Ethics for Immigration Attorneys Jennifer J Barnes Disciplinary

Ethics for Immigration Attorneys Jennifer J. Barnes (Disciplinary Counsel, Ofc of Genl Counsel, EOIR) James P. Botluck (Asst Bar Counsel, Office of Bar Counsel, MD) Jonathan Greene (The Greene Law Firm LLC) - Moderator Seth Guggenheim (Assistant Ethics Counsel, VA State Bar) Reid Trautz (Director, Practice and Professionalism, AILA)

Sample One Page Website � Your Immigration Lawyer. com* � Now Conveniently Located Across from Virginia Asylum Office! � Certified and Qualified in Immigration Law � You can trust Your Immigration Lawyer, an attorney with 10 years of experience practicing immigration law. Your Immigration Lawyer delivers excellent results in the toughest cases and boasts a 100% success rate in Washington and Baltimore Immigration Courts. � Facing immigration and criminal court? No need to pay for two attorneys. Come to the best attorney for both of your cases. � Now offering marriage-based green card filings for same sex couples! � Call now! 1 -866 -GREEN-CARD � Licensed in Maryland. 2010 Graduate of Yale Law School. AILA DC CHAPTER 2012 FALL CONFERENCE

Ethics Hypothetical 1 • Lawyer Susie is representing Natasha in an application for naturalization. Susie previously assisted Natasha in obtaining her permanent residence based on a petition filed by her US citizen husband James. Susie filed G-28 s for both husband wife. • At her last appointment Natasha confessed to Susie that James has been physically abusive. She has thought about leaving James but does not want to negatively affect her immigration status. • A few days after later, James calls Susie and tells her that they have been having problems with receiving mail at their home and Susie should send all correspondence to his work address. He also says that since the couple does not have a landline and Natasha cannot get calls at work, Susie should call him on his cell phone with any updates. • What should Susie do? AILA DC CHAPTER 2012 FALL CONFERENCE

Ethics Hypothetical 2 �Lawyers Dave and Bill created a new immigration firm. They offered flat fees, did not have a trust account and keep time on cases. Their upfront fees included $15, 000 for removal and $20, 000 for PERM up front. The firm deposited all fees into an operating account and did not have a trust account. The lawyers divided the work on each case. �Dave and Bill soon began to argue about the division of profits and reserves and overhead. Lawyer Bill’s nasty divorce case distracted him from his work, and the case quickly depleted his financial resources. He was grateful the firm employed an “earned” approach to all fees, and he quickly deposited funds into his personal account. To keep up with the work load without increased expense, Lawyer Dave hired a foreign consultant/advisor well versed in US immigration law. He offered to share fees earned in proportion to work brought in by the consultant. AILA DC CHAPTER 2012 FALL CONFERENCE

Ethics Hypothetical 2 cont’d. �Unable to resolve their issues, Lawyers Dave and Bill hastily closed the firm, with each attorney taking one half of the cases. New clients Ann’s Cosmetics, Inc. , Mary and Ali had just paid for their PERM and removal cases when they each heard about the firm’s trouble. They have not been able to reach either attorney for several weeks, despite leaving messages and emails. They have thus grown further concerned, and want to seek counsel elsewhere. Client Mary is especially angry that neither attorney showed up to her master calendar hearing, as she had no idea what type of relief to tell the judge she was seeking. All clients want a return of funds paid. �What problems might Lawyers Dave and Bill face now? What steps should Lawyers Dave and Bill have taken at the outset of the partnership, and along the way, to avoid these problems? AILA DC CHAPTER 2012 FALL CONFERENCE