Undigested Reliance

The California State Bar Court Review Department affirmed findings of misconduct in two immigration matters but rejected a proposed 30-day suspension in favor of probation.

The matter involves a sanction imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for proceeding in the wrong venue

On June 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an order sanctioning Ali $1,000, finding that he willfully ignored the court’s previous warnings and improperly relied on an incorrect and unreasonable construction of [the] Bibiano [decision]. The order found Ali’s argument that he relied on Bibiano neither credible nor persuasive. The court found that since he filed the petition for review the same day the Bibiano decision issued, Ali could not have digested the implications of the decision in time to rely on it. Further, the court found that if he filed the petition in reliance on Bibiano, he would have mentioned it in his petition, which he did not. Finally, the court found Ali did not seem to understand the decision—that Bibiano’s analysis was tied to the specific facts of that case—and nothing in that analysis applied to Amaya-Briones’s case. Ali paid the monetary sanctions by cashier’s check the following day and timely reported the sanctions to the State Bar.

The review department agreed he had violated court orders

Ali insists he is not culpable because he acted in good faith in reliance on Bibiano. However, Ali’s good faith defense is neither credible nor persuasive. We agree with the Ninth Circuit’s analysis: it is not plausible that Ali could have understood the implications of the case in time to make an informed decision to rely on it the same day. If indeed Ali had intended to rely on Bibiano, he would have included a citation to it. Further, as the Ninth Circuit concluded, even if he had been aware of Bibiano, Ali’s reliance on it was not reasonable. The particular factors in Bibiano on which the Ninth Circuit relied in deciding to keep that case in the interests of justice, despite the improper venue, were not present in the Amaya-Briones matter. Because we again reject his good faith defense, we conclude that Ali willfully disregarded the March 25, 2015 order and thereby violated section 6103.

Harm

We find that Ali’s misconduct did create additional work for the Ninth Circuit, but it did not significantly harm the administration of justice because it was not considerable…we do not find aggravation for significant harm.

There was evidence of good character and community service.

A downward departure from a presumptive suspension is warranted

We hereby recommend that Zulu Abdullah Ali, State Bar No. 252998, be suspended from the practice of law in California for one year, that execution of that suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for one year with [enumerated]  conditions…

(Mike Frisch)