In re Alamgir

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-BG-75 IN RE MOHAMED ALAMGIR, RESPONDENT. A Disbarred Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 447715) On Report and Recommendation of a Hearing Committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility (DDN 272-19; BDN 19-BD-71) (Argued May 26, 2022 Decided September 8, 2022) Abraham C. Blitzer for respondent. Myles V. Lynk, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, with whom Julia L. Porter, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, and William R. Ross, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, were on the brief, for Disciplinary Counsel. Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, and EASTERLY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges. PER CURIAM: Mr. Alamgir was disbarred in 2004 and now seeks to be reinstated. The Hearing Committee recommends reinstatement. We deny reinstatement. 2 I. Background A disbarred attorney seeking reinstatement must prove fitness to resume the practice of law by clear and convincing evidence. In re Yum, 187 A.3d 1289, 1291-92 (D.C. 2018) (per curiam); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d)(1)(a-b) (disbarred attorney must prove by clear and convincing evidence that attorney possesses requisite “moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law” and that reinstatement “will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar,” detrimental to “the administration of justice,” or “subversive to the public interest”). The following factors are considered in determining whether a disbarred attorney has made the required showing: (1) the nature and circumstances of the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined; (2) whether the attorney recognizes the seriousness of the misconduct; (3) the attorney’s conduct since discipline was imposed, including the steps taken to remedy past wrongs and prevent future ones; (4) the attorney’s present character; and (5) the attorney’s present qualifications and competence to practice law. In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215, 1217 (D.C. 1985). “The first Roundtree factor is of primary importance in considering the petition for reinstatement.” In re Yum, 187 A.3d at 1292 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the disbarred attorney’s misconduct is “closely bound up with [the 3 disbarred attorney’s] role and responsibilities as an attorney,” we apply “heightened scrutiny to the other Roundtree factors.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although we place great weight on the recommendations of the . . . Hearing Committee, this court has the ultimate authority to decide whether to grant a petition for reinstatement.” Id. at 1291 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Hearing Committee held an evidentiary hearing and made extensive findings of fact. In sum, the evidence and findings were as follows. A. Underlying Misconduct The nature and circumstances of Mr. Alamgir’s underlying misconduct appear to be undisputed. Mr. Alamgir was convicted of 164 felony counts, for the offenses of conspiracy, immigration fraud, and money laundering. In a course of criminal conduct that began in 1996 and …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals