On Friday, April 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland issued an order instructing attorney Raj Sanjeet Singh to file a statement of costs setting forth the costs to which the respondent claims to be entitled under Maryland Rule19-709(b)(2)-(6).

The case is entitled “Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Raj Sanjeet Singh,” with case no. 486684v.

On July 17. 2019, the court suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Maryland for 60 days. Following that year,  the latter filed a petition for reinstatement. However, the Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action against the respondent, charging him with allegations that the respondent had violated the MARPC by making false statements in the petition for reinstatement, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and failing to divest his law firm and social media accounts of information identifying him as a lawyer while suspended.

The filing states:

“On August 30, 2021, Respondent filed a reply to Bar Counsel’s response to his petition for reinstatement, contending that Bar Counsel had effectively turned his 60-day suspension into a 2-year one, that Bar Counsel’s allegation that he continued to practice law after being suspended was merely based on “suspicions” and “information and belief” and he had substantially complied with what is now Maryland Rule 19 – 741, and that Bar Counsel was improperly attempting to preempt his reinstatement by bringing a disciplinary action and falsely accusing him of perjury.”

On January 10, 2022, the court heard the argument on the respondent’s petition for reinstatement, at which the respondent’s counsel requested that the court grant the respondent’s reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland and dismiss the pending petition for disciplinary and remedial action. On January 14, 2022, the court issued an order reinstating the respondent as a member of the Bar of Maryland.

The filing continues:

“The hearing judge concluded that Respondent did not violate MARPC 5.4(a), 5.5(a), and 8.4(b), or Maryland Rule 19 – 404. The hearing judge found numerous mitigating factors, including the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, good faith efforts to rectify any misconduct, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character, and reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, remorse, and the unlikelihood of repetition of any misconduct. In finding the mitigating factor of imposition of other penalties or sanctions, the hearing judge found that the Respondent had remained suspended for over 2 years after the term of his original 60-day suspension.”

Following this, the respondent requested an award of attorney’s fees.

The filing further states:

“In his response to Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, in requesting an award of attorney’s fees, Respondent used language suggestive of the standard set forth in Maryland Rule 1 – 341(a) but did not explicitly cite or rely on the Rule. Under Maryland Rule 1 – 341 (a),

[i]n any civil action, if the court finds that the conduct of any party in maintaining or defending any proceeding was in bad faith or without substantial justification, the court, on motion by an adverse party, may require the offending party or the attorney advising the conduct or both of them to pay the adverse party the costs of the proceeding and the reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the adverse party in opposing it.

In relation to the said request, the court ordered the respondent to file a statement of costs setting forth the costs to which attorney Singh claims he is entitled under the Maryland rules.

The order states:

“ORDERED, that Respondent file a statement of costs setting forth the costs to which Respondent claims to be entitled under Maryland Rule 19 – 709(b)(2) – ( 6 ) on or before May 8, 2023; and it is further ORDERED, that within 15 days after service of Respondent’s statement of costs, Petitioner may, if it chooses, file a response; and it is further ORDERED, that February 27, 2023, Order of the Court is incorporated herein.”

Mr. Singh practices in Rockville, Maryland. He is licensed in Maryland. His info can be found on avvo.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.