| Description: |
Antonio Salazar (WSBA No. 6273, admitted 1975), of Seattle, was suspended for 30 days, effective February 15, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2000 and 2001 involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate the basis of his fee to a client, retention of an unreasonable fee, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Matter 1: On February 3, 2000, Client A, a citizen of Japan, hired Mr. Salazar to assist her in obtaining an H-1B visa. Although Mr. Salazar believed that the client met the professional criteria for the visa, he advised her that her job description was insufficient to meet the criteria for a specialty occupation. Mr. Salazar told her that they needed to work with the client’s employer to improve the job description. He emphasized the need to move quickly, since there was a cap on the number of H-1B visas issued in a fiscal year and most of the H-1B visas for 2000 were gone.
After obtaining necessary paperwork from the client and her employer, Mr. Salazar submitted an H-1B visa application to the INS on April 27, 2000, indicating the client’s intended dates of employment were from April 30, 2000, to April 30, 2003. In May 2000, the application was returned to Mr. Salazar with an explanation that on March 21, 2000, the INS had given notice that the statutory cap for H-1B visas had been reached for employment scheduled to begin prior to October 1, 2000. Accordingly, the application was rejected.
The client’s visa expired on April 30, 2000, and she returned to Japan in June 2000. In August 2000, Mr. Salazar resubmitted the client’s application to the INS with an employment start date of October 1, 2000.
The client returned to the United States on a tourist visa on November 18, 2000, and notified Mr. Salazar of her whereabouts. On November 27, Mr. Salazar received an INS Request for Evidence letter indicating that the visa application was insufficient and describing the additional documentation needed for favorable consideration. The letter stated that the additional information must be received by February 13, 2001. Mr. Salazar did not notify the client that he had received the letter.
After repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Salazar, the client met with him on January 10, 2001. Mr. Salazar asked the client to provide him with a new job description, but he failed to notify her that he had received the Request for Evidence letter. The client provided Mr. Salazar with the requested job description within a week. On February 6, 2001, Mr. Salazar informed the client that the revised job description was not sufficient. At that time, he mentioned that he had received the Request for Evidence letter and provided a copy to the client. The client provided Mr. Salazar with another revised job description, and Mr. Salazar submitted a response to the Request for Evidence letter on February 12, 2001.
On May 21, 2001, the INS denied the visa application, ruling that although the position was a specialty occupation, the evidence did not establish that the client had recognition of expertise in the specialty as required. The decision noted that various materials that had been specifically requested in the Request for Evidence letter had not been provided with the application.
Matter 2: In January 2000, Client B hired Mr. Salazar to handle multiple matters. The client made an initial $3,750 payment. Both the client and Mr. Salazar speak Spanish, and Mr. Salazar communicated with the client exclusively in Spanish. Mr. Salazar documented the initial fee agreement in a memorandum that specified how portions of the initial $3,750 would be applied to the different matters. The memorandum was written in English. In the memorandum, part of the payment was characterized as a “down payment” and other parts were characterized as “retainers.” Although Mr. Salazar explained the meaning of the term “down payment” to the client, he did not explain the meaning of “retainer” nor did he explain the difference between a “down payment” and a “retainer.” The client was never told the basis of the fees nor the factors used to determine the fees. He was simply told the amounts for initial fees and that additional money would be needed in the future. In June and November 2000, the client made two additional payments totaling $2,100. Mr. Salazar did not tell the client the matters for which these funds were needed.
In May 2001, in connection with one of the matters, Mr. Salazar filed a complaint against the Social Security Administration on behalf of the client in federal district court. The client was unaware that Mr. Salazar had filed this case on his behalf. Mr. Salazar also filed a complaint against an individual relating to a property dispute. Although the client denied having hired Mr. Salazar for that purpose, Mr. Salazar spent more time on that matter than on any of the client’s other matters. When Mr. Salazar subsequently withdrew from these cases, the client was confused about which matters Mr. Salazar was actually withdrawing from.
In June 2001, the client informed Mr. Salazar that he had hired another lawyer and he asked to have his money refunded. Mr. Salazar declined to refund any money and advised the client that he owed additional fees for work that had been done. In February 2003, the client’s new lawyer filed a claim against Mr. Salazar to recover the fees the client had paid. Mr. Salazar filed a counterclaim for additional fees that he claimed he was owed. Mr. Salazar settled with the client and refunded $4,000, but he did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
Matter 3: In 2001, the Bar Association investigated five grievances that had been filed against Mr. Salazar. In each of the matters, Mr. Salazar failed to promptly comply with requests made by the Association for information relevant to the grievances.
Mr. Salazar’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.5(a), requiring that a lawyer’s fee be reasonable; RPC 1.5(b), requiring a lawyer who has not regularly represented a client to communicate to the client the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices; and former Rule for Lawyer Discipline 2.8(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request for information relevant to grievances.
Loren G. Armstrong represented the Bar Association. Mr. Salazar represented himself. Robert M. Scales was the hearing officer. |