In re Geno, 10-BG-290.
| Decision Date | 01 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-BG-290.,10-BG-290. |
| Parties | In re Brian D. GENO, Respondent.A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 416468). |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before REID and OBERLY, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge.
The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”), accepting the findings of Hearing Committee Twelve, concluded that respondent violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3(c) and 1.4(a) when he failed to notify his client of a pending immigration hearing, failed to attend the hearing resulting in the entry of an in absentia deportation order, and failed to take any remedial actions. However, the Board disagreed with the Committee's recommendation of an informal admonition and concluded that respondent, Brian D. Geno, should be publically censured. Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has filed any exceptions. We adopt and agree with the recommendation that Brian D. Geno should be publically censured.
Mr. Geno has been a member of this Bar since December 5, 1988, and has no prior disciplinary history in this court. In July 1995, respondent undertook the representation of Mr. Majano in an immigration matter. Mr. Majano sought political asylum. Initially, Mr. Majano's application was dismissed; however, after respondent successfully appealed, the matter was reinstated. Respondent thereafter received notice of a court hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m., on August 28, 2002. The hearing notice warned that failure to appear could result in the matter being heard in absentia and may result in deportation. The court order did not show service on Mr. Majano. It is at this point that respondent failed to meet his professional obligations.
Respondent delegated the responsibility of contacting Mr. Majano to his legal assistant. Numerous telephone calls were made; however, none of these telephone calls reached Mr. Majano. These telephonic attempts ceased on August 1, 2002, almost a month before the hearing. No other attempts were made to contact Mr. Majano until the day before the scheduled hearing when a letter was mailed to Mr. Majano. Mr. Majano received the letter the next day; however, it was not delivered until after the 1:00 p.m. hearing.
On the day of the hearing respondent traveled to the immigration court in Arlington, Virginia; however, the hearing was scheduled to be heard in Baltimore, Maryland. Thus, neither Mr. Majano nor respondent appeared at the hearing. As a consequence, an in absentia deportation order was issued. Further, once contacted by Mr. Majano, respondent demanded additional payments prior to filing the necessary paperwork to have the in absentia deportation order vacated and a new hearing scheduled. Mr. Majano refused to make any additional payments and the in absentia order remained in effect at the time of the hearing before the Board.
Although the Hearing Committee recommended an informal admonition, the Board determined that a public censure was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Askew, No. 17-BG-0152
...366, 374 (D.C. 2003). Further, an attorney must make more than a pro forma attempt to initiate communications. See In re Geno , 997 A.2d 692, 693 (D.C. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that "a few phone calls and one letter sent on the eve of the hearing" were insufficient to satisfy Rule 1.4). ......
-
In re Schwartz
...concluded that the prejudice did not warrant imposition of the higher sanction of a public censure. See, e.g. , In re Geno , 997 A.2d 692, 692-93 (D.C. 2010) (imposing a public censure following a finding of multiple rule violations and substantial prejudice to the client after respondent f......