| Description: |
Clark County lawyer Sharon Bartu (WSBA No. 17080, admitted 1987) was suspended for five weeks pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on November 20, 1998 and by the Supreme Court on January 7, 1999. The suspension was effective from January 11, 1999 until February 15, 1999.
In June 1995, Ms. Bartu agreed to represent a Romanian citizen in an asylum proceeding before the Immigration Court. In August 1995, the Court notified Ms. Bartu of a July 1996 hearing. Ms. Bartu did not notify her client of this hearing. In February 1996, Ms. Bartu decided to withdraw from the client’s case. Ms. Bartu told the client’s interpreter that she intended to withdraw, but the client was not present during this conversation. Ms. Bartu prepared a Notice of Withdrawal, but did not file it with the Immigration Court, and did not serve her client until October 1996, when he picked up his file. Later, Ms. Bartu learned that her notice of withdrawal was not an effective way to withdraw in Immigration Court proceedings. In May 1996, the Immigration Court sent Ms. Bartu an advisory opinion about the client’s case and a reminder of the client’s July 1996 hearing. Ms. Bartu did not notify the client about the advisory opinion or hearing. In June 1996, the INS served the Preliminary Statement in the client’s case on Ms. Bartu. Ms. Bartu did not notify the client about the Statement and did not file any responsive materials. Neither Ms. Bartu nor the client attended the July hearing. The Immigration Judge conducted the hearing and denied the client’s application for asylum and his request to withhold his deportation. The Judge set a voluntary departure date of October 15, 1996, and included a deportation order. The Immigration Court sent Ms. Bartu a copy of the order. Ms. Bartu did not notify the client of the order. In August 1996, the client received a letter from the INS stating that in light of the decision in his case, he must be out of the country by January 2, 1997. The client then wrote to Ms. Bartu to find out the status of this case. Ms Bartu did not respond. On October 26, 1996, the client met with Ms. Bartu and found out about the July 1996 hearing for the first time. He took his file and went to the INS to determine his status. An INS officer arrested the client on the spot and he spent five weeks in INS detention. On December 6, 1996, the client’s new lawyer moved to reopen his case based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On January 2, 1997, the Immigration Court granted the motion. During this time period, Ms. Bartu was moving her office and going through a painful dissolution.
By failing to advise her client of the hearing date, Ms. Bartu’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; and RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients informed about the status of their cases. By failing to notify the client that she had withdrawn from his case, and by failing to take steps to protect his interest, Ms. Bartu’s violated RPC 1.15, requiring withdrawing lawyers to take steps to protect the client’s interests; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. James S. Smith represented Ms. Bartu. The hearing officer was Ronald Roberts.
|