Source: http://www.abilblog.com/us-blog/category/aba-model-rule-12d
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:01:54+00:00

Document:
Ever since Donald Trump won the election, many immigrants have justifiably become fearful. During his election campaign, Trump engaged in harsh rhetoric against immigrants. He said he would build a wall and deport 2 to 3 million immigrants with criminal records. Trump also promised that he would rescind President Obama’s deferred action program for young people, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), who arrived in the United States prior to the age of 16 and are out of status. There are also proposals of banning immigrants from certain countries or areas, as well as engaging in extreme vetting of people from Muslim countries as well as reviving the registration program.
The role of the immigration lawyer has become ever more important since Trump winning the election, and the prospects for increased immigration enforcement after January 20, 2017 when Trump is President. While Trump has softened some of his harsh rhetoric since the election, many of his advisors are in favor of strong enforcement such as Jeff Sessions who will be the Attorney General and other immigration hardliners such as Kris Kobach and Stephen Miller. Hence, the fear is palpable, and immigration lawyers have been inundated with calls from worried clients.
Undocumented immigrants fearful of a new enforcement machine will rely on the immigration lawyer to advise them on how they can remain in the country, especially if they have US citizen children. In the event that DACA is rescinded, although there is an ameliorative legislative proposal whose outcome is uncertain, DACA recipients may want to know whether they can change their address, which would be different from the address that was provided in the application. Similarly, even lawful permanent residents with a criminal records and who are vulnerable to deportation may ask the same question of the lawyer. Employers will want to know whether they can continue to hire a DACA employee if the program will be rescinded. A DACA employee will want to know whether she can continue working for the employer if the employer does not realize that the work authorization has expired.
The key issue is whether counseling an unauthorized immigrant to remain in the U.S., even indirectly (such as by advising of future immigration benefits), is potentially in violation of Model Rule 1.2(d) or its analog under state bar ethics rules.
While practitioners must ascertain the precise language of the analog of Model Rule 1.2(d) in their own states, one can argue that overstaying a visa is neither “criminal” nor “fraudulent” conduct. Even while an entry without inspection (EWI) might be a misdemeanor under INA §275, it is no longer a continuing criminal violation to remain in the U.S. after the EWI. Although being unlawfully present in the U.S. may be an infraction under civil immigration statutes, it is not criminal or fraudulent, and given the paradoxical situation in our immigration system where an undocumented noncitizen can eternally hope to gain legal status (such as if a US citizen child turns 21 or if the individual is placed in removal and obtains cancellation of removal), a lawyer ought not to be sanctioned under Model Rule 1.2(d) or its state analog with respect to advising individuals who are not in status in the U.S.
Of course, the most prudent approach is to refrain from expressly advising or encouraging a client to remain in the U.S. in violation of the law; and instead, present both the adverse consequences and potential benefits to the client if he or she chooses to remain in the United States in violation of the law. In fact, adopting such an approach becomes imperative when remaining in the U.S., in certain circumstances, does constitute criminal conduct. For instance, failure to depart after a removal order pursuant to INA 237 (a) within 90 days under INA §243 renders such conduct a criminal felony. Even here there is an exception at INA §243(a)(2), which provides: “It is not in violation of paragraph (1) to take any proper steps for the purpose of securing cancellation of or exemption from such order of removal or for the purpose of securing the alien’s release from incarceration or custody.” Moreover, there are provisions that allow a person who received a final removal order many years ago to reopen if the government consents to such reopening and there is available relief against deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iv).
The ethical lawyer must also be a competent lawyer who is capable of analyzing all the nuances and contours of statutory and regulatory provisions. Even if the DACA program is cancelled, the employment authorization document (EAD) is not unless the government specifically revokes it pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.14(b), and only after the EAD recipient has been given an opportunity to respond through a Notice of Intent to Revoke. Thus, a lawyer can ethically advise that an unexpired EAD still authorizes the DACA recipient to work in the US, and for the employer to continue to employ this person. In the event that a DACA client’s employment authorization has expired, but the employer is not being represented by the same lawyer as the DACA client, this lawyer is under no obligation to alert the employer if it did not notice the expiration of the employment authorization. The employer may be subject to employer sanctions for continuing to employ an unauthorized worker while the DACA client is in any event amenable to deportation whether he is working or not.
Lawyers should also be exploring for alternative opportunities for DACA recipients under immigration law. If they have a legal basis for permanent residence, they should explore it, such as through marriage to a US citizen spouse or through some other green card sponsorship basis. Even if they cannot adjust status in the US if they previously entered without inspection, they can leave on advance parole and return without triggering the 3 or 10 year bar, which would provide a basis for eligibility to adjust status as an immediate relative of a US citizen. Alternatively, they can take advantage of the provisional waiver rule, which allows one to waive based on extreme hardship to a qualifying relative the 3 or 10 year bars in advance of the departure from the US in order to process the immigrant visa at the US consulate. These suggestions are by no means exhaustive and may not be accomplished by January 20, 2017 when Trump takes office, so DACA recipients must consult with advocacy organizations and attorneys to fully explore all their options.
A lawful permanent resident who may have a criminal conviction cannot be immediately removed from the United States. He is first subject to removal hearing and must be served with a Notice to Appear. Not all criminal conduct results in removal. Even if a criminal conviction is considered a crime involving moral turpitude or an aggravated felony, it should be carefully considered if such a characterization can be contested under the categorical approach. This approach, best exemplified in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) and Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), requires identification of the minimum prosecuted conduct that violates the criminal statute rather than the conduct of the respondent in removal proceedings.
Permanent residents are in a rush to file for naturalization, but the lawyer must carefully review the client’s history to ensure that nothing comes up during the naturalization process that could trigger some ground of removability, such as an improperly obtained green card or a criminal conviction. If the client still wants to take the risk of applying for naturalization, the lawyer must also determine if there are grounds for a waiver in removal proceedings, and should also advise that it is likely that discretionary waivers may be less readily granted within a bureaucracy that is oriented towards enforcement rather than grating immigration benefits.
It may be an exercise in futility for the lawyer to advise a client to move residence so as to avoid detection, even when the client is not being actively pursued and there is no outstanding warrant. If the DHS wishes to initiate removal proceedings, it can do so by serving the Notice to Appear by mail. It would be better if the undocumented immigrant received the NTA at the last known address that the government has rather than not receiving such an NTA and being subjected to an in absentia removal order. While an in absentia order can be reopened for lack of notice, it is time consuming, stressful and the results are uncertain. In any event, an AR-11 has to be filed whenever a person changes address. If a person with a removal order reports that she is being pursued by ICE agents, it would be ethically problematic for the lawyer to advise this person to evade ICE agents by changing address. Remaining in the US after a removal order is a felony under INA 243 and a lawyer should not be advising a client to engage in criminal conduct, although a lawyer could, if applicable, advise such a client on ways to overcome the removal order or to seek a stay of removal or apply for other prosecutorial discretion remedies such as an order of supervision. It would be clearly unethical for a lawyer to advise a client who is facing ongoing removal proceedings to not honor hearing dates as it would lead to a removal order in absentia, and the lawyer will be held responsible for providing ineffective assistance to her client.
Appellants maintain that Section 1324(a)(1)(D) is solely directed to acts bringing aliens into the country. However, the plain language states, “knowing that [the illegal alien’s] residence is or will be in violation of the law.” (Emphasis supplied). Because the use of the verb “is” clearly connotes the present status of the illegal aliens’ residence in this case within the United States, it can only be understood to apply expressly to actions directed towards illegal aliens already in this country.
Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly counseling or assisting a client to commit a crime or fraud. This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client’s conduct. Nor does the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a party to the course of action. There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity.
Finally, when immigrants are frightened and vulnerable, they will seek desperate measures such as applying for political asylum. The filing of a political asylum application enables the individual to remain in the United States and even apply for work authorization if the application has been pending for 150 days or more. If there is a meritorious claim for asylum, a lawyer ought to pursue it on behalf of the client, after the client has been informed, and provided consent, about the risks. There is a possibility that the claim, if not granted at the affirmative level, could be referred before an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings. If the client is unable to win before an Immigration Judge, he or she would end up with a final removal order. If the asylum claim is filed after one year, and the exceptions to filing after one year cannot be met, there is an even greater chance that the application will be referred into removal proceedings. For a claim to be meritorious the lawyer must ascertain whether the client can provide a detailed statement regarding his claim to asylum and there is a sufficient nexus on one of the protected grounds. Even if there is a precedent decision against a particular ground for an asylum claim, the lawyer must ask whether there are good faith grounds to seek a reversal of the adverse precedent decision.
Thus, even if the ultimate objective of filing an asylum application is to ultimately seek cancellation of removal, the asylum claim must still be meritorious. It behooves the ethical practitioner to refer to recent AILA resources, namely, Ethical Considerations Related to Affirmatively Filing an Application for Asylum for the Purpose of Applying for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for a Nonpermanent Resident and Nine Ethical Questions to Consider before Filing Asylum Claims to Pursue COR.
Last and not the least, however sympathetic the circumstances may be, the ethical lawyer should never assist in filing an application knowing that it contains a false statement of fact or law. Although there are clear rules, ABA Model Rule 3.3 and 8 CFR 1003.103(c), that expressly prohibit such conduct, the lawyer could also be implicated under federal criminal provisions such as 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1546.
Although medical and recreational marijuana activities are illegal under federal law, at least 25 states have legalized marijuana for medical use. Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska have gone even further by legalizing some forms of recreational marijuana, including its production and sale.
This conflict between federal and state law creates a curious anomaly for the foreign national who wishes to enter the United States either as a temporary visitor or as a temporary resident. If a foreign national wishes to invest in a marijuana business in a state where it is legal, and even endeavor to obtain an E-2 investor visa, this person would likely be rendered inadmissible under federal statutory immigration provisions.
Under 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), foreign nationals can be found inadmissible if the authorities know, or have reasonable ground to believe, that they seek to enter the United States to engage in any unlawful activity. Also, under INA 212(a)(2)(C), a foreign national can also be deemed inadmissible if the authorities know or have reason to believe that the person is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance as defined under 21 U.S.C. 802, which includes marijuana.
If the foreign national has actually used marijuana in a state where it is legal, or undertaken other legal business activities involving marijuana in that state, this person can be found inadmissible for admitting to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a law relating to a controlled substance pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
Although the Cole Memorandum makes clear that it will not enforce marijuana activities that do not implicate its eight priorities in states where it is legal, it still considers manufacture, possession and distribution of marijuana as a federal crime. Thus, it may be difficult for a non-citizen who has been denied a visa to invoke the Cole Memorandum as a defense in demonstrating that the proposed marijuana activities will not be considered as an unlawful activity. Until there is a federal law that legalizes specific marijuana activities, the foreign national will find it extremely difficult to be admitted into the United States to pursue such activities even in states where it is legal.
It is also likely that a consul may question one who wishes to enter to undertake marijuana activities whether he or she has personally used marijuana, which could then potentially count as an admission to a violation of a law involving a controlled substance. However, in order to count as an admission, the BIA set forth the following requirements for a validly obtained admission: (1) the admitted conduct must constitute the essential elements of a crime in the jurisdiction in which it occurred; (2) the applicant must have been provided with the definition and essential elements of the crime in understandable terms prior to making the admission; and (3) the admission must have been made voluntarily. See Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594 (BIA 1957). If this strict protocol is not adhered to, then a non-citizen should arguably not be considered to be have admitted to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a law relating to a controlled substance pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
If the foreign national wishes to directly set up or be involved in a marijuana business in a state where it is legal, which includes its sale or distribution, this would most likely be problematic under federal immigration law. The question is whether activities that are more remote, such as a foreign national seeking to enter the United States on an H-1B visa to join an advertising firm as a creative director where one of its clients is a marijuana business in Colorado, would be considered equally problematic under federal immigration law. The H-1B worker will direct the advertising strategy for this client among several other clients, who are not in the marijuana business. Such a person seeking admission under the H-1B visa who is remotely connected to the marijuana business in another capacity should not be found inadmissible under the immigration laws.
The same reasoning should apply to a foreign national lawyer who will be employed in a New York law firm that specialized in health law. The law firm requires its lawyers to advise hospital clients in complying with New York’s Compassionate Care Act (“CCA”) – a law permitting the use of medical marijuana in tightly controlled circumstances. Under the CCA, health care providers and other entities may apply to be selected as Registered Organizations authorized to manufacture and dispense medical marijuana. The lawyer will assist clients, among other things, in applying to be selected as a Registered Organization, and would also advise thereafter with respect to compliance.
Rule 1.2(d), variations of which are incorporated in most state bar rules of professional responsibility, is one of the most important ethical rules. It point-blank prohibits a lawyer from advising a client to engage in illegal or fraudulent conduct. Rule 1.2(d), however, provides an exception for the lawyer to discuss the consequences of the proposed illegal conduct even though it does not allow the lawyer to assist the client with respect to the illegal conduct. It would be difficult for a New York lawyer to comply with Rule 1.2(d) with respect to advising a client under the CCA, as it would require the lawyer to counsel the health care client about medical marijuana activities that the lawyer knows is illegal under federal law although it is legal under the New York law. Under the CCA, the lawyer would not be able to competently represent the client by resorting to the exception under Rule 1.2(d), which is to “discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of [illegal] conduct with a client.” Such a Registered Organization client would require active advice regarding the manufacture and distribute medical marijuana in compliance with the CCA.
New York State Bar Ethics Opinion 1024 endeavors to resolve this conundrum for the New York lawyer by permitting him or her to “assist a client in conduct designed to comply with state medical marijuana law, notwithstanding that federal narcotics law prohibits the delivery, sale, possession and use of marijuana and makes no exception for medical marijuana.” N.Y. State 1024 took into consideration the Cole Memorandum’s potential non-enforcement of federal law in states where marijuana activities have been rendered legal. While lack of rigorous enforcement of a law does not ordinarily provide a green light for the lawyer to advise a client to engage in activities that violate the law, N.Y. State 1024 took into consideration that New York state had explicitly authorized and regulated medical marijuana, and the federal government had indicated in the Cole Memorandum that it would not take measures to prevent the implementation of state law. Accordingly, pursuant to N.Y. State 1024, a lawyer may give legal assistance to a client regarding the CCA that goes beyond “a mere discussion of the legality of the client’s proposed conduct.” Consistent with similar opinions from ethics committees in Arizona and Kings County, Washington where recreational marijuana activities have been legalized, N.Y. State 1024 held that “state professional conduct rules should be interpreted to promote state law, not to impede its effective implementation.” This is not to say that all ethics opinions are in concert with N.Y. State 1024. A recently issued Ohio ethics opinion goes the other way by limiting the lawyer’s advice to determining the scope and consequences of medical marijuana activity, which is legal in Ohio. It also goes on to state that a lawyer who personally uses medical marijuana, even if legal in Ohio, may adversely reflect on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, and overall fitness to practice law. Just as lawyers are caught in a state of flux due to the conflict between state and federal law, so are other professionals, such as Certified Public Accountants. Businesses engaging in legal marijuana activities in states where it is legal are not allowed to take business expense deductions for federal income tax purposes for activities illegal under federal law, although they have to declare income from both legal and illegal activities, but may be allowed to deduct expenses under state law.
Keeping this framework in mind, if a foreign lawyer applies for an H-1B visa to join a New York law firm that has among its clients Registered Organizations that need advice regarding compliance under New York’s CCA, would that lawyer be found inadmissible when applying for the H-1B visa at an overseas US Consulate? She should not, but if found inadmissible, this lawyer should forcefully make the case that her conduct would be found ethical pursuant to N.Y. State 1024, and thus should not be considered to be coming to the United States to engage in unlawful activity pursuant to INA 212(a)(3)(A)(ii). It is more likely that visa applicants will be denied entry if they are entering the United States to directly invest in a marijuana business, but probably less likely to be denied if they are performing activities that are more attenuated such as the New York lawyer advising compliance under the CCA or a computer professional who will be designing a social networking site for marijuana consumers. Just as some state bar ethics committees are finding ways to justify a lawyer’s conduct with respect to advising on marijuana activities deemed legal in many states, but illegal under federal law (although not always enforced if the state considers the activity legal), lawyers who represent visa applicants should also be advancing similar arguments with the immigration agencies. Until such time that there is a change in the federal law that legalizes marijuana activities, lawyers should be pushing the envelope on behalf of clients who seek visas relating to lawful marijuana-based activities in certain states, while at the same time strongly cautioning them of the risks of adverse immigration consequences. Finally, lawyers advising such clients must carefully consult with ethics opinions in their states to determine what they can and cannot do under Rule 1.2(d).

References: §275
 §243
 §243
 § 1003
 § 1003
 v. 
 v.