1) by not adequately investigating the alleged conduct, and by not fully informing the client of the government’s plea offer and by refusing to negotiate a comprehensive plea offer with the government; (3) Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) by “knowingly misrepresent[ing] to Judge Bartnoff the status of the client’s matter by failing to respond to Judge Bartnoff’s inquiry with complete information regarding his obligations in Judge Cushenberry’s court on the morning that he was to start a civil trial;” (4) Rule 3.4(c) by deliberately and knowingly disregarding court rules and the judge’s order when he failed to appear before Judge Cushenberry and commenced a civil trial before Judge Bartnoff; and (5) Rule 8.4(d) by not being prepared for the client’s trial. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 1.3(b)(2), 1.3(c), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).