MadanMohan Singh Ahluwalia - #175664
AKA: Raja Ahluwalia
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Ahluwalia Law PC
255 N Market St # 248
San jose, CA 95110
|Phone Number:||(408) 416-3149|
|Fax Number:||(650) 204-6813|
||Undergraduate School:||See Registration Card;|
||Law School:||San Francisco Law Sch; San Francisco CA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|7/28/2005||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|1/20/1995||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
State Bar Court Cases
NOTE: The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. The format and pagination of documents posted on this site may vary from the originals in the case file as a result of their translation from the original format into Word and PDF. Copies of additional related documents in a case are available upon request. Only Opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket, which can be found at: http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.
|Effective Date||Case Number||Description|
California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
July 28, 2005
MADAN MOHAN SINGH AHLUWALIA [#175664], 40, of San Mateo was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and make restitution. The order took effect July 28, 2005.Ahluwalia stipulated to misconduct in five matters. In three cases, he failed to perform legal services competently because he did not keep his immigration clients informed of the status of their appeals. He did not pursue one appeal at all, one was filed late and a third was denied and he did not inform the client.Another client was ordered deported and never received a hearing on his asylum application because Ahluwalia failed to notify him of a hearing. Ahluwalia filed a motion to reopen the case, based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In a declaration, he said his client failed to appear due to a clerical error in Ahluwalia’s office. The court denied the motion because it was filed late and it did not comply with a requirement that all such motions be accompanied by a client complaint to the State Bar or an explanation as to why the complaint was not pursued.Ahluwalia then prepared two letters for his client to sign: a complaint to the bar and a request to withdraw the complaint. Although the client did not wish to sign the first letter, Ahluwalia advised him it was necessary to prevail on the motion to reopen the case.The court denied the motion again.The client asked the bar to withdraw his complaint and hired a new lawyer to appeal the matter. Ahluwalia did not refund any of his $1,000 advance fee.In the fifth matter, a client facing deportation hired Ahluwalia to appeal. The client then married a lawful U.S. citizen and had two children. Four years later, the appeal was dismissed and the deportation order was outstanding.The client then asked Ahluwalia to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and also to assist with a V-1 visa based on his marriage. Ahluwalia admitted some time later that he did not file the appeal but assured the client he would not be deported based on the pending visa status, which he expected to be approved. In fact, the client still was subject to deportation.The client hired a new lawyer. An interview was scheduled regarding the client’s application for employment authorization, and the new lawyer told him not to attend because he would be deported. The client went anyway because of Ahluwalia’s assurances that he would not be deported. The client was arrested and remained in custody for three months. His case was eventually reopened with the help of a third lawyer.Ahluwalia failed to perform legal services competently or to refund unearned fees.In mitigation, he has no prior record of discipline.