| Description: |
Sharon Bartu (WSBA No. 17080, admitted 1987), of Vancouver, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective March 13, 2002, following a default hearing. This discipline is based on her failing to diligently and competently represent two clients, charging unreasonable fees, and making misleading statements about her services in 1998.
Matter 1: In 1998, Ms. Bartu agreed to represent a husband and wife (Mr. and Mrs. J) and the husband’s brother (FJ) in becoming residents of the United States and obtaining green cards. Mr. J paid Ms. Bartu $3,900 and FJ paid her $2,600. In November and December 1998, Ms. Bartu filed a cancellation of removal pleading for the clients. This pleading requested relief that is only available to aliens after a charging document has been filed with the immigration court by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), vesting jurisdiction in the immigration court. The INS had not filed charges against Ms. Bartu’s clients, so filing this pleading had no effect on the clients’ immigration proceedings. Ms. Bartu’s office filed an application to renew all three clients’ employment authorization cards, but Ms. Bartu took no further action on the clients’ cases.
Matter 2: In 1998, Ms. Bartu agreed to assist an Iranian citizen in obtaining permanent residency status in the United States. The client, whose student-visa status had expired in 1997, paid Ms. Bartu $3,000. In October 1998, Ms. Bartu filed an application for cancellation of removal. The relief requested in this application is available only after deportation proceedings have begun; however, the client had not been placed in deportation proceedings. Ms. Bartu took the client on a tour of the immigration court in Portland, then took no further action on the client’s case.
In early 2000, the client contacted the INS and learned that Ms. Bartu had filed the wrong form. The client made an appointment with Ms. Bartu to discuss his case, but she failed to appear. The client asked that Ms. Bartu explain how she planned to proceed on his case, or return his money. She did not respond to his requests.
Ms. Bartu’s conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to competently represent their clients; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.7, prohibiting lawyers from making misleading statements about their services; and 1.5(a), requiring lawyers’ fees to be reasonable. The sanction imposed in this matter included consideration of significant aggravating factors.
Russell D. Garrett and Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Ms. Bartu represented herself. The hearing officer was Dennis W. Lane.
|