| Description: |
Michael T. Johnson-Ortiz (WSBA No. 23580, admitted 1994), of Concepción, Chile (formerly of Seattle), was disbarred, effective September 15, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1998 and 2003 involving abandonment of his practice and multiple acts of misconduct involving immigration clients.
Matter 1: Sometime prior to December 12, 2003, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz decided to leave his law practice and move to Chile. By January 5, 2004, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz had abandoned his law practice. During November and December 2003, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz received money from two clients for work he did not intend to perform. A third client was not able to locate Mr. Johnson-Ortiz to make a payment. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz did not notify any of these clients that he would no longer represent them.
Matter 2: In 1998, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz represented a client in a motion to reopen removal proceedings. In April 1998, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz signed a letter stating that the motion to reopen was pending before a judge, when in fact, he had not filed the motion. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz did not timely file the motion, and the court denied the client’s request to reopen.
Matter 3: In 1999, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz agreed to represent clients who were married while Ms. A was a U.S. citizen and Mr. A was in the United States illegally from Mexico. In September 2000, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz advised Mr. A that he must return to Mexico prior to a visa consular interview. On December 27, 2000, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz suggested that Mr. A return to the United States and apply for a change of status under new regulations, even though those regulations applied only to applicants physically in the United States on December 21, 2000. In January 2001, the client returned to the U.S. illegally. The INS determined that Mr. A did not qualify for permanent resident status under the new regulations, and ordered his voluntary departure. Mr. A returned to Mexico and Ms. A remains in the United States. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
Matter 4: In 1999, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz agreed to represent three family members in an attempt to obtain cancellation of their INS removal orders. He intentionally failed to meet with the clients prior to the cancellation hearing. At the hearing, the immigration judge ordered the mother and child to voluntarily depart the United States. Also during the hearing, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz conceded that the father’s conduct constituted the crime of aiding and abetting the mother and child’s unlawful entry into the country. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz did not discuss this issue with the client, nor contact the mother or child for possible testimony prior to making this concession. In March 2000, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz’s office filed appeals for all three clients. In April 2003, the appeals were still pending. During this time, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz did not advise the client of any other method of obtaining citizenship.
Matter 5: In October 2002, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz represented a client in removal proceedings. Due to an office mistake, the client was not notified of the removal hearing and Mr. Johnson-Ortiz did not attend. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz continued to represent the client, filing a motion to reopen and then appealing the denial of that motion. In the appeal, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz argued his own ineffective assistance of counsel, but did not advise the client of the conflict of interest.
Matter 6: The Bar Association audited Mr. Johnson-Ortiz’s trust account for the period January through August 2003. During that period, he did not maintain check registers or client registers. He also deposited cost advances to his general account, commingled his own funds with the client funds in his trust account, and had insufficient trust account funds to cover 14 client withdrawals. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz paid court filing fees from his trust account for clients who had no money deposited in that account.
Matter 7: In January 2003, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz represented a client in removal proceedings based on a criminal conviction. He did not meet with the client or the expert witness prior to the hearing. During the oral ruling ordering the client’s removal from the United States, Mr. Johnson-Ortiz asked to withdraw from the case based on “repugnance.” Mr. Johnson-Ortiz’s personal repugnance to his client created a conflict of interest and interfered with the representation. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz did not discuss this conflict with his client. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
Mr. Johnson-Ortiz’s conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation to clients; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; 1.5, requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees; 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation is materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests; 1.14(a), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds in an IOLTA account and maintain the account in accordance with the RPCs; 3.1, prohibiting lawyers from making frivolous claims; 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act [theft] that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 8.4(i), prohibiting committing an act of moral turpitude; and 8.4(l), prohibiting violating a duty under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Discipline.
Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Johnson-Ortiz represented himself. Diehl R. Rettig was the hearing officer. |