| Description: |
Kaaren L. Barr (WSBA No. 22092, admitted 1992), of Emmett, Idaho, was disbarred, effective March 9, 2012, by order of the Washington
State Supreme Court. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to provide competent representation, failure to communicate, conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice, and willfully disobeying a court order. Ms. Barr was a sole practitioner who concentrated
her practice on immigration law. In 2005 and 2006, Ms. Barr was sanctioned by the Ninth Circuit in five immigration matters. In
October 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order to Show Cause to Ms. Barr to show why she should not be sanctioned for “repeated violations of this court’s rules and orders and the rules of professional conduct, and for conduct unbecoming a member of this court’s bar in many of the 236 cases” in which Ms. Barr had
appeared before that court. Ms. Barr’s violations included:
• Filing briefs with the Ninth Circuit that
consisted of boilerplate language, with very
little application of law to fact;
• Filing briefs that demonstrated failure to
monitor changing case law, included arguments
previously rejected by the Ninth Circuit,
and waived her clients’ asylum claims
because they did not address certain issues;
• Filing briefs that compromised her clients’
chances of prevailing before the Ninth
Circuit; and
• Failing to file timely appeals in the Ninth
Circuit on behalf of clients or to exhaust
issues before the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA).
At a hearing in the Ninth Circuit on February 17, 2009, Ms. Barr admitted to all of the allegations in the Order to Show Cause and proposed that she resign from practice rather than have the Ninth Circuit suspend her for her actions. The Ninth Circuit report recommended that Ms. Barr be allowed to resign on condition that she also withdraw from all cases pending before the BIA within 30 days, provide clients in pending cases with the clerk of the court’s address, and advise clients of her intent to resign
and have the clients notify the court immediately in writing if they wished to retain new counsel or to represent themselves on appeal. On May 12, 2009, the Ninth Circuit adopted the report and recommendation and ordered that Ms. Barr was no longer eligible to practice before the Ninth Circuit or BIA. Contrary to the Court’s order, Ms. Barr did not review her files to determine how many of her clients had cases pending before the BIA. Instead, as
clients’ briefs came due, Ms. Barr withdrew or gave them advice about how to proceed. Ms. Barr was retained by Client X in 2003 to represent him in immigration proceedings. Client X paid Ms. Barr $1,500 to file an asylum claim on his behalf. On September 2, 2003,
Client X attended his individual hearing in Immigration Court. Ms. Barr spent approximately half an hour preparing Client X for this
hearing, which was inadequate preparation. The immigration judge dismissed Client X’s asylum claim. Ms. Barr told Client X that she
would appeal his case; however, Client X was unable to contact Ms. Barr to discuss his case, did not meet with Ms. Barr between 2003 and 2009, and never received any copies of briefs she filed on his behalf. In July 2004, Ms. Barr filed a brief with the BIA to appeal the immigration judge’s decision after the scheduled deadline, along with a motion to allow late filing. In the motion, Ms. Barr stated that she had “failed to calendar the briefing schedule.” In a declaration, Ms. Barr wrote that she had discussed
the appeal with Client X and advised him that she would be filing a brief on his behalf. Client X denies that he knew about the brief or knew that Ms. Barr had failed to timely file it. The BIA refused to accept the late filing and dismissed Client X’s matter in August 2004. Ms. Barr did not inform Client X of the dismissal. In September 2004, without discussing this decision with the client, Ms. Barr filed a Petition for Review of the BIA’s August 2004 decision with the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit dismissed
the petition and remanded the case back to the BIA, allowing Client X another “bite at the apple.” Ms. Barr did not inform Client X that the case was again pending in front of the BIA or review his case with him. She filed a “boilerplate” brief with the BIA in July 2008, which was nearly identical to the 2004 brief she had previously filed on Client X’s behalf. Neither the facts nor the law in the brief had been updated to reflect current conditions. As of the Ninth Circuit’s May 12, 2009, order,
Client X’s case was still pending before the BIA. Ms. Barr did not notify Client X that she could no longer represent him, which violated the Ninth Circuit’s Order. The BIA again dismissed Client X’s appeal. The deadline to appeal this decision was 30 days. Client X received a copy of this decision in the mail but did not understand what it meant and was unable to contact Ms. Barr by phone. Instead of contacting Client X directly, whose contact information had not changed, Ms. Barr sent Client X’s friend an
email asking him to tell Client X to contact her. Ms. Barr met with Client X in December 2009 and, for the first time, told Client X that she was no longer allowed to practice in the
Ninth Circuit or the BIA and that he should hire a new lawyer to appeal the BIA’s decision. Ms. Barr failed to timely inform Client X of the proceedings against her before the Ninth Circuit, which was a condition of her being permitted to resign. Client X did not file a timely appeal of the BIA’s November 2009 decision and, as a result, was arrested and spent 39 days in detention. Ms. Barr did not tell Client X that he was at risk of being taken into custody. While in detention, Client X’s wife retained lawyers who assisted
him in getting out of detention and reopened Client X’s case based upon changed conditions in Client X’s country of origin and ineffective assistance by Ms. Barr. Client X had an individual
hearing in Immigration Court. The judge denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal and ordered him to depart the country. Ms. Barr’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring
a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision of circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required by
these Rules; RPC 1.4(a)(3), requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; RPC 1.4(a)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and
RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order directing him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.
Erica W. Temple represented the Bar Association.
Kaaren L. Barr represented herself.
Barbara Ann Peterson was the hearing officer. |