Reinstatement Should Be Denied

A petition for reinstatement of a petitioner reciprocally disbarred in 2002 based on a 2001 Maryland disbarment should be denied, according to the report and recommendation of a District of Columbia Hearing Committee. 

Prior attempts

Between March 2021 and September 2022, Petitioner filed four more petitions for reinstatement (his third through sixth petitions), sometimes providing Disciplinary Counsel the draft petition and responses to the questionnaire before filing them with the Board. DCX 45; DCX 54; DCX 69; DCX 85; see, e.g., DCX 77; DCX 79. The Board dismissed all of these petitions because Petitioner failed to provide complete and accurate responses to the questionnaire. DCX 53; DCX 68; DCX 73; DCX 92.

Among other things, Petitioner concealed his involvement in multiple cases including criminal matters, civil actions, a bankruptcy, a tax matter, and moving traffic violations. DCX 48; Tr. 428-432 (Matinpour); DCX 103; see, e.g., DX 68 at 4-6. To the extent Petitioner later disclosed some of these cases in his subsequent responses, it was because Disciplinary Counsel found the court records on its own and presented them to Petitioner. Tr. 430-35 (Matinpour); DCX 103; Tr. 262 (Petitioner admitted not disclosing cases; claimed he "didn't have knowledge of them"). Compare DCX 48, with DCX 54 at 10.

Misconduct leading to disbarment

The conduct leading to Petitioner's disbarment was undeniably serious. While representing the Bantugs in an effort to avoid foreclosure of their home, Petitioner agreed to buy the home from them, and then continued to represent them in the effort to avoid foreclosure. When the effort failed and he was facing foreclosure on his residence (the Bantugs' house), he filed bankruptcy on the Bantugs' behalf, without their knowledge or consent. Worse yet, because they did not know about the bankruptcy petition, he forged their signatures, as well as the signature of his law partner, on all filings in the bankruptcy matter. In short, for his own benefit-to delay foreclosure-Petitioner filed a complete fiction in the bankruptcy court. The Bantugs did not want to file for bankruptcy, and Mr. McLemore was not their lawyer. This conduct violated Maryland Rule 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Apart from filing the entirely fictitious bankruptcy petition and related filings, Petitioner violated Maryland Rule 1.7(b) (conflict of interest) through his business transaction with his clients. He also engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Maryland (Rule 5.5(a)) and used letterhead that failed to disclose that he could not practice in Maryland (Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer's services), 7.5(a) and (b) (firm names and letterheads)).

Disciplinary Counsel also proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner misappropriated Mr. Morales settlement checks. Petitioner argues that Disciplinary Counsel should not have been allowed to present evidence of the alleged misappropriation because Disciplinary Counsel did not make a proffer of the misappropriation evidence, as required by Board Rule 9.8(b)

Editor's note: the cited Board Rule excludes evidence of misconduct due to lack of notice. It is a ridiculous rule that is contrary the public interest and would, I expect, be rejected by the Court of Appeals if tested.

The committee found that Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish several of the criteria for reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)