|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license revoked.
|
|
1. PER CURIAM. We review the stipulation
filed by Attorney
Nicholas C. Grapsas and the Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility
(Board). Pursuant to SCR 21.09(3m) and the
report and recommendations of the referee,
Cheryl Rosen Weston, setting forth findings
of fact and conclusions of law concerning
Attorney Grapsas' professional misconduct
for failing to provide competent
representation to a client; failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client; making false and
misleading statements to a client; making
false statements to Board staff; failing to
promptly notify a court of a prior
suspension of his license to practice law;
engaging in the practice of law while
suspended; and failing to respond to letters
from the Board; the parties stipulated, and
the referee recommended, that Attorney
Grapsas' license to practice law be revoked
as a discipline for that misconduct.
|
|
2. We approve the stipulation and determine
that the seriousness of Attorney Grapsas'
misconduct warrants revocation of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
|
|
3. Attorney Grapsas was admitted to
practice
law in Wisconsin in 1970 and practiced in
Madison, primarily in the area of
immigration law. In 1993 this court publicly
reprimanded him for failing to provide
prompt and diligent representation to a
client applying for U.S. citizenship,
failing to keep that client reasonably
informed of the status of the application
and comply with her reasonable requests for
information concerning it, refusing to
return her unearned retainer when she
terminated his representation,
misrepresenting to his client, the Board,
and the District Professional Responsibility
Committee that he had acted in the client's
matter, and failing to respond timely to the
Board's request for information concerning
the client's grievance. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Grapsas, 174 Wis. 2d
816, 498 N.W.2d 400 (1993).
4. In March of 1999 this court again
publicly reprimanded Attorney Grapsas for
not explaining an immigration matter to a
client to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit her to make informed decisions
regarding the representation and not
informing her and her employer of
substantial risks to the client's ability to
work after the expiration date of the visa,
failing to make reasonable inquiries to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
concerning his attempt to file a petition to
change the client's status, not refiling the
petition in a timely manner, and not
responding to inquiries from the Board
concerning the client's grievance.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grapsas,
225 Wis. 2d 411, 591 N.W.2d 862 (1999).
5. In December of 1999 this court
suspended
Attorney Grapsas' license to practice law in
Wisconsin for six months, commencing January
10, 2000, for failing to file a client's
application with INS in a timely manner,
failing to keep the client adequately
informed of the status of that application
and respond promptly to her reasonable
requests for information concerning it,
misrepresenting to the client on numerous
occasions over an extended period that he
had filed the application, altering the
dates of the signature of the client and her
employer on the application without
obtaining their authorization to do so,
failing to advise the client of the steps
necessary to continue her daughter's non-
immigrant status and notify the client and
her daughter promptly of the denial of the
application to extend the daughter's visa,
failing to return the balance of the
client's retainer, and failing to timely
respond to letters from the Board inquiring
into his conduct in the matter.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Grapsas, 230 Wis. 2d 751, 602 N.W.2d 526
(1999).
|
|
6. The Board's most recent complaint
against
Attorney Grapsas involves two of his former
clients. In 1995 the first client, a native
and citizen of the African nation of
Cameroon, retained Attorney Grapsas to
assist him in applying for political asylum
in the United States. On December 28, 1995,
INS granted the client's application for
political asylum and, as a result, the
client was granted status as an asylee in
the United States. Subsequent to INS
granting the client's application for
political asylum, Attorney Grapsas also
assisted the client in obtaining employment
authorization from INS, pursuant to which
the client was authorized to be employed in
the United States for a one-year period. As
an alien admitted to the United States under
asylee status, the client could not lawfully
be employed in the United States except
under an employment authorization. The
unlawful employment of an alien such as the
client, even if otherwise lawfully admitted
to the United States, provides legal grounds
for deportation.
7. In June of 1996 the client traveled
to
Canada to investigate possible employment
opportunities. Upon his re-entry into the
United States in August of 1996 INS issued
an "Order to Appear Deferred Inspection" and
admitted the client to return into the
United States under "parolee" status. The
order required the client to appear before
INS for a hearing in Milwaukee on September
16, 1996. This matter is called
an "exclusion proceeding."
8. Attorney Grapsas appeared as counsel
for
the client at the September 1996 hearing in
the exclusion proceeding. Following the
hearing INS notified the client that a
further hearing would be conducted before an
immigration judge at a time and date to be
set. While this matter was pending Attorney
Grapsas told the client he could be lawfully
employed in the United States and assisted
the client in applying to seek renewal of
his employment authorization. As a result of
a renewal application filed with Attorney
Grapsas' assistance, INS renewed the
client's employment authorization card for a
one-year period extending from February 13,
1997, to February 13, 1998, and INS issued
the client an employment authorization card
to evidence his employment authorization for
that period.
9. In December of 1997 while the
exclusion
proceeding was still pending Attorney
Grapsas advised the client to apply to INS
to renew his employment authorization.
Attorney Grapsas prepared an application for
renewal of employment authorization, which
the client executed in late December 1997.
In the renewal application, Attorney Grapsas
described the client's current immigration
status as an "asylee." The client paid
Attorney Grapsas for legal services rendered
in connection with the renewal application.
Following the execution of the renewal
application Attorney Grapsas informed the
client that the application had been sent to
INS by Federal Express.
10. On January 6, 1998, the immigration
judge entered an order terminating the
exclusion proceeding. Following the entry of
that order, Attorney Grapsas informed the
client that he was free to file for
admission to the United States as a
permanent resident. In late April 1998 the
client executed an application for permanent
residence status which Attorney Grapsas had
prepared. The client paid Attorney Grapsas
$175 for the filing fee and $50 for attorney
fees for his services. Attorney Grapsas told
the client the permanent residence
application would be filed immediately.
Beginning in the summer of 1998 the client
attempted to contact Attorney Grapsas to
request information about the status of the
renewal application and the permanent
residence application, but Attorney Grapsas
did not respond to the client's requests for
information.
11. During 1998 because he did not have
a
current employment authorization card issued
by INS, the client was unable to obtain
employment in the United States since the
card in his possession had expired February
13, 1998. During the fall of 1998 a
prospective employer of the client had
contact with Attorney Grapsas regarding the
client's immigration status. In an October
1998 letter to the prospective client,
Attorney Grapsas said the client had been
granted the immigration status of an asylee
and that any person with that status was
authorized to work. Attorney Grapsas also
informed the prospective employer that the
client had applied to INS for renewal of the
document to evidence his employment
authorization.
12. In early November 1998 the client
sent
Attorney Grapsas a letter by certified mail
inquiring about the status of his employment
authorization application. Although Attorney
Grapsas received the letter on November 12,
1998, he failed to respond. In early
December 1998 the client faxed Attorney
Grapsas a letter saying he needed help
because his employer had asked for proof of
his employment authorization. Attorney
Grapsas again failed to respond.
13. In late December 1998 Attorney
Grapsas
finally telephoned the client and told him
he had filed another application to renew
the client's employment authorization.
Attorney Grapsas provided no information
concerning what had happened to the
purported December 1997 renewal application.
In early January 1999 the client faxed
Attorney Grapsas a letter asking for a copy
of the most recent renewal application. The
client also inquired about the status of the
permanent residence application. Attorney
Grapsas failed to respond. In March of 1999
the client learned that, contrary to his
prior representations, Attorney Grapsas had
not filed the renewal application or the
permanent residence application.
14. The client was required to obtain
new
counsel to assist him in filing a new
renewal application and a new permanent
residence application. On July 8, 1999, the
client received from INS a one-year
employment application authorization and
employment authorization card. Because the
permanent residence application had not been
timely filed by Attorney Grapsas, the client
was required to incur additional costs of
$237 for a medical examination,
fingerprinting and a photograph.
15. In his communications with the
Board,
Attorney Grapsas claimed he did not file the
renewal application and permanent residence
application because the client's immigration
status was unsettled, despite the
termination of the exclusion proceeding in
January of 1998.
16. The Board's complaint also alleged
that
Attorney Grapsas engaged in misconduct with
respect to an immigration hearing that took
place in January 2000. After this court
issued its December 3, 1999, decision
suspending Attorney Grapsas' license for six
months, Attorney Grapsas filed a motion for
reconsideration. By letter dated January 12,
2000, the Board reminded Attorney Grapsas
that his filing of the reconsideration
motion did not stay the enforcement of this
court's disciplinary order, pursuant to
which Attorney Grapsas' license to practice
law was suspended for six months effective
January 10, 2000. On January 13, 2000, this
court issued an order denying Attorney
Grapsas' motion for reconsideration.
17. On January 18, 2000, Attorney
Grapsas
spoke by telephone with the Board's
litigation counsel inquiring about a client
matter scheduled for an immigration hearing
in Chicago on January 20, 2000. Board
counsel reminded Attorney Grapsas that
because of the suspension order he could not
appear at the hearing, could not practice
law in any way, and could not engage in any
work activity customarily done by law
students, law clerks, or other legal
personnel. Board counsel further advised
Attorney Grapsas that it appeared the
January 20, 2000, hearing would have to be
adjourned and that, in any event, the court
and his client would have to be notified of
the suspension and his client should be
given the opportunity to retain new counsel.
18. Despite his conversation with Board
counsel, Attorney Grapsas appeared before
the immigration court on January 20, 2000,
as counsel representing an alien client. At
that time in response to a motion filed by
Attorney Grapsas, the immigration court
entered an order terminating deportation
proceedings against the client.
19. On February 3, 2000, the Board
notified
Attorney Grapsas that it had received
information concerning his appearance before
the immigration court. Attorney Grapsas
represented to Board counsel that his only
activity before the immigration court had
consisted of his notifying the court and his
client of his license suspension. By letter
dated February 18, 2000, the Board provided
Attorney Grapsas with notice of the
commencement of an investigation based upon
information received from the immigration
judge about Attorney Grapsas' appearance
before the immigration court on January 20,
2000. The letter directed Attorney Grapsas
to provide a written response to the issues
raised by the submission received from the
immigration judge within 20 days of his
receipt of the letter. Attorney Grapsas
failed to respond to the Board's letter. In
a certified letter dated March 21, 2000, the
Board again notified Attorney Grapsas of its
commencement of an investigation about his
appearance before the immigration court and
directed Attorney Grapsas to provide a
written response no later than March 31,
2000. Again, Attorney Grapsas failed to
respond.
|
|
20. In the stipulation, Attorney Grapsas
represented to the Board, the referee, and
this court that he had retired from the
practice of law and had no intention of
resuming the practice of law; that he did
not contest the allegations of professional
misconduct set forth in the complaint; and
that he knowingly and voluntarily stipulated
to the revocation of his license to practice
law.
|
|
21. The referee found that by failing to
take
action to promptly file the renewal
application and the permanent residence
application for the first client, or by
failing to promptly take action to resolve
any issues as to that client's allegedly
unsettled immigration status, so that the
applications could be promptly filed and
acted upon by government authorities,
Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 20:1.1 and
20:1.3.
|
|
22. The referee also concluded that by
failing
to respond to the first client's reasonable
request for information about the status of
the renewal application and the permanent
residence application, Attorney Grapsas
violated SCR 20:1.4(a). The referee also
found that by making false and misleading
statements to the first client about the
renewal application and permanent residence
application; by falsely stating to the
client's prospective employer that the
client had filed with INS an application for
renewal of his employment authorization; and
by falsely stating to the Board's counsel
that his only activity before the
immigration court on January 20, 2000,
consisted of notifying the court and his
client of the license suspension, Attorney
Grapsas violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
|
|
23. The referee also found that by falsely
stating to Board staff that the renewal
application and the permanent residence
application had been filed with INS and by
failing to respond to the Board's letters
and by falsely stating that his only
activity before the immigration court
consisted of notifying the court and his
client of the license suspension, Attorney
Grapsas violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(3).
In addition, the referee found that by
failing to promptly notify the immigration
court of his suspension and of his inability
to act as counsel for a client at the
January 20, 2000, hearing, and by engaging
in the practice of law while suspended,
Attorney Grapsas violated SCR 22.26.
|
|
24. In addition to the license revocation,
the
parties stipulated and the referee
recommended the entry of an order of
restitution to the first client in the sum
of $574. The parties noted that Attorney
Grapsas has transmitted such funds to the
Board's counsel and the funds are being held
in the trust account of Lee Kilkelly Paulson
& Younger, S.C., to be distributed to the
former client from such account upon this
court's final disposition in the matter.
|
|
25. We accept the parties' stipulation and
adopt
the referee's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Attorney Grapsas'
pattern of misconduct in the handling of his
client's immigration matters warrants the
revocation of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin.
26. IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Nicholas C. Grapsas to practice law in
Wisconsin is revoked effective the date of
this order.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nicholas
C.
Grapsas comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been revoked.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sum of
$574
which is held in the trust account of Lee
Kilkelly Paulson & Younger, S.C. be
disbursed to Nicholas C. Grapsas' former
client.
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of
the date of this order Nicholas C. Grapsas
pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the
sum of $200 as the costs of this proceeding.
30. WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J., did not
participate.
|