|
Kevin P. Boyle is a Wisconsin-licensed
attorney, admitted to practice on June 14,
2010. In or about 2010, a client hired
Boyle to prepare and file a Form I-130,
Petition for Alien Relative, on his behalf.
On April 21, 2011, Boyle filed a Notice of
Entry of Appearance relating to the client’s
Form I-130. Sometime after filing the Form
I-130, Boyle and the client determined it
would be in the client’s best interest to
pursue a U-Visa on the client’s behalf
because the client had previously been the
victim of a violent crime, which made him
eligible for a U-Visa. By notice dated June
14, 2013, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”) approved the client’s U-
Visa petition, which granted him U
nonimmigrant status for a period of four
years.
Prior to the date on which the client’s U-
Visa was due to expire, Boyle agreed to
prepare and file on the client’s behalf an
application for permanent residency. USCIS
sent a request to Boyle and/or the client
for additional evidence relating to the
client’s good moral character. While the
client’s U-Visa petition was pending, the
client had accepted a plea deal in a
criminal matter involving domestic abuse and
operating while intoxicated. Boyle
attempted to argue that the client should be
granted permanent residence based on the
severity of the crime underlying the
client’s U-Visa eligibility, along with the
separation of his family should he not be
allowed to remain in the United States. The
client’s application for permanent residence
was ultimately denied and his legal status
was terminated.
Upon denial of the client’s application for
permanent residence and termination of his
U-Visa status, his permission to work
legally in the United States also ended.
Consequently, Boyle concluded that the
client did not have any basis to apply for a
work permit, and Boyle initially informed
the client of this conclusion. However,
after the client continued to ask Boyle to
seek work authorization for him in order to
support his family, Boyle agreed to seek a
work permit for the client even though he
had already concluded the client was not
eligible. In August, 2018, Boyle provided
the client with a falsified receipt for an
application for employment authorization.
Boyle had falsified a receipt relating to a
different client and provided it to the
client so that it appeared that an
application for employment authorization was
pending on the client’s behalf. Boyle had
not submitted anything to USCIS on the
client’s behalf.
The client discovered that Boyle had
provided him with a false receipt by
tracking the status of the application by
the receipt number. With the assistance of
the county’s sheriff’s department, the
client tracked a mailing supposedly
containing the client’s work authorization
card, sent to him from the Department of
Homeland Security, to an unknown address.
The client subsequently discovered the
address belonged to another of Boyle’s
clients. The employment authorization card
actually belonged to the other client.
Boyle received $410 from the client as a
filing fee for the employment application he
failed to pursue. Boyle placed the funds
into his business account.
Boyle admitted that he falsified the receipt
for an application for employment
authorization with the intention of leading
the client to believe that he had applied
for work authorization on the client’s
behalf when, in fact, he had not. Regarding
his reason for doing so, Boyle stated that
he had only meant to allow the client to
continue working for a while longer. Boyle
later paid the client $2,500 in order to
reimburse the client and provide means for
the client to hire another attorney.
|
|
By falsifying documentation with the
intention of leading the client to believe
that he had applied for work authorization
on the client’s behalf when, in fact, he had
not, Boyle 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 accepting funds
intended to cover a work authorization
filing, having determined that such a filing
would be baseless, and without the intention
to make such a filing, Boyle further
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). By accepting funds
intended by the client to be an advanced
payment of costs for the filing of a work
authorization request, and depositing those
funds into his business account, Boyle
violated SCR 20:1.5(f), which states in
part, “Funds advanced by a client or 3rd
party for payment of costs shall be held in
trust until the costs are incurred.”
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Kevin P. Boyle is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 6th day of December, 2019.
|