People v. Ziankovich
| Decision Date | 03 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 19PDJ068 |
| Citation | 474 P.3d 253 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant v. Youras ZIANKOVICH, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Youras Ziankovich ("Respondent"), a New York-licensed lawyer practicing immigration law in Colorado, knowingly failed to diligently pursue his clients’ matter, to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their case, to return unearned funds, and to notify his clients of his suspension from the practice of law that took effect during the representation. Respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension of thirty months.
On October 7, 2019, Bryon M. Large of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People") filed a complaint with Presiding Disciplinary Judge William R. Lucero ("the Court"), alleging that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (Claim I), Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(5) (Claim II), Colo. RPC 1.4(b) (Claim III), Colo. RPC 1.5(a) (Claim IV), Colo. RPC 1.5(g) (Claim V), and Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (Claim VI).
Respondent did not file an answer, which was due on October 28, 2019. Instead, on November 1, 2019, he filed "Respondent's Notice of Filing Notice of Removal," reporting that he had removed this case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado ("federal court") under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, and 1446.
The People filed their first motion for default on November 25, 2019, asserting that notwithstanding Respondent's attempts to remove the case to federal court, this Court still had jurisdiction over the proceedings. Respondent registered his opposition in response, moved to strike the default motion, and sought sanctions. The federal court remanded the case to this Court on December 19, 2019.1
On December 20, 2019, the Court issued an order denying the People's first motion for default, denying Respondent's request for sanctions, directing Respondent to file an answer on or before January 10, 2020, and granting the People leave to renew their motion for default if Respondent failed to timely answer. The Court deemed both parties’ arguments about the federal removal action moot.
On January 9, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.2 The Court denied his motion in February 2020 and directed Respondent to file an answer no later than March 3, 2020. When Respondent failed to answer yet again, the People filed their second motion for default. On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the People's motion and entered default under C.R.C.P. 251.15(b), deeming all facts set forth in the complaint admitted and all rule violations established by clear and convincing evidence.3 The Court directed the People to set the matter for a sanctions hearing.4
On June 24, 2020, the People timely submitted their prehearing materials, including a hearing brief, witness list, and exhibit list. Respondent did not file any prehearing materials with the Court. Nor did he otherwise contact the Court or the People.
On July 1, 2020, the Court held a remote sanctions hearing via the Zoom videoconferencing platform under C.R.C.P. 251.18. Large represented the People; Respondent did not appear. The Court considered the People's exhibits 4 and 5 as well as the testimony of the complaining witness, lawyer Jennifer Howard.
Respondent was admitted to practice law in New York in 2014 under New York registration number 5196324. He is not admitted in Colorado. But he maintains an office with a registered business address in Aurora, Colorado, where he provides and offers to provide immigration law services in Colorado. He is thus subject to the Court's jurisdiction in this disciplinary proceeding.
Respondent was hired by A.H. for help in changing his immigration status after A.H. married K.B., a United States citizen. A.H. and K.B. met with Respondent in May 2017 at his Aurora office, where they signed a fee agreement.
Respondent's fee agreement listed a Colorado address on the letterhead, with a firm name of Rocky Mountains Lawyers, Inc. Under the agreement, Respondent was to "prepare and file for an adjustment of status based on marriage with the US citizen" for A.H. in exchange for a flat fee of $1,500.00.5
An early termination clause called for recalculation of fees at $250.00 per hour "plus the engagement fee in the amount of $1,000.00, which is owned by the Law Office at the time of retainer execution as a payment for Law Office availability to serve for the Client's benefit."6 A general provision clause in the fee agreement contained the language, 7
In May 2017 Respondent filed A.H.’s application packet with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Respondent listed his Colorado address on the corresponding entry of appearance form. With Respondent present, USCIS interviewed A.H. and K.B. in Colorado in July 2018. The following month, A.H.’s employment authorization expired, but Respondent failed to seek renewal of the authorization on A.H.’s behalf.
On October 31, 2018, in case number 17PDJ037, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for one year and one day, with three months to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon successful completion of probation. Respondent failed to notify A.H. and K.B. of his suspension. Because Respondent has not filed an affidavit requesting termination of his suspension, he has not cured his licensure status in Colorado.
Thereafter, on November 20, 2018, USCIS issued a notice for A.H.’s second interview, which was scheduled to take place on December 14, 2018. One week before the interview, Respondent's office sent K.B. an email notifying her of the interview and advising her that because Respondent had a calendar conflict, he would not be able to attend. K.B. authorized Respondent to reschedule the interview. Respondent sent USCIS a request to reschedule, noting that "both attorney and Applicant are not able to attend the scheduled interview."8 A.H. was available for the interview date.
On January 28, 2019, USCIS reissued the notice for A.H.’s second interview, which was rescheduled to take place on February 19, 2019. On February 5, 2019, Respondent sent USCIS another reschedule request, citing Respondent's own foreign travel; he requested an new interview date in late February 2019, because he would already be in Colorado for a hearing at the Denver Immigration Court during that time. Respondent did not advise A.H. or K.B. about the interview or his need to reschedule it. On February 12, 2019, K.B. emailed Respondent's office, noting that she had just received the interview notice for February 19 and expressing concern that she had not heard from Respondent. USCIS rescheduled the second interview to take place on April 11, 2019.
On March 21, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals immediately suspended Respondent from the practice of immigration law. This immediate suspension order precluded Respondent from practicing before the Immigration Courts and the Department of Homeland Security, including USCIS. To date, Respondent remains suspended before those agencies.
Respondent's office then advised A.H. and K.B. that Respondent would be unavailable to attend the interview on April 11 due to a court hearing he had to attend in California. The advisement also stated, 9 K.B. and A.H. were not given sufficient written notice of Respondent's suspension as required under C.R.C.P. 251.28, and K.B. learned of Respondent's suspension only by conducting internet searches after she became suspicious about the repeated rescheduling of the second interview.
K.B. emailed Respondent's office on April 1, 2019, stating that she and A.H. had hired new counsel, explaining that she did not believe that Respondent was eligible to practice law, and noting that she planned to contact the Colorado Supreme Court. K.B. also demanded a refund of her $1,500.00 retainer. Respondent replied on the same day refusing to return any money and declaring, "Colorado has no jurisdiction over me."10
Through the conduct described above, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(5) (); Colo. RPC 1.4(b) (); Colo. RPC 1.5(a) (); Colo. RPC 1.5(g) (); and Colo. RPC 3.4(c) ().
At the sanctions hearing on July 1, 2020, Jennifer Howard testified about her ongoing representation of K.B. and A.H. following the couple's termination of their attorney-client relationship with Respondent; the couple is still seeking to adjust A.H.’s immigration status based on his marriage to K.B. so that he can become a permanent resident of the United States.
Howard stated that after Respondent had filed the initial application on A.H.’s behalf and attended the first interview with the couple,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Ziankovich (In re Ziankovich)
...found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered suspended from practicing law in Colorado for a period of 30 months (see People v. Ziankovich, 474 P.3d 253 ). The order took effect on September 9, 2020. Respondent was disciplined based upon having been found to have violated Colorado Ru......
-
In re Ziankovich
...guilty of professional misconduct and ordered suspended from practicing law in Colorado for a period of 30 months (see People v Ziankovich, 474 P3d 253 [Colo OPDJ 2020]). The order took effect on September 9, 2020. Respondent was disciplined based upon having been found to have violated Col......
-
The Duty of Competence in the New Normal
...of lawyer misconduct" and citing ABA Standard 4.53, among other standards, to determine the appropriate sanction); People v. Ziankovich, 474 P.3d 253, 258 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2020) (relying on ABA Standards to determine the sanction for misconduct); People v. Bernal, 452 P.3d 270, 272-73 (Colo.......