Opinion ID: 180499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Client Vulnerability

Text: Gell also argues that client vulnerability is not relevant to the present case, since her default strategy actually helped her clients and did not involve attorney overreaching, misrepresentation, or fraud against the clients. However, the vulnerability finding in this case was not linked to client prejudice or attorney malfeasance. Additionally, there is no dispute that many or all of the clients at issue were in this country illegally and subject to imminent arrest and/or deportation, that many had a limited ability to speak, read or understand English, and that some were very transient, had medical or psychological problems, or, as noted by Gell, did not “fully comprehend the effects of their actions.” Letter dated May 12, 2008 from Gell to Committee, at 4, 6, 8; Oct. 23, 2008 Transcript at 127, 165; Nov. 3, 2008 Transcript at 14, 20, 21, 27, 33, 37-39, 44; Dec. 3, 2008 Transcript at 203-04. In short, the ability of Gell’s clients to understand and oversee Gell’s legal work, and otherwise protect their own interests, was significantly inferior to that of the ordinary 17 person.5 Thus, we agree with the Committee’s vulnerability finding. On the other hand, we agree that there is no evidence that Gell intentionally took advantage of, or that prejudice clearly resulted from, the demonstrated vulnerability. For that reason, this factor is accorded less weight.