Immigration lawyer hit for helping nonlawyer 'notarios'

A Torrance immigration attorney faces a lengthy suspension after the State Bar Court found that he helped non-lawyer immigration consultants, often called "notarios," to practice law without a license and that he accepted illegal fees from the consultants who referred cases to him.

Two of the three judges on the court's review panel recommended that JAMES VALINOTI [#164075], 38, be suspended for five years, stayed, and placed on five years of probation with a three-year actual suspension. The recommendation, issued Dec. 31, must be accepted by the Supreme Court before it takes effect. The third judge, James Obrien, dissented and recommended that Valinoti be disbarred.

In a 100-page decision, the court found that Valinoti committed 18 acts of misconduct against nine clients, as well as five acts of uncharged misconduct between mid-1995 and 1997. During that time, he handled some 2,700 immigration matters.

He violated federal regulations requiring an attorney of record to prepare and file all immigration applications and pleadings, and he abandoned clients, who were either deported or left the country voluntarily, the court found.

Valinoti argued that in seven of the nine cases, he served only as an "appearance attorney," making court appearances but not preparing or filing his clients' immigration applications and other papers. Those documents were properly prepared by nonattorney immigration services providers, who also advise aliens about U.S. immigration laws and refer the aliens to licensed attorneys, Valinoti said. He should not have been accused of failing to perform legal services he never agreed to perform, he argued.

Review Judge Ronald Stovitz said non-attorney consultants routinely present themselves as experts, engage in personal solicitation of clients at INS offices and the immigration court and advertise their services to non-English speaking clients in newspapers and the telephone book. At the time of Valinoti's misconduct, the provider often said he could obtain a work permit and charged a flat fee ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 to handle a case and prepare the paperwork. Many of the applications fraudulently sought political asylum and when they were denied, the alien faced deportation.

At that point, the decision says, the immigration consultant would refer the alien to an attorney, often waiting until the day of the hearing. Stovitz said the consultant usually waited in the immigration courthouse hallways looking for Valinoti, introduced the client, arranged for an appearance and usually paid Valinoti a cash appearance fee - an average of $150. Stovitz estimated that Valinoti earned $250,000 in both 1996 and 1997.

Although Valinoti said the client almost always wished to return to the immigration consultant for further services after a hearing, the court rejected his assertion. Further, Stovitz said that once an attorney files a form known as an EOIR-27, he or she becomes attorney of record, cannot withdraw without the court's permission and has "the duty to competently represent the client before the immigration court and to properly prepare each and every application, pleading and document necessary for proper representation of that client."

Valinoti's failure to do so violated federal regulations, Stovitz said. In addition, by allowing nonlawyers to prepare the pleadings, he helped them engage in the unauthorized practice of law, actions constituting moral turpitude, the judge said.

Stovitz rejected Valinoti's claims that his actions were unintentional, the result of simple negligence or honest mistakes and the doings of a relatively inexperienced lawyer. Instead, Stovitz said, Valinoti "engaged in a course of practicing law that was reckless and involved gross carelessness."

The court also criticized Valinoti for failing to keep adequate records, maintaining an excessive caseload with inadequate support staff and for moving his offices repeatedly without notifying his clients.

The decision described Valinoti running from courtroom to courtroom looking for his clients and looking for an interpreter so he could communicate with clients. He was frequently late or missed appearances altogether, but "never properly sought an extension of time or properly requested a continuance of a hearing," Stovitz said.

Although Valinoti's case was filed before the 1997 veto of the State Bar's fee bill and subsequent near-shutdown of the discipline system, the ruling comes at a time when the bar is teaming up with law enforcement to crack down on the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), particularly in immigrant communities.

Under state law, immigration consultants are limited to providing basic assistance, such as filling out forms, and are not allowed to give legal advice or fill out asylum applications. Authorities believe that in many instances, immigration lawyers work with non-attorney consultants, blurring their roles and placing clients in jeopardy.