Lawyer Sanctioned For Misleading Internet Ad

The web page of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers reports on a recent informal admonition. The identity of the attorney is not disclosed in such circumstances:

ADMONITION NO. 09-12

SUMMARY:
The respondent was admitted to practice in New York in 1991, and inMassachusetts in 2004. The respondent was employed as an attorney inNew York, Beijing and Hong Kong from 1991 to 2002, but did not practicein the area of immigration law.

Aftermoving to Massachusetts in 2004, the respondent opened his own lawfirm. Sometime thereafter, the respondent created a website for thepurpose of advertising his legal services, and caused it to bedisseminated on the internet. On the website, the respondentrepresented that he provided “professional legal services to Americanand international clients with respect to corporate and commercialtransactions, small business matters and immigration law matters.” Asof April, 2005, the respondent had represented only a handful ofclients in immigration matters and did not have the experience of aspecialist in the field of immigration law. The respondent had,however, attended continuing legal education courses on immigration lawmatters, and conducted self-study.

In April 2005,a Canadian citizen, who was residing and working in the United Statesas a dentist, learned of the respondent and his immigration practicethrough his website. The dentist was in the United States on a TN(nonimmigrant NAFTA professional) visa that was due to expire onJanuary 15, 2006. The dentist was contemplating becoming the sole ownerof the dental practice for which he worked. He engaged the respondentto advise him about his options for obtaining a visa that would allowhim to do so.

The respondentconducted research on the relevant legal issues, but did not consultwith a more experienced immigration law attorney before providingadvice to the client. As a result of his lack of expertise, therespondent gave the client the erroneous advice to apply for a B-1Business Visitor visa. The respondent advised the client that he couldnot engage in any unauthorized employment, but failed to advise theclient that he could not continue to treat patients after his TN visaexpired and while his B-1 application was pending. The respondentshould have advised the client that a non-immigrant may not engage inproductive work in the United States without a visa allowing him to doso.

As a result ofthe respondent’s failure to give the client adequate advice, the clientillegally continued to treat patients after his visa expired. Therespondent, on behalf of the client, subsequently applied for andobtained an E-2 visa that allowed the client to enter the U.S. todirect the operation of an enterprise in which he has invested.

By holdinghimself out as a specialist in immigration law, the respondent made amisleading statement about the extent of his expertise in that field,in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 7.4(a).

The respondenthad no prior history of discipline. He received an admonition for hisconduct and has removed immigration law from his website and otherpublic communications under his control as a field of law in which hepractices.

(Mike Frisch)