Depression And Bar Discipline
A very interesting oral argument yesterday before the Ohio Supreme Court is linked here.
From the preview
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recommends a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed for Cleveland attorney Harlan D. Karp. The board found that the attorney neglected an immigration case and lied to his client about its status.
The attorney and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which submitted the complaint to the board, had agreed to a fully stayed two-year suspension. In recommending the six-month actual suspension, the panel of the board that reviewed the matter expressed concern about Karp’s repeated misrepresentations about filing important immigration paperwork, which could have serious consequences for his client. The board adopted the proposal to recommend to the Court a two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed.
Veronika Gadzheva, a Bulgarian ballroom dancer, entered the United States in May 2015 on an O-1B visa to work for the Fred Astaire Dance Studio in Morristown, New Jersey. The visa was valid until Feb. 27, 2018. Unhappy with her job, Gadzheva looked elsewhere for work, and Londance III Studio in Laguna Niguel, California, offered her a position in July 2015.
A friend referred Gadzheva to Karp, who has a solo practice in Cleveland focused on immigration law. The dancer contacted Karp in July for assistance in having her visa transferred to her new employer. Karp agreed to represent the dancer to file an I-129 petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). He communicated that his fee was $750 and that she also would need to pay the $325 filing charge. Gadzheva shared that she hoped to leave the New Jersey dance studio as soon as possible, and Karp told her she could move once the I-129 was filed.
During August and early September, Gadzheva asked Karp several times about the status of the I-129 filing. On Sept. 11, 2015, Karp told Gadzheva that he had filed the paperwork with CIS. In early October, Gadzheva notified Karp that she was heading to California.
He admittedly mishandled the case and lied to the client, putting her in severe jeopardy.
The argument focuses on the mitigating impact of the attorney ‘s then-undiagnosed depression and present compliance with the Bar’s recovery program.
The court asks some challenging questions in light of the fact that the attorney had an active immigration practice throughout the period of misconduct and presently that he conducted with no other complaints.
Why did his depression cause misconduct in this single but no other matter?
Tough question.
The Relator supports the fully-stayed suspension as sought by the attorney, leading to a moment of levity at the end.
Respondent’s counsel had reserved but did not use her two minutes of rebuttal.
Chief Justice O’Connor:
Ms. Cibella, do you have anything more to say? I suspect not.
(Mike Frisch)