LAWYER SOLICITS "JAILHOUSE LAWYER" TO FIND OTHER PRISONER CLIENTS FOR LEGAL WORK (SEEKING SENTENCE REDUCTIONS) AND PAYS THE "JAILHOUSE LAWYER" TO DO THE ACTUAL LEGAL WORK FOR THOSE PRISONERS, WHILE COLLECTING LARGE FEES FROM THE HIRING PRISONERS' FAMILIES

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Bronx injury lawyer)

This legal opinion starts off very drily. The big picture is of an attorney that took $5,000 from an inmate's family to make a motion to seek a reduction of the inmate's 14 year Federal prison sentence, with an additional $10,000 to be paid to the attorney after the motion was made. So far, so good. Seems that she took the money and didn't do the work. Sad and all too common among certain bad apples in the legal profession. But then the plot thickens (or sickens).

Saghir was hired by the inmate's family and then had the motion prepared by another prisoner, a "jailhouse lawyer" who was a client of Saghir. The complaint of the prisoner whose family paid attorney Saghir $5,000 (about Saghir's representation of him) started the disciplinary process.

In response to numerous attempts by the disciplinary authorities to investigate, letters were written, subpoenas for records served and depositions requested. Several adjournments and extensions of time were granted to Saghir at her request.

Saghir basically asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or threatened to assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination across-the-board. In a civil proceeding (unlike in a criminal case), this right permits "adverse inferences" to be made against the person asserting the right. Furthermore, some of the records sought, such as bank account records, retainer agreements and such, are required by law to be kept by an attorney, and are not subject to "pleading the Fifth."

A quote from the decision:

"On September 9, 2009, the day before her response to the Statement of Charges was due, Respondent submitted a letter . . .in which she stated that she had resigned from the bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...".

Another quote from the decision:

"Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the bar of the United State District Court for the Eastern District of New York on the same day. On September 17, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered that Respondent's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of that Court."

Lawyer Saghir then tried, unsuccessfully, to withdraw as the inmate's counsel.

That inmate gave a deposition (oral question and answer session) to the disciplinary authorities. (And here it gets realy interesting.)

He testified that he learned about attorney Saghir's services through the "jailhouse lawyer" after he saw a flyer advertising the legal services of the "Federal Imprisonment Reduction Experts, LLC," or "F.I.R.E.," in the prison library.

The "jailhouse lawyer" told the other prisoner that the flyer described services that attorney Saghir could provide, and that he worked with Saghir. (It turns out that "F.I.R.E." was run by Saghir's brother.) The "jailhouse lawyer" chased clients and did the paperwork, which attorney Saghir signed off on. The "jailhouse lawyer" told the other inmate that Saghir had analyzed the case and determined that the fee for her services would be $15,000. $5,000 was to be paid up front, and the remaining $10,000 to be paid after the inmate won his motion and was released from prison.

The inmate testified that members of his family met with lawyer Saghir in her Brooklyn office, paid her $5,000, and received a receipt. He further testified that after Saghir was paid $5,000, he saw the "jailhouse lawyer" typing the papers in the prison library. The inmate then signed the papers, and was told by the jailhouse lawyer that he had sent the papers to Saghir.

The inmate testified that he never had any direct contact with Saghir. All communication with her was conducted through the "jailhouse lawyer" or the inmate's family. The complaining inmate wrote to attorney Saghir, seeking her opinion of his present situation and asking her to respond in writing. He got no response and his family was unable to get her on the telephone after her she was hired in April 2007.

As I previously pointed out, documents and information were sought from Saghir, and not provided by her. She repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This was no accident, as she had a lot to hide.

The disciplinary investigation picked up steam when the authorities checked prison records and found:

(1) From April 21, 2007 through September 16, 2008, the "jailhouse lawyer" received 14 separate payments from Saghir or her brother Faizan Saghir. The payments total $5,450. The individual payments range from $200 to $750 and were made on a nearly monthly basis.

(2) Three of the visits to the jailhouse lawyer occurred between January 2008 and April 2008--during the time attorney Saghir claims to have required bed rest as much as possible and was supposedly unable to make a prison visit to the complaining inmate.

(3) The Federal prison maintains a log of incoming correspondence that has been marked by the sender as "Special Mail" a designation which may be used by attorneys and courts, as well as certain other legal and governmental entities, and which is intended to ensure that the correspondence will be opened only in the presence of the inmate. From February 2007 through April 2008, the "jailhouse lawyer" received "Special Mail" from attorney Saghir 12 separate times.

(4) From April 1, 2007 to October 1, 2008, attorney Saghir did not send any "Special Mail" to the complaining inmate (her client).

Prison records show that from April 1, 2007 through February 2009, the "jailhouse lawyer" and attorney Saghir spoke regularly, often on a daily basis, and at times more than once a day. Recording made by the prison indicate that the "jailhouse lawyer" asked attorney Saghir to provide him with information concerning cases against other individuals.

It appears that the "jailhouse lawyer" asked attorney Saghir for this kind of information on a regular basis, and that some of the individuals mentioned in the calls are both inmates at the Federal prison and clients of Saghir. Furthermore, on numerous occasions, the "jailhouse lawyer" informed Saghir that certain individuals would be contacting her, they discussed specific amounts of money that would be charged to these individuals, and the "jailhouse lawyer" often determined and communicated, to Saghir and to the potential clients, the fee to be charged for Saghir's services.

Investigating counsel received letter complaints about attorney Saghir from a number of other inmates at the Federal prison.

Retained Saghir through his family in June 2007 based on a recommendation from the "jailhouse lawyer." Prisoner A's family paid Saghir $30,000 to represent him in connection with a motion to obtain a sentence reduction. Shortly after hiring Saghir, Prisoner A filed a pro se [without a lawyer] motion prepared by the "jailhouse lawyer."

Prisoner A subsequently filed several more pro se submissions, all of which were prepared by the "jailhouse lawyer." Prisoner A asserted that he never had any direct communication with Saghir the course of the representation, that Saghir did no work on his behalf, and that Saghir failed to appear to represent Prisoner A at a hearing even after she assured Prisoner A's family that she would attend.

At some point in the spring of 2009, Saghir met with Prisoner A at Federal prison to discuss the return of the retainer. Saghir told Prisoner A that she would return his family's retainer and would send him a document setting forth certain terms regarding the return of the fee, but she did not do so.

Testified that he retained attorney Saghir in July 2007 after being told by "jailhouse lawyer"

that Saghir could assist him in reducing his sentence or getting released from prison. "Jailhouse lawyer" informed Prisoner B that Saghir's fee would be $7,000, and that $3,500 must be paid upfront. A Western Union receipt showed that Prisoner B's wife wired $2,000 to Saghir on July 6, 2007, and wired $1,500 to another individual on July 7, 2007. Prisoner B testified that the July 7 payment was made pursuant to instructions from "jailhouse lawyer."

Shortly after paying the retainer fee, Prisoner B submitted several pro se motions, all of which were authored by "jailhouse lawyer." Prisoner B testified that neither he nor his wife had any communications with attorney Saghir, despite numerous attempts to contact her.

Prisoner C stated that he retained Saghir through his family in September 2007 after learning about her from "jailhouse lawyer." He testified that he never had any communication with attorney Saghir and that Saghir conducted no work on his behalf.

Saghir told Prisoner C's aunt that the fee would be $3,000 to represent Prisoner C in connection with his appeal, and that Saghir would provide Prisoner C's aunt with a retainer agreement after receiving payment. Prisoner C's aunt stated that she sent Saghir a cashier's check for $3,000, but never received a retainer agreement and, despite numerous attempts to contact Saghir, never heard from her.

The disciplinary authorities found discipline justified because of the facts established during the course of the investigation, as well as the adverse inferences drawn from lawyer Saghir's reliance on her Fifth Amendment privilege and her failure to respond to demands for documents not subject to privilege.