Case Number(s): 06-J-15152, 06-O-13219-RAP
In the Matter of: Edward William Haase, Bar # 189819, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Jean Cha, Bar # 228137
Counsel for Respondent: Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles
Filed: February 22, 2008
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted September 16, 1997.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 24 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. costs added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.
checked. costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: Costs to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. (hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 284, Rules of Procedure.)
<<not>> checked. costs waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. costs entirely waived.
None.
In the Summer of 2006, Respondent was deeply involved in transitioning out of the practice of law and into full-time service for the United States Army. Respondent was involved in preparation for Operation Desert Wolf regarding the required specialized training of a mobilized task force from the 7th Brigade, 104th Division. On Wednesday, July 26, 2006, Respondent received orders to report to active duty training for 60 days commencing no later than Tuesday, July 31, 2006. Respondent was on Active Duty as of the Wednesday, August 30, 2006 hearing (Failure to appear at this hearing resulted in his discipline before the Immigration Court as related to State Bar case no. 06-J-15152) and was unable to participate because he-was on orders. It would have been inappropriate to make or receive a telephonic appearance while on duty and under these circumstances. Respondent acknowledges that he should have informed the Court that he was called to duty by the Department of the Army and he should have requested a continuance. Because he did not make such preparations, while he was on active duty, all other interests were subordinate to that duty. Respondent did not think to do so under the stressful circumstances while serving his country in his capacity as a soldier.
According to Respondent, at the time of the stipulated acts of professional misconduct, Respondent suffered emotional difficulties that were partially responsible for the misconduct in that it altered his ability to focus on his work and personal matters. The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse. In the beginning of 2004, Respondent suffered an emotionally distressing time period after the traumatic divorce with his wife of five years. As a result, Respondent alleges he suffered from depression and had trouble eating, sleeping, getting out of bed and concentrating on his law practice. It was during this time that Respondent failed to file a timely appeal on behalf of Jawdeh.
Respondent has been admitted to practice law in California for more than ten years and has no prior discipline which is mitigating when evaluating the appropriate level of suspension. (Standard 1.4(c)(ii); Standard 1.2(e)(i); In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257, 269.)
None
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
In the Matter of EDWARD WILLIAM HAASE, 189819
Case Numbers 06-J-15152 & 06-0-13219 - RAP
Edward William Haase (Respondent) was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on September 16, 1997, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct, and has otherwise committed acts of misconduct warranting discipline.
FACTS
The Perez Matter: Case No. 06-J-15152
On September 5, 2006, the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review in Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings ordered that Respondent be disciplined upon findings that Respondent committed professional misconduct in that jurisdiction. Thereafter, the decision of that foreign jurisdiction became final. (See Attached Order of the Immigration Judge and Order.)
Based on facts set out in an August 1, 2005 decision of the Immigration Judge of the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Immigration Court (the Court), Respondent filed a notice of appearance as counsel for Miralia Perez-Arnado (Perez) in the United States Immigration Court on February 6, 2002. Respondent filed a notice of appearance before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on March 27, 2003. Respondent appeared at a March 20, 2003 individual merits hearing during which Perez was denied asylum and was ordered removed from the United States. Respondent filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 2003 with the BIA but failed to submit an appellate brief to the BIA. Perez then hired attorney Henry A. Posada, who filed an appeal for Perez based in part on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by Respondent. On June 30, 2004, the BIA issued an order of remand to determine whether Perez’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim had merit. An individual merits hearing. was set for June 17, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing despite the fact that he was properly notified of the hearing. Based on a telephone message left by Respondent during the hearing, on June 17, 2005, the immigration judge issued a Notice to Show Cause to Respondent, directing Respondent to explain within 15 days why his absence should not be reported to the disciplinary authorities. The Notice to Show Cause was properly served on Respondent. Respondent did not reply to the Notice to Show Cause. The immigration judge ruled that Respondent rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in Perez’s matter and referred the matter to the Office of the General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review (OGC). The OGC initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section 1003.102(k).
On January 24, 2006, a pre-hearing conference was held where OGC Bar Counsel and Respondent both appeared. Respondent denied some of the allegations, and the Court requested Bar Counsel to obtain the Record of Proceeding to assess the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue. On February 27, 2006, Bar Counsel submitted the additional evidence requested by the Court. Some of the evidence reflected clearly that Perez did in fact attempt to gain entry into the United States by the fraudulent use of a lawful permanent alien card bearing the name of someone other than Perez in the removal proceedings. Based on this evidence and other facts, the Court found that Respondent did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel to Perez and acted correctly in entering a plea on behalf of his client admitting the charges of removability. The Court further found that Perez made a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in contravention of the facts of the record for the purpose of persuading the immigration court that she was entitled to some form of relief.
On March 20, 2006, the Court convened a televideo hearing, but Respondent did not appear. Notice had been sent to Respondent at 110 West C Street, Suite 709, San Diego, CA 92101, but according to Federal Express, that address was determined to no longer be an accurate address for Respondent. The Federal Express package was rerouted to 501 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. However both were returned as undeliverable. The Court tried to reach Respondent by telephone and e-mail, but was unable to reach Respondent.
Another hearing by televideo was scheduled for May 10, 2006. Respondent did not appear. By this time the Court was considering entering an order based on Respondent’s failure to appear. The Bar Counsel filed an amended charge on May 19, 2006 for failure to appear at scheduled hearings after having received notice of such hearings. However, again, the Court’s attempts to serve Respondent with the amended charge were unsuccessful because the Court did not have a good address for Respondent. In July 2006, Respondent contacted Bar Counsel and inquired as to the status of the disciplinary matter and provided a good address and telephone number to Bar Counsel and the clerk of the court. Respondent was updated and served with the additional evidence submitted to the Court on February 27, 2006 and the new charge filed with the Court on May 17, 2006. A telephonic hearing was scheduled for August 30, 2006 with Respondent’s consent. However, Respondent failed to respond to telephone calls, and the proceeding was held in absentia.
On September 5, 2006, by order of the immigration judge in the disciplinary proceedings, Respondent was publicly censured for violation of rule 102(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and violation of 8 C.F.R. section 1003.102(1) in Disciplinary Case # D2005-215 for failure to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause, before the immigration judge on June 17, 2005 and before the Court on March 20, 2006, May 10, 2006, and August 30, 2006.
In a previous disciplinary matter, on December 22, 2003, Respondent had received an informal admonition by Bar Counsel for the same type of conduct.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6049.1, the final order of the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review in Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings determining that Respondent committed professional misconduct in that jurisdiction is conclusive evidence that Respondent is culpable of misconduct in California. Respondent’s culpability as determined by the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Review in Practitioner Disciplinary Proceedings indicates that the following equivalent California statutes or rules have been violated: California Business and Professions Code section 6068(b) for wilfully failing to maintain respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers and Business and Professions Code section 6103 for wilfully disobeying a court order. Respondent’s culpability as determined in the foreign jurisdiction warrants the imposition of discipline in California. The proceedings of the foreign jurisdiction provided fundamental constitutional protection.
FACTS
The Jawdeh Matter: Case No. 06-0-13219
From December 9, 2003 through December 27, 2004, Respondent represented Walid Abou Jawdeh (Jawdeh) in his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Respondent filed Jawdeh’s appeal on December 18, 2003. Jawdeh paid Respondent $5,000.00 in fees for Respondent to handle the appeal. Respondent failed to file the appeal brief that was due on December 27, 2004. Respondent failed to advise Jawdeh from and after December 2004 that he had failed to file the appeal brief. On May 12, 2005, the matter was dismissed. On February 10, 2006, Jawdeh received correspondence from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services advising him that he had been ordered deported from the United States and that the matter had been dismissed as of May 12, 2005. On February 13, 2006, Jawdeh employed attorney Sanjay Sobti (Sobti) and paid Sobti an additional $5,000.00, and the matter is presently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Respondent failed to complete the services for which Jawdeh retained him. Respondent did not earn any portion of the fees paid by Jawdeh.
On February 13, 2006, Sobti wrote a letter to Respondent on behalf of Jawdeh addressed to Respondent at 110 West "C" Street, Suite 709, San Diego, CA 92101. Sobti faxed the letter to Respondent at (619) 696-6606. The letter advised Respondent of his failure to perform and requested an accounting and refund of unearned fees. Respondent received the letter and fax. Respondent did not respond to the letter or fax. Respondent failed to render an accounting to Jawdeh and failed to refund unearned fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent intentionally, recklessly and repeatedly failed to perform with competence the services for which he was employed when he failed to file the appeal brief on behalf of Jawdeh and by allowing Jawdeh to be subject to deportation in wilful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-110(A)
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-700(A)(2) by failing to file the brief on appeal, by allowing Jawdeh to be subject to deportation, by failing to advise his client from and after December 2004 that he had failed to file the appeal brief, by causing Jawdeh to expend more funds to hire new counsel, and by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct rule 4-100(B)(3) by failing to render appropriate accounts to a client regarding all funds of the client coming into Respondent’s possession.
Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3-700(D)(2) by failing to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned although requested to do so by Sobti, Jawdeh’s new attorney.
STANDARDS
Standard 2.4 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct applies where an attorney fails to perform services in an individual matter or matters not demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or fails to communicate with a client and provides that such misconduct shall result in a reproval or suspension depending on the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. Here, Respondent harmed Jawdeh by failing to file a timely appellate brief, which resulted in an order of deportation. The conduct is serious but tempered when taking into consideration his special circumstances resulting from his divorce and financial situation. Thus, suspension rather than reproval is appropriate.
Standard 2.6 applies where sections of the Business and Professions Code have been violated, including sections 6068(b) and 6103, and provides a range of discipline from suspension to disbarment depending on the gravity of the offense or the harm to the victim with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in Standard 1.3. Suspension falls within this range, and both standards are satisfied with the stayed suspension herein.
In assessing the level of discipline warranted by Respondent’s misconduct, the protection of the public, the courts, and the integrity of the legal profession is paramount. (Std. 1.3; Tarver v. State Bar (1984) 37 Cal.3d 122, 133; Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 111.)
COSTS
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed Respondent that as of January 4, 2008, the costs in this matter are $2,296.00. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS
The disclosure date referred to, on page one paragraph A.(7), was January 4, 2008.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, Respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School. ,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE
5107 LEESBURG PIKE, SUITE .2500
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
File: D2005-215
In the Matter of Edward Haase Respondent
IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro Se
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:
Jennifer J. Barnes, Bar Counsel
Executive Office for Immigration Review
15107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Eileen Connolly, Esq. Appellate Counsel
Appellate Litigation Protection Law
Division, DHS
5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 200
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
ORDER: It is hereby ordered that:
1. The ground(s) set forth in the Notice of Intent to Discipline have not been established by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence and are, hereby, dismissed.
2. The ground(s) (violation of Rule 102(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Violation of 8 CFR § 1003.102(1)) set forth in the Notice of Intent to Discipline have been established by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Any remaining ground(s) set forth in the Notice of Intent to Discipline have not been established by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence and are, hereby, dismissed.
The following disciplinary sanction shall be imposed:
<<not checked>> Practitioner shall be permanently expelled from practice before:
<<not checked>>The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Courts
<<not checked>>The Immigration and Naturalization Service
<<not checked>>Both
Practitioner shall be suspended from practice before:
<<not checked>> The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Courts
<<not checked>>The Immigration and Naturalization Service
<<not checked>>Both.
Until
<<checked>> Practitioner shall be publically censured
<<not checked>>Other appropriate disciplinary sanction
David W. Crosland
Assistant Immigration Judge
APPEAL: WAIVED/RESERVED
APPEAL DUE BY: October 5, 2006
ATTACHED: EOIR 45 and ORDER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
IN PRACTITIONER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION COURT
In the Matter of EDWARD HAASE, Respondent
Disciplinary Case # D2005-215
ORDER
In a decision dated August 1, 2005, Immigration Judge Robert J. Barrett ruled that Respondent, Attorney Edward Haase, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in the case of his client, Miralia Perez-Arnado, A78 779 106, in the course of representing her before the immigration court in San Diego, California. As a result, the Office of the General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review ("OGC"), initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(k).
A pre-hearing conference was scheduled for January 24, 2006; at 1:00 pm EST, in which Jennifer Barnes, Bar Counsel, OGC; and Mr. Haase were both present. Mr. Haase appeared by televideo from the San Diego Immigration Court. Although Mr. Haase appealed at the scheduled time, he indicated on the record that he was unprepared to go forward at that time and requested that the hearing be adjourned for one (1) hour so that he could retrieve his file from his office.
The case was adjourned and the parties reconvened at 2:00 pm EST.
At that time, Mr. Haase admitted allegations #1, 2, 3, and 5, and denied allegations # 4 and 6. He stated that although he failed to appear for the hearing held by Judge Barrett on June 17, 2005, a hearing scheduled specifically to determine whether he provided ineffective assistance Of counsel to Ms. Perez-Arnado, Mr. Haase denied, in these disciplinary proceedings, that he engaged in ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court requested Bar Counsel to obtain the Record of Proceeding ("ROP") in Ms. Perez-Amado’s immigration case, and then to submit to the Court by March 15, 2006, any additional evidence from the ROP which might be relevant to the ineffective assistance of counsel issue. The next hearing was scheduled for March 20, 2006, at 1:00 pm EST.
On February 27, 2006, Bar Counsel submitted the additional evidence requested by the Court. This evidence consisted of copies of: (1) the Record of Sworn Statement (Form 1-867) by the alien taken at the port of entry when the alien sought admission. The document reflects clearly that the alien did in fact attempt to gain entry into the United States by the fraudulent use of a lawful permanent alien card bearing the name of someone other than the respondent in the removal proceedings (2) a Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Form 1-213) reflecting that the alien purchased the lawful permanent alien-card in Mexico for $50.00 for the purpose of procuring entry to the United States through fraud; (3) a Supervisor’s Supplemental statement confirming that the alien had purchased a lawful permanent alien card in Mexico for $50.00 for the purpose of presenting it at the port of entry for admission to the United States and that the alien knew that to do so was fraudulent and illegal, and; (4) a copy of said lawful permanent resident alien card bearing the name of a person who is not the alien. Based on this evidence, which was part of the original record and available to Mr. Haase at the time of the pleading, this Court finds that Mr. Haase did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel to the alien, but rather, he acted correctly in entering a plea on behalf of his client admitting the charges of removability. The Court further finds that the alien made a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in contravention of the facts of the record for the purpose of persuading the immigration court that she was entitled to some form of relief.
After noticing the parties of the scheduled hearing, on March 20, 2006, the Court convened a televideo hearing; however, Mr. Haase did not appear. Notice of the hearing had been sent by Federal Express to Mr. Haase’s business address at 110 West C Street, Suite 709, San Diego, CA 92101, but that address was determined to no longer be an accurate address for Mr. Haase, according to Federal Express. A new address for Mr. Haase was found at 501 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, and the Federal! Express package was rerouted to that address. Another copy of the Notice of Hearing was also sent to the new address. All of these packages were returned as undeliverable. Numerous attempts to contact Mr. Haase by telephone and e-mail were made by the Court clerk and messages were left on his voicemail, including a voicemail message left on the morning of the scheduled hearing on March 20, 2006.
Subsequent to the March 20, 2006 heating, a hearing by televideo was scheduled for May 10, 2006. Again Mr. Haase did not appear. The Court indicated its unwillingness to enter an Order finding that Mr. Haase had provided ineffective assistance of counsel but was prepared to enter an order based on Mr. Haase’s failing to appear. Ms. Barnes filed an amended charge on May 19, 2006 in which Mr. Haase was charged with a failure to appear at scheduled hearings after having received notice of such hearings. Again efforts to serve Mr. Haase were stymied by not having a good address for Mr. Haase to serve the amended charge. Finally in July, 2006. Mr. Haase contacted Ms. Jennifer Barnes asking about the status of the proceeding. He then provided a good address and telephone number to Ms. Barnes and to the clerk of court. Following that, Mr. Haase surfaced in July 2006, and he was served with the additional evidence filed with the Court on February 27, 2006 and with the new charge which had been filed with the Court on May 17, 2006.
The next hearing was scheduled on August 30 after the court clerk contacted Mr. Haase. Mr. Haase agreed to a telephonic conference, and he selected the date and time of the conference to which Ms. Barnes agreed. Again Mr. Haase failed to respond, to telephone calls, and the proceeding was held in absentia.
Therefore, based on these failures to appear, this Court finds that Mr. Haase is in violation of Rule 102(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, that he has repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102(1). Mr. Haase failed to appear before Judge Barrett on June 17, 2005, and before this Court on March 20, 2006. It is important to note that Mr. Haase was previously disciplined for violating the same Rule of Professional Conduct on December 22, 2003, by Bar Counsel and received an informal admonition. Although this informal admonition was to remain confidential at the time, it has now become part of the public record since Mr. Haase is now subject to a subsequent Notice of Intent to Discipline based upon unrelated misconduct.
Although the Court has found that Mr. Haase did not render ineffective assistance of counsel to his client based on the evidence reflecting the circumstances of his client’s attempted admission to the United States, and although the Court does not find that the failure of Mr. Haase to attend a hearing before Immigration Judge Robert Barrett on this issue constituted an admission of ineffective assistance of counsel to his client, nevertheless, the Court finds that the failure of Mr. Haase to appear at that hearing, other hearings and at this hearing after proper notice is conduct warranting public censure. As a result of Mr. Haase’s repeated failures to appear, not only in his clients’ cases but in his own disciplinary case, showing his complete disregard for this Court and its authority, it is appropriate that he receive a public censure for his misconduct. It should be noted that after proper notice to Mr. Haase of the hearings before this Court, Mr. Haase failed to appear on March 20, May 10, 2006 and on August 30, 2006.
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent shall receive a public censure. Notice of this discipline shall be posted at all Immigration Courts and at the appropriate offices of the Department of Homeland Security.
Date: 9-5-06
David W. Crosland
Assistant Chief Immigration Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This Order on Case D2005-215 was served on the following persons in the manner so noted on this the 5th day of September 2006:
cc: Jennifer J. Barnes
Bar Counsel
Executive Office for Immigration Review
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600
Falls Church, VA 22041
(Hand Delivery)
Eileen Connolly
Appellate Counsel
Appellate Litigation Protection Law Division, DHS
5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 200
Falls Church, VA 22041
(Mail)
Edward W. Haase, Esquire
6653 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111
(Certified Mail)
Mark L. Pasierb
Chief Clerk of the Immigration Court
8 CFR 1003.102
1 of 100 DOCUMENTS
LEXISNEXIS’ CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright © 2007, by Matthew Bender & Company, a member
of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.
*** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH THE JANUARY 24, 2007 ISSUE OF ***
*** THE FEDERAL REGISTER ***
TITLE 8 -- ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER V -- EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUBCHAPTER A -- GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART 1003 -- EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
SUBPART G -- PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR PRACTITIONERS -- RULES AND
PROCEDURES
Go to the CFR Archive Directory
8 CFR 1003.102
§ 1003.102 Grounds.
It is deemed to be in the public interest for an adjudicating official or the Board to impose disciplinary sanctions against any practitioner who falls within one or more of the categories enumerated in this section, but these categories do not constitute the exclusive grounds for which disciplinary sanctions may be imposed in the public interest. Nothing in this regulation should be read to denigrate the practitioner’s duty to represent zealously his or her client within the bounds of the law. A practitioner who falls within one of the following categories shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions in the public interest if he or she:
(a) Charges or receives, either directly or indirectly:
(1) In the case of an attorney, any fee or compensation for specific services rendered for any person that shall be deemed to be grossly excessive. The factors to be considered in determining whether a fee or compensation is grossly excessive include the following: The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the attorney; the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; the amount involved and the results obtained; the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the services,
(2) In the case of an accredited representative as defined in § 1292. l(a)(4) of this chapter, any fee or compensation for specific services rendered for any person, except that an accredited representative may be regularly compensated by the organization of which he or she is an accredited representative, or
(3) In the case of a law student or law graduate as defined in § 1292.1(a)(2) of this chapter, any fee or compensation for specific services rendered for any person, except that a law student or law graduate may be regularly compensated by the organization or firm with which he or she is associated as long as he or she is appearing without direct or indirect remuneration from the client he or she represents;
(b) Bribes, attempts to bribe, coerces, or attempts to coerce, by any means whatsoever, any person (including a party to a case or an officer or employee of the Department of Justice) to commit any act or to refrain from performing any act in connection with any case;
(c) Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false statement of material fact or law, or willfully misleads, misinforms, threatens, or deceives any person (including a party to a case or an officer or employee of the Department of Justice), concerning any material and relevant matter relating to a case, including knowingly or with reckless, disregard offering false evidence. If a practitioner has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the practitioner shall take appropriate remedial measures;
(d) Solicits professional employment, through in-person or live telephone contact or through the use of runners, from a prospective client with whom the practitioner has no family or prior professional relationship, when a significant motive for the practitioner’s doing so is the practitioner’s pecuniary gain. If the practitioner has no family or prior professional relationship with the prospective client known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter, the practitioner must include the words "Advertising Material" on the outside of the envelope of any written communication and at the beginning and ending of any recorded communication. Such advertising material or similar solicitation documents may not be distributed by any person in or around the premises of any building in which an Immigration Court is located;
(e) Is subject to a final order of disbarment or Suspension, or has resigned with an admission of misconduct.
(1) In the jurisdiction of any state, possession, territory, commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, or in any Federal court in which the practitioner is admitted to practice, or
(2) Before any executive department, board, commission, or other governmental unit;
(f) Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false or misleading communication about his or her qualifications or services. A communication is false or misleading if it:
(1) Contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading, or,
(2) Contains an assertion about the practitioner or his or her qualifications or services that cannot be substantiated. A practitioner shall not state or imply that he or she has been recognized or certified as a specialist in immigration and/or nationality law unless such certification is granted by the appropriate state regulatory authority or by an organization that has been approved by the appropriate state regulatory authority to grant such certification;
(g) Engages in contumelious or otherwise obnoxious conduct, with regard to a case in which he or she acts in a representative capacity, which would constitute, contempt of court in a judicial proceeding;
(h) Has been found guilty of, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, a serious crime, in any court of the United States, or of any state, possession, territory, commonwealth, or the District of Columbia. A serious crime includes any felony and also includes any lesser crime, a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime in the jurisdiction where the judgment was entered, involves interference with the administration of .justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, dishonesty, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt, or a conspiracy or solicitation of another, to commit a serious crime. A plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction after a plea of nolo contendere is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section;
(i) Knowingly or with reckless disregard falsely certifies a copy of a document as being a true and complete copy of an original;
(j) Engages in frivolous behavior in a proceeding before an Immigration Court, the Board, or any other administrative appellate body under title LI of the Immigration and Nationality Act, provided:
(1) A practitioner engages in frivolous behavior when he or she knows or reasonably should have known that his or her actions lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, or are taken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay. Actions that, if taken improperly, may be subject to disciplinary sanctions include, but are not limited to, the making of an argument on any factual or legal question, the submission of an application for discretionary relief, the filing of a motion, or the filing of an appeal. The signature of a practitioner on any filing, application, motion, appeal, brief, or other document constitutes certification by the signer that the signer has read the filing, application, motion, appeal, brief, or other document and that, to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the document is well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.
(2) The imposition of disciplinary sanctions for frivolous behavior under this section in no way limits the authority of the Board to dismiss an appeal summarily pursuant to § 1003.1 (d)(1-a);
(k) Engages in conduct that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, as previously determined in a finding by the Board or an Immigration Judge in an immigration proceeding, and a disciplinary complaint is filed within one year of the finding;
(l) Repeatedly fails to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause; or
(m) Assists any person, other than a practitioner as defined in § 1003.101(b), in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Case Number(s): 06-J-15152 & 06-0-13219 - RAP
In the Matter of: Edward William Haase A Member of the State Bar
<<not>> checked. a. Within days/ months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must develop a law office management/organization plan, which must be approved by the Office of Probation. This plan must include procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding.
checked. b. Within days/THREE (3) months/ years of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must submit to the Office of Probation satisfactory evidence of completion of no less than THREE (3) hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) approved courses in law office management, attorney client relations and/or general legal ethics. This requirement is separate from any MCLE requirement, and Respondent will not receive MCLE credit for attending these courses (Rule 3201, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.)
<<not>> checked. c. Within 30 days of the effective date of the discipline, Respondent must join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section of the State Bar of California and pay the dues and costs of enrollment for year(s). Respondent must furnish satisfactory evidence of membership in the section to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California in the first report required.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 06-J-15152 & 06-0-13219 - RAP
In the Matter of: Edward William Haase, 189819
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Edward W. Haase
Date: 1-28-08
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Jean Cha
Date: 2-1-08
Case Number(s): 06-J-15152 & 06-0-13219 - RAP
In the Matter of: Edward William Haase
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: 2-15-08
[Rule 62(b), Rules Proc.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on February 22, 2008, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
EDWARD W HAASE ESQ
LAW OFC EDWARD HAASE
401 B ST STE 1520
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
JEAN CHA, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on February 22, 2008.
Signed by:
Angela Owens- Carpenter
Case Administrator
State Bar Court