In a recent decision that has captured the attention of legal professionals, a federal judge in Maryland has upheld a nearly $9 million verdict in favor of plaintiff Alia Salem Al-Sabah against defendant Jean Agbodjogbe. The judge dismissed allegations by Agbodjogbe that his attorney had a conflict of interest, declaring such allegations insufficient to demonstrate fraud on the court.
Alia Salem Al-Sabah had brought a case against Jean Agbodjogbe, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of agency duties, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. She contended that she was misinformed into believing that Agbodjogbe had invested millions of dollars she had entrusted to him into real estate properties of which she would be the owner.
This case underscores the marked difference between fraud executed between parties and fraud on the court. Even if Agbodjogbe’s claim of his lawyer’s conflict of interest were to be considered factual, the judge opined that this did not amount to a fraud on the court. Such a discernment clarifies that not all fraudulent actions necessarily translate into deception of the court, a perspective that should be taken into account by corporations and law firms for crafting stronger legal strategies.