Kenyan-born US lawyer sues blogger for defamation

A US-based, Kenyan-born lawyer has sued a Kenyan blogger at the Montgomery County Circuit Court in Montgomery, Maryland, for  “publishing offensive, inflammatory and often defamatory articles mostly against individuals or persons of Kenyan heritage residing in the US or abroad.”

Regina Njogu, who is licensed to practice law in New York has filed the libel complaint against the unnamed plaintiff whom she says even after asking that the posting be pulled down, the defendant has failed or refused to do so.  The plaintiff says the said article is malicious and meant to tarnish her name.

She has named the owner of a blog named Kenyapoa.com as the respondent.

In her deposition, Ms Njogu states that On or about March 28th 2016, the defendant authored and published an article on his/her internet blog titled; Kenyan lawyer has been indefinitely indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for engaging in professional misconduct. 

“With the defendant having installed privacy features on his/her account, without a Subpoena, it is virtually impossible to discover his/her identity. The defendant has taken advantage of legal protections to make false, unsubstantiated, and defamatory statements against Plaintiff by operating anonymously and by protecting his/her information from discovery. The offensive and defamatory statements made by defendant are not protected under the First Amendment (of the constitution of the United states),” argues the plaintiff.

She requests Subpoena Duces Tecum directed at the blogger to show cause. The complainant is also seeking “punitive damages for actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth” in the amount of $100,000 (Kshs 10m).

Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant as follows;

 

  1. Grant a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendant from making any further defamatory and false statements concerning Plaintiff
  2. Require Defendant to bring down the article containing the false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff
  3. Require Defendant to make public retraction of the false statements concerning Plaintiff to be posted on his/her blog and other popular blogs accessible to the audience of his blog. These blogs include Mwakilishi.com, Diasporamessenger.com, Kenya Satellite News Network (ksnmedia.com), Kenyamoja.com and The Daily Nation Newspaper
  4. Award presumed damages for libel perse as the court may determine appropriate.
  5. Award punitive damages for actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth in the amount of 100,000.00
  6. Interest as allowed by law;
  7. Costs of suit; and
  8. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.

 

Below is the full plaint as filed in court which also serves as legal notice to the defendant:

 

 

 

Montgomery County Circuit Court

50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850

 

 

 

 

Regina Wanjiru Njogu                                               )

3600 Pear Tree Ct                                                       )

Silver Spring MD 20906                                             )           CASE NO:                                                                                                                              )

Plaintiff                                                                   )

  1.                                                                      )           COMPLAINT

John Doe                                                                     )                                                                                                                                                           )

Defendant                                                                   )

)

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION CONSISTING LIBEL PERSE AND INNUENDO

 

Comes now Plaintiff REGINA NJOGU (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and hereby sues Defendant JOHN DOE (hereinafter “Defendant”) for libel perse, for innuendo and for making and publishing false and damaging statements and for causes of action alleges as follows:

 

PARTIES

 

  1. Plaintiff is a female individual who now is, and was at all times material to this law suit a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland.

 

  1. Plaintiff was admitted to practice law in Maryland on June 16th, 2009 and was similarly admitted to practice law in the state of New York in July 2007. Plaintiff has at all times material to this law suit enjoyed a good reputation, both generally and in respect with her law practice in Maryland and with respect to her status as an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New York. Between  July 2009 and August 2015, Plaintiff maintained a small law practice in Burtonsville, Montgomery County Maryland at 3537 Spencerville Road, Ste. 4 Burtonsville MD 20866.

 

  1. On October 27th 2015, Plaintiff was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland pursuant to Maryland Rule 1.8(a) and Maryland Rule 8.4(a), (b), and (c), following a Joint Petition by the Plaintiff and the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission (“hereinafter “AGC”) in the Attorney Disciplinary case; AGC v. Regina Wanjiru Njogu (unreported) (Hereinafter, referred to as “The Disciplinary Case”). As laid out in the Joint Petition, Plaintiff accepted responsibility for conduct that was in violation of Rules 1.8(a) and 8.4 (a), (b), and (c) that arose from a business transaction between Plaintiff and one of her former clients.- EXHIBIT B. Plaintiff submitted information and proof to the AGC demonstrating that at the time of the rule-violating conduct, Plaintiff was suffering from Bipolar Disorder and alcoholism resulting in incapacity that largely contributed to her offensive conduct. The Plaintiff was evaluated by an AGC-appointed physician that confirmed the Plaintiff’s assertion that mental infirmity contributed to her rule-violating conduct. This finding was stipulated in the Joint Petition. (Paragraph 8 of the Joint Petition) – EXHIBIT B. In fact, as a primary condition for Plaintiff’s reinstatement to the practice of law in Maryland, she is required to provide a letter from a qualified mental health professional attesting to the fact that she has been treated for and has recovered from bipolar and alcoholism, and is fit to return to practice. The disciplinary case in Maryland notwithstanding, Plaintiff was at all times material to this complaint and is now still a member in good standing of the New York Bar. – EXHIBIT C.
  2. A screenshot of a section of the said article showing a picture of lawyer Regina Njogu. PHOTO I FILE

 

  1. Defendant is an anonymous internet blogger, writer, and publisher of sensational and tabloid-style articles on his/her internet blogging site https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com, (“hereinafter “blogging site”) – EXHIBIT D. Defendant’s names and identity are unknown to Plaintiff at this time who therefore sues Defendant under such fictitious name: JOHN DOE.

 

  1. Defendant uses his/her internet blogging site https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com to author and publish offensive, inflammatory, and often defamatory articles mostly against individuals or persons of Kenyan heritage residing in the US or abroad. The purpose of these articles is always to create disaffection against the individuals’ subject of Defendant’s articles published on the blogging site. Defendant is responsible for all the false and defamatory articles as well as all statements in the articles and comments published on the blogging site and Defendant is the author, writer and originator of the articles on the blogging site. Defendant is responsible for authoring and publishing the article https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/kenyan-lawyer-has-been-indefinitely-suspended-from-the-practice-of-law-for-engaging-in-professional-misconduct/ about and containing false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.

 

 

VENUE AND JUSRIDICTION

 

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5, above as though fully set forth herein

 

  1. Venue is proper in Montgomery County Maryland under MD Rule 6-103 and MD rule 6-202(3). Defendant performed tortious acts and omissions via cyber in Maryland with corresponding injury occurring in Maryland and Defendant’s businesses are extensive in and directed to people in Maryland. The injury occurred and continues to occur in Maryland.

 

  1. This Court enjoys personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the false and defamatory statements made and published by Defendants were published in Maryland, and Plaintiff, the target of the defamatory statements was and remains a resident of the Maryland.

 

  1. This Court enjoys subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages exceeds $75,000

 

DISCOVERY

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 above as though fully set forth herein

 

  1. Plaintiff requests Discovery in this case pursuant to MD Rule 2-510 and pursuant to Independent Newspapers Inc. v. Zeblon Brodie (Court of Appeal Maryland, February, 27, 2009 No. 63)

 

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 11 above as though fully set forth herein

 

  1. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-510 and Independent Newspapers Inc. v. Zeblon Brodie (Court of Appeal Maryland, February, 27, 2009 No. 63), Plaintiff requests Subpoena Duces Tecum directed at AUTOMATTIC INC. a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 132 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94107, San Francisco City, San Francisco County California. AUTOMATTIC INC was at all times material to this suit and is now still the Web Host, IP Provider, and Registrant of Defendant’s blogging site https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com. – EXHIBIT D

 

  1. Plaintiff also requests Subpoena Duces Tecum directed at MARK MONITOR INC. Mark Monitor Inc. a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 50 California Street Ste. 200 San Francisco CA 94111, San Francisco City, San Francisco County California. MARK MONITOR INC. was at all times material to this suit and is now the Registrar and Domain Provider of the Defendant’s blogging site https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com. – EXHIBIT D

 

  1. At all material times relevant to this law suit and presently AUTOMATTIC INC. AND MARK MONITOR INC. respectively and separately maintained the account protocol of Defendant and control of Defendants blogging site https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com. Plaintiff requests two separate Subpoena Duces Tecum to compel disclosure within thirty (30)DAYS of service of the request for disclosure via subpoena by both AUTOMATTIC INC. and MARK MONITOR INC. respectively of Defendant’s Internet Protocol and account information that is in each of their respective custody and/or possession,. Plaintiff has made extensive and exhaustive efforts to locate the identity and location the of Defendant as follows;

 

  1. Plaintiff TWICE posted messages and NOTICE on the comments section of the article https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/kenyan-lawyer-has-been-indefinitely-suspended-from-the-practice-of-law-for-engaging-in-professional-misconduct/ requesting Defendant to bring down the defamatory article and also provided notice of filing of this law suit but Defendant did not and has not responded as at the time of filing of this law suit. EXHIBIT A & K

 

  1. Plaintiff searched for the Defendant on social media platforms including facebook, twitter, linkedin and use of google search engine and pursued possible leads and trails but has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff also contacted individuals that might have known Defendant’s identity. EXHIBIT I & K

 

  1. Plaintiff contacted AUTOMATTIC INC. and MARK MONITOR INC. respectively by phone and email requesting them to bring down the article and requested Defendant’s account information and received a response from AUTOMATTIC INC. indicating that Defendant has installed privacy features on his/her account and for that reason, AUTOMATTIC INC would not provide Plaintiff with Defendant’s account information except and unless by subpoena from Court. EXHIBIT E & H

 

  1. c) With Defendant having installed privacy features on his/her account, without a Subpoena, it is virtually impossible to discover his/her identity. Defendant HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE advantage of legal protections to make false, unsubstantiated, and defamatory statements against Plaintiff by operating anonymously and by protecting his/her information from discovery. The offensive and defamatory statements made by Defendant are not protected under the First Amendment.

 

  1. Plaintiff has met all the five requirements that a plaintiff is required to meet in an internet defamation case in order to obtain a subpoena to compel an internet Webhost to disclose the identity of a defendant, as set by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Zeblon Brodie (supra).

 

CAUSES OF ACTION

 

DEFENDANT FALSELY ACCUSES PLAINTIFF OF MISMANAGEMENT OF CLIENT’S FUNDS AND INSURANCE FRAUD IN AN INTERNET BLOG

 

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 15 above as though fully set forth herein

 

  1. Defendant negligently and maliciously published false defamatory statements of fact about Plaintiff, as an attorney and as a private individual. The false statements include, but are not limited to:

 

  1. On or about March 28th 2016, Defendant authored and published an article on his/her internet blog https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com titled and styled as follows; https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/kenyan-lawyer-has-been-indefinitely-suspended-from-the-practice-of-law-for-engaging-in-professional-misconduct/  (hereinafter “the article” EXHIBIT A. In the first paragraph of the article, Defendant writes; “Kenyan Lawyer with strong ties to the Kenyan media and Kenya’s leading news paper (the daily Nation) has been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for engaging in professional misconduct including mismanagement of clients (sic) money”. This statement is false on its face and is patently malicious. Plaintiff was not indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland for mismanagement of client’s funds or money as stated in the article. The Disciplinary Case proceedings, the Joint Petition, the Order of Indefinite Suspension and any and all other information related to Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Case does not contain any information indicating any complaints, allegations and/or accusations against the Plaintiff for misappropriation or mismanagement of clients’ funds and the finding of the court in AGC v. Regina W. Njogu contains no finding of misappropriation or mismanagement of client’s funds against Plaintiff.  In fact, the Plaintiff has never during all her years of practice in Maryland held a client escrow account and the complaint by Plaintiff’s former client did not allege mismanagement or misappropriation of clients’ funds. EXHIBIT A & B

 

  1. In Paragraph 7 of the article, Defendant repeats and republishes the same false claim that the Plaintiff was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland for mismanagement of client’s funds. The relevant paragraph 7 of the article reads “ Regina Wanjiru Njogu is not the first lawyer to misbehave this way. Many lawyers all over the world are known to mismanage client funds and commit other sorts of misconduct and fraud”

 

  1. In paragraph 3 of the Article, Defendant claims that the Plaintiff committed insurance fraud when he/she writes “Other violations connected to the insurance fraud include causing the client to add the vehicle to the client’s insurance policy, for the negative impact on the client’s vehicle registration due to accidents and traffic citations incurred by Ms. Regina, which were attributed to the client. There were other violations as well”. The assertion in this paragraph by Defendant is completely false because the misconduct for which the Plaintiff was disciplined by the AGC did not rise to the level of insurance fraud, and there is no where in the disciplinary proceedings, the client complaint or any and all other information related to the Disciplinary Case was the Plaintiff ever accused of or found responsible for committing insurance fraud. Furthermore, when Defendant writes “There were other violations as well”., it means that in addition to those violations stated or disclosed in the article, there were other multiple violations not mentioned in the article, leaving it to the reader’s imagination and speculation what these other violations could be. The nature and seriousness of the undisclosed violations can reasonably be inferred to be related to and equivalent to those violations known or disclosed in the article.

 

  1. Defendant further falsely states the following in paragraph 2 of the article; “ Regina Wanjiru Njogu who represented Uhuru Kenyatta in matters political in Washington DC forums and other activities while at the same time dancing and wining with CORD activists to benefit from both sides was found to have engaged in professional misconduct as a lawyer”. Uhuru Kenyatta was at all times material to this lawsuit and still is at the present the President of the Republic of Kenya. CORD was at all times material to this law suit and still is at present the main opposition entity/coalition in Kenya. CORD’s leader is Raila Odinga who was at all times material to this complaint and still is Kenya’s leading opposition figure. There was at all times material to this complaint and continues to be, an acerbic and highly contested relationship between President Uhuru Kenyatta and CORD’s and Opposition Leader Raila Odinga respectively. The Kenyan public was at all times material to this complaint and continues to be sharply divided in its support for each President Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga respectively. When Defendant states “Ms. Regina Wanjiru Njogu who represented Uhuru Kenyatta in matters political in Washington DC forums and other activities while at the same time dancing and wining with CORD activists to benefit from both sides was found to have engaged in professional misconduct as a lawyer”., the plain and obvious meaning of Defendant’s statement is that Plaintiff played both sides, is an opportunist, acted in bad faith and was involved in underhandedness. At no time has Plaintiff ever represented the President of Kenya on anything or anywhere in public or in private, and at no time has she ever associated herself with individuals of Kenyan origin on the basis of their political opinion or political alignment.

 

  1. Defendant also writes the following in paragraph 7 “Ms. Regina Wanjiru Njogu is not the first lawyer to misbehave this way. Many lawyers all over the world are known to mismanage client funds and commit other sorts of misconduct and fraud”. This statement by Defendant is widely cast but defamatory all the same. It places Plaintiff in the same basket of lawyers that mismanage clients’ funds. It also opens the door to speculation in regard to all sorts of misconduct Plaintiff and members of her profession commit.

 

  1. In paragraph 5, Defendant wrote the following “When Regina was reached out for comment she came up with a different explanation and posted her answer in the blogs. Stating that she has had bipolar disorder and blaming everything for it. Although known to drink heavily, Regina is known to be boisterous to people who know her and she appears to have met her match this time around. We hope she will continue to take her medicine if it’s true she is sincerely sick”. Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff was reached in regard to the claims in the article is completely false. In fact, Plaintiff does not know the identity of Defendant as pleaded in paragraph 4. Additionally, when Defendant states that Plaintiff came up with a different explanation, he/she accuses Plaintiff of being iffy or questionable in her assertion that Bipolar contributed to her failure of judgment and professional misconduct. This statement also defamatory as it falsely suggests that the Plaintiff has a history of misconduct, but in this particular case, she was caught.

 

ACTUAL MALICE AND RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH

 

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 above as though fully set forth herein

 

  1. All statements in the article as alleged in paragraph 1 through 23 are made, authored and published by Defendant with actual malice in tone, intent, and conjecture, and with ill-will, spite, and in total disregard for the truth.

 

  1. Defendant authored and published false information concerning Plaintiff knowing it to be false and did so recklessly with disregard for the truth. In fact defendant fabricated allegations and claims and presented them as the finding of the AGC and the Court and published them in the article for the public to read.

 

  1. In paragraph 5 the Defendant states “Regina is known to be boisterous to people who know her and she appears to have met her match this time around. We hope she will continue to take her medicine if it’s true she is sincerely sick”. This statement contains malicious intent, undertones, and resentment towards Plaintiff. It falsely suggests that the Plaintiff has a history of misconduct, but in this particular case, she was caught. In the short ending statement of paragraph 5 that reads “We hope she will continue to take her medicine if it’s true she is sincerely sick” Defendant falsely suggests that Plaintiff is not believable in her claim to be ill and that there are doubts whether Plaintiff is in fact afflicted with Bipolar.

 

  1. Likewise, in paragraph 7, Defendant writes “Ms. Regina Wanjiru Njogu is not the first lawyer to misbehave this way. Many lawyers all over the world are known to mismanage client funds and commit other sorts of misconduct and fraud.” Further in the same paragraph the Defendant writes Lawyers must understand that, citizens of the world deserve better and with good lawyers, the world would be a better place than it is today”. These statements by Defendant’s capture the acrimony Defendant has towards Plaintiff and members of her profession and his/her motive to get even.

 

  1. At the conclusion of the article, Defendant does not attach the source of information in the article. He/she only attaches a link to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Order of Indefinite Suspension EXHIBIT J, and the list of attorneys disciplined in Maryland in year 2016 EXHIBIT G . Defendant’s failure to attach the source of the information contained in the article is intentional, deliberate, and intended to allow him/her to fabricate and peddle falsehoods without being accountable for the truth. Failure to attach the source of the information in the article is also intended to hide any information that is favorable to the plaintiff such as the fact that Plaintiff is still a member in good standing of the New York Bar and that she is subject to reinstatement into Maryland Bar upon fulfillment of certain conditions. –Defendant particularly attached the Order of Suspension by the Board of Immigration Appeals because plaintiff’s main line of practice was immigration law. Failure to attach all information pertaining to the discipline of the Plaintiff by the AGC is intended to present ‘half the story’ portray Plaintiff in false light and/or show that the Plaintiff’s character is severely wanting. Failure to attach some of his/her sources is intentional and malicious.

 

  1. The article published in Defendant’s blog https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com is accompanied by two different photographs of the Plaintiff and referred to the Plaintiff by name throughout, was made of, and concerning Plaintiff, and was so understood by those who read the article online through google search and other search engines as it appeared in the worldwide web.

 

  1. The articlehttps://kenyapoa.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/kenyan-lawyer-has-been-indefinitely-suspended-from-the-practice-of-law-for-engaging-in-professional-misconduct/  concerns Plaintiff and has been widely read. In fact the article is the first search result that appears when someone searches the plaintiff using Plaintiff’s name on the google search engine. EXHIBIT F.

 

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

 

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 30 above as though fully set forth herein

 

  1. Plaintiff continues to suffer severe emotional distress because of the Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct. Defendant’s intentionally or recklessly made false statements that created a high degree of risk of harm, and he/she also deliberately proceeded to act in conscious disregard or indifference to the risk. Specifically, Defendant intentionally made false statements of fact in a blogging site viewed over the worldwide web that is accessible to virtuously any person with access to the internet anywhere in the world. Examples of Defendant’s outrageous statements include but are not limited to;

 

  1. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of mismanagement of client’s funds in her capacity as an attorney licensed to practice law in Maryland
  2. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of committing insurance fraud in her capacity as an attorney licensed to practice law in Maryland
  3. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of being an opportunist, a shyster and constar
  4. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of feigning illness and giving false and lame excuses
  5. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of having committed ‘other’ and all manner of misconduct

 

  1. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer shame, mental pain, mortification, and injury to her feelings, to her career and to her employment prospects. Plaintiff continues to suffer emotional distress intentionally inflicted by the Defendant.

 

  1. The above-described publication was at all material times to this lawsuit and is now not privileged because Plaintiff is not a public figure and in any event, it was published by Defendant with actual malice, ill will, hatred, and in reckless disregard for the truth in that Defendant vindictively expressed a motive to “get” the Plaintiff. Because of Defendant’s malice in publishing, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages and presumed damages.

 

Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant as follows;

 

  1. Grant a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendant from making any further defamatory and false statements concerning Plaintiff
  2. Require Defendant to bring down the article containing the false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff
  3. Require Defendant to make public retraction of the false statements concerning Plaintiff to be posted on his/her blog and other popular blogs accessible to the audience of his blog. These blogs include Mwakilishi.com, Diasporamessenger.com, Kenya Satellite News Network (ksnmedia.com), Kenyamoja.com and The Daily Nation Newspaper
  4. Award presumed damages for libel perse as the court may determine appropriate.
  5. Award punitive damages for actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth in the amount of 100,000.00
  6. Interest as allowed by law;
  7. Costs of suit; and
  8. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.

 

 

DATED: ____________________                           _________________________

(Signature)

 

 

VERIFICATION

 

I, Regina Wanjiru Njogu, am a Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at ________________________

 

DATED: _________________ ___________________________________

 

Sworn to me this _____ day of ____________________2017.

 

 

____________________________

Notary public

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Complaint for Defamation was furnished by United States Mail, postage prepaid, this ___________day of _____________________to:

 

 

 

Executed on this _______________ day of ___________________2017

 

 

____________________

Regina W. Njogu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBITS

 

  1. Article on the blog https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/kenyan-lawyer-has-been-indefinitely-suspended-from-the-practice-of-law-for-engaging-in-professional-misconduct/
  2. Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension in AGC v. Regina Wanjiru Njogu(Unreported)
  3. Proof of Plaintiff’s membership with the New York Bar
  4. Copy of Defendants front page of his/her blogging site https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com
  5. Internet computer print-out indicating that Automattic Inc. is the Registrant, Webhost and IP provider for https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com and that Mark Monitor Inc. is the Domain Provider and Registrar of https://kenyapoa.wordpress.com
  6. Order of Indefinite Suspension in AGC v. Regina Wanjiru Njogu(Unreported)
  7. List of Maryland attorneys that were subject to disciplinary action in Maryland in 2016.

23,577 total views, 18 views today

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

About Author

Leave a Reply

error: Content is protected !!