Preview:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mina Bahgat, Misc. Docket AG No. 20, September Term, 2008

HEADNOTE: Immediate disbarment was required to protect the public from a respondent who (1) misappropriated clients' funds, (2) performed no services whatsoever on clients' behalf, (3) lied to clients about the status of their case, and (4) provided clients with a falsified administrative agency "Decision" that had not been issued by the agency.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 20 September Term, 2008

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. MINA BAHGAT

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera JJ.

Opinion by Murphy, J.

Filed: November 18, 2009

On September 3, 2009, this Court ORDERED . . . that the Respondent, Mina Bahgat be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the practice of law in this State and his name as an attorney has been stricken from the register of attorneys in this Court (Maryland Rule 16-713). Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-761 for which sum judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Mina Bahgat. This opinion states the reasons why that Order was entered. Background Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 15, 2004. On August 20, 2008, the Attorney Grievance Commission (Petitioner) filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action in which it asserted that Respondent violated several Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) and

Download Attorney Grievance v. Bahgat.pdf

Maryland Law