Barter Arrangement Gets Attorney Suspended

An attorney who traded a letter that falsely claimed a person was his paralegal for client referrals was suspended for six months by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The first count concerned the respondent’s arrangements with Marilia Luz, a woman whom he knew and who lived in Texas. In December, 2010, Luz wrote to the respondent asking that he write letters of recommendation for her to work as a paralegal so that she might have “legal visitation” with detainees in two detention centers in Texas. The respondent did so, and the letters that he wrote implied, falsely, that Luz was a paralegal who worked for him in fact, Luz did not work for the respondent, and he did not know whether she was trained as a paralegal. In return for writing the letters of recommendation, Luz referred to the respondent at least twenty-five clients who: were detained with immigration issues. The respondent did not communicate directly with these clients, and did not explain to them the scope of services he would be performing for the fee that each paid -the respondent intended to limit the scope of service solely to telephonic representation at detention bond hearings, with further services requiring an additional fee, but he did not explain this to the clients. Counts Two and Three of the petition for discipline concerned two separate clients who were among the twenty-five referred by Luz. In each of these cases, the respondent was retained by the client through Luz, did not communicate directly with either client and did not explain the scope of his services, represented each -client telephonically at a bond hearing, and thereafter in each case did little additional work of substance. The result in each case was that following the bond hearing;) deportation hearings were scheduled but the respondent did not appear and the client did not appear either – the respondent did not communicate to the client the hearing dates – and both were ordered deported. In each of these cases, the respondent attempted to withdraw from representation following the bond hearing, but did not seek permission of the tribunal in violation of the tribunal’s rules, and did not communicate the withdrawal to the client.

Associate Justice Botsford

the respondent was dealing with highly vulnerable clients. A stayed suspension is not appropriate in this case. As stated at the outset, I agree with the board’s recommendation of a six-month suspension, for all the reasons stated by the board.

(Mike Frisch)