Title: In the Matter of Marco Antonio Moreno
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 22S-DI-00413
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 2023

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 22S-DI-413 
In the Matter of 
Marco Antonio Genesis Moreno, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: December 19, 2023 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Alicia A. Gooden 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Dec 19 2023, 9:42 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023 
Page 2 of 6 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Marco Antonio Genesis Moreno, committed 
attorney misconduct by neglecting numerous client matters, charging and 
collecting unreasonable fees, engaging in deceitful behavior, repeatedly 
failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations, and ultimately 
abandoning his law practice. For this misconduct, we conclude 
Respondent should be disbarred. 
This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer this 
Court appointed to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s “Disciplinary Complaint.” Respondent’s 2003 
admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court's disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts  
The Commission filed an eleven-count “Disciplinary Complaint” 
against Respondent on December 15, 2022. After Respondent failed to 
timely file an answer, the Commission filed a motion for judgment on the 
complaint, which the hearing officer granted following a hearing. 
When judgment on the complaint is entered, the allegations set forth in 
the complaint are conclusively established as true. Ind. Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(14)(c)(3). Further, no petition for review of the hearing 
officer’s report and entry of judgment on the complaint has been filed. 
Accordingly, we accept and adopt the hearing officer’s findings. See 
Matter of Hamilton, 34 N.E.3d 1204, 1205 (Ind. 2015). 
Over the course of a year starting in August 2021, Respondent 
effectively abandoned his immigration law practice in Marion County. 
Eleven clients and one attorney filed grievances against him for similar 
misconduct including: (1) failing to be competent and diligent in his 
representation; (2) failing to communicate; (3) charging unreasonable fees; 
(4) failing to properly end his representation upon termination; and (5) 
engaging in deceitful behavior. Respondent’s neglect had adverse 
consequences for several clients and required the clients to hire successor 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023 
Page 3 of 6 
counsel to remediate the harms Respondent caused. Respondent 
additionally failed to respond to the Commission’s demands for 
information concerning the grievances, prompting the initiation of 
numerous show cause proceedings and, eventually, an indefinite 
suspension for serial noncooperation that remains in effect. See Matter of 
Moreno, 192 N.E.3d 902 (Ind. 2022). We summarize below some of the 
more egregious counts of misconduct, distilled from a disciplinary 
complaint comprising 34 pages and 225 rhetorical paragraphs. 
“Client 1,” a Korean national married to “Husband,” retained 
Respondent to prepare a permanent residency application for her, paid 
Respondent $5,410, and provided Respondent with all the necessary 
documentation. Thereafter, Client 1 attempted to contact Respondent 
numerous times by phone and email, without success. During this time, 
Respondent changed the domain name of his email address without 
informing Client 1. After she was unable to contact Respondent, Client 1 
contacted the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office 
(“USCIS”) directly and learned that none of the documentation she had 
provided to Respondent had been submitted to USCIS. Client 1 retained 
successor counsel (“Popp”) and filed a grievance with the Commission. 
Shortly after, USCIS notified Client 1 it had received an application 
submitted on her behalf, even though Popp had not yet prepared or 
submitted anything. USCIS later sent Client 1 a request for evidence 
referencing Husband’s signature on a form that Husband was not eligible 
to submit. In fact, Husband had neither signed nor submitted this form. 
Popp’s numerous attempts to contact Respondent about the request for 
evidence and to obtain a copy of Client 1’s file were unsuccessful. 
Respondent likewise failed to comply with the Commission’s subpoena 
duces tecum for Client 1’s file and—in response to a separate grievance 
filed by Popp—failed to address the authenticity of Husband’s signature. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023 
Page 4 of 6 
“Client 4” paid Respondent $5,000 to prepare U-visas1 for his family, as 
well as some temporary work visas. Client 4’s last contact with 
Respondent occurred in December 2021, when Respondent falsely told 
him that his pending matters were progressing as expected with USCIS. In 
fact, Respondent did not prepare any work product for Client 4’s family, 
and Client 4 never received a receipt number from USCIS for any pending 
immigration matters concerning his family. Client 4 was unable to contact 
Respondent at any point after December 2021, and Respondent failed to 
respond to the Commission’s investigation of Client 4’s grievance. 
“Client 7,” who was Respondent’s landlord, retained Respondent to 
represent Client 7’s sister in an immigration matter on a flat-fee basis. 
They did not execute a written fee agreement. A landlord-tenant dispute 
occurred when Respondent dissolved his law practice. After the landlord 
sued Respondent, Respondent threatened a “noisy withdrawal” from the 
sister’s immigration case and sent Client 7 an invoice demanding an 
additional payment of over $10,000. 
“Client 8” retained Respondent on immigration and consular matters. 
Client 8 agreed to an $8,000 total payment and remitted $4,000 to 
Respondent as an initial retainer. Client 8 asked Respondent to prepare a 
written fee agreement, but Respondent never did. In the interim, Client 8 
elected to renew his Employment Authorization Card and paid 
Respondent $400 to prepare the necessary application and paperwork. 
Respondent later demanded an additional $1,050 to complete the work 
Client 8 had already paid for. Soon after, Client 8 lost contact with 
Respondent and discovered Respondent had closed his law office. Client 8 
eventually tracked Respondent down and met with him in the cab of his 
truck, at which time Client 8 learned Respondent had not prepared or 
filed any paperwork concerning the immigration or consular matters. 
Respondent later told Client 8 he had the renewed Employment 
Authorization Card, demanded an additional $4,225 from Client 8 in 
 
1 U-visas are residency visas for victims of violent crime and human trafficking.  
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023 
Page 5 of 6 
exchange for the card, and told Client 8 he would file a collections lawsuit 
and a complaint with USCIS if Client 8 failed to pay. Respondent failed to 
respond to the Commission’s investigation of this matter. 
Discussion 
We concur in the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclude that 
Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 
prohibiting the following misconduct: 
1.1: Failing to provide competent representation. 
1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 
1.4: Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information. 
1.5(a): Making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an 
unreasonable fee. 
1.16(d): Failing to protect a client’s interests upon termination of 
representation. 
8.1(b): Failing to timely respond to the Commission’s demands for 
information. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice. 
“[A] license to practice law is a privilege, and that privilege is 
conditioned upon the faithful performance of the responsibilities imposed 
upon the attorney by the society that grants the privilege.” Hamilton, 34 
N.E.3d at 1206–07 (quoting Matter of Keaton, 29 N.E.3d 103, 110 (Ind. 
2015)). We find this case substantially on all fours with Hamilton. Like the 
attorney in that case, Respondent wholly abandoned his law practice, 
neglected and lied to his vulnerable clients, retained unearned funds, 
repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Commission’s investigations, and 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023 
Page 6 of 6 
ultimately defaulted on his disciplinary proceedings. As we did in 
Hamilton, we conclude disbarment is warranted under these 
circumstances and Respondent’s privilege to practice law should be 
permanently revoked. 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of 
Professional Conduct as charged. Respondent already is under suspension 
orders for serial noncooperation and failure to fulfill his continuing legal 
education requirements. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the 
Court disbars Respondent from the practice of law in this state effective 
immediately. Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney 
under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).  
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent and the 
hearing officer is discharged with the Court’s appreciation. 
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Marco Antonio Genesis Moreno 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  I ND I A NA SU P RE ME CO U R T  
D I SC I PL I NA R Y C OMM ISS I O N  
Adrienne L. Meiring, Executive Director 
Akash Burney, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana