On September 9, 2022, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied the Petition for Readmission of Washington attorney Mohamed Alamgir from the practice of Law.

The case is styled “In the matter of Mohamed Alamgir” with Case No.DDN272-19; BDN19-BD-71. 

The following are as alleged and summarized from the filing:

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 lasted for at least seven years, Mr. Alamgir charged immigrant clients a premium to submit fraudulent immigration documents in order to illegally obtain employment visas on their behalf. The criminal conduct netted Mr. Alamgir at least $ 2.75 million and Mr. Alamgir bought at least five properties with proceeds of the criminal conduct.

To help carry out his criminal conduct, Mr. Alamgir recruited his paralegal to forge employer signatures; paid employers to claim falsely that clients worked for them; laundered proceeds through bank accounts of his relatives and friends; and coached his clients on what lies to tell immigration officials to obtain their employment visas.

This bought him to submit a Petition for Readmission after his disbarment. On the Court’s discussion for its decision, it explained the reasons for its conclusion on why the Respondent cannot be readmitted from the practice of its profession.

The filing states:

“Mr. Alamgir did testify that he believed that the family member who lost his job later found employment, that one of the employers involved was deported, and that many of the clients involved were not deported. Mr. Alamgir apparently did not refund any fees to his clients or pay any of his clients’ resulting attorney’s fees.”

The filing continues:

“After his disbarment, Mr. Alamgir volunteered with several Bangladeshi – American civil and charitable associations, serving in leadership roles. Mr. Alamgir also volunteered with an organization that helps people who have suffered stroke 7 and other medical conditions. While working with these organizations, Mr. Alamgir was recognized for his fundraising, years of service, and community involvement. Mr. Alamgir also stayed active in the legal community by working as a paralegal on immigration matters, often for little or no pay. The Hearing Committee acknowledged that Mr. Alamgir could have done a better job of explaining how his public service served to remedy his past wrongs. The Hearing Committee concluded, however, that Mr. Alamgir’s criminal conduct had harmed the immigration system and the Bangladeshi community. In the Hearing Committee’s view, Mr. Alamgir’s charitable work helped to remedy those harms, by focusing on assistance to immigrants and by countering the “shame” that Mr. Alamgir’s criminal conduct had brought upon the Bangladeshi community.”

The filing further alleges:

“In light of that misconduct, Mr. Alamgir would have needed to present a truly compelling case in order to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he should be reinstated. We conclude that Mr. Alamgir fell short of such a showing.

Second, we are troubled by Mr. Alamgir’s apparent failure to take any steps to try to make amends to the people whom he harmed through his criminal conduct, including his paralegal, friends, family, and clients. Mr . Alamgir apparently had little knowledge about or interest in the consequences of his criminal conduct for others.

Third, Mr. Alamgir’s character witnesses knew too few details of Mr. Alamgir’s misconduct to give their testimony much weight.

Fourth, we are also troubled by the fact that the immigration attorney for whom Mr. Alamgir has been working had herself been twice disciplined for dishonest conduct in connection with immigration proceedings. Mr. Alamgir’s decision to work for an employer with such a history raises some reasonable doubt about the depth of Mr. Alamgir’s professed commitment to put his own dishonest conduct in such proceedings behind him.”

With all the foregoing facts and discussion, The Court concluded that Mr. Alamgir failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to be reinstated.

The Disposition states that:

“In sum, we conclude that Mr. Alamgir failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to be reinstated. We, therefore, deny Mr. Alamgir’s petition for reinstatement.”

Prior to his disbarment, Mr. Alamgir was listed on the website of law firm, Washington Law Firms as a practicing attorney. Alamgir practiced in Washington, District of Columbia with license #447715. His info can be found at lawyer.com online.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.