The Paralegal That Wasn’t

Justice Botsford of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered a six-month suspension of an attorney charged with three counts of misconduct

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.

The court rejected a stayed sanction

Based on the joint stipulation of facts, the respondent and bar counsel proposed·to the board that the respondent receive a suspension of six months, with the suspension stayed for a period of two years during which the respondent agreed he would attend, in each of the years, six hours of continuing education approved by bar counsel on either legal ethics or law office management. The board accepted the parties’ stipulation of facts, but rejected the proposed discipline as too lenient, and voted instead to recommend that the respondent be suspended for a period of six months with no stay. The board prepared, and it is included in the record, a memorandum explaining the reasons for its recommendation.

The court found the board’s memorandum “persuasive.” (Mike Frisch)