Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; September 6, 2016; Louisiana; State Supreme Court
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) has filed a petition for reciprocal discipline against attorney Jose W. Vega, who is licensed to practice in Louisiana, Texas, and New York, based on disciplinary action taken by the Supreme Court of Texas. In February 2016, Vega submitted a motion for resignation in lieu of discipline, which was supported by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) of the Texas Bar, citing public interest.
The CDC detailed several allegations of misconduct against Vega:
1. **Vieyrar-Garcia Matter**: Vega received $2,000 for an immigration case but failed to earn the full fee and did not refund the unearned amount until February 2014, violating Rule 1.15(d).
2. **Perez Matter**: Vega was paid $8,500 for another immigration case but failed to keep the client informed and did not refund the unearned fees, violating Rules 1.03(a) and 1.15(d).
3. **Sanchez Matter**: Vega received $3,500 for a criminal case but did not earn the fee, leading to a lawsuit from the client, who won a default judgment. Vega later refunded the amount but failed to respond to the CDC's inquiry, violating Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8).
4. **Maria Aguilar Matter**: Vega was paid $1,500 for a petition to USCIS but delayed filing for eight months and did not keep the client informed, violating Rule 1.03(a).
5. **Luis Aguilar Matter**: Vega received $2,000 for another petition with additional fees owed but caused delays and failed to respond to the CDC’s notice, violating Rule 8.04(a)(8).
These incidents collectively highlight Vega's repeated failures in client communication and financial management, leading to the petition for reciprocal discipline.
In the Flores-Medrano Matter, Jorge Flores-Medrano paid $3,490 in September 2013 for assistance with his wife's immigration status adjustment; however, delays occurred due to changes in USCIS processing. Respondent failed to timely respond to a grievance notice from the CDC, which alleged violations of Rule 8.04(a)(8) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. In the De La Rosa Matter, Arturo De La Rosa paid $2,000 in June 2014 for similar assistance, but delays and a lack of communication led to Mr. De La Rosa firing respondent. The CDC alleged violations of Rules 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8). In the Teno/Gutierrez Matter, Veronica Teno paid $2,000 in February 2014 for representation in a deportation case. Respondent failed to update them about a deportation order, resulting in Mr. Gutierrez's deportation; he later agreed to refund $250 but did not respond to the CDC's grievance notice, which alleged violations of Rule 8.04(a)(8). In the Vindel/Lagos Matter, Zenia Vindel and Eduardo Lagos paid $4,900 in November 2011, but their application was ultimately denied, and they did not receive a refund or their file. The CDC cited violations of Rules 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). In the Cano/Torres Matter, Elias Cano paid $3,500 in October 2013; while Ms. Torres obtained residency, Mr. Cano's application was denied due to respondent's failure to respond to a request for information. Cano fired respondent for poor communication, and the CDC alleged violations of Rule 8.04(a)(8). Lastly, attorney Raed Gonzalez filed a grievance involving five clients, including Bernardo Torrez, who paid $1,490 in September 2012 but experienced negligence and lack of communication from respondent. Respondent failed to respond to the CDC's notice regarding these matters.
Erasmo Aguillon paid between $1,750 and $3,500 to a respondent in October 2007, along with filing fees. After hiring Mr. Gonzalez, Aguillon requested his file and a refund for unearned fees, but the respondent did not respond. In June 2014, Juan Cerda paid $2,500 plus $505 in filing fees; although some documents were filed, the respondent failed to pay the filing fee, resulting in the dismissal of Cerda's case. The respondent misrepresented that the case was still pending and ignored requests from Mr. Gonzalez for Cerda's file and a refund. Diego Perez paid $2,000 in February 2014, but faced delays due to changes in USCIS processing; the respondent failed to communicate and did not respond to Gonzalez’s requests for his file and a refund. In September 2013, Jesus Herrera also paid $2,000; the respondent neglected his case and did not respond to requests from Gonzalez.
The CDC alleged violations of several Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct for neglect and lack of communication. In the Diaz Matter, Juan Diaz paid $750 plus a $590 filing fee in May 2014, but the respondent neglected the case despite assurances of handling it. Diaz later learned the application had not been filed and terminated the respondent’s services. The CDC cited violations related to neglect and supervisory responsibilities. In the Leija Matter, Martha Leija paid $3,875 for her son's representation; after a denied asylum application, the respondent failed to file an appeal and did not communicate with Leija, leading to her son's deportation. The respondent also failed to provide the file to the new attorney.
For the Reyes Matter, Maria Reyes paid $2,000 in January 2014 but received no communication or refund from the respondent. Similarly, in the Montoya Matter, Camelia Montoya and her husband paid $3,500 for immigration assistance but faced lack of communication and a denied application, which led to removal proceedings. Although Montoya received a refund for filing fees, the CDC cited the respondent for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules for each matter due to neglect and failure to communicate effectively.
On May 7, 2014, Ana Villasenor paid $2,000 to a respondent for immigration assistance but experienced a lack of communication and failure to submit necessary evidence, leading to her application’s denial. She sought a refund, which was not provided. The CDC alleged violations of Texas Disciplinary Rules 1.03(b) and 1.15(d).
Gerson Basurto paid $3,250 on February 8, 2010, for similar services but was not informed that no filings were made on his behalf until April 2013. His application was ultimately denied, and he requested a refund, which the respondent refused. The CDC also alleged violations of Rules 1.03(b) and 1.15(d).
Salvador Camarena paid $1,500 in September 2013 but received no forms or documentation from the respondent. After multiple requests for a refund, the respondent only agreed to return the fee following a grievance filing with the CDC. The CDC alleged violations of Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).
Raquel Lopez paid $6,980 on March 18, 2014, but was not kept informed due to processing delays. Her application was denied, and she terminated the respondent's services. The CDC alleged violations of Rules 1.03(a) and 1.03(b).
Maria Rodriguez paid $2,000 plus fees on September 12, 2013, but the respondent failed to respond to her inquiries and did not provide necessary evidence, resulting in denial of her application. She later learned from another attorney that her application was doomed due to ineligibility. The CDC alleged violations of Rules 1.03(a) and 1.03(b).
Virginia Villalobos paid $2,420 in May 2014 but faced unresponsiveness from the respondent for nearly a year and confirmed that her petition was never filed, nor was a refund issued. The CDC alleged violations of Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d).
In the Hernandez Matter, Maria Hernandez paid $3,500 to a respondent for the removal of a drug charge from her husband's record, which was necessary for his immigration status adjustment. The respondent failed to communicate with her, did not perform the agreed work, and did not refund the unearned fee. The CDC alleged violations of several Texas Disciplinary Rules.
In the Rivera/Sessena Matter, Mario Rivera paid $4,845 for the respondent to represent Gabriella Sessena in an immigration matter. The respondent neglected to file required documents and failed to inform the clients despite their repeated attempts to contact him. The CDC alleged multiple violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules against the respondent.
In the Santos Rodriguez Matter, Santos Rodriguez paid $2,500 to reopen a criminal case affecting his immigration status. The respondent failed to communicate and did not take action on his behalf. Although he agreed to refund $1,000, he did not respond timely to the CDC’s grievance notice. The CDC alleged violations of specific Texas Disciplinary Rules.
In the Marroquin Matter, Hector Marroquin paid $2,000 for representation in a criminal and deportation case. After filing an insufficient motion that was denied, Marroquin dismissed the respondent, who subsequently filed an appeal that was also denied, costing Marroquin his chance to remain in the U.S. The CDC alleged a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules.
In the Acosta Matter, Luis Acosta paid a total of $2,515 for representation in deportation proceedings. The respondent failed to keep Acosta informed and only agreed to refund the filing fee after Acosta's mother sought new counsel. The CDC alleged several violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules.
In the Mendez Matter, Maria Mendez paid $3,000 for assistance with her immigration status adjustment but faced a lack of communication and no filing of necessary documentation by the respondent. The CDC alleged violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules.
Salvador Colon, a Texas attorney, faced multiple allegations of professional misconduct related to the handling of client matters. In the Colon Matter, he failed to provide a client's file upon request, violating Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8). In the Zamorra Matter, after receiving $2,200 for immigration assistance, Colon did not respond to his client’s inquiries and was accused of violating Rules 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8). The Garcia Matter involved Colon receiving $3,920 but failing to file necessary documentation and keep the client informed, leading to allegations of violating Rules 5.03(a), 5.03(b), and 8.04(a)(8). In the Sandoval Matter, he failed to file required forms despite receiving payment and misled the client regarding her immigration status, violating Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8). In the Armas Matter, Colon did not file necessary forms after receiving $3,500 and retaliated against a client who posted a negative review, leading to allegations under Rules 1.03(a) and 1.03(b). The Santos Matter involved Colon receiving $2,200 and failing to file documentation or refund the fee after being terminated, violating Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). Finally, in the Venegas-Martinez Matter, he failed to file necessary forms for $3,500, did not respond to the client, and did not issue a refund, resulting in allegations under Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).
Sintia Barragan engaged respondent in December 2013, paying $2,000 for assistance with her husband's immigration status adjustment. The respondent failed to file necessary forms, did not respond to Ms. Barragan's inquiries, and upon termination of services, refused to refund the fee. The CDC alleged violations of Texas Disciplinary Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d).
In June 2014, Kelly McGee also paid $2,000 for similar assistance but experienced the same issues: failure to file on her behalf and lack of communication. She too terminated the relationship and sought a refund, which was not provided. The CDC cited violations of Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).
Claudius Sosa-Zavala paid $2,000 plus $253 in fees on February 24, 2014, for divorce proceedings to aid her immigration status. After a year without resolution, she had difficulty contacting the respondent. He agreed to refund $1,500 and the filing fees, with the CDC alleging violations of Rules 1.03(a), 1.03(b), and 1.15(d).
Luis Prendiz hired the respondent on November 26, 2006, for his son's immigration matter, but the fee agreement was only formalized in February 2007. Prendiz reported a two-year delay in filing the application, leading him to seek congressional assistance. The CDC alleged a violation of Rule 1.15(d) based on correspondence from the U.S. Department of State indicating the respondent's failure to act.
On February 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation of the respondent and canceled his law license, imposing conditions for potential reinstatement. These conditions included making restitution to multiple clients totaling $28,098, returning various client files, and paying $11,357 in fees and expenses to the State Bar of Texas. Following this order, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in Louisiana initiated reciprocal discipline proceedings, filing a motion based on the Texas order. The Louisiana court provided the respondent thirty days to contest the imposition of identical discipline but received no response. According to Supreme Court Rule XIX. 21(D), identical discipline is to be imposed unless the respondent demonstrates a lack of due process, significant evidentiary issues, potential grave injustice, or that the misconduct warrants different discipline. The Louisiana court found no evidence of such issues in the Texas proceedings and determined that there was no justification to deviate from the Texas sanction, emphasizing that significant variances should only occur under extraordinary circumstances.
Deference is warranted towards the disciplinary actions of other jurisdictions regarding attorneys under shared supervisory authority. In this case, the Texas judgment, which accepted the resignation of respondent Jose W. Vega from practicing law in lieu of discipline, is acknowledged. Texas imposed conditions for potential future reinstatement, while Louisiana's Supreme Court Rule XIX. 20.1(F) permanently bars any attorney resigning in lieu of discipline from practicing law or seeking readmission in Louisiana or any other jurisdiction. This highlights a disparity between Texas and Louisiana's disciplinary frameworks, with Texas's resignation being treated equivalently to disbarment in Louisiana.
Under Louisiana law, a disbarred attorney may petition for readmission after five years, which aligns with Texas's rules allowing a similar petition following resignation in lieu of discipline. Given these considerations, the reciprocal discipline applicable to Vega is disbarment. Consequently, Vega is officially disbarred, his name will be removed from Louisiana's attorney roll, and his license to practice will be revoked. He is also currently ineligible to practice law due to unpaid dues, failure to satisfy educational requirements, and not filing necessary disclosures. Previously, in September 2013, Vega received a public reprimand in Louisiana as reciprocal discipline for reprimands issued in Texas.
