Borderline Call

The Arizona Supreme Court has affirmed the imposition of a reprimand and probation on an immigration attorney admitted in New  York but practicing in Arizona.

The court affirmed some but not all findings of misconduct after a hotly contested hearing

the Court accepts the panel’s determination that Respondent violated ERs 1.2, 1.3, and 1.16. We reject the panel’s determination that Respondent violated ERs 1.5 and 3.1. There was insufficient evidence to support these charged violations. Further, the Court rejects the panel’s findings that Respondent submitted false evidence in the form of the warning letter to her client (Exhibit 66) and her look-back fee accounting (Exhibit 57). There was insufficient evidence to support the findings that this was false evidence.

With respect to the sanction, the Court affirms the imposition of a reprimand, probation, and costs and expenses of the discipline proceeding.

The court also affirmed the non-recusal of one of the hearing panel members, who had dissented and called for an order barring the attorney from practicing federal immigration law within Arizona borders.

The case below was vigorously litigated and resulted in findings of client-related misconduct leading to serious harm.

And there was some attitude

Ms. Alexandrovich is a lawyer licensed to practice law in the State of New York, having been first admitted in New York in 2004. Ms. Alexandrovich practices immigration law exclusively in Arizona, where she maintains and operates two separate law offices, but is not licensed to practice law in the State of Arizona. During Respondent’s deposition, which was made part of the record without objection by Respondent’s counsel, Respondent engaged in, and we find, conduct that was evasive, deceptive and in bad faith. For example, in response to unambiguous questions by Bar Counsel, Respondent gave sworn testimony that she could not remember (a) which law school she attended, (b) the date of her graduation from law school, (c) whether she remained in the State of New York after graduating from law school, (d) where she received her law license, after graduating from law school, (e) whether or not she had a legal job in New York after she graduated from law school (although, during the hearing, Respondent admitted that she had been a commercial litigator in New York after she graduated), or (f) even when she relocated to Arizona.

When questioned by a Panel member, Respondent swore she had graduated from three law schools, her last one having been a Canadian law school, but could not name any of them. She said she attended Albany Law School in upstate New York but was “short” of hours needed for graduation. [Respondent Testimony, Day 1 Noncompliant transcript, Page 145.]. The following day she was asked if she did civil litigation work in New York after she graduated from law school. At first she testified, “[o]nly after I graduated from law school.” She then corrected herself, stating “I apologize. I did not graduate from the law school, I explained that I was three or five courses short, so that would be incorrect to say that I graduated.” Based on her inconsistent testimony, we are not convinced that Respondent graduated from any law school.

That could be a problem.

The panel majority felt its options were limited

Respondent’s prior discipline, her prior diversion, her ongoing refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing coupled with conduct in her deposition at which she could not answer basic questions require that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. Her disregard for the disciplinary process included deceptive practices. However, Respondent is not licensed to practice law in the State of Arizona and, therefore, suspension is not an available sanction.

Attorney Member Richard Brooks concurred and dissented

I concur with the Panel’s findings that the Respondent committed the enumerated ethical violations above and should be sanctioned accordingly. I respectfully dissent, however, with regard to the actual sanction. The majority recommends reprimand only because Respondent is not licensed to practice in Arizona. Although Respondent is not licensed in Arizona, she still maintains the ability to continue operating law offices in Arizona and providing legal services related to federal immigration law for the people of Arizona. As a matter of public policy and necessity, I would request the Supreme Court of Arizona declare Respondent ineligible to operate and maintain a law office or provide immigration-related legal services to potential Arizona clients, as more fully described herein.

The record is replete with evidence of very serious ethical transgressions by Respondent, including, inter alia, her bad faith obstruction and attempted manipulation of the disciplinary process; her knowing and intentional failure to attend the important and significant May 8, 2014 USCIS interview; her failure to explain the very significant risks of the interview to Ms. Alvarez;4 and her failure to file a Motion to Continue the interview to protect Ms. Alvarez from serious harm which Respondent knew would probably result by allowing Ms. Alvarez to attend the interview alone, and which, in fact, occurred.

He notes that the attorney can continue immigration practice unless and until New York or the Immigration courts act

In view of this reality, the pressing question remains, at least in the mind of this Panel Member, whether our Supreme Court has the authority to effectively prevent Respondent, as well as other similarly situated immigration attorneys, from engaging in conduct that is detrimental to Arizona’s immigrant community as well as the public at large. For the following reasons, I believe that the answer is “yes.”

Member Brooks analyses state and federal cases and concludes

This case demonstrates the increasing need (1) for competent and ethical immigration attorneys by a vulnerable segment of the Arizona population, (2) effective  protection of the public and the legal profession, and (3) the need to deter immigration attorneys from engaging in egregious behavior by enjoining them from operating and maintaining law offices in Arizona for a designated period of time, preferably at least until state and federal immigration licensing authorities have had time to investigate unethical behavior and impose reciprocal sanctions. Reprimands of the nature necessarily imposed by the Panel Majority in this case unfortunately, constitute a mere “slap on the wrist” which, in at least this case, have had no deterrent effect on Respondent.

He proposes a cease and desist order shutting down her federal practice within Arizona borders and that

This sanction, and the record of the proceedings before this Disciplinary Panel, shall be conveyed forthwith to the New York state disciplinary Authority, the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the United States Department of Justice, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, and all other appropriate state and federal disciplinary and regulating authorities.

This, I assume, brought forth the recual motion. (Mike Frisch)