In re Ahmed M. Elhillali , 199 A.3d 217 ( 2019 )

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. 17-BG-1430
IN RE AHMED M. ELHILLALI, RESPONDENT.
A Special Legal Consultant
Licensed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Registration No. 446927)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(Board Docket No. 16-BD-030)
(Bar Docket Nos. 2012-D330 and 2014-D029)
(Submitted December 17, 2018 Decided January 3, 2019)
Before FISHER and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”)
recommends that respondent Ahmed M. Elhillali’s license as a Special Legal
Consultant be revoked, without any right to reapply for this license for five years.
The Board also recommends that respondent not be granted a license after the
revocation period unless he pays restitution and proves his fitness to practice as a
Special Legal Consultant. Although respondent contested the charges before the
Hearing Committee, he withdrew his exceptions to its report and did not file any
exceptions to the Board’s report. Disciplinary Counsel did not file any exceptions
2
to the Board’s report either. For the following reasons, we adopt the Board’s
recommendation.
I. Factual Summary
Since no exceptions have been filed, the Board’s findings of fact are
undisputed. This court admitted respondent as a Special Legal Consultant in 1995;
he is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States. Special
Legal Consultants are allowed to provide advice about the law of the foreign
country in which they are licensed, but are not permitted to provide “legal advice
on or under the law of the District of Columbia or of the United States or of any
state, territory, or possession thereof.” D.C. App. R. 46 (c)(4)(D)(5) (2008). 1
Respondent falsely held himself out as an attorney licensed to practice in the
District of Columbia by maintaining a website for “The Law Office of Ahmed
1
A requirement for obtaining a Special Legal Consultant license is the
applicant’s admission to practice in a foreign country. D.C. App. R. 46
(c)(4)(A)(1) (1995); D.C. App. R. 46 (f)(1)(A) (2016). Although respondent
passed the bar exam in Sudan in 1978, he did not obtain a Sudanese law license
until 1996, after he was granted Special Legal Consultant status.
3
Elhillali,” with offices in Virginia and the District of Columbia. 2 While
representing clients, respondent referred to himself as “attorney of record,”
“counselor,” and “attorney and a member in good standing” and formally entered
his appearance as an attorney in immigration cases on at least ten occasions. For
example, respondent misrepresented himself to be an attorney and accepted fees in
an immigration matter for Mr. Jamal Jubara Ragab Kabu and held himself out as
an attorney to Mr. Omer Elsadig Abbas Ali. Respondent also falsely testified
before the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee found (and the Board
agreed) that respondent violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.4 (b) (failure to explain matter), 1.16 (d) (termination of representation),
5.5 (a) (unauthorized practice of law), 8.4 (b) (committing a criminal act that
reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness – theft in violation of D.C. Code § 22-
3211), and 8.4 (c) (dishonesty).
II. Standard of Review
2
A similar website existed at the time of the hearing before the Committee,
after respondent was instructed to take the website down by the Virginia State Bar.
It is unclear whether this website was an edited version of the original website or a
newly created website.
4
Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(1), this court “shall accept the findings of fact
made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record,
and shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would
foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or
would otherwise be unwarranted.” “When . . . there are no exceptions to the
Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes
even more deferential.” In re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000).
Because there is no precedent in the District of Columbia regarding the
revocation or suspension of a Special Legal Consultant’s license, we will address
(1) whether a Special Legal Consultant is governed by the District of Columbia
Rules of Professional Conduct, (2) whether it is appropriate to revoke or suspend
respondent’s license, and (3) whether respondent should be allowed to reapply for
this type of license.
III. Analysis
The version of Rule 46 in effect during respondent’s misconduct [2010
through 2015] provided that a Special Legal Consultant was subject “to the Code
of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association, as amended by the
5
court” and “to censure, suspension, or revocation of his or her license to practice as
a Special Legal Consultant by the court.” D.C. App. R. 46 (c)(4)(E)(l)(a) (2008).
Respondent and Disciplinary Counsel agree that “as amended” means the District
of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. 3 In addition, D.C. Bar R. XI, § l (a)
(2008) stated “all persons licensed by this Court as Special Legal Consultants
under Rule 46(c)(4) . . . are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court and
its Board on Professional Responsibility.” Thus, Special Legal Consultants must
follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Board on Professional
Responsibility has authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings and recommend
appropriate sanctions.
The Hearing Committee and the Board interpreted this jurisdiction’s
disciplinary rules and concluded that a Special Legal Consultant should receive a
sanction similar to what would be imposed if he were an attorney. Because there is
no precedent in this jurisdiction regarding the discipline of Special Legal
3
The current version of Rule 46 clarifies that a Special Legal Consultant
“[s]hall be subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct of this jurisdiction.” D.C.
App. R. 46 (f)(7)(A) (2016).
6
Consultants, we too will focus on the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules
of this court.4
D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 (a) lists “disbarment” or “suspension for an appropriate
fixed period of time not to exceed three years” among the possible sanctions for
attorneys and “revocation or suspension of a license” as sanctions for Special
Legal Consultants. The Committee reasoned that respondent’s “dishonesty, false
testimony, and conduct which amount[ed] to theft” would warrant disbarment if he
were an attorney. Similarly, respondent’s “theft, flagrant violation of the
limitations of a Special Legal Consultant license, open disregard for his signed
agreement with [the] Virginia State Bar, and false testimony at the hearing
compel[led] the Committee to recommend the most severe sanction: revocation of
his license.” The Committee (and the Board) recommended “a five-year
revocation with fitness as the functional equivalent of disbarment, the sanction that
we would have recommended if [r]espondent was an attorney,” citing In re
4
New York has similar provisions for licensing foreign legal consultants
pursuant to N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 22, § 521.1, and has consistently
followed the same procedures to revoke a legal consultant license as it would in
disciplinary proceedings against an attorney. See, e.g., In re Campos-Galvan, 17
N.Y.S.3d 24, 25 (App. Div. 2015) (citing N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 22,
§ 521.5); In re Antoine, 844 N.Y.S.2d 221, 222 (App. Div. 2007) (citing N.Y.
COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 22, § 610.7); In re Zakaria, 831 N.Y.S.2d 203, 204
(App. Div. 2007) (citing N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 22, § 521.5).
7
Wechsler, 719 A.2d 100, 102 (D.C. 1998) (appending Board report which
concluded that disbarment is the functional equivalent of a five-year suspension
with proof of fitness prior to reinstatement). We agree with the Board’s
interpretation of this jurisdiction’s rules and adopt its recommendation of a
sanction.
Our rules do not address whether the revocation of a Special Legal
Consultant license can be permanent. “[B]ut for [its] interpretation of the
application of D.C. App. R. 46 (c)(4)(E)(3), [the Committee] would have
recommended that Respondent’s Special Legal Consultant license be permanently
revoked, without the opportunity to reapply. However, absent additional guidance
from the Court on whether ‘revocation’ can be permanent, [the Committee and the
Board] recommend[ed] the sanction most analogous to disbarment.” Again, we
rely on the principle that Special Legal Consultants should be subject to sanctions
analogous to those we would impose on an attorney for similar misconduct.
“A disbarred attorney not otherwise ineligible for reinstatement may not
apply for reinstatement until the expiration of at least five years from the effective
date of the disbarment.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (a). But, in general, a disbarred
attorney may seek to be readmitted to our bar. We therefore conclude that
8
respondent may reapply for a Special Legal Consultant license according to the
rules just as an attorney may apply for admission after disbarment.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Ahmed M. Elhillali’s license as a Special Legal Consultant
is revoked without the right to reapply for five years. Respondent shall not be
granted a license after the revocation period unless he first pays restitution and
proves his fitness to practice as a Special Legal Consultant. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reapplication, the five-year
period of revocation shall not begin to run until respondent files an affidavit that
complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (applicable to disbarred or suspended
attorneys) except that his notification to clients and adverse parties will be that his
Special Legal Consultant license has been revoked for at least five years.
So ordered.