Opinion ID: 2328720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board Findings[1]

Text: Respondent has been a member of the District of Columbia Bar since July 15, 1988. A sole practitioner in the field of immigration law, Respondent estimates that he has handled probably thousands of immigration cases, many of which have been asylum cases like the two involved in this disciplinary matter. Because Respondent's clients typically do not speak English, Respondent often employs independent translators. When representing Spanish-speaking clients, Respondent commonly utilizes the services of Immigration Consultants, a translation service and independent paralegal company operated by Julio S. Gagnon (Mr.Gagnon). In this case, both complainants were Spanish-speaking individuals who retained Respondent's services because Immigration Consultants referred them to him. [2] Fidel Iraheta (Mr.Iraheta) was a forty-year-old construction worker from El Salvador who could neither read nor understand much English. In 1993, Mr. Iraheta retained Immigration Consultants to prepare a request for asylum and secure a work permit for him. When Mr. Iraheta's asylum case was finally scheduled for a hearing before the Immigration Court in October 1998, Immigration Consultants recommended Respondent as a lawyer who could represent him in those proceedings. Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Iraheta at the preliminary hearing in October 1998 and again at a hearing on the merits in August 1999. At the August 1999 hearing, the immigration judge denied Iraheta's request for withholding of deportation and denied his request for asylum. The judge did, however, grant his request for voluntary departure. Following the hearing, Respondent met with Mr. Iraheta and translators, Julio Cesar Santiago Gonzalez and Mr. Gagnon, in the offices of Immigration Consultants to discuss the possibility of an appeal. According to Respondent's testimony, when Iraheta indicated that he wanted to appeal, Respondent explained that the appeal would cost $1500 plus a $110 filing fee, of which $750 and the filing fee were to be paid up-front. Respondent testified that after further negotiations, the parties agreed that Mr. Iraheta would pay the $110 filing fee along with $625 as an up-front partial payment for the appeal. In Respondent's view, he had made it clear to Mr. Iraheta that he was not going to file the appeal unless he ma[de] that deposit and br[ought] the filing fee. Mr. Iraheta presented a different version of the agreement that was made that afternoon. According to Mr. Iraheta, he and Respondent also agreed on what it [would] cost me to submit the appeal, which was $630. That day I paid $325 and agreed that I'd pay the rest on another date, and we did not set a date. They were not rushing me to set a date for payment either. Mr. Iraheta further testified that neither Respondent nor the two translators present ever told him that Respondent would not file the appeal. Mr. Gagnon was the only translator present during the fee negotiations. According to the Hearing Committee Report, Mr. Gagnon's testimony appear[ed] to support Iraheta's belief that the total amount of the fee demanded by Respondent was $630. Mr. Gagnon's testimony also suggested that Respondent had agreed to take part of that $630 fee at some later date. [3] After considering the testimony of Respondent, Mr. Iraheta, and both interpreters, the Committee concluded that [t]he terms upon which Respondent testified he conditioned his filing an appeal on Iraheta's behalf were not communicated to Iraheta with sufficient clarity. Indeed, rather than paying the full amount Respondent required, Mr. Iraheta brought a $320 payment to the Immigration Consultants office on August 27, 1999, thirteen days before the appeal deadline. The receptionist gave him a receipt stating that the payment was for Apelacias, or Appeal in Spanish. Mr. Iraheta did not pay any more money for his appeal, and Respondent did not file the appeal because he believed his obligation to appeal was conditioned on Mr. Iraheta's payment in full of $625 plus the $110 filing fee. Respondent was aware that Mr. Iraheta had paid him the $320 and requested that Mr. Santiago contact Mr. Iraheta regarding the deficiency of his payment. Mr. Santiago made a number of attempts to contact Mr. Iraheta by telephone prior to the September 9, 1999 appeal deadline but was unable to reach him. [4] After the deadline passed, Mr. Iraheta went to the Immigration Consultants offices to check on the status of his appeal and was told that it had not been filed. Based on the foregoing facts, the Board concluded that Iraheta reasonably believed that Respondent would file an appeal in his case after he paid the $320 to Immigration Consultants. The Board further found that the payment of that $320 in the circumstances was sufficient to communicate to Respondent that Iraheta intended for him to file an appeal. Because an attorney-client relationship had been created with respect to the appeal, the Board found that Respondent violated Rule 1.3(a) [5] when he failed to file the appeal, and Rule 1.4(a) [6] when he failed to tell Mr. Iraheta that the appeal had not been filed. The Board took notice of the Hearing Committee's findings with regard to mitigating factors, including Respondent's previously-unblemished record and his extraordinary efforts in voluntary, pro bono service to the immigrant community in the Washington area. [7] Ultimately, because of the seriousness of the misconduct and the prejudice caused to Mr. Iraheta, the Board recommended that Respondent receive a public censure. Although the Board explained why it recommended a public censure as opposed to a short suspension, it did not explain why a public censure was more appropriate than an informal admonition.