|
Attorney Sarah Clemment, of Madison,
Wisconsin, is an attorney licensed in the
State of Wisconsin since 2000.
In December of 2005, Clemment agreed
to represent a client on an asylum
application with the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. Following an asylum
interview, the client was placed in removal
proceedings before the U.S. Department of
Justice, Executive Office for Immigration
Review (“Immigration Court”). The
Immigration Court scheduled a final hearing
to consider the client’s asylum application,
as well as her removability from the United
States, on January 30, 2008.
On January 28, 2008, the client came
to Clemment’s office to discuss her final
hearing. According to the client, Clemment
told her the date of the final hearing was
January 31, 2008 and that Clemment would not
attend the hearing without being paid
outstanding attorneys fees. While Clemment
denies she told the client the hearing was
on January 31, 2008, the client paid the
fees, and on January 31, 2008, Clemment and
her client traveled together to Chicago,
Ilinois to appear before an immigration
judge. Upon arrival, however, Clemment and
the client learned that the scheduled
hearing took place on January 30, 2008, and
the immigration judge entered an
in absentia
order denying asylum, denying withholding of
removal, and ordering the client’s
deportation to her home country.
In response to the Immigration
Court’s order, Clemment filed a Motion to
Reopen Proceedings with the Immigration
Court. In her motion, Clemment stated that
she had advised her client that she would
not be able to represent her at the January
30, 2008 hearing. In addition, Clemment
made statements in her motion that implied
that the client had appeared at the hearing
on January 31, 2008 on the wrong date and
without her attorney. Clemment did not
submit a filing fee with her Motion to
Reopen, nor did she file any affidavits or
supporting evidence as required by the
Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”).
Because Clemment had acknowledged that the
client had received notice of the January
30, 2008 hearing, and because no evidence
supported a finding that the client had been
misinformed of the hearing date, the court
denied the Motion to Reopen.
Thereafter, Clemment filed a Notice
of Appeal with the Bureau of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA.”). In her Notice of Appeal,
Clemment did not file a required Notice of
Entry of Appearance form, nor did Clemment
submit a brief, notwithstanding written
notice from BIA that failure to file a
written brief may result in the summary
dismissal of the appeal.
In March of 2009, the client
telephoned Clemment repeatedly seeking
information on the status of her case. In
response, Clemment wrote the client and
informed her that her case had been denied,
and that there was nothing further Clemment
could do on the case. A decision from BIA
had not yet been made on the appeal. In
response to inquires from successor counsel,
Clemment acknowledged that she told the
client that her case had been denied in
order to force her to obtain new counsel.
At no time did Clemment formally withdraw
from representing the client.
|
|
Clemment’s failure to take positive and
meaningful steps to represent her client in
asylum and removal proceedings, including
failing to follow statutory requirements in
filing motions and appeals with the
Immigration Court and the Bureau of
Immigration Appeals, violated SCR 20:1.1,
which states, “A lawyer shall provide
competent representation to a client.
Competent representation requires the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation.”
|
|
Clemment’s failure to appear at her client’s
final hearing to consider her asylum
application and removability, as well as
Clemment’s failure to timely advance her
client’s interests, violated SCR 20:1.3,
which states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
By submitting to the Immigration Court a
motion to reopen the hearing that implied
that her client had appeared at the hearing
on January 31, 2008 on the wrong date and
without her attorney, when in fact Clemment
had mistakenly traveled with her client to
the hearing and attempted to appear on her
behalf, Clemment violated SCR 20:8.4(c),
which states, “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.”
|
|
By communicating information to her client
that her case had been denied and that there
was nothing further that Clemment could do
for her, when the decision on her case had
not yet been made, Clemment violated SCR
20:1.4(a)(3), which states, “A lawyer shall
keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter.”
Respondent has no prior
discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09,
Attorney Sarah Clemment of Madison,
Wisconsin is hereby publicly reprimanded.
|