Opinion ID: 852735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Immigration And Other Services Provided By Diaz

Text: Diaz's use of immigration forms is not analogous to the use of forms by non-lawyers permitted by this Court in Indiana Real Estate and Miller. Immigration services cannot be considered routine transactions. Rather, each case is unique and the procedures can be complex. The choice of a form and the information to include in its blanks can turn on subtle facts that may not be apparent to those without legal training. Moreover, Diaz's immigration services went far beyond the use of forms. She held herself out as providing immigration services. She advised clients on many aspects of immigration law, she wrote letters, motions, and appeals to immigration officials on behalf of clients, and she accompanied clients to the immigration office. Beyond immigration law, she ventured into drafting contracts, a pleading, and at least one will. In many cases, her understanding of the underlying law was incomplete, her advice or the documents she prepared were faulty, and her clients suffered. The Court also notes that Diaz promised absolute confidentiality to her clients. However, because she is not an attorney, the sensitive information her clients disclose to her regarding their immigration status and other matters is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The fact that she promised such confidentiality further suggests she was holding herself out as a notario, rather than a notary, discussed in more detail below. The Court is cognizant of the unmet needs of immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, for aid with immigration problems and procedures. Because of the high poverty rate of recent immigrants and the dearth of affordable legal counsel, an estimated fifty to eighty percent of all non-citizens have unmet legal needs. See Anne E. Langford, Note, What's In A Name?: Notarios In The United States And The Exploitation Of A Vulnerable Latino Immigrant Population, 7 Harv. Latino L.Rev. 115, 118 (2004). According to a study of the civil legal problems among low-income, foreign-born households, one in five Latino immigrants reported having sought help for a legal issue from a non-attorney immigration consultant, many of whom use the misleading title of notario publico. See id. at 122. The study noted a disproportionate use of notarios by those whose immigration status was most precarious, including undocumented immigrants and asylum-seekers. See id. at 123. The answer to these unmet needs, however, is not permitting unqualified practitioners to provide inadequate services. Incompetence in the complexities of immigration law can have disastrous results because filing the wrong document, missing a deadline, or misjudging the relief available to a client can mean the difference between legal status and deportation (which, for asylum seekers, may carry the risk of death if returned to their native lands). See id. Although some non-attorneys may provide competent and welcome services to immigrant communities, see id. at 125, without any licensing or oversight of non-attorney practice, clients must trust to luck when using such services. It was perhaps in response to the vast unmet legal needs of immigrants that federal law now allows for non-attorney accredited representatives associated with qualified non-profit organizations to practice immigration law before BIA and the Service. See id. at 126; 8 C.F.R. § 292.2 (2005). La Casa is such an organization. But while accredited representatives are not lawyers, they are subject to qualification requirements based on their experience and knowledge of immigration and naturalization law and procedure, they are subject to federal rules of professional conduct and discipline, and the organization for which they work must have at its disposal adequate knowledge, information, and experience. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 292.2 & 292.3 (2005). Although a state may not interfere with the federal government's authority to permit non-lawyers to practice before its agencies, a state maintains control over the practice of law within its borders except to the limited extent necessary for the accomplishment of the federal objectives. Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 402, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963). This Court expresses no opinion on whether any of the services offered by La Casa or those who work for La Casa may exceed the scope of their federal authorization and thus constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Indiana. The Court simply notes that Diaz does not offer services as an accredited representative under the auspices of a qualified non-profit organization. Her clients enjoy none of the protections such an arrangement offers and she may claim none of the privileges. Her practice of immigration law appears to be in violation of federal as well as state law.