The Minnesota Supreme Court has imposed a suspension for misconduct in several immigration matters

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (the Director) petitioned for disciplinary action against respondent-attorney Herbert Azubuike Igbanugo, alleging 54 violations of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the referee’s factual findings concluded that Igbanugo committed
50 rule violations across 7 client matters. These violations included failing to act with diligence, failing to notify clients of important updates, failing to properly explain legal issues to clients, collecting unreasonable fees (including availability fees when he was already retained to perform legal services), failing to issue prompt refunds of unearned advanced fees, failing to refund unearned advanced fees, failing to take reasonable steps to make sure the firm had measures to ensure all lawyers and non-lawyers complied with professional obligations, and providing false and misleading information. The referee found five aggravating factors, no mitigating factors, and determined Igbanugo’s constitutional rights were not violated during the disciplinary process. The referee recommended that Igbanugo be suspended from the practice of law for 10 months.

On review

We conclude that the referee’s findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous, the referee’s evidentiary decisions were not an abuse of discretion, and Igbanugo’s constitutional rights were not violated. We also conclude the appropriate discipline given Igbanugo’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 10 months.

Due process as to notice

The disciplinary charges against Igbanugo were thorough and specific: the 52-page petition identifies the specific rules Igbanugo allegedly violated and the facts supporting those allegations, and Igbanugo filed a 160-page answer.

Sanction

We believe that a suspension is appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of this case. In addition, significant aggravating factors are present and there are no mitigating factors. We therefore agree with the referee that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 10 months.

(Mike Frisch)