Attorney Grievance v. Portillo

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alisha Ann Portillo, Misc. Docket AG No. 22, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Biran, J. ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT The Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent, Alisha Ann Portillo, from the practice of law in Maryland. Ms. Portillo violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1, 19-301.4(a) and (b), 19-303.3(a)(1), 19-308.1(a), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d).

Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Ms. Portillo, who engaged in serious misconduct in two client matters. Ms. Portillo advised both clients that failing to appear for their immigration hearings was an acceptable option. Based on Ms. Portillo’s improper advice, both clients decided not to appear for their hearings, resulting in the immigration court issuing orders for their removal from the United States. Ms. Portillo also made knowing and intentional false statements to the immigration court and to Bar Counsel, and failed to participate in these proceedings.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 482879-V Argued: Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 22 September Term, 2020 _____________________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ALISHA ANN PORTILLO _____________________________________________ Barbera, C.J. McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ. _____________________________________________ Opinion by Biran, J. _____________________________________________ Filed: May 27, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-06-17 14:44-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk As an officer of the court, a Maryland attorney should not advise a client that failing to appear at a court hearing at which the client’s presence has been ordered is an acceptable option. This case concerns an attorney, Alisha Ann Portillo, who gave that improper advice to two immigration clients. To make matters worse, after the clients failed to appear for their hearings based on Ms. Portillo’s advice, Ms. Portillo made false statements to the presiding immigration judges about the clients’ whereabouts and her firm’s last contacts with the clients.

And, after the clients subsequently complained about Ms. Portillo’s actions, Ms. Portillo provided false and misleading statements to Bar Counsel. In light of this serious misconduct, on March 26, 2021, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Ms. Portillo. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Portillo, 472 Md. 721 (2021). We explain in this opinion the reasons for that action.

I Background On July 15, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Ms. Portillo, in connection with two complaints filed by former clients concerning their immigration matters. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Portillo violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 19-303.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-308.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19- 308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).1 On July 17, 2020, under Maryland Rules 19-722(a) and 19-727, this Court designated the Honorable Joan E. Ryon of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, Ms. Portillo was served with a writ of summons, the Petition, Petitioner’s interrogatories and request for production of documents, and request for admissions of facts and genuineness of documents. Ms. Portillo failed to comply with Petitioner’s discovery requests and to respond to the charges filed against her.

The hearing judge entered an order of default on October 21, 2020. The circuit court provided Ms. Portillo with notice of the order of default, which advised Ms. Portillo that she could move to vacate the order of default within 30 days after its entry. Ms. Portillo did not move to vacate the order of default. On November 25, 2020, the hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing remotely via Zoom for Government.

Bar Counsel appeared, but Ms. Portillo did not. Under Maryland Rule 2-424(b), the matters set forth in Petitioner’s request for admissions of facts and genuineness of documents were deemed admitted, and the hearing judge received those 1 The Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct are codified as Maryland Rule 19-300.1 et seq. In an effort to enhance readability, we use abbreviated references to the prior codifications of these rules, which are consistent with the ABA Model Rules on which they are based (e.g., Maryland Rule 19-301.1 will be referred to as Rule 1.1). See ABA Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards (Am.

Bar Ass’n 2017). 2 admissions and documents in evidence. On January 13, 2021, the hearing judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Neither party filed exceptions. On February 11, 2021, Petitioner filed a request to waive oral argument in this Court.

On February 16, 2021, we entered an order directing Ms. Portillo to show cause why oral argument should be held; Ms. Portillo did not respond. On March 10, 2021, we granted Petitioner’s request to waive oral argument. We subsequently considered this case on the papers. II The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact We summarize here the hearing judge’s findings of fact.

Background Ms. Portillo was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 17, 2014. During the period relevant to this case, Ms. Portillo was employed at the Law Offices of Hale W. Hawbecker, PLLC (the “Firm”), in Woodbridge, Virginia. Representation of M.D. M.D. left her native country of El Salvador in August 2016 and entered the United States on September 3, 2016. She was detained in Texas and placed in removal proceedings.

On October 19, 2016, M.D. was released on bond and moved to Fairfax, Virginia. In January 2017, her case was transferred to the immigration court in Arlington, Virginia, and a Master Calendar Hearing was scheduled for October 5, 2017. On August 23, 2017, M.D. met with Mr. Hawbecker and retained the Firm to represent her. She executed a retainer agreement that provided for a flat fee of $6,000, with 3 $1,000 to be paid at the outset, $500 by September 13, 2017, and $250 per month until paid in full.

After the initial meeting, Mr. Hawbecker assigned Ms. Portillo to handle M.D.’s case. Although Mr. Hawbecker oversaw the Firm’s immigration matters, Ms. Portillo was the attorney responsible for M.D.’s matter. A paralegal at the Firm prepared M.D.’s asylum petition. The petition stated that M.D. left El Salvador and feared returning because she was abused and threatened by her partner’s brother, who was a gang member.

Ms. Portillo reviewed the asylum petition, and on August 31, 2017, filed the petition in the Arlington immigration court, as well as her notice of appearance on behalf of M.D. On October 5, 2017, Ms. Portillo appeared with M.D. at the Master Calendar Hearing. The court scheduled M.D.’s individual hearing for December 11, 2018. Ms. Portillo told M.D. that, prior to the December 2018 hearing, M.D would need to provide her with additional evidence to support her asylum petition. In November 2018, Ms. Portillo reviewed M.D.’s file and realized that M.D. had not provided her with any additional corroborating evidence.

Ms. Portillo called and left voicemails for M.D. three times between November 2018 and December 3, 2018, but did not receive a response prior to December 4, 2018. On December 4, 2018, having not heard from M.D., Ms. Portillo prepared and filed a supplement to M.D.’s asylum application. The supplement contained general evidence addressing the treatment of El Salvador’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. On December 10, 2018, M.D. called the firm about her hearing the next day.

The receptionist told M.D. to come to the office at 10:00 a.m. the following day to meet 4 with Ms. Portillo prior to the 1:00 p.m. hearing, which M.D. did. Although Ms. Portillo can speak Spanish, Ms. Portillo frequently used interpreters during her meetings. At the meeting between M.D. and Ms. Portillo on the morning of December 10, 2018, Ms. Portillo’s assistant served as an interpreter. Ms. Portillo advised M.D. during the meeting that M.D.’s case was weak and that she would likely be deported if she appeared at the hearing.

Ms. Portillo advised M.D. that, if the court denied her asylum application, M.D. could appeal the decision, but it would cost an additional $2,500 in legal fees. Ms. Portillo further advised M.D. that M.D. would be able to remain in the United States longer if she did not appear for the hearing. At the conclusion of their meeting, Ms. Portillo told M.D. that she had until noon to decide whether to appear at the 1:00 p.m. hearing that afternoon. Based on Ms. Portillo’s advice, M.D. decided not to appear for the hearing.

Ms. Portillo told M.D. that she would inform the immigration court that she had lost contact with M.D. after the October 2017 hearing. Ms. Portillo appeared at M.D.’s hearing that afternoon. When the immigration court asked Ms. Portillo about her communications with M.D., Ms. Portillo knowingly made false statements to the court: [O]ur office’s last communication with [M.D.] was in May of 2018, when we had her come in and do her application for her biometrics appointment. In October, we were calling her last known phone number and not receiving a response.

We ended up mailing out a letter at the end of October, and from that letter, her ex-partner contacted our office and told us that she had left in October and returned to El Salvador, and they were no longer together and no longer on speaking terms. 5 The hearing judge found that “Ms. Portillo fabricated her alleged communications with M.D.’s partner to mislead the immigration court regarding M.D.’s whereabouts.” Based on M.D.’s failure to appear at the hearing and Ms. Portillo’s false information, the immigration court deemed M.D.’s asylum application abandoned and ordered M.D. removed to El Salvador. The hearing judge found that, as a result of the removal order, M.D. could have been arrested and deported at any time. Complaint of M.D. On February 12, 2019, M.D. filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On March 5, 2019, Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Portillo, enclosed the complaint, and requested a response.

Ms. Portillo submitted written responses to Bar Counsel on March 25, 2019 and June 6, 2019. In both responses, Ms. Portillo failed to disclose her false statements to the immigration court. The hearing judge found that Ms. Portillo’s statements to Bar Counsel were knowingly and intentionally misleading. Representation of M.R. M.R. and her minor son, V.S., left their native country of El Salvador in October 2013 and entered the United States on November 20, 2013.

They were detained in Texas and placed in removal proceedings. On November 25, 2013, M.R. and V.S. were released and moved to Maryland to live with G.H., M.R.’s fiancé and V.S.’s father. M.R. and G.H. were married in August 2014. On or about June 15, 2014, M.R. and G.H. met with Mr. Hawbecker and retained the Firm to represent M.R. V.S. was a derivative party in M.R.’s immigration proceedings.

M.R. executed a retainer agreement that provided for a flat fee of $3,250. M.R. made an 6 initial payment of $1,000 that day and monthly payments thereafter. On August 13, 2014, Mr. Hawbecker filed a request to change venue from Houston, Texas to Arlington, Virginia. On November 28, 2014, Mr. Hawbecker lodged an asylum application with the immigration court in Houston.

In early 2015, M.R.’s case was transferred to the immigration court in Arlington, Virginia, and thereafter to Baltimore. On March 8, 2016, Mr. Hawbecker filed an asylum application on behalf of M.R. in the immigration court in Baltimore, and M.R.’s individual hearing was scheduled for August 21, 2018. In June 2017, Ms. Portillo began working for the Firm, and Mr. Hawbecker assigned M.R.’s case to Ms. Portillo. Ms. Portillo was the attorney responsible for M.R.’s matter at the Firm.

In May 2018, having reviewed M.R.’s case file, Ms. Portillo called M.R. and requested that she schedule a meeting and provide additional evidence to support her application. In late May 2018, M.R. and G.H. delivered the requested documents to the Firm but did not meet with Ms. Portillo or anyone else that day. In early August 2018, Ms. Portillo called M.R. and left a message requesting that she schedule a meeting to prepare for the August 21 hearing. M.R. called the firm and scheduled a meeting for August 17, 2018.

On August 3, 2018, Ms. Portillo filed a supplement to M.R.’s asylum application. On August 17, 2018, M.R. and V.S. met with Ms. Portillo to prepare for the August 21 hearing. Ms. Portillo advised M.R. that she would likely lose her case and that the court would order her to leave the country in 30 days. Ms. Portillo told M.R. that it was M.R.’s 7 decision whether to attend the hearing.

Based on Ms. Portillo’s advice, M.R. was scared of being deported and did not appear at the hearing on August 21, 2018. On August 21, 2018, Ms. Portillo appeared at M.R.’s hearing and made knowingly false statements to the immigration court: The last contact that our office had directly with the lead Respondent, [M.R.], was in March of 2016. Her husband has been the one that has been in contact with us and actually brought us evidence back in May, which we submitted in the supplement. However, when we brought her in to start her declaration, the husband informed us that [V.S.], who was enrolled in school, was having problems at school and moved in with his aunt, Reina (phonetic) in Virginia, and that [M.R.] and [V.S.] were living with Reina.

We were given the phone number. When we spoke with Reina, Reina advised us that they had moved back with the husband, and the husband is stating that they do not reside there…. So we have lost contact with them. And we honestly don’t know where they are.

Both are saying that they live with the other. The hearing judge found that “Ms. Portillo fabricated her alleged communications with M.R.’s husband and sister to deceive the immigration court.” Based on M.R.’s failure to appear for the hearing and Ms. Portillo’s false information, the immigration court deemed M.R.’s asylum application abandoned and ordered M.R. and V.S. removed to El Salvador. The hearing judge found that, as a result of the removal order, M.R. and V.S. could have been arrested and deported at any time. Complaint of M.R. On March 20, 2019, M.R. filed a complaint with Bar Counsel.

On April 12, 2019, Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Portillo, enclosed the complaint, and requested a response. Ms. Portillo submitted her written response to Bar Counsel on May 20, 2019. In her response, Ms. Portillo stated that, leading up to the August 21, 2018 hearing date, she attempted to 8 contact M.R. on several occasions to schedule a meeting for August 17. Ms. Portillo further stated that M.R.’s husband called the office and advised that M.R. and V.S. were living with M.R.’s sister in Virginia.

Ms. Portillo stated that she contacted M.R.’s sister, who said that M.R. and V.S. had moved back to Gaithersburg with M.R.’s husband. Ms. Portillo further stated in her response that she did not meet with M.R. or her family on August 17, 2018, or at any time prior to the August 21 hearing. The hearing judge found that Ms. Portillo’s statements to Bar Counsel were knowingly false. III The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law Based on the record and the above-summarized findings of fact, the hearing judge concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Portillo violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).

Neither Ms. Portillo nor Petitioner filed exceptions. IV Standard of Review “This Court has original and complete jurisdiction in an attorney disciplinary proceeding and conducts an independent review of the record. The hearing judge’s findings of fact are left undisturbed unless those findings are clearly erroneous. We review the hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hoerauf, 469 Md. 179, 207-08 (2020) (cleaned up).