COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
BAR COUNSEL, ) Petitioner, V. ) William A. Hahn, Esq., ___ R _ esp _ on _ de _ nt _______
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Public Reprimand No. 2025- 10
ORDER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
This matter came before the Board on a Petition for Discipline and a Stipulation of the Parties waiving hearing and requesting that the matter be resolved by the imposition of a public reprimand. On September 8, 2025, the Board voted to accept the stipulation of the parties and their joint recommendation to administer a public reprimand. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that William A. Hahn be and hereby is publicly reprimanded. A summary of the charges giving rise to the reprimand is attached to this order. Whereupon, pursuant to Supreme J udicial Court Rule 4:01, Section 8(3), and the Rules of the Board of Bar Overseers, Section 3.56, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that William A. Hahn be and hereby is PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED.
BY:J7~r~ ;,iii;Federico
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS
DATED:
September 24, 2025
WILLIAM H. HAHN BBO # 216690 Public Reprimand No. 2025-10
Order (Public Reprimand) entered by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court on 2025.
The respondent stipulated to a public reprimand for failing to communicate with an immigration client, failing to stay updated on the status of the client’s case, and failing to file the client’s application for asylum by the applicable deadline.
SUMMARY 1 On or about September 7, 2021, Saydur Jaman (“Jaman”), a citizen of Bangladesh, entered the United States and was detained by immigration authorities in Georgia. In January 2022, Jaman was released from detention and moved to Massachusetts to live with family members. Prior to his release, removal proceeding had been initiated against Jaman in a Georgia immigration court. Jaman’s family members arranged for the respondent to represent Jaman. The respondent did not communicate directly with his client at any point before or during the representation, only Jaman’s family members.
Jaman’s initial hearing was scheduled in February in Georgia. The respondent, therefore, endeavored to continue the hearing and move the proceedings from Georgia to Massachusetts. The respondent called the court to discuss moving the proceeding to Massachusetts and obtained a continuance of the February hearing. In March of 2022, the respondent mailed a motion for change of venue and notice of appearance, which the court rejected because the respondent failed to comply with the electronic filing rules pertaining to motions for change of venue. The respondent did not re-file the documents. The respondent was not served with notice that the continued hearing had been scheduled on April 25, 2022 because he had not entered his appearance due to the rejected filing. The respondent learned of the hearing from Jaman’s family member who received the notice the court had served on Jaman.
By March of 2022, the respondent knew that Jaman intended to apply for asylum as a defense to removal, and that the deadline for filing was one-year from the date of Jaman’s arrival. The respondent, however, had not ascertained the date of Jaman’s arrival or calculated the one-year deadline.
The respondent then emailed a Department of Homeland Security attorney regarding the April 25, 2022 hearing, who advised him that the matter was on the docket for a change of venue and advised the respondent that he could e-file a motion for change of venue with the court. On April 25, 2022, the respondent and Jaman failed to appear, and the presiding judge issued order of removal (i.e., deportation order) against Jaman for failure to appear. The removal order was not served on the respondent because he had not entered his appearance due to the rejected filing.
1 Compiled by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers’ Office of General Counsel based on the record of proceedings before the board.
In May 2022, Jaman’s family member provided the respondent with the removal order that the court had served on Jaman.
After speaking with the Georgia courts, the respondent filed a notice of appearance and motion seeking to reopen Jaman’s proceeding. The court allowed the respondent’s motion to reopen and rescheduled the hearing to June 22, 2022.
As the respondent had entered an appearance, the court served the hearing notice on the respondent by email. The respondent did not monitor his email for court notices, did not learn that the hearing had been scheduled and failed to appear. The presiding Judge continued the hearing to July 18, 2022. The court again served the hearing notice on the respondent by email. The respondent, again, did not learn that the hearing had been scheduled and failed to appear.
On July 18, 2022, the presiding judge issued a second removal order against Jaman for failure to appear. After learning of the second removal order, the respondent filed a motion to reopen. During the seven months that the respondent represented Jaman he had never communicated directly with his client, calculated the one-year deadline to file for asylum, or advised Jaman of the one-year deadline to file an asylum application.
By September 7, 2022, the one-year time-limit for Jaman to file for asylum expired. On or about September 28, 2022, the court allowed the respondent’s motions to reopen and change venue. Thereafter, Jaman terminated the respondent and learned from successor counsel that the one-year deadline to file for asylum had expired. Successor counsel is pursuing remedies for Jaman.
By failing to communicate with his client, inform his client of removal orders, and advise his client regarding the time to file the asylum application, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a)(2) and (b) and EOIR Rules 8 C.F.R. 1003.102 (r)(2) and (3).
By failing to monitor his email for electronic court notices and otherwise stay updated on the status of the client’s case, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1 and 1.3 and EOIR Rules 8 C.F.R. 1003.102(o) and 8 C.F.R. 1003.102(q)(2).
By failing to properly e-file his client’s motion for change of venue and to timely file his client’s asylum application, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C 1.1, 1.2(a), and 1.3 and EOIR Rules 8 C.F.R. 1003.102(o), 8 C.F.R. 1003.102(p) and 8 C.F.R. 1003.102(q)(2).
Bar Counsel and the respondent stipulated to the imposition of a public reprimand for the misconduct. By vote dated September 8, 2025, the Board of Bar Overseers voted to impose a public reprimand.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the signed Public Reprimand and Summary in the matter of Bar Counsel, Petitioner vs. William A. Hahn, Esq., on counsel for William A. Hahn, Paul M. Glickman, Esq., and to Assistant Bar Counsel, Heather LaVigne, Esq., both via email.
Dated this 24 th
day of September, 2025.
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS /s/ Toni Elam Toni Elam Administrative Assistant