Opinion ID: 1057635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Elliott Ozment Matter

Text: In 2005, attorney Elliott Ozment, who was the chairman of the Nashville Bar Association's Committee on Immigration Law, filed a complaint with the Board arising out of Sneed's relationship with Carmen Ceja, a nonlawyer, and her business, Ceja Enterprises. Ozment complained to the Board that Ceja was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, that Sneed practiced law in Ceja's offices, and that he accepted referrals from Ceja and acted under her direction. Ozment complained that Sneed was practicing law in the back room of Ceja Enterprises, and that Ceja uses the fact that Michael Sneed is on her premises and approves her work as a marketing device to reassure unsuspecting foreign nationals that Ceja Enterprises is qualified and competent to do immigration work for her clients. Ozment further claimed that Ceja solicits cases and makes the decision on whether to accept a particular case, sets the fee to charge, and then does the work. If an attorney is needed to make a personal appearance ... she directs [Sneed] accordingly. The Board charged Sneed with sharing fees with and assisting Ceja in the unauthorized practice of law. Sneed admitted that he practiced law on the premises of Ceja Enterprises and that he accepted referrals from Ceja Enterprises. He also admitted that he paid Ceja, although he claimed that it was for rent and interpretive services. He denied that he acted under Ceja's direction or that they shared fees. The Panel found that Sneed practiced law with Ceja in a manner that was, or would mislead the public into believing that it was, a partnership or association with Ceja. The Panel also found that Ceja was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law [and] that [Sneed] assisted Ceja in that activity. In addition, the Panel determined that if Carmen Ceja and her employees were acting under [Sneed's] direction in legal matters, then he failed to provide them with proper supervision, and that he may instead have taken advice and direction from Carmen Ceja and her employees regarding his handling of cases referred to him by Ceja. Based upon these findings, the Panel concluded that Sneed violated RPC 5.3, [9] 5.4(b), [10] 5.5(b), [11] 7.6(b)(1)(ii), [12] 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), but that the evidence did not establish that Sneed was fee sharing with Ceja or paying her for referrals. The Panel noted that Sneed's testimony regarding his relationship with Ceja and her business was lacking in clarity, consistency, or credibility.