Attorney Grievance v. Viladegut

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Angel Arturo Viladegut Misc. Docket AG No. 54, September Term 2019 Attorney Discipline – Competence, Diligence, and Communication with Client – Mishandling of Client Funds – Misrepresentation – Disbarment. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction where an immigration attorney failed to represent numerous clients competently and diligently and failed to communicate with them adequately concerning their cases, made knowing and intentional misrepresentations to tribunals, his clients and their family members, accepted fees he did not earn, failed to return unearned fees, abandoned his clients, and failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s investigations of his clients’ complaints. Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1, 19-301.2, 19-301.3, 19- 301.4(a)&(b), 19-301.5(a)&(b), 19-301.15(a)&(d), 19-301.16(d), 19-303.3(a), 19- 308.1(a)&(b), 19-308.4(a), (c)&(d).

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 477327 Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 54 September Term, 2019 ______________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND V. ANGEL ARTURO VILADEGUT _____________________________________ Barbera, C.J., McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by McDonald, J. ______________________________________ Filed: March 29, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-04-06 10:47-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk This attorney disciplinary matter concerns Respondent Angel Arturo Viladegut, a Maryland attorney who committed various violations of the rules of professional conduct while providing immigration-related legal services in Maryland. Four immigration clients complained, over a relatively short period of time, to Bar Counsel. Those complaints, as documented by Bar Counsel, demonstrated a disturbing pattern of conduct in which Mr. Viladegut charged a fee to represent a recent immigrant at risk of removal from the United States, then did little or no work, and misrepresented the status of matters to the client and immigration court with adverse consequences to the client.

Mr. Viladegut was no more diligent in responding to the inquiries of Bar Counsel. He did not cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigation into his activities in Maryland, failed to respond to discovery requests in this proceeding, did not appear at the evidentiary hearing before the hearing judge, and did not respond to a show cause order as to whether he wished to participate in oral argument in this matter before this Court. On March 1, 2021, after considering the matter on the papers submitted, we disbarred Mr. Viladegut and assessed the costs of this proceeding against him. We now explain the reasons why we took that action.

I Background A. Procedural Context On December 17, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, filed with this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Mr. Viladegut alleging that he had violated various provisions of the rules of professional conduct. 1 In particular, Bar Counsel alleged that Mr. Viladegut had violated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.2(a) (scope of representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (communication), 1.5(a) and (b) (fees), 1.15(a) and (d) (safekeeping property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 3.3(a) (candor to the tribunal), 8.1(a) and (b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct). Bar Counsel also alleged that Mr. Viladegut had violated former Maryland Rule 16-606.1 (attorney trust account record- keeping),2 but later withdrew that charge. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), we designated Judge John M. Maloney of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct a hearing and to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, Mr. Viladegut was served with a summons, the petition, and Bar Counsel’s discovery request for admissions of fact and genuineness of documents.

Mr. Viladegut failed to respond. The hearing judge entered an order of default on August 24, 2020. Mr. Viladegut was issued a notice of the order of default but failed to respond. 1 At the beginning of the pertinent time period, these rules were part of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) and codified in an appendix to Maryland Rule 16-812. Effective July 1, 2016, the MLRPC were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and recodified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules.

Presumably because Mr. Viladegut’s conduct straddled the effective date of the recodification, Bar Counsel charged both the MLRPC and MARPC versions of the alleged violations. For ease of reference, we will use only the shorter designations of the MLRPC – i.e., Rule 1.1 in lieu of Maryland Rule 19-301.1. See Maryland Rule 19- 300.1(22). 2 Effective July 1, 2016, this rule was recodified as Maryland Rule 19-407. 2 The hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 19, 2020. Bar Counsel appeared, but Mr. Viladegut did not.

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-424(b), the matters set forth in Bar Counsel’s request for admissions of fact and genuineness of documents were deemed admitted and received into evidence. At the hearing, Bar Counsel also submitted additional documents, which were admitted into evidence. On November 30, 2020, the hearing judge issued an opinion containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as his findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Neither party filed exceptions.

We considered the matter on the papers submitted, without oral argument.3 B. Facts As no exceptions have been filed, we treat the hearing judge’s findings of fact as established. Maryland Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A). We summarize below those findings of fact as they pertain to the violations alleged in the petition. 1. Mr. Viladegut’s Law Practice Mr. Viladegut has been a member of the Maryland Bar since December 13, 2012.

At all times relevant to the current action, he maintained an office for his legal practice in Silver Spring, Maryland. 3 On January 15, 2021, Bar Counsel filed a request to waive oral argument; Mr. Viladegut did not respond. We then entered an order directing Mr. Viladegut to show cause as to why oral argument should be held; Mr. Viladegut again did not respond. On March 1, 2021, we granted Bar Counsel’s request. 3 2. Representation of Anny Mestichelli and her son, DM On March 25, 2015, Anny Mestichelli entered the United States through Texas with her one-year-old son, DM,4 fleeing domestic violence in Honduras.

They were apprehended by immigration agents and placed in removal proceedings. While those proceedings were pending, Ms. Mestichelli and DM were released, and they traveled to Maryland to live with Ms. Mestichelli’s family in Silver Spring. The removal proceedings were transferred from an immigration court in Texas to one in Baltimore. The immigration court in Baltimore mailed notices for a master calendar hearing scheduled for June 17, 2015.

Ms. Mestichelli did not receive the notices because they listed an incorrect apartment number. As a result, Ms. Mestichelli did not attend the June 17 hearing, and the immigration court ordered that she and DM be removed from the United States. On August 24, 2016, Ms. Mestichelli was detained by immigration agents in connection with a report filed with Interpol by her estranged husband that Ms. Mestichelli had kidnapped DM. At that time, Ms. Mestichelli learned about the immigration court’s removal order.

On August 25, 2016, Ms. Mestichelli’s mother met with Mr. Viladegut about her daughter’s case. Mr. Viladegut agreed to represent Ms. Mestichelli in immigration court 4 Although there is no indication that anyone’s identities were placed under seal during the evidentiary hearing, in his opinion the hearing judge used initials for individuals younger than 18 years old. We adopt the same convention. 4 for $500 per hearing, as well in the Interpol investigation.5 The hearing judge found that the terms of this agreement were not memorialized in a retainer agreement or other writing. On August 30, 2016, Mr. Viladegut filed with the immigration court an emergency motion to reopen Ms. Mestichelli’s removal proceedings and to stay her deportation pending a hearing on the merits.

Despite the earlier agreement with Ms. Mestichelli’s mother to represent Ms. Mestichelli for $500 per hearing, Mr. Viladegut’s motion stated in both its caption and text that he was representing Ms. Mestichelli pro bono. The immigration court granted the motion, and Ms. Mestichelli’s mother then paid Mr. Viladegut $1,500 for the three hearings that Mr. Viladegut anticipated would occur in his representation of Ms. Mestichelli. Mr. Viladegut provided Ms. Mestichelli’s mother with a receipt for the payment, which she subsequently lost. On September 26, 2016, Ms. Mestichelli was released from detention, and a master calendar hearing was scheduled for October 31, 2016.

In mid-October, Ms. Mestichelli and her mother met with Mr. Viladegut to discuss Ms. Mestichelli’s case. Mr. Viladegut agreed to file an asylum application on behalf of Ms. Mestichelli, as well as custody and visa applications for DM. He stated that these services would cost $7,000 plus costs and that Ms. Mestichelli could pay in installments. The hearing judge found that, as with the earlier agreement with Ms. Mestichelli’s mother, Mr. Viladegut did not memorialize the terms of this agreement in a retainer agreement or other writing. 5 Ms. Mestichelli’s husband withdrew the kidnapping report on August 25, 2016.

Mr. Viladegut confirmed that fact by calling Interpol on August 26, 2016. 5 On October 31, 2016, Ms. Mestichelli and her family paid Mr. Viladegut $1,500.6 That same day, Mr. Viladegut and Ms. Mestichelli were scheduled to appear before the immigration court for the master calendar hearing. Immediately prior to the hearing, Mr. Viladegut asked Ms. Mestichelli to sign an asylum application, which he then submitted to the court. Ms. Mestichelli did not have an opportunity to review the application before its submission. Upon reviewing it a few days later, she noted numerous errors, including that it listed her last name and address incorrectly and that it indicated she was from Guatemala instead of Honduras.

At the October 31, 2016, master hearing, Mr. Viladegut informed the immigration court that he would file a petition for special immigrant juvenile status (“SIJS”)7 on DM’s behalf in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut never filed an SIJS petition on DM’s behalf. In January 2017, Ms. Mestichelli and her parents met with Mr. Viladegut to discuss whether Ms. Mestichelli could apply for a work visa. Mr. Viladegut asked Ms. Mestichelli to sign a blank application, which he said he would fill in later. 6 Thereafter they made monthly payments of $200 to Mr. Viladegut. 7 Special immigrant juvenile status is an immigration classification designed to provide “humanitarian protection for abused, neglected, or abandoned child immigrants.” Romero v. Perez, 463 Md. 182, 187-89 (2019).

An application for such status involves two primary steps: (1) an order from a state juvenile court that makes certain findings concerning the child’s eligibility for such status and (2) a petition to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that includes the state court order and other supporting documentation. Id. 6 On February 4, 2017, Ms. Mestichelli and her parents met with Mr. Viladegut again. By this time, Ms. Mestichelli had become pregnant. Mr. Viladegut asked the parents to leave the room.

According to Ms. Mestichelli, he then touched her in an inappropriate manner and stated that the pregnancy “decimated” her case but that he would give her a second chance. Ms. Mestichelli’s next hearing in immigration court was scheduled for April 10, 2017, and as that date approached, she called Mr. Viladegut to prepare. Mr. Viladegut told her he was unable to meet due to his own parents’ medical issues. Mr. Viladegut failed to inform Ms. Mestichelli that her hearing had in fact been postponed until April 17, 2018 – a fact that she discovered when she called the immigration court.

In June 2017, Ms. Mestichelli met with Mr. Viladegut concerning DM’s SIJS petition. Mr. Viladegut told Ms. Mestichelli that he would charge $2,000 for that petition and visa application, and she paid him $165 at that time. Ms. Mestichelli asked Mr. Viladegut for a copy of DM’s SIJS petition. Mr. Viladegut responded that he would need to obtain a copy from the court.

The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut misled Ms. Mestichelli about the status of DM’s SIJS petition until the end of July 2017, when Ms. Mestichelli independently determined that Mr. Viladegut had not submitted the SIJS petition. She then asked Mr. Viladegut for an accounting of work performed on her behalf. Mr. Viladegut failed to provide any accounting. On August 3, 2017, Ms. Mestichelli terminated Mr. Viladegut as her attorney.

She retained successor counsel on October 3, 2017. In December 2017, Ms. Mestichelli 7 repeatedly asked Mr. Viladegut for papers related to her case. Mr. Viladegut responded by telling Ms. Mestichelli to contact his secretary, who told Ms. Mestichelli that they could not find her file. When Ms. Mestichelli again tried to reached Mr. Viladegut, he failed to respond.

The hearing judge found that Ms. Mestichelli and her family paid Mr. Viladegut a total of $4,315 and that he failed to deposit or maintain those funds in an attorney trust account until earned. 3. Representation of AB On June 16, 2015, 17-year-old AB entered the United States through Texas, having left El Salvador to join her mother who lived in Maryland. AB was apprehended by immigration agents in Texas and placed in removal proceedings. While those removal proceedings were pending, AB was released on August 18, 2015, and sent to Maryland to live with her mother.

Before being released, AB sought to have her removal proceedings transferred from an immigration court in Texas to one in Baltimore. Approximately a week after AB arrived in Maryland, AB’s mother met with Mr. Viladegut regarding her daughter’s case. Mr. Viladegut agreed to represent AB in her immigration case. AB’s mother paid Mr. Viladegut $50 in cash and signed a retainer agreement.

Mr. Viladegut did not provide AB’s mother with a copy of the agreement. Despite AB’s motion to transfer her case to Maryland, on August 27, 2015, the immigration court in Texas issued a notice for AB to appear for a master calendar hearing on September 8, 2015. AB never received this notice because it listed her address incorrectly. The hearing judge found that, despite having agreed to represent AB in the 8 matter, Mr. Viladegut had not entered his appearance in her immigration case or attempted to determine its status during the intervening two months.

As a result, neither AB nor Mr. Viladegut attended the September 8 hearing. The immigration court ordered AB’s removal, which she received notice of on September 11, 2015. Later in September 2015, AB’s mother met with Mr. Viladegut regarding AB’s removal order. AB’s mother paid Mr. Viladegut another $500.

Mr. Viladegut told AB’s mother that he would appeal the immigration court’s removal order and the underlying determination that AB should be deported. On January 8, 2016, Mr. Viladegut attempted to file with the immigration court a notice of appearance and emergency motion to reopen AB’s removal proceedings and to stay her deportation pending a hearing on the merits. The immigration court rejected the filing. In a form notice sent to Mr. Viladegut identifying the deficiency that resulted in the rejection of his filing, the immigration court had checked a box stating: “Please review practice manual.

Require current E-28, include party address. E-28 exhibit.” The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut failed to take any action to amend and re-file the emergency motion for approximately two months. On March 15, 2016, Mr. Viladegut refiled with the immigration court in Texas his notice of appearance form and emergency motion to reopen AB’s removal proceedings and stay her deportation pending a hearing on the merits. Despite already having received $550 for representing AB, Mr. Viladegut’s motion noted in both its caption and text that he was representing AB pro bono.

The hearing judge found that this statement in the motion was knowingly and intentionally false. 9 The immigration court granted the motion and set a master calendar hearing in AB’s case for May 25, 2016. The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut did not advise AB of the new hearing date. Sometime prior to the May 25 hearing, Mr. Viladegut filed an emergency motion to change the venue from Texas to Maryland. That filing was not received by the immigration court until the day of the May 25 hearing.

It also erroneously listed what apparently was the name of a different client and included an incorrect address for AB. The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut failed to tell AB that he had filed the motion or that it contained errors. Mr. Viladegut did not attend the May 25 hearing. Without ruling on the motion to change venue, the Texas immigration court ordered AB’s removal for a second time.

The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut failed to advise AB or her mother of this removal order. On July 13, 2016, the immigration court rejected the motion to change venue. The form deficiency notice stated: “Please review the practice manual. This case was transferred to Houston Immigration Court.” Sometime later in July, Mr. Viladegut’s assistant called AB’s mother and asked that she make an additional payment towards Mr. Viladegut’s fees.

AB’s mother paid another $400 and requested an update on AB’s case. Mr. Viladegut responded that “all was well.” Between August 26, 2016, and January 25, 2017, AB’s mother repeatedly texted Mr. Viladegut for updates on AB’s case. Mr. Viladegut provided neither AB nor her mother with any substantive information regarding AB’s case. In December 2017, AB’s mother retained successor counsel for AB, and learned, for the first time, that AB’s removal had been ordered for a second time in May 2016.

After 10 retaining new counsel for AB, her mother wrote Mr. Viladegut on December 5, 2017, to inform him of successor counsel and requested a copy of AB’s file. Successor counsel also wrote to Mr. Viladegut, requesting a copy of AB’s file as well as an explanation as to why AB was ordered removed in May 2016. The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut did not respond to the requests for AB’s file or otherwise take any action on AB’s case after filing the emergency motion to change venue in 2016. Successor counsel eventually had to file a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to obtain a copy of AB’s file. 4.

Representation of the Garay Family In 2005, Ana Ramona Garay entered the United States, having left El Salvador and traveled to Maryland. At the time, Ms. Garay left her 10-year-old daughter, SG, and seven- year-old son, AG, with their aunt in El Salvador. In 2013, SG entered the United States, was apprehended by immigration agents, and was later released and joined her mother in Maryland. Sometime after SG entered the United States, AG followed, was apprehended by immigration agents, and was also released to join his mother and sister in Maryland.

On November 24, 2014, Ms. Garay and SG appeared before the immigration court in Baltimore for a master calendar hearing. SG requested a continuance to obtain counsel, and the court continued the hearing to March 25, 2015. At that time, Ms. Garay was introduced to Mr. Viladegut. Approximately one week later, Ms. Garay met with Mr. Viladegut to discuss her children’s cases.

Mr. Viladegut told Ms. Garay that SG and AG qualified for SIJS. Ms. Garay retained Mr. Viladegut to represent SG and AG and paid 11 him $1,000 to begin work on their cases. The terms of Mr. Viladegut’s representation were not memorialized in a retainer agreement or other writing. On March 25, 2015, Ms. Garay paid Mr. Viladegut an additional $1,000.

That same day, Ms. Garay, SG, AG, and Mr. Viladegut appeared before the immigration court for a master calendar hearing. Mr. Viladegut told the court he intended to file SIJS petitions for SG and AG during the following week. The immigration court originally scheduled a status hearing for July 15, 2015, but later continued it to July 20, 2015. Mr. Viladegut did not file SG and AG’s SIJS petitions in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County until the day of the status hearing in immigration court – July 20, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, Ms. Garay and Mr. Viladegut appeared before the immigration court for the status hearing. Mr. Viladegut told the immigration court he had just “re-filed” the SIJS petitions because there were some issues with the “documentation.” The immigration court scheduled another status hearing for February 18, 2016. After the hearing, Ms. Garay paid Mr. Viladegut another $1,000. The hearing judge found that there was no evidence to support Mr. Viladegut’s statement to the immigration court on July 20, 2015 that he had previously filed the SIJS petitions in State court.

The hearing judge also found that Mr. Viladegut’s statements to the immigration court were knowingly false and intentionally misleading to conceal Mr. Viladegut’s neglect in filing the SIJS petitions. Later in 2015, Ms. Garay and AG met with Mr. Viladegut in his office. Mr. Viladegut told Ms. Garay that her children’s cases were advancing. Ms. Garay paid Mr. Viladegut another $1,000. 12 On November 23, 2015, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County issued a Notice of Contemplated Dismissal of SG and AG’s SIJS petitions pursuant to Maryland Rule 2- 507 for lack of prosecution.

On December 18, 2015, Mr. Viladegut moved to defer the dismissal. The court granted that motion on January 12, 2016. In late 2015, Ms. Garay made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Viladegut. Mr. Viladegut failed to respond.

When Ms. Garay went to Mr. Viladegut’s office to get an update, Mr. Viladegut said that he had filed the necessary paperwork for SG and AG’s SIJS petitions, and he requested another payment. Ms. Garay paid him another $500. Mr. Viladegut requested a continuance of the February 18, 2016 status hearing due to illness. The immigration court granted the request and continued the matter to a master calendar hearing on January 19, 2017.

In the meantime, on May 19, 2016, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County dismissed SG and AG’s SIJS petitions, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut failed to notify Ms. Garay of the dismissal of the SIJS cases. Mr. Viladegut moved to vacate the dismissal. That motion was granted by the Circuit Court on July 7, 2016.

The hearing judge found that, despite the reinstatement of SG and AG’s SIJS petitions, Mr. Viladegut failed to take any action. On November 14, 2016, the Circuit Court again dismissed the SIJS petitions, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution. The hearing judge found that Mr. Viladegut did not notify Ms. Garay of that second dismissal or move to vacate it. On January 19, 2017, Ms. Garay and Mr. Viladegut appeared before the immigration court for a master calendar hearing.

During the hearing, Mr. Viladegut told 13 the immigration court he had not yet received a hearing date from the Circuit Court for SG and AG’s SIJS petitions which, in fact, the Circuit Court had dismissed two months earlier. The immigration court scheduled another status hearing for November 28, 2017. On the day of the January 19 hearing, Ms. Garay paid Mr. Viladegut another $1,000. On November 28, 2017, Mr. Viladegut appeared before the immigration court for the status hearing and again told the court that SG and AG’s SIJS petitions were still pending in State court.

Thereafter, Ms. Garay periodically tried to contact Mr. Viladegut about the status of SG and AG’s SIJS petitions. Mr. Viladegut