A Pittsburgh attorney who admitted to fabricating evidence in connection with a complaint filed by a former client was suspended from practicing law in Ohio by the Ohio Supreme Court today. The attorney was previously licensed to practice law in Ohio.
The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion that was unanimous in its decision to suspend Samir G. Hadeed for one year with a stay of execution for six months, on the condition that he repay $4,750 to his former client and refrain from engaging in any subsequent professional misconduct.
Attorney Agrees to Take Payment for the Criminal Case
Under the terms of a flat fee of $15,000, Hadeed agreed to represent Shaundale Brown in a criminal case that was being heard in Lorain County in the year 2015. Of that amount, Brown paid $9,500. Brown did not receive any information from Hadeed regarding the possibility of receiving a refund of the entire fee or a portion of it if he did not finish the representation.
In the end, Hadeed decided to withdraw from the case, but he did not reimburse Brown for any of his fees. Having filed a complaint against Hadeed with the Lorain County Bar Association, Brown filed the complaint.
A copy of a bogus engagement letter that Hadeed had provided to Brown was submitted by Hadeed throughout the investigation that was being conducted by the bar association.
Following the attorney conduct regulation, which stipulates that a lawyer who accepts a flat fee must provide written notification to the client that the client may be eligible for a refund if the lawyer does not complete the representation, the letter included the necessary information. Hadeed later admitted that he had falsified the letter after being informed of the disciplinary investigation that was being conducted.
Without providing complete disclosure, letters of support were obtained
As part of Hadeed’s response to the enquiry of the grievance that was conducted by the bar association, Hadeed provided a total of 28 “letters of support” from a variety of individuals, including judges and attorneys. According to Hadeed, the authors were aware of the circumstances that led to his disciplinary case; nevertheless, he later admitted that some of the authors were not aware of the grievance or the reason for which he meant to utilise the letters. Hadeed’s statement was made to investigators.
In the year 2018, the Ohio Bar Association lodged a formal complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct, accusing Hadeed of breaching several laws that govern the behaviour of attorneys who are licensed to practice in the state of Ohio. A portion of the misbehaviour was agreed upon by the parties, one of which was that Hadeed had deliberately made a false statement in connection with a disciplinary action when he handed the forged letter to the bar association.
Hadeed was ordered to refund half of the money that Brown paid, which was $4,750, within the following sixty days. The court agreed with the proposal of the board to ban Hadeed for one year, with six months of his suspension being stayed at the same time.
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAMIR HADEED.
“Just in case.”
The respondent, Samir George Hadeed, was granted permission to practice law in the state of Ohio in the year 2008. He is a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and his attorney registration number is 0084433. The Lorain County Bar Association, the relator, filed charges against him in January 2019, accusing him of engaging in professional misconduct regarding a client situation and supplying false evidence during the subsequent disciplinary process against him.
Within the context of the case, the Board of Professional Conduct took into consideration the consent-to-discipline agreement between the parties as well as two modifications to that agreement. 1. Please refer to Gov.Bar R. V(16).
In their agreement, the parties agreed to the following elements. In exchange for a flat fee of $15,000, Hadeed agreed to represent Shaundale Brown in a criminal case. Brown paid $9,500 of the total amount. Brown was not informed by Hadeed that if Hadeed did not finish the representation, Brown would be entitled to a refund of all or a portion of the flat fee. This is a requirement that is mandated by Prof.. Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3), which prohibits a lawyer from charging a fee that is labelled as “earned upon receipt” or 1.
A committee consisting of three members of the board requested the parties to amend the consent-to-discipline agreement to rectify typographical errors and to incorporate exhibits that were mentioned in the initial agreement but were not attached to it. The Supreme Court of Ohio 2 in a manner that is analogous, without simultaneously informing the client in writing that the client may be eligible for a return of all or part of the fee in the event that the lawyer does not finish the engagement.
After some time, Hadeed withdrew from the representation and did not reimburse any of Brown’s fees. This resulted in Brown filing a complaint with the relator. Hadeed presented a copy of a putative engagement letter to Brown during the investigation that was conducted by the relator.
Hadeed claimed that he had handed the document to Brown in accordance with the provisions of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3). Hadeed, however, later revealed that he had forged the letter after receiving notification of the disciplinary investigation that was being conducted by another individual.
After that, Hadeed decided to get legal representation to represent him during the disciplinary process and to complement his response to Brown’s complaint. Hadeed included a total of 28 “letters of support” from a variety of individuals, including judges and other attorneys, as part of the additional answer.
Initially, Hadeed informed the relator that the authors of those letters were aware of the events that had led to the impending disciplinary investigation that Hadeed was facing. After some time had passed, Hadeed admitted that when he sought the letters, some of the authors were unaware of the complaint that had been lodged against him or the reason that he had intended to utilise their letters.
In the following misconduct, the parties agreed to the following terms. Hadeed committed a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), which prohibits a lawyer from obtaining an exorbitant fee, when he refused to refund any amount of Brown’s fee after Brown withdrew from the representation. Hadeed committed a violation of the Professional Conduct Regulation 1.5(d)(3) by failing to provide Brown with written notification that he would be eligible for a refund of all or a portion of the flat charge that was quoted.
A violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a), which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary case, was committed by Hadeed when he made a false statement to the relator that he had delivered Brown the fake engagement letter.
And Hadeed violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), which prohibits a lawyer from failing to disclose a material fact in response to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority, by failing to disclose that some of the individuals who wrote letters in support of Hadeed were neither aware of the pending disciplinary investigation that was scheduled to take place in January Term, 2019 3 nor were they notified of the purpose of the letters.
Hadeed’s submission of false evidence and employment of deceptive methods during the disciplinary procedure was further acknowledged by the parties as an aggravating element in the case. Please refer to Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(6). Hadeed later admitted that he had fabricated evidence, and he thereafter shown a helpful approach towards the disciplinary process. Additionally, he acknowledged the improper nature of his misbehaviour.
The parties reached a consensus regarding the mitigating factors, which included the fact that Hadeed does not have a previous record of disciplinary action. Please refer to Gov.Bar R. VI(13)(C)(1) and (4). As a kind of punishment, the parties have come to the conclusion that Hadeed should serve a one-year suspension, with six months of his suspension stayed on conditions. One of these conditions is that he must return fifty percent of the amount that he had collected from Brown.
By the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(16), the board came to the conclusion that the consent-to-discipline agreement is in compliance. For the purpose of providing support for the sentence that was suggested, the board noted two situations that were comparable to the one in which lawyers committed professional misconduct and subsequently presented false evidence during the process of disciplinary action. The attorney in the case of Disciplinary Counsel v. Maney, 152 Ohio St.3d 201, 2017-Ohio-8799, 94 N.E.3d 533, failed to communicate with the client about the progress of the case and forgot to handle a client matter.
During the subsequent investigation of the lawyer’s disciplinary actions, the attorney made a false statement, claiming that he had written letters to his client outlining the current status of the case, and that his client had failed to react to those letters that were sent. Additionally, the attorney provided the relator with copies of five of the alleged letters; however, he later revealed that he had manufactured the letters to disguise his negligence of the client. We placed the attorney on full suspension for one year, with a six-month stay on conditions.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 152 Ohio St.3d 131, 2017- Ohio-8821, 93 N.E.3d 955, was a case in which an attorney negligently disregarded a client’s case, made a false representation to a court after missing a filing date, and failed to deposit advanced legal fees into a trust account for the client. The attorney supplied the relator with draft copies of a brief and motion that he said were created while he was representing the client during the investigation that was being conducted by the Supreme Court of Ohio 4, which is a disciplinary proceeding.
On the other hand, the attorney eventually revealed that he had actually fabricated the documents for the sole purpose of submitting them together with his response to the complaint. The consent-to-discipline agreement between the parties was accepted, and the attorney was suspended for a period of 18 months, with the remaining 12 months being conditionally stayed before the court.
We are in agreement that Hadeed committed violations of Professorial Regulations 1.5(a), 1.5(d)(3), 8.1(a), and 8.1(b), and that, in accordance with Maney and Smith, the appropriate sentence for this situation is a one-year suspension with a conditional stay of six months. Consequently, we consider the consent-to-discipline agreement between the parties to be valid.
Samir George Hadeed has been placed on a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with the final six months of the punishment being postponed on the condition that he repays $4,750 to Shaundale Brown within sixty days of our disciplinary order and refrains from engaging in any additional misconduct. If Hadeed does not comply with either of the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will be required to serve the entirety of the one-year ban. Hadeed is given a tax on the costs.
Why the Criminal Defense Retainer Agreement Case Is More Than Just Headlines
It is extremely dangerous for an attorney to lie to disciplinary officials because doing so undermines the integrity of the legal profession and can lead to severe professional consequences, including disbarment. Attorneys are officers of the court and are held to high ethical standards, particularly regarding honesty and candor. When an attorney lies to disciplinary authorities, they violate core ethical rules and damage the public’s trust in the legal system.
Key Reasons Why It’s Dangerous:
- Violation of Ethical Rules:
Most jurisdictions follow rules similar to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.1(a) prohibits knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter. This includes lying or concealing facts from bar counsel or ethics investigators. - Aggravating Factor in Discipline:
Lying to disciplinary officials is usually considered an aggravating factor in determining the severity of the sanction. This often results in harsher penalties than the underlying misconduct alone would warrant. - Loss of Mitigation Opportunities:
Attorneys who are honest and cooperative may receive leniency or alternative sanctions. Lying often eliminates these options and can lead to disbarment or lengthy suspensions. - Damage to Reputation and Credibility:
Even if the attorney avoids disbarment, lying damages their credibility in court and with clients, potentially ruining their career.
Notable Cases:
- In re Goffstein (Minnesota, 1991):
The attorney was disbarred in part for lying to a disciplinary committee about client trust account violations. The court emphasized that dishonesty in the disciplinary process is often more serious than the original misconduct. - In re Seigel (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2005):
The attorney was suspended for false statements made during a disciplinary investigation. The court noted that an attorney’s honesty in such proceedings is “foundational to the profession.” - In re Mitchell (South Carolina, 2007):
Mitchell lied to disciplinary authorities and attempted to fabricate evidence. He was disbarred, with the court emphasizing that dishonesty during investigation was a critical factor. - In re Flowers (Georgia, 2000):
The Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred an attorney who not only committed misconduct but then lied during the bar’s investigation, demonstrating a lack of remorse and accountability.
Lying to disciplinary authorities is a profound ethical breach with potentially career-ending consequences. Even if the original misconduct might have warranted a lighter penalty, dishonesty during the investigation magnifies the offense. Courts and bar associations consistently treat such dishonesty as a serious threat to the integrity of the profession.
