Opinion ID: 2329302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged Violations of Colo. RPC 1.1 and 1.3

Text: We address the People's claims under Colo. RPC 1.1 and 1.3 together, since these claims arise out of the same fundamental assertion that Respondent provided incompetent representation. Colo. RPC 1.1 requires lawyers to competently represent their clients; competency entails the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Colo. RPC 1.3 obligates lawyers to act on their clients' behalf with reasonable diligence and promptness. The crux of the People's argument with respect to both claims is that Respondent provided inaccurate legal advice to Rivas and Flores-Garcia because he did not undertake sufficient legal analysis to understand that Flores-Garcia was ineligible for legal residency. The People further argue that Respondent did not develop the I-601 strategy in 2004, as he claims. Rather, the People allege he devised this legal theory several months before the disciplinary hearing in an effort to mask his earlier incompetency. To resolve the People's claims, we must address the contradictory nature of Respondent's and Rivas's testimony. Respondent's defense is premised upon his assertions that Rivas and Flores-Garcia hid from him the key fact of Flores-Garcia's 2003 illegal reentry, that Rivas pleaded with him to try to help her husband, even if the odds of securing relief were quite low, that he fully advised Rivas about his proposed strategies, and that he did not charge Rivas for the time he spent advancing the I-601 strategy. Rivas, on the other hand, claimed she immediately informed Respondent of Flores-Garcia's 2003 re-entry, and her testimony conveyed a general belief that he did not fully advise her of the tenuous nature of the legal strategy he was pursuing. We conclude that the inconsistencies in Respondent's and Rivas's testimony should be resolved in Respondent's favor. We gather from a broad range of testimony in this matter, as well as from the extensive evidence of Respondent's solicitude for Rivas and Flores-Garcia, that Respondent is a lawyer deeply committed to serving his clients and to fighting what he perceives to be the injustices inflicted by immigration law and policy. We find Rivas to be substantially less credible. She spoke with an unnaturally flat affect and in an often evasive, muddled, and almost dazed manner, in some instances asking for questions to be repeated numerous times. In addition, we are somewhat skeptical of Rivas's motivation for filing a grievance against Respondent. That she did not file her complaint until 2009 raises a question as to whether other motives gave rise to her grievance. We also find it difficult to accept the People's assertion that Respondent did not grasp the concept of the non-waivable ten-year bar. Respondent testified that he had handled hundreds of immigration cases by the time he represented Rivas and Flores-Garcia and that the majority of his immigration cases have involved illegal entries into the United States. It is implausible that a lawyer as intellectually curious, experienced, and dedicated as Respondent would fail to understand a rudimentary principle of his area of legal practice. However, we find it more challenging to determine whether Respondent's representation of Flores-Garcia after Respondent learned of the 2003 re-entry met the standards of competence expected of lawyers. Since Respondent testified that he relied in large part upon the I-601 strategy after learning of the re-entry, this strategy merits further explanation. The practice of U.S. consulates, in accordance with the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), a non-binding guidance document, has been to decline to forward a K-3 visa applicant's I-601 waiver request to USCIS if the applicant appears to be ineligible for an immigrant visa. [61] FAM also grants consular officers discretion to accept or reject a proffered I-601 application. [62] Respondent's strategy was to challenge the consular practice of withholding waiver requests, relying on 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(9), a DHS regulation, which at the time stated: An applicant for an immigrant visa or K nonimmigrant visa who is inadmissible and seeks a waiver of inadmissibility shall file an application on Form I-601 at the consular office considering the visa application. Upon determining that the alien is admissible except for the grounds for which a waiver is sought, the consular officer shall transmit the Form I-601 to the service for decision. [63] Respondent also relies on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(A), which provides that an alien who is inadmissible but who is in possession of appropriate documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking admission, may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General. [64] Respondent argues that Flores-Garcia was eligible for a waiver for a K-3 visa, which is a nonimmigrant visa, [65] so the consular officer had a legal duty to forward the waiver application to USCIS. Even if it appeared to the consular officer that Flores-Garcia's 1999 and 2003 entries made him subject to the non-waivable ten-year bar and thus ineligible for an immigrant visa, Respondent believes it was ultra vires for the officer to rule Flores-Garcia ineligible for an immigrant visa, since only a non-immigrant visa petition was before the officer. If the consular officer had in fact forwarded Flores-Garcia's I-601 to USCIS and Flores-Garcia had received a waiver, Respondent claims Flores-Garcia would have benefitted by gaining the ability to argue in the United Statesrather than in Juarez, where review is less favorablethat his 1999 entry had been lawful. [66] Respondent testified that if the consular officer refused to forward the I-601 application, as he expected, he planned to administratively appeal that decision. He had other clients in a similar position to that of Flores-Garcia who could join in such an appeal. If they succeeded in setting a new precedent for consular processing, Respondent believed many other immigrants would benefit. In contrast to Respondent's view, the People's witness Nancy Elkind (Elkind), who the PDJ accepted as an expert on immigration law, testified that the I-601 strategy lacked merit. Although DHS regulations direct consular officers to forward proffered I-601 s to USCIS, Elkind noted that consulates must adhere to FAM, which authorizes consular officers to reject a waiver application filed by a K-3 applicant who appears to be ineligible for an immigrant visa. Elkind also testified that, assuming Flores-Garcia was subject to the non-waivable ten-year bar, he would gain no benefit from the consulate forwarding his waiver application to USCIS because USCIS would not grant him a waiver. On the other hand, the testimony of Lourdes Rodriguez (Rodriguez), an immigration lawyer who both refers cases to Respondent and receives referrals from him, supported the validity of Respondent's approach. [67] In her view, it is a matter of due diligence to press consular officers to accept I-601 applications filed by applicants for nonimmigrant visas. Rodriguez shares Respondent's view that consular officers are legally required to forward I-601 s proffered by K-3 visa applicants to USCIS. She also stated that, while it may take several years to challenge a consular officer's failure to forward an I-601, eventually the consulate will in fact forward I-601 s to USCIS. In addition, Rodriguez testified that upon receiving a K-3 visa and waiver, a foreign national may seek adjudication of his or her case in the United States and generally may travel back and forth to his or her country of origin during that period. It is challenging for us to reconcile the testimony provided by Respondent, Elkind, and Rodriguez concerning the I-601 strategy. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that their testimony appears to have been grounded in different assumptions regarding the nature of the legal advice Respondent provided and whether there were any grounds for arguing Flores-Garcia was not subject to the non-waivable ten-year bar. On the whole, we credit Elkind's view that Respondent's I-601 strategy was unlikely to secure relief for Flores-Garcia in light of consular policy and practice. Yet we also conclude there was a valid legal basis for the I-601 strategy, and we believe a lawyer could pursue this strategy in good faith. The People further claim that, even if the I-601 strategy might have theoretical legal merit, Respondent actually devised this strategy only several months before the disciplinary hearing to rationalize his earlier incompetent legal advice. The People emphasize that Respondent's answer and amended answer do not spell out the I-601 strategy. They note, for instance, that Respondent's answer concedes the I-601 waiver was not available to Flores-Garcia because of the non-waivable ten-year bar. [68] Respondent, on the other hand, points to a note citing 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(9) in his original client file as evidence that he formulated the I-601 strategy during the representation. [69] In addition, he stresses that he offered the legal advice in question approximately five years before this disciplinary proceeding and has since represented hundreds of other clients; as a result, he claims he had forgotten the details of this representation. Respondent also testified that his client file was in the possession of his former counsel when he first responded to the People's complaint, and it was only upon a detailed review of the file that he recalled the strategy he had pursued. The Hearing Board is troubled by the inconsistencies in Respondent's representations about his legal strategy, and it appears possible that he did not originally rely on the I-601 strategy as heavily as he now suggests. But this does not mean he acted incompetently. The I-601 strategy was not the sole course of action Respondent took on his clients' behalf. In addition to laying the foundation for an appeal, which could have been grounded on several legal theories, [70] Respondent's efforts included discussing the matter with Senator Salazar's office and positioning Flores-Garcia to benefit from any possible amnesty program. Respondent testified that there was a possibility Congress would grant amnesty to persons with an approved I-130; in fact, he notes that an amnesty bill was pending before Congress in 2004, though it did not pass. He also planned to ask Senator Salazar to introduce a private bill for the benefit of Flores-Garcia and to raise the matter with the congressional ombudsperson. Finally, simply by assisting Rivas and Flores-Garcia with the I-130, Respondent provided his clients a service of some value, as Elkind acknowledged. Had Flores-Garcia and Rivas completed that application process, as Respondent advised, and remained married, the approved I-130 would have remained valid for Flores-Garcia's future use. We wish to stress that the legal strategy Respondent undertook would not be appropriate under all circumstances. Not all clients want their lawyers to pursue legal strategies that have a low probability of yielding relief. But here, Respondent avers he told his clients that Flores-Garcia likely would be inadmissible for ten years and he continued the representation because Rivas pled with him to do anything possible to help her husband. Another significant circumstance here is that Respondent performed much of his legal work without compensation. [71] Most important, we must not quell the crusading spirit of lawyers like Respondent who attempt to rectify injustices they perceive in our legal system. Legal challenges to ingrained assumptions and entrenched practices may initially appear foolhardy, yet ultimately bring about valuable changes in the law. As recognized in comments 1 and 2 to Colo. RPC 3.1, lawyers should account for the law's ambiguities and potential for change, and good-faith arguments are not frivolous merely because the lawyer believes the client's position ultimately will not prevail. [72] In sum, we cannot accept the People's argument that Respondent misunderstood the legal framework governing Flores-Garcia's case and provided incompetent advice as a result. Rather, we believe Respondent understood the legal hurdles standing in his clients' way but pressed forward with several uncertain legal theories in the face of Rivas's repeated entreaties that he pursue all legal options. In our view, Respondent advanced his legal strategies with both a good-faith basis and his client's informed consent. Accordingly, we find the People have not proved a violation of Colo. RPC 1.1 or 1.3 by clear and convincing evidence.