Opinion ID: 1994460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Background and the Massachusetts Discipline

Text: In 1998, respondent began representing a client who sought political asylum in the United States. After an immigration judge denied the client's application on August 13, 1998, respondent filed a notice of appeal [5] but failed to ensure that the notice of appeal was received by BIA within 30 days as required. [6] Although respondent promptly notified the client that the appeal had been dismissed, he did not inform the client of a possible claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of the untimely filed notice of appeal. After the BIA dismissed the appeal on January 21, 1999, respondent filed a motion three days late to reconsider the dismissal, but failed to ensure that the motion was received by BIA within 30 days of the BIA decisions as required. [7] The BIA denied the motion as untimely. Again, respondent informed the client that the motion had been denied, but he failed to inform the client that he may have an additional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of the untimely filed motion for reconsideration. Respondent continued to represent the client, pursuing alternative paths to legalize the client's immigration status, including a diversity immigrant visa program and an application for labor certification, but these efforts were not successful. In 2002, the client was arrested under a final deportation order. In June 2002, respondent filed a motion to reopen the asylum proceedings on the basis of alleged changed circumstances in the client's homeland. The client retained new counsel in July 2002. Successor counsel pursued reopening of the proceedings on the basis of both ineffective assistance of counsel and changed circumstances in the client's homeland. Both the BIA and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected those arguments, and the client ultimately was deported. [8] In the disciplinary proceedings that followed in Massachusetts, respondent and Massachusetts Bar Counsel signed a stipulation in which they agreed to waive an evidentiary hearing and to recommend a public reprimand based on respondent's admission that his conduct violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. [9] The Massachusetts Board accepted the stipulation and found that (1) respondent's failure to file timely his client's notice of appeal and motion to reconsider was conduct in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.3; (2) respondent's failure to withdraw as the client's counsel on the asylum claim and other immigration matters or to advise the client that the client had a potential claim against him for ineffective assistance of counsel, or of the risks of his remaining as counsel or of the benefits of retaining successor counsel to pursue a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel was conduct in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.4(b), and 1.16(a)(1); and (3) respondent's continued representation after the BIA's dismissal and denial of respondent's motion to reconsider without disclosure of the potential conflict of interest, and without obtaining consent after consultation to the continued representation, constituted conduct in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7(b). [10] As to the potential conflict of interest, the Massachusetts Board cited in particular respondent's failure to advise the client that his continued representation of the client after the notice of appeal and motion to reconsider were rejected as untimely could be materially limited by [respondent's] personal interest in avoiding the filing of a disciplinary complaint such as generally is required to re-open an immigration proceeding on the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [11]