Attorney Grievance v. Singh

483 Md. 1

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Decided: February 27, 2023
• Docket: 17ago/21
• Status: Published

Opinion

* IN THE

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * SUPREME COURT COMMISSION OF MARYLAND * OF MARYLAND

v. * Misc. AG Docket No.17 September Term, 2021 RAJ SANJEET SINGH * Case No. 486684V * Circuit Court for Montgomery County

ORDER

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or

Remedial Action filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Petitioner, on

February 16, 2023, and the Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for

Disciplinary or Remedial Action filed by Raj Sanjeet Singh, Respondent, on February 17,

2023,

WHEREAS, in Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial

Action, Petitioner requests that the Court enter an order dismissing the Petition for

Disciplinary or Remedial Action and directing each party to bear its own costs,

WHEREAS, in the Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for

Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Respondent requests that the Court dismiss the Petition with

prejudice, and that Petitioner be ordered to reimburse Respondent for costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees Respondent incurred in this action,

WHEREAS, on January 30, 2023, the hearing judge filed with the Supreme Court of

Maryland an Opinion and Order, in which the hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.15(a), 1.16(a), 5.4(d),

5.5(b), 7.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d), and Maryland Rules 19-407 and 19-742,

WHEREAS, in the Opinion and Order, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent

did not violate Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4(a), 5.5(a), and 8.4(b),

and Maryland Rule 19-404,

WHEREAS, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-740(b)(1), the Supreme Court of Maryland

has conducted a de novo review of the hearing judge’s conclusions of law, and based on the

circumstances of the case, determined that the imposition of a sanction is not appropriate,

For reasons to be stated in an order to be filed later, it is this 27th day of February,

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-

740(c)(1)(F), that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action

is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that Respondent’s request for reimbursement of attorney’s fees is

DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the statements of costs to which each party may be entitled under

Maryland Rule 19-709(b) are no longer required to be filed by March 1, 2023. The Court

shall address the costs to which each party may be entitled under Maryland Rule 19-709(b) in

the order that will follow; and it is further

ORDERED, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-709(b)(1), that Petitioner shall pay all court

costs, including any court costs resulting from proceedings in the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, as taxed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Maryland under the dismissal ordered by the Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that the mandate is to issue forthwith.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader Chief Justice

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2023-04-07 09:52-04:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk