Azubuike Osemene

DCCA Opinion (July 14, 2022)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals publicly censured Osemene. While retained in California through a law firm called the Legal Clinic to represent a client in an immigration matter, Osemene failed to provide the client with a writing setting f forth the basis or rate of his fee or the scope of the representation and knowingly revealed a client secret when seeking to withdraw from the representation in violation of Rules 1.5(b) and 1.6(a). Osemene also gave false testimony during the disciplinary hearing.

Board Report and Orders (May 31, 2022)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly censure Osemene. While retained in California through a law firm called the Legal Clinic to represent a client in an immigration matter, Osemene failed to provide the client with a writing setting forth the basis or rate of his fee or the scope of the representation in violation of Rule 1.5(b) and knowingly revealed a client secret in violation of Rule 1.6(a). Osemene also gave false testimony during the disciplinary hearing.

Hearing Committee Report (January 28, 2022)

Summary: Not yet available.

Answer (January 29, 2019)

Specification of Charges (December 21, 2018)