Opinion ID: 2960573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Court's Initial Show Cause Order

Text: As described in the Referral Order, the Court ordered DeMel! in July 2007 to show cause why he should not be referred to the Committee for investigation of the matters described therein (the Initial O~der'). The Initial Order stated that the proceeding was initiated in connection with allegations that were made against DeMeII in Constantine v. Gonzales, No. 06-4885-ag, an appeal in which DeMell was counsel of record. In Constantine, the government filed a motion to dismiss on November 29, 2006. and DeMe\l did not file a response to the motion. The motion to dismiss was ultimately decided on February 20, 2007 without benefit of opposing papers. The Initial Order stated that a new attorney in the case, Pankaj Malik, filed two motions on March 7, 2007, requesting that she be substituted as counsel and that the motion to dismiss be recalendared. Malik's papers stated that she had been retained by the petitioner in mid-January 2007 and that in early February 2007 she learned that DeMeB had not filed amotion for substitution. that the motion was calendared for February 16,2007, and that DeMell had not filed a response. The Initial Order also raised the issue of DeMell's conduct in Halimi v. Ridge, No. 05· 5474-ag, an appeal that was dismissed for failure of petitioner's attorney to file Fonn CIA. A Court employee contacted DeMel) twice about filing the Fonn CIA. and on the second occasion DeMel! stated that the fonn would be submitted asap. The Fonn CIA was never submitted and the case was dismissed. 3 The Initial Order also indicated that DeMel! had failed to timely file briefs in four other matters, although dismissal had not resulted. 2. DeMell's Response to the Court's Initial Order On July 25, 2007, DeMell responded to the Court!s Initial Order (the Initial Response). With respect to the Constantine appeal, DeMell stated that petitioner's famiJy contacted him about obtaining substitute counsel, but he could not recall when such contact. occurred. He also stated that Malik contacted him about taking over the appeal and that [sJhe assured me that she would take action to substitute her appearance. According to the lnitia! Response, on January 10,2007 - either days or weeks after his initial conversation with Malik - she sent him a substitution note, and he then sent Malik via Federal Express papers related to the appeaL The Initial Response stated that DeMel! 'in good faith passed on these papers to another lawyer who had informed me that she was taking over this case and trusted in her actions. He also stated that [iJt may be that I failed to timely file an answer or a substitution of counsel. I at all times assisted new counsel and did what was in my client's interests and within what J believed were the laws and rules of this CoUrt. With respect to the Halimi case, DeMell stated that he was not sure who is responsible for filing Form C-A. If your office determines that this needs to be done at this time in order to close out this matter properly I will do so. DeMell also addressed each of the late tiled briefs, which are discussed in more detail below. 3. The Court's Referral Order The Referral Order described DeMelJ's Initial Response to the July 2007 order as unsatisfactory. The Referral Order stated that important issues were not addressed in the Initial Response, such as when DeMetl was contacted by Constantine's new counsel and when Constantine's family told him that they wished to substitute counsel. In addition, DeMell failed to state what actions he took to protect his client's interests, as he claimed to have done. Also, because DeMell suggested that fault in failure to respond to the motion to dismiss lied with Malik, the Referral Order stated that ~'conflicting assertions as to which attorney was at fault would require a credibility determination, which cannot be made based on the papers currently before this panel. ' With respect to the HaBmi case, the Referral Order stated that the Initial Response did not explain his failure to file the Form CIA in light of the fact that a Court employee twice contacted him about filing the form. DeMelI also failed to explain why it was reasonable to allow the case to be dismissed on default, or why, if the Court lacked jurisdiction, he did not oppose the government's request to transfer it to the Second Circuit. 4 With respect to DeMell's failure to timely file briefs or other documents in other matters, the Referral Order stated that DeMel! fails to provide an explanation for why extensions of time were not sought prior to the due dates for the flJing of those documents.