In re Udeani

• Decision Date: 01 July 2020
• Docket Number: A18-2139
• Citation: 945 N.W.2d 389
• Parties: IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Ignatius Chukwuemeka UDEANI, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0300615.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

945 N.W.2d 389

IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Ignatius Chukwuemeka UDEANI, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0300615.

A18-2139

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: July 1, 2020

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue before us is the appropriate discipline to impose on respondent Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani for his wide-ranging misconduct that caused substantial harm to multiple clients. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition and a supplementary petition for disciplinary action against Udeani. Following a hearing, a referee found that Udeani committed numerous and varied acts of misconduct. Udeani's misconduct involved: engaging in a pattern of incompetent representation, neglect, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to return unearned fees; failing to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant and take reasonable steps to prevent the known misconduct of this assistant that resulted in the theft of client funds; failing to safeguard client funds and maintain all trust-account related records; representing a client with a conflict of interest; and failing to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations. The referee also found multiple aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. We conclude that the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years.

FACTS

Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on May 12, 2000. In 2007, Udeani was placed on private probation for failing to diligently handle an immigration matter, for failing to properly withdraw from a matter, and for financial misconduct. Udeani was admonished in 2012 for not promptly informing a client that his motion to withdraw from representation had been denied and for failing to attend a hearing. He was admonished again in 2013 for failing to deposit a client's funds into a trust account. Finally, we suspended Udeani for 30 days in 2017 for "failing to diligently handle three client matters, simultaneously representing two clients despite a concurrent conflict of interest, and communicating with a represented party." In re Udeani , 897 N.W.2d 253, 253 (Minn. 2017) (order). We reinstated Udeani and placed him on supervised probation for 2 years. In re Udeani , 899 N.W.2d 829, 830 (Minn. 2017) (order).

The Director's petitions assert sixteen counts of misconduct against Udeani that largely took place during his 2-year post-reinstatement probation. Fourteen of these counts concern client-related misconduct, failure to supervise a non-lawyer assistant, and financial misconduct. Two counts are for failure to cooperate with the Director's investigations. We summarize the referee's findings and conclusions regarding each of these categories of misconduct in turn.

Client-related misconduct

Udeani represented a family in their immigration matters beginning in September 2016. Two of the family members hoped to apply for legal resident status before their U-Visas expired in November 2017. Udeani never filed their applications. Udeani's failure to file their applications left them without legal status, making them subject to deportation, unable to work, and unable to legally drive. Two other family members also retained Udeani. He performed no work on their cases. Finally, members of the family paid for immigration physicals, the results of which Udeani allowed to lapse.

D.A.C.H. retained Udeani to represent him in his second-degree murder trial set for July 2018. Udeani was present when law enforcement separately interviewed both D.A.C.H. and his brother, who the police believed were present at the crime. Importantly, the brother was a witness for both D.A.C.H. and for the State. The State recognized the existence of this potential conflict of interest the weekend before trial. The judge removed Udeani from the case, and the trial—including 52 witnesses—was postponed for nearly 5 months, until December 2018.

Udeani represented J.L. in his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) application. The immigration court granted Udeani's request to continue J.L.’s hearing when J.L. failed to appear. About 1 month before the continued hearing took place, Udeani filed a motion to withdraw from the representation. The court mailed its order denying this motion to Udeani nearly 2 weeks before the hearing. Nonetheless, Udeani failed to appear. J.L. was deported.

I.R.Z. was a former client of Udeani's who later retained different counsel to represent her in removal proceedings. This attorney requested I.R.Z.’s file from Udeani for the first time in December 2017. Udeani neither sent the file nor responded. I.R.Z.’s new attorney requested the file again on January 15, 2018, and filed a complaint in February with the Director's office after receiving no response. Udeani, through counsel, sent the file to I.R.Z.’s attorney on March 23, 2018.

Udeani represented M.E. in her U-Visa matter. Udeani believed that his office filed her U-Visa application, but he failed to follow up on it after he did not receive a receipt or a biometrics request. The government typically issues receipts and biometrics requests when U-Visa applications are filed; thus, Udeani should have realized that he made a mistake when he received neither of these. Roughly 1 year after she retained him, M.E. called Udeani's office for an update on her case. Only then did Udeani discover that he had lost her file. Udeani claimed that he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out what happened to her application 1 month after M.E. called him. Udeani claimed that he did not receive a response because his employees either failed to mail the request or destroyed any response. Udeani never personally followed up on the FOIA request.

A married couple with U-Visas, M.D.R.G. and J.C.G.M., retained Udeani to obtain permanent resident status. When they retained Udeani, these clients informed him that they had less than 9 months left to achieve permanent resident status. Udeani relied on his non-lawyer assistant to file the applications. She did not file the applications, but falsely attested in the case-management system that she had done so. She also stole the money orders these clients had provided to pay filing fees. Around October 2017, M.D.R.G. called Udeani for the receipt numbers so that she could track the applications on her own. At a meeting the next day, Udeani told her that he had lost their applications and that his non-lawyer assistant stole their filing fees. He told her that "he would act expeditiously to correct the situation." Udeani received a payment towards his fee, but "failed to respond until January 2018 to multiple requests for communication." Udeani missed the deadline to apply for permanent resident status on his clients’ behalf.

Udeani represented F.Y.Z.C. in immigration matters that the retainer failed to identify. F.Y.Z.C. believed that Udeani would transfer her case from Virginia to Minnesota, update her asylum application, determine her eligibility for work authorization, and represent her in immigration proceedings. At her first meeting with Udeani, F.Y.Z.C. informed him that she was less than 2 months away from turning 18. Udeani filed a petition in district court to obtain the custody order required for Special Juvenile Immigration Status relief about 1 week before for F.Y.Z.C.’s 18th birthday. He filed this petition in the wrong county. By the time Udeani corrected his error and the proper court heard the matter, F.Y.Z.C. was already 18 and no longer eligible for relief. When she retained a new lawyer, Udeani sent her file to the new lawyer, along with hundreds of pages of documents that included information about at least one other client who had nothing to do with F.Y.Z.C.’s case.

B.P.D.L.R. retained Udeani to: (1) seek a U-Visa certification from law enforcement; (2) apply for a U-Visa for himself and for others, and; (3) help his son apply for DACA relief. After several unsuccessful attempts at reaching Udeani, B.P.D.L.R. was able to speak to Udeani's non-lawyer assistant for a status update on the U-Visa applications. Udeani's non-lawyer assistant told him that Udeani had filed the applications when he had not. After informing B.P.D.L.R. that the applications were not filed and that his money had been stolen, Udeani refused to meet with him again unless B.P.D.L.R. made additional payments toward Udeani's fees.

Udeani filed a DACA application on behalf of B.P.D.L.R.’s son and received a Request for Evidence from the government. When B.P.D.L.R. learned of the Request for Evidence from the government directly—not from Udeani—he tried several times to contact Udeani. Udeani did not advise the family on how to respond, did not return their calls, and did not respond to the Request for Evidence. B.P.D.L.R.’s son was denied DACA relief—a final determination that he cannot appeal.

B.A.D.D.C. retained Udeani to help her seek CHIPS¹ relief and Special Juvenile Immigration Status for her child and to represent them both in removal proceedings. Udeani filed a petition for Special Juvenile Immigration Status, but he named the wrong client. Udeani then stopped working on the matter and failed to withdraw. B.A.D.D.C. stopped paying Udeani's fees, but she did not terminate him until she hired a new lawyer. This lawyer requested the file from Udeani. Approximately 3 months later, Udeani sent the file to her new attorney.

Udeani represented A.B.Z.P. in her asylum matter, and her daughter in her Special Juvenile Immigration Status and CHIPS matters. Udeani filed an asylum application with numerous errors on A.B.Z.P.’s behalf. When she informed Udeani that her daughter moved out of her home, he responded that "he had to separate their matters and could no longer represent [her daughter]." Udeani never filed a CHIPS petition.

With respect to these matters, the referee concluded that Udeani violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 (competence),...