>> we have time for a few questions. >> there was a hand here and enhance there. i will take the boat and i will answer them in one integrated question. >> utah recently -- they fall and a larger landscape but the characteristics seem unprecedented. i think one of the things some of us to get excited about is our on campus students and environments can do to state in global dialog as part of their education. it just strikes me there must be roles for humanity disciplines in understanding those dialogues, understanding the cultural implications all those dialogs. even guiding those dialogs. comments? >> there was a question, i saw someone's hand. yes. >> i'm short so i will stand a. this might be so my own ignorance but i'm very

interested in how the kind of work that the amenities does to mediate between academia and the public could reach the adult population of learners. for example, adults with low literacy ability, which i think is a pretty big problem here in tennessee and in nashville. so what kinds of initiatives have you seen about the people have been dashed the book of conversations exist? our universities reaching out to giving to colleges working together with them? >> the question is actually -- that's my sense as you begin to look at the range of online vehicles that are out there, any of these others that have emerged in last period, clearly

there is space their and for the humanities. you to go back and start looking at some of the courses on the consider platform, many of them, philosophy course or literature course that had hundreds of thousands of participants, as you know, sort of talk to and address questions that a fundamental questions for the humanities. i think one of the beauties in all, gets back to something tiffany said and maybe this is where we can free our imaginations of it. and begin to ask the questions, what does it mean then to have this audience, the ones i've seen, the faculty of talk to is caught in the most exhilarating aspect is actually having learners of all over the world who come in in different ways and you have pure advisors who come in and to embrace the

subject matter or someone who is read a poem and is ready, ready 15 at times but it's the first time someone is coming in from japan where english is a second or third or fourth language, and they see something in a different way. a new way of interpreting literature, that a scene all too routine for a while. that piece i think is just starting to emerge. what's left to be done is likely trying to figure out the analytics behind. to understand how are people learning, whose learning, how do we begin to replicate this in other settings? can we marginalize that? no, take a piece in the study and uses some place else? that's the great experiment. what i say to people, this is an extreme edition. we should encourage as much of it as possible. we should research it and analyze it. it goes back to the adult learning. one of the things i've seen in some of the online courses and

there are untold learners in some of these courses that had been taking new courses, there are individuals with various kinds of disabilities, folks have been told they could not learn, but who, through this particular medium, actually found a different way to interact and to express themselves and all of the sudden they are proving that they actually can learn. they may be come have certain conditions that make it difficult for them to communicate in ways that we think of as fluid, but there's an intellect there that is bursting for a way to express themselves. that's the piece that goes back to my talk. if i have a what great worry, it's not enough colleges and universities that i've had the pleasure of visiting in the last year, there's only a years worth of data, but i have to say

enough faculty and graduate students themselves engaging in the experiment, and are learning to actually make use of all these tools is hit and miss. the question becomes as look to this next period and did something the mellon foundation we invest and to be honest, how we begin to actually educate and train the next generation of faculty to be in greater demand of the tool in the online sphere banister today. because i don't think you can actually be effective in reaching into the 20. i mean there are some already here, yes, good. i can see i grant coming my way, grant proposal coming my way. we'll talk, okay. that thirst is there. how it actually quench the thirst is our call and is opportunity. and i hope as the committee in the academy we won't recognize

it and small things to large thinks it will be an experiment that will be run and will actually take no to analyze them globally or locally, and five years from now i'll come back and i'll know something different. thank you all for your attention. [applause] >> tonight it on c-span2 its booktv in prime time with a focus on navy seals. >> booktv all this week in prime

time here on c-span2. >> president obama and vice president joe biden are traveling to oakdale pennsylvania. the two will tour a community college. president obama's remarks scheduled for 3:45 eastern live online at c-span.org. and turning overseas to ukraine from the "washington post," a story saying pro-russian gunmen have stormed city hall and the sprawling city, and because of ukrainian troops apparently defected to the side of the separatists. also the ap reporting that the head of nato says the alliance in strengthening its military footprint along the eastern border in response to russia's aggression in ukraine. secretary-general rasmussen said nato will immediately deploy

forces to the region. he says there will be more planes in the air, more ships on the water, more readiness on the land. >> there's an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat it isn't often. i wouldn't be surprised if information was bored in here when we got recent activities. >> we're just talking about the fact that the interrogation last week of the standards committee, senator goldwater asked some questions about the use of a harrier aircraft -- standards committee. markings pointed out. we figured if somebody would have told them about that thing on wednesday morning. and, therefore, dirksen will spring or goldwater was spring and to try to spring as such weight looks like they are all u.s. air cover and you were wrong and i were wrong in saying it wasn't. >> audio from the aftermath

saturday 6 p.m. eastern on c-span radio and washington, d.c. at 90.1 fm, online at c-span.org and nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 120. >> some of the duke administered early on who are not lawyers gave bad advice which was essentially don't tell your parents, don't get lawyers, cooperate with the police and basically this is going to go away. so that gave duke, duke that they had legal exposure because of that. and beyond that there was this desire to kind of make this go away, to protect the duke brand, to make sure that once it was decided these kids were innocent, that the last thing duke wanted was to try, to litigate with them about all of what had happened. so the easiest course of action

was just to pay them this $20 million, have them others have signed nondisclosure, non-disparaging agreements which explain why do not talking me or anybody since they settled. but it's not exactly pure white duke felt the need to pay these kids, you know. people get unfortunately wrongly convicted all the time. and they're put in place in the innocence project who defend those kinds of people and try to reverse the judgments that were made. examples of people wrongly convicted for murder spending 18 years in prison, 18 years and getting $20,000 payment a year as a result. these kids spent, other than a raiment, an hour or two no time in jail, no time in prison and got $20 million spent in the price of size, author and duke alum william cohan look at the duke lacrosse scandal of 2006 sunday night at eight on

c-span's q&a. >> c-span to providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend of tv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> american university's washington college of law hosted a discussion tuesday on legal issues facing documented and undocumented immigrants. a panel of hispanic legal advocates examine issues such as people offering fraudulent legal services and hospitals supporting immigrants who cannot afford to pay for medical care. this is one hour 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you so much for coming. dean grossman, thank you for

this great conference and the like to thank the panelists and it prohibits this great coverage together every year for giving such a wonderfully other time. as the said my name is fernando rivera. we are in our 37th year. we love to partner with american university every year that supports a very significant cohort of the latino law student community here in the district of columbia. we do this because it's the right thing to do and we do this because we are here to support those of you who are law students now become lawyers, ma successful ones, an those of yon the audience were actually practicing lawyers right now as well. so my bit of the infomercial is, check out our organization and all of the benefits that it also has as well, including an annual convention that we're going to be putting on with hispanic national bar association in

september fix we urge you to take a finish of those opportunities that we provide for the organization. one of the focuses we offer is a focus on serving the community. as justice sonia sotomayor recently said, ours is with the only profession where helping others is part of our credo, part of our training. we may not have an actual requirement to provide pro bono service, depending on the jurisdiction, but we do it ethically have a duty to serve the community your because again, being a latino lawyer we have an amazing amount of power. latina lawyers bring their families out of poverty. latina lawyers and those of you who are can you don't need to be a lawyer, you already can your aunts and uncles coming to you and asking you questions, the answers of course which you don't come to have a public taken the classes. but so-and-so is a law school, a

lawyer, you know the answer to everything. the degree to which the hispanic community holds its attorneys and its team is really a good indication of the power that you yield, and it's important to yield the power for the benefit of the community. and you here today in conference one aspect of public service which is to protect the portable community from -- vulnerable community from those practitioners who show is a somewhat lacking in their ethical duties. so ethics i think when i was in law school doing to take one class. yet to take one credit. really it's interesting how you just need a very small amount or at least i did in law school, but did impacts everything you do. and as a lawyer you got to think ethically every minute of the day. you also have to do that with respect to legal services that you provide, whether paid or

not. we have the same standard of ethical conduct no matter if your client is paying good money for it your rendering that service for free. so this is really an important aspect and i'd like us at least to pay close attention to make sure that we understand the importance of serving the committee and the importance of understanding that you are paragons for the latina committee beginning with her family. we are here, hispanic bar association of d.c. and all the other associations international to ensure that you the resources that you need to be the best that you can be in the profession. i thank you so much for your time and i look forward to speaking with you all later in the conference. i'll be around for the dinner as well. thank you. [applause]

>> we have -- we are honored to have, also served as president of the virginia bar center, correct? that's right. >> buenos aires. good afternoon, everyone. my name is manuel. the next group of panelists will talk about fraud. those of us who practice in virginia have known long to will the problems in the commonwealth. and i'm proud of the fact that within the last year, the hispanic bar association of virginia and its members have taken steps to combat fraud in

our state. we have assisted senator evans and boxed mint in drafting legislation to combat fraud along with other 18 or decisions in the commonwealth of virginia and have written a letter to governor mccullough urging him to sign legislation which would penalize notarios who exceed their statutory authority and provide legal advice and services, which under virginia law the are not allowed to do so. it is my understand that governor mccullough has now signed that legislation and it will take effect on july 1 of this year, and impose a civil sanctions on anyone who is a notarios, or notary, who dispenses legal advice. i'm also proud of the fact that some of our members assisted local prosecutors as best you to go after notarios, our members interviewed potential victims. they were able to compile

affidavits which they gave to prosecutors and detectives which were then used to prosecute individuals, and one well-known individual in virginia, a gentleman by the name of luis ramirez accuracy a two-year prison sentence for what he did as a notarios and the fraud that he committed. now, briefly i'd like to talk about mr. ramirez because i think i panelists may touch upon this in their discussion of notarios fraud. and the result want to bring this up to you because those of you more attorneys and those of you who will become attorneys, as you know our profession is a self regulated want to we police ourselves. but we should also police those who gavel in the legal profession and by gavel i mean those who were not trained as lawyers but we know are out there giving legal advice,

taking money from members of our community and more often than not, causing more damage than good. and how quickly highlight mr. ramirez in what he did within our community. mr. ramirez was not a lawyer. he never went to law school. mr. ramirez submitted an application in virginia, paid $5 became a notary public. which under virginia law means he was only able to attest to signatures on documents. mr. ramirez was a con man and he was a savvy business marketer. he was able to convince the reader station in virginia to give him a one hour program where he dispense legal advice on the air and, of course, gave out his telephone number, address for people to come see him if he had any issues or legal issues that they wanted to address. mr. ramirez was also able to convince spanish print media to write soft pieces on. i'm sorry i wish i had overhead

projector because i have some of them, pieces that were written about mr. ramirez. one of which is highlight that are pretty interesting and entertaining. in one, he had a newspaper write an article about him that the democrats were considering running him for u.s. senate. and that the internal democratic polls showed that if he ran against former governor allen, and also former -- governor allen was also former u.s. senator, that he would win that race. he also had a piece written about him after he pled guilty and was awaiting sentencing that the puerto rican government had just awarded him the title chief lobbyist for the puerto rican government, and that they paid

him $11 million to lobby state congressmen and senators to pass stated on behalf of puerto rico, puerto rican commonwealth. all that was done in order to gain credibility within the latino community. and what was interesting about this gentleman was, is not only did he charge as much as attorneys did, in most cases he charged even more. and in most cases, he took clients away from individuals that had very good attorneys, convinced those individuals that he was better, that he had the political connections. he would show them the newspaper articles, and again, they would hire him. they would pay him their life savings. he within take the cases, in more than likely than not, people went to jail because of his lack of representation, and people were deported because he

was not an immigration attorney, even though he said he was. now, what you're going to hear from our panelists is information that i hope for those of you, even if you don't practice immigration will take to heart. because i said in the beginning, we are self policing profession, and i ask those of you who have significant contact or will have significant contact with some latinos and the hispanic community, to not only watch what attorneys are doing to our community, but watch what others are doing to our committee as well. thank you. [applause] >> hi, good afternoon. thank you. it's my honor to be here today moderating this very distinguished panel. i think everyone is in for an exceptional gathering of

attorneys that truly are specialized in this area, not just in the policy and political debate that we hear so often about, in addition with such pragmatic and such day-to-day real-life and very rich experiences. so just by way of background i'll briefly introduce the subject that would be talk about and introduce our panelists. in general, we're going to talk about this case you might efforts a much about. for those you who might not know, details on the case come in 2010 this case essentially decided and adverse largely on the role of criminal defense representation related to counseling clients who also have certain immigration status issues about the broader consequences of criminal conviction on the other potential civil or immigration situations. so essentially the panelists

here today are going to talk about not just the role that defense attorneys and criminal cases have with their clients and the duties and ethics behind their roles in defending their clients making sure the client understands all the various applications of any kind of criminal conviction. our panels also discussed about broader civil law implications, broader benefits, and other ways in which the different civil and criminal trials can affect any one individual in a way that makes their representation constitutionally deficient as stated in the case. so what we want to ensure that we want to ensure that everyone has their representation, has representation that meets the constitutional rights, and that is what i think you'll hear largely about. what is being done, what needs to be done, and the experiences

of the practitioners day today. so first we have ofelia calderon who is founding partner at the immigration firm in arlington, virginia. she gives a diverse practice including family, naturalization, business and asylum cases. she concentrates on federal matters. she's also interpersonal capacity been a great supporter of immigration reform and is quickly spoken to me but associations on the rights of noncitizens in the u.s. and presented before judges and other political and authoritative entities on the issue. ofelia is a member of the bar of merit as with the district of columbia. she's practicing in the british courts in the deity as the courts of appeal for the fourth circuit. she's currently serving as president of the hispanic bar association -- immediate past.

man well is the current president. while maintaining membership with treachery, as well as a number of other coalitions and/or positions dedicated to providing services to particularly immigrant clients. she has also served as the chapter chair of the liaison committee the executive office of immigration review in arlington, virginia, or work with other organizations. are more than five years. and ofelia has been constantly a speaker and panelist at national conferences on the immigration issues, web seminars and that the national immigration project in the fall of 2005 in portland, oregon. she contributes her time to the board of immigration appeals pro bono screen presence as well. ofelia is a graduate the

university of maryland with a doctor's degree in political science and she received her law degree from university of san francisco school of law. and next to ofelia is matthew handley. is the director of litigation at the washington lawyers' committee for civil rights and urban affairs. his practice focuses on representing victims of civil rights abuses with a particular focus on employment discrimination, wage theft, and public accommodation discrimination. he is a longtime advocate for the rights of immigrants and workers have suffered from discrimination in their day-to-day work. prior to joining the committee he was a partner at the law firm of cohen, milstein where he represented a mainly foreign workers have been trafficked and otherwise abused while employed. here in the u.s. or by u.s. companies. also advocating on issues of disability rights, except bill

housing and for detainees as well. before joining the law firm, he was an attorney at covington and berlin come and prior to that he served as a law clerk for the honorable william wayne justice, u.s. district judge for the western district of texas. before becoming a lawyer he was a peace corps volunteer in nepal where he served for two years as a construction engineer. he's been recognize also i super lawyer magazine as a rising star, graduated in his jd with high honors from the university of texas school of law, and he urges bachelors from princeton. welcome, matthew. next to matthew is jonathan greene from the green law firm in columbia, maryland. mr. green practices in the areas of immigration and family law. he said that to practice before the maryland court of appeals congress district court for

maryland, u.s. court of appeals and the fourth circuit and the u.s. supreme court. is also an adjunct professor at stevenson university immigration law and these artist bachelors degree from university of maryland as well as -- is the only attorney to have served as both the chair of the maryland state bar association immigration law section and the d.c. maryland and virginia chapter. mr. greene has served as a member of the national board of governors and is a member of the national officer know me and committee. jonathan has advocated for years before the maryland general assembly on immigration and the current reserves on the national conference committee. is also briefly served on other panels and as ice liaison and also believe learning committee. you published numerous articles on immigration and family law. he has written including many others for the cardozo school of law are of international and comparative law.

and the maryland journal of contemporary legal issues. is also published a handbook that was released by the american bar association commission on domestic violence. mr. greene is represented pro bono clients on behalf of the maryland volunteer lawyers society. ..

of american university washington college of law where she was student attorney with the justice clinic and one law school, anne was a fellow where she researched the scope of fraud in the d.c. matcher area. she's also been a dear fellow for the international human rights clinic and a law clerk attending to the unaccompanied immigrant children in south texas and part of law school anne was researching the effects of deportation on immigrant in all salvador and she served for two years as staff assistant to the aba commission on immigration. thank you all for being here and especially to walk into the panel will start first with an overview by the implications on responsibilities for attorneys and then we will expand a bit to the several areas i mentioned that are also touched by this decision and implicate other

responsibilities of immigrant client. we will start with you. can you give us an overview as to what exactly are the duties and verses upon and can you give us a brief context as to what led to this ruling? [inaudible] -- at the time of the issuance in 2010 when he came out he had been a permanent resident -- lawful permanent resident of the united states for more than four years. i should point out he had lived in the united states, have all sorts of ties in the u.s. had served in the vietnam war, served in the armed forces have really been a part of his community. in 2001, for whatever reason he was charged -- well, he was arrested for driving a tractor trailer with 1000 pounds of marijuana in indiana get

multiple charges. i want to say to mr. mir trafficking in any felony trafficking and possession of paraphernalia and a weight issue on his tractor. he ended up pleading guilty to three counts -- in any event, handed up pleading guilty to the distribution of the marijuana, which under immigration law is considered an aggravated felony, was considered an aggregated felony for that amount is considered an aggregated felony and he was considered removable from the united states at that moment. they deal with josé padilla was yet a criminal attorney, obviously defending him in the criminal court and he was advised by his criminal attorney that these -- that pleading guilty to these offenses would not be a problem for his immigration status because it had a really long time so you don't have to worry about anything. he was wrong, affirmatively wrong. so obviously deportation proceedings were initiated

against him or removal as it is called now and that was the position josé padilla found himself in. he actually started his case in 04 on a pro se motion, which is interesting in the context both of talking about what our responsibilities are his lawyers and also talking about why people go to notorious verses why they don't, that sort of thing. in any event, he started this journey in 2010 the supreme court said -- granted this case and essentially for the first time the supreme court said that immigration consequences of a criminal conviction are not merely collateral. the context was essentially it was a typical correspondents let's say or defendants to go back into court since they listen, you know, i got the

wrong advice and now as a result of this advice and now facing removal from the country. i now have deportation because for whatever reason, it is the argument i think essentially is the supreme court talked about in the decision was that anti-immigration consequence was collateral to the point of the actual criminal case. the supreme court held that immigration consequences for collateral, if they're so significant in nature that in fact they are connected enough to the penalty that the system does apply to have the right to affect his counsel and that effective counsel includes competent, professional advice under immigration -- under immigration consequences in the context of a plea. so that was the gist of it. they applied in the supreme court suggested that we will apply washington, which is the traditional effectiveness of counsel analysis conducted

mostly in criminal cases. this was a really big deal. there's no question about it because padilla opened the conversation about what are the rules of criminal counsel? what is it that we need to be doing when you have an immigration client? i should say, we are going to go on a talk more about padilla, which you can see its ripple effects of the state and federal level that there had been -- i will say right after that there was chatted up, which will not spend too much time on, but i just want to say the subsequent case, the supreme court said padilla is not rich or active, so that it's tempting to think about as well as we go forward. in any event, that is the gist of padilla and it lets us know even a criminal defense

attorneys have an affirmative duty to advise their clients properly about immigration consequences. that is the backdrop. >> thank you. so that gives us a great setting to then talk about how in practice we are seen suddenly attorneys managing wage and hour cases are housing discrimination cases or tort litigation are suddenly having to similarly address immigration consequences for their clients within part of the scope of the fact a representation. so matthew, could you talk more about the areas of law that padilla is intended to focus on criminal consequences, criminal convictions that this really is that a precedent for others as well? >> sure, banks, zuraya. many of the issues that i face in padilla and padilla

highlights the fact that what counts in a quiet, one has to consider the immigration consequences are healthy immigration status affects the claim. my practice is focused almost solely on civil litigation, particularly sole right litigation or chill at really in wage theft, housing discrimination, public accommodations discrimination. although we don't hold ourselves out this way, about half of our intakes to come from the immigrant community and its largely because of the particular vulnerability that our d.c. area intergroup residents face in employment and housing and when they're just going about their daily lives. in the first instance, i think

many immigrants, both documented and undocumented are often reluctant to step forward and see if they've had their civil rights violated because they are afraid potentially at the immigration consequences. but those that do, one of the first things we have to be sure we are counts when i'm about this for the most part, almost all of our civil rights laws are wage theft laws. it doesn't matter whether you are a documented immigrant or if you are a u.s. citizen or if you are undocumented, normally through rates are the same. the problem is your remedies are often different and not as her counseling then becomes most important. for instance, in a typical wrongful termination claim, we've had two ongoing cases, very similar facts in my office

lately the pregnancy discrimination wrongful termination claims, wherein one case it was a woman who was fired shortly after announcing she was prayed at, but it turns out she was not authorized to work another case. a u.s. citizen was terminated shortly after she announced she was pregnant. both of them have rights under title vii, under federal employment laws, but the remedies are going. a lot. if you are authorized to work, then you are entitled not only to compensatory damages within a year, emotional and mental anguish damages, that you are also entitled back pay and that they can also be the larger of those two components. if you are not authorized to work, then you are not entitled to the back paper for paper the economic damages that result from wrongful termination. and make sure to decline as comfortable going forward with

the matter really means you have to be sure they understand how their immigration status is going to affect the strength and size of the potential recovery they are going to receive. wage theft is an area where this comes up very often. again, i think a lot of particularly undocumented workers do not like -- they are very reluctant to come forward and i haven't been paid overtime for minimum wage or have otherwise just not been paid correctly with the law for fear of losing their job, but most of them also think they don't have any rights to the work because they are not authorized to work. and that's not true. if you have worked and have not been paid correctly under the law, regardless of your immigration status and whether you are authorized to work or not, you're entitled to payment for that work.

the only difference really been that if an employer retaliates against you for complaining about your lack of overtime pay for lack of minimum-wage pay to fire you because of it, you would not be entitled to be reinstated back at your job worries if you're authorized to work, you have those greater protections. if i have a client punching me and said i work at a job that not authorized to work at a market at this job not paying the minimum wage and pain over time, i'd like to recover those wages. i'm counseling to know you're entitled to anatomy can definitely do something about it. when we raise this issue to fire you, you'll be out of a job. the law is not going to force an employer to reinstate you. in fact, you can't.

i think in a civil context we have to a status what one's immigration status how that affects the advice these lawyers are able to give them. i'll hold off and circle back later. >> sure. actually, what you just touched upon is a nice segue to then ask john a question to be followed by ofelia. we've also seen aila has led to action at the state-level and certain legislation passing as well as legislation. can you talk to us that the state level how we have this and changed and the rules or regulations might have come up in light of the jonathan and ofelia and maryland. >> if not, i'll just speak

freely about. i can speak loud with a mac or without. i want to commend everyone here today because the subject we are discussing is really coming lamport. we are talking about access to justice. it's really a focus that we all have here. i practice primarily in the state of maryland. we bring some different days. i want to share with you what is going on in terms of what immigrant opportunities are in the aftermath of the padilla decision. one thing ofelia mentioned that came out of the padilla case is whether it be a retroactive basis. are those in the mosque school, you know when a new law comes out, one of the big decisions is whether that means from that time forward we take a look at things in a different way or whether we put backwards. after the padilla decision we had a case in maryland colleton

maceo versus day. the dignity of case that padilla should reply in a restricted basis. another was of a criminal defense attorney had given counsel many, many years ago, prior to the padilla decision, that person could indeed bring an action in maryland to get the defense case and the criminal condition looked at again. it didn't matter how far back you want it to go. he could go back as far as you want it. when the supreme court in the decision in february 2013 took another look and said we don't think is a retroactive application. it's not really a new law and principles from strict and not the immigration context. what happened then is the supreme court said it is an independent basis and state law, then you can apply retroactively. don't let her federal decision in contradiction all

jurisprudence to apply richer actively. the state of maryland has said we will apply richer actively two years earlier. in 2013, maryland is the only state in the whole country that could apply to be a retroactively. that is until the gentleman by the name of lincoln miller's case in the court of appeals decided in october 2013 just nine months later. we don't really see any background. the state of maryland, so we're not going to apply to the arrest or actively. a nice gadget february and october and nobody else could basically close the doors they are. will say despite an argument that there could be an independent basis and state ought to apply to be a retroactively, in the shop as decision did leave that as a remote possibility and here to see any cases to bring that

forward. for law students out there, don't forget to think creatively and outside the box. maybe look at the case and open the door a little bit further for people in terms of access to justice. in terms of how it's practically applied, i would say that a lot of the cases i handle and i'm sure ofelia would say the same and for many of the people out there in our community, there is a perception that the criminal conviction issues are pretty clear-cut. if you're convicted of a crime, maybe you should be here in the united states. the problem with that thought is the u.s. immigration system has a broad definition of what it means to be convicted of a crime. for example, under most state laws if you get probation before judgment can i say you're speeding issue perhaps in the judge says i give you permission before judgment or any kind of criminal matter, and state why

you'd find that it's not a conviction for state purposes. when he applied for a job he say i don't have a criminal conviction record. but her immigration service, the national immigration system that it is still for immigration purposes will hold the immigration law against you if you have a permission before a judge. it isn't just that. there are civil infractions. people who engage in jaywalking or other minor offenses or the civil code, not criminal in nature. this offense is however some cases are just the same as immigration purposes. the way the immigration law looks at things as it's not a simple matter of convicted of a major crime then you shouldn't be in the united states. the immigration system catches a lot of people are very minor scrapes with the law just because they're not u.s. citizens, the full weight of the immigration law and the

opportunities to pursue the same rights that would normally think would be available to individuals. the problem in the padilla context is that it looks safe to plead guilty to offenses and criminal offense attorneys and immigration lawyers. on the view of moscow still have the opportunity to go into this knowing that immigration is an important proponent. if you're going to do immigration law, you and other criminal defense or import for your practice. so you're not going into this blind. many people who come into my office and ofelia's office, they have criminal convictions and we asked them, what happened here? i don't have a criminal record. either probation before judgment. and then we saw a shake her head and say this is a relative

problem is that the immigration context in your probation before judgment is the same thing as a conviction. perhaps someone would say i've got a deal with the state's attorney's office and so i was diverted to little education program we agreed i do a little community service in lieu of a conviction. well, those diversion programs for immigration purposes to the same thing as convictions. we have to counsel people have problems at their immigration situation. people can face deportation to remove ability for this country based on the simple kinds of matters. it might be admissible to get it benefits such as a green card resident or visa or leave the united states and come back into the united states. people will find a problems getting naturalization to become a u.s. citizen reader something more simple like getting protected status in the community really seek to have every knew it on a regular

basis. people want different action for shouted arrivals, which is not the status to allow someone to stay in the united states here at a young age for a period of two years. perhaps renewable. again, they may be barred from doing these things are very minor scrapes with the law he thinks he would hold against u.s. citizens. so we sit down and talk with people and say what happened from a sign that the criminal defense attorney said at a party thing about immigration law, but i know this should be a problem because its provisional order version or something that couldn't possibly be a problem because you're not going to jail and lo and behold it's a huge immigration problem. we talked to people about whether we want to reopen a case. obviously padilla afterwards said you can't go back before the cases affect it. but now we're four years years out from padilla still thinks there weren't people criminals records to give rise to circumstance. i will tell you and ofelia can tell you so there's good

criminal attorneys to do a great job at criminal defense, don't know anything about immigration law to tell their clients that are collecting about immigration law. the word about padilla and its other cases has not gone out to the extent it has pierced the people in our communities need to know that they're entitled as a matter of the u.s. constitution to have effective assistance of counsel for criminal defense content. when they meet with an immigration lawyer, they have a right to have these issues brought up. so in many cases will talk to people about their lot to reopen its criminal defense allocations. just because it's reopened hasn't been the charge goes away. there's always a risk involved and not because you could be tried again. you have to have an assessment about whether the person will be convicted or not. there might be multiple charges and perhaps somebody has a lesser charge has blessed her immigration consequences or perhaps there's some other arrangement that can be worked

out. they be somebody he started down the time to jail and they're not interested in any further punishment because somebody asserted that their service. so we look at those cases closely. in the context of going beyond the criminal defense situation, i think matthew's point is right in that there's an awareness now that people who are immigrants have greater rights in society. if you go back 10, 20 years for the constitutional law point of view, you'll see people who are not u.s. citizens have lesser right-center constitution. that's still the case when the government is involved in making decisions. padilla was revolutionary and a sense because it said the strickland test that the effectiveness of counsel test applies to everybody, applies to everybody and immigrants as well. this is one of those rare cases where the supreme court says immigrants don't get lesser

race. the same rights as everybody else in this country. the constitution should apply to everybody when it comes to criminal defense. >> is you're talking about this, think about this as well. this includes also an talk about how this includes, let's say in the cases where someone does not have counsel or chooses to represent themselves. >> that's an excellent point and then i'll pass the mic over to ofelia appeared in the state of maryland, you have a rule that requires our church is to make sure that the criminal defendants are advised that there may be immigration consequences about pleading guilty to a criminal charge. so it isn't simply there's a constitutional right to have the defense attorney tell you what's going on in the judge also by maryland rule has to inform there may be immigration consequences. so we are seeing that ability in

our state. what are we looking at a virginia? >> and virginia, a lot of jurisdictions have written that in their plea. .. i definitely think that is part of the process in virginia in

many jurisdictions. yes. i would say that. >> harris also an evolution here. if you look 20 years ago you didn't have this as an opportunity. throughout the country judges didn't have to advise people there might be immigration consequences. there was a recognition of the right to citizens of councils of whether you are there or not, our jurisprudence system is moving into the realm of making sure immigrants have better rights. it is not perfect and we have a long way to go but what we have now is better than the way it used to be. >> i agree with that. things are moving maybe a little faster on the other side of the potomac than they are on my side. we have this little discussion prior to the panel. i would even say potentially is that not only is there a difference between what happens on one side of the potomac but

even what happens maybe in a little line in virginia but things could be tougher in not northern virginia. i don't know what that means because we never determined where northern virginia is or wherever. i will say that with respect to i envy you that brief period when apparently it was okay to be retroactive. the commonwealth pretty much i don't know what to say to be honest with you in the commonwealth, the commonwealth has their own case, which went to the virginia supreme court and it was the same issue. what i would say is this, the way virginia has limited and that is the way i look at it, with the commonwealth has limited access to pet dia --p i --padilla the way you get back

into court. refugee from liberia also had an l p r and had these clients and he went back into the court and filed a series of motions. in virginia we have these old rich things, it was the rest of quorum in virginia, not weaken those with the rest of quorum novice and the hideous little these petitions are thrown in andy essentially what the supreme court said, we won't be able to use the quorum and their basis was the sensually that those two were essentials lead the way they read it was those were designed to correct errors of fact. and a brief of your right would not be an error and that would be too bad so we essentially the only way to go back in the commonwealth of virginia, is on the habeas and so by its

statutes which only you could only file habeas within two years of the final border so forget about the retroactivity thing. that is a done deal for us. who cares? your final order was 2005. doesn't matter if it was retroactive because we away past two years. there is a case law requirement that is not in the statute that you must be in custody so that is really a big deal so commonwealth of virginia how we deal with post conviction release is you file a petition and there's always the attorney general, not the commonwealth attorney, i do find the attorney-general's office handles but habeas petition, not the commonwealth attorney, they always have the same argument. their argument is if it is outside or not inside the two year time and is the person in custody that is the biggest issue we deal with in the commonwealth so we are looking at a couple different cases

because the question is what is in custody? if you walk away as you said, it is tied for criminal attorneys and i want to say this too because at the end of the day criminal attorneys are -- they do their job. they do what they are supposed to do but they are diametrically opposed to what we want them to do as an immigration attorney. a criminal attorney wants to get you off with the least amount of time, not supposed to go to jail and that is what their goal is. they went to law school, i am a criminal attorney and away like this. that is not what immigration attorneys think. we think no, wait, there is a bigger picture, that is a conviction, bad example, we are constantly in conflict with our criminal colleagues. i don't understand, i got 12 months, that is great, that is aggravated felony, i don't want that. this is the big issue. constant conflict between criminal attorneys and immigration attorneys and one of

the things padilla says is not only do criminal attorneys have an obligation to give competent advice, correct advice but their silence also, that is not the answer. even if you don't know you still have to say something. you must advise your client care maybe immigration consequences even if you don't know what those immigration consequences are. that goes to the overarching theme here which is i am not sure they have more but we should recognize the rights were in existence. i don't think it is the new rule. it is an application of -- should have been an example -- application of existing law. we should know everyone has rights to existing council and it is not collateral consequence, you know what i mean? >> it has taken a long time to

get there because of where the constitutional system started out in terms of having lesser rights for immigrants. if i may on this issue of how padilla has spread further. of the grant issues in state legislatures and things that are going on i want to take a little pride, just came out of the maryland general assembly involving special immigrant juvenile cases of for people who come to the united states who are under 21 from other countries. they cannot be reunified with their parents because they suffered abuse or neglect or abandoned by one or both parents, there's an opportunity to pursue a green card in united states, a permanent presence. this is under immigration law until 21 is where we cut off adulthood and childhood. most states defiant adulthood and childhood at the age of 18 and in maryland, it has been 18 defined by law for a very long

time. however general assembly just passed a bill which is signed into law by our governor which indicates we are allowed to seek custody and guardianship 3 children until 21 to be able to pursue the special immigrant juvenile status under federal law. i can think >> utter state that has the ability to recognize children under 21 and i hope other states may adopt this but this is an example again of how the idea of giving rights to people who are immigrants is starting to take root in state legislatures. i can't speak for arizona, different set of issues but in maryland for example there is an opportunity to provide an opportunity where it should be offered to people. >> thank you, gentlemen. you worked in d.c. maryland, virginia, and we can all be sensitive to the different cultural contexts in each different states so can you give

us may be some anecdotes on your experience working with the community, working with clients in different states and lack of lessons you don't have rights or ignorance about the rights that you do have and whether that has shifted and also how that has led to this rise in fraud in the last few years and how you address that and touch on why these populations are so vulnerable. includes a lot of cultural context from the country they come from that you could address that for a minute. >> i will use the power point individual for all of you. i may need technical assistance.

>> okay. >> the method was earlier. >> the answer is to do it -- [whispering] >> okay, here you go. now you can just go up to -- to -- there we go. you see that? >> there we go. >> i am getting better. >> how many in a room i taking

immigration law or have taken it? >> this panel shows you why more of you have to take it regardless of your area of focus. is an appropriate beginning to have technical issues because i do remember that and having just recently graduated i feel like this is a second home so it is nice to be back. we started the project in may of last year with funding from the d.c. bar foundation and the maryland bar foundation is also on board because maryland and d.c. and the kenya have seen this problem where there has been lack of access to immigration legal services. what i would say is there is a landscape, the best representation but not that the government spends. regardless if you are a child, you have no right to counsel in

the family law or the immigration side. taking that further if you are in immigration detention you don't have right to counsel. the services that are provided are being provided by a private attorney, nonprofit attorneys have to have a very high caseload in order to meet the demand and keep costs low. that can be very challenging practice very as you will soon learn if you go into immigration law. what has also happened with the immigration law is the federal government recognizes that because there is so much need there should be a car if out where individuals can provide services so here we have a list of who can provide services under federal law. if you don't like the attorneys and whenever we have a new client come in who has concern about the previous representation they received we have to go to the state bar and

see where they licensed and there have been people who come through the door where the advertisements say at least in seattle and all kinds of state or in other languages and we have clients from oh and indonesia who have the same situation but a different language and it might be the local african newspaper where it says i am an attorney and here is my court license number and when we go and look, we find they are not licensed anywhere. we all in this room have paid $200,000 for going to law school in a few years or an alum program, paid a significant amount of money to pass the bar and that is how we got to the attorneys and meanwhile we have other people in the community who just came out a newspaper ad and they too are attorneys. that is one area and we have board of immigration appeals or accredited representatives. that could be board of immigration accredited

organizations who have representatives and may not have an attorney on staff but give been able to show the board of immigration they have someone to consult and questions of the losses they are able to provide representation for a nominal fee. we also have lost to consent law graduates under supervision of an attorney with no direct compensation for attorneys who practice outside the u.s. department of homeland security, you also if you look in some newspapers in this area you will see i an accredited by the supreme court of all salvador or guatemala and lots of other places which means i can practice federal law and just had an argument the other day with someone who was like where did you go to law school don't you know what federal law is? i know what federal law is, then you know i can't prosecute, no, you have to tell me what state you are licensed in. i am licensed in tennessee and sure enough, don't know what is going on in tennessee but he is not licensed in tennessee so you have individuals who have decided they are going to meet

this need just like attorneys are meeting the need and going to be doing it without the $200,000 of debt or three years of law school or studying for the bar and you have this car out for repeatable individuals and sometimes nobody will say i am a repeatable individual of good moral character providing this service but that has to be this individual is operation air, clear remember, this is my neighbor, and when you see the individual's representing a hundred people there is no way they can say hundred people unless they live in a big con in which i guess is possible. let me kind of move to the practice of immigration law. those are individuals who can practice and what is the practice? for this the best description this is the law but the best is description is from 1982 opinion from the thin immigration and nationality services which says if you go into a business and

you are not sure what application you are filling out than the individual selecting the form and saying oh you are here because you want to register for temporary protective status and you are eligible, that would be a practice of law but if you enter with your application and said i just need you to translate my answer to these questions i have been applying year after year for the last 11 years then that would not be the practice of law according to this decision and it matters whether or not that person is charging and if they are charging more than their interpretation or translation peace. so the next slide explains why there is this confusion in the community. we see our clients as incredibly rational actors. they save their money for legal services but they also have perspective from home country of these being the businesses and the way people advertise their

services as lawyers and they may be advertising themselves as f nofadia who has served as an attorney for five years, they pass a rigorous exam comment that is a person who has the status in the community as being a good confidante for legal services, not just whatever the person is looking to them for so when someone in this area uses the same word, nofadio, it can cause confusion because they could be just anyone here over 18 who has gone washington d.c. and paid $75 or $25 in regina and taken an exam and basically said that they will authenticate the signature and that is the responsibility of the notary and nothing more. when you use the sign and create that confusion we lead to the

next slide which is what it looks like locally. these are actually, this is the d.c. storefront on the top, va. advertisement on the web, let's talk about this quickly, and maryland print advertisement. in all of these locations you have a very similar look to what we had seen in the previous slide from nicaragua and mexico. you do this in the community and you have known it from your home country may go to these individuals for service. they speak your language and i have seen this a lot, they are open on saturdays and sundays. not as much as the community would like. unfortunately what that means is they are able to put out the shingle and provide a service. when they provide this service it can lead to damage on the immigration case that is sometimes irreparable. i will talk about remedies on

the immigration side at the end but on all hole it is difficult to correct mistakes, difficult to rack correct mistakes that happen on the criminal side when you are initially facing charges. that is what ophelia and jonathan talked-about but it is difficult to reverse an act once it is done and is not retroactive and similarly when you have applied for something it is difficult to undo an application for immigration especially if you never eligible in the first place. one quick comment along with it. with the ramirez case, he did solicit sort of i guess other businesses where there was an attorney and he would want to go to the business and say i will bring you the client and you hire me as your paralegal for each representation and where you come and an ethical issue with that is if you are the supervising attorney of this non attorney who is engaged in the practice of law because he is

the only one with a client contact, the only one giving legal advice and assistance then you have this 5.5 the shoe. that prohibits an attorney from assisting someone engage in the unauthorized practice of law and if you make a complaint to the virginia state or d.c. bar with the practice of law committees you can actually have that attorney suspended, disbarred or referred for criminal prosecution. it is important to know that because it is a situation you could find yourself in in the future where you think is great this person is in community and could help me find clients but there could also be and also a question -- >> there is the issue that a lot of these folks because they are not attorneys is a lot more intangible. how do you go after these people? can you talk about that? >> sure. i will address that.

it depends on consumer protection issues and in maryland we have the consultant that we will touch on a little bit later but in virginia and d.c. we have the sensually consumer protection act which is the mini act each state has, that model, the federal trade commission act which the federal agency can use to prosecute fraud. i will give you a couple case examples because that could also answer that question. we already heard a bit from m u manuel about the ramirez case. we heard about four victims, we heard one a couple months ago, this individual is not an attorney because he did convince a lot of people. he also did that by having a picture of president obama in his office and worked in offices with lots of people who moved around and when he moved to new offices usually have a lot of

people working in different businesses but he would just say he was responsible for all of them. president obama was his friend. i am relieved someone you can have confidence in and i wish i could say ramirez is the only one in the community but unfortunately we have seen a lot of other folks trying to lodge complaints against. what it takes to get law enforcement interest it is to show a pattern of practice. we need victims to come forward and feel comfortable so sometimes that means you can work with them to make an anonymous complaint. if they are not interested in using their own name or their address we can try to do what we can to protect any questions about immigration status because we see this as not relevant to the proceedings against this individual. what we saw with the ramirez case was with the hispanic bar association and civil attorneys,

there was a group of attorneys who took a civil case and they were able to get an injunction through that case and restitution for that victim and fined up to $25,000. so we saw these things happening at the same time but was unfortunately didn't happen with that case and this is something we are trying to address next time is there weren't immigration attorneys that were advising the victim is. if there were we would have advised that they prosecute him in addition to the crimes he was prosecuted for for extortion because you have a washington post article where it shows he was threatening people with i am going to report you that you are a drug trafficker, i am a threatening or immigration status and in virginia threaten immigration status a threat to criminal prosecution is extortion. we wanted them to prosecute for extortion and they were not willing to do that once things had gone through. the way that addresses the issue

is holistically, that there should be a conversation on the criminal, civil and immigration side when these individuals are put to justice. last case and i will say briefly, was an elvis impersonator in maryland to provided fraudulent immigration services, worked alongside fraudulent health clinic and he was able to defraud victims, over 90 of them in maryland, virginia and d.c. of $1.2 million so the effects are different from the community and this is something that in light of the discussion about comprehensive immigration reform we need to tell the community if someone is presenting themselves as having a hook up like i can get you in the line for immigration reform, there will be a limited number of visas available and i have the connections, they need to have the red flag up when they hear conversations like an especially when they see someone posing in the community demand and ice bad. if they are ideal to verify the status of that individual they

need to raise issue with the authorities. that is why we started the project of the consumer protection agency 41 years ago and now a family immigration legal service and social service provider. restarted this project go back to the roots and say we need to address the issue before it came because of the damage had already been done to the immigration case it was difficult to work with client. you asked about the remedies. on the civil side as mentioned we can use the consumer protection act, we can make consumer complaints the federal trade commission if they had a pattern they can go after an injunction and ask for restitution, monetary damages. on the criminal side there are several things we think apply to these cases like that and fraud and extortion and there are remedies that would exist.

on the immigration side this is highly fact dependent so we wrote a manual with the community justice project at essentially outline some possible immigration remedies for victims so we talk about motions of counsel for the long conversation we just had about -- it could apply to council provided by non attorney if you are creative with your argument with the attorney on the case and as we discussed extortion is a qualifying crime so in the ramirez case you did have individuals who were severely affected by the amount of money they lost and damaged this did to their immigration case that caused at least some of the client sleeplessness, having to be on sleeping pills, having a depression and other mental harm and we do think the fact sometimes around for a victim, there's a case out of oregon just recently where there were

several victims and they have done that and some of the victims, there was one victim who attempted suicide so the harm is there. what we would like to see happen is integration services would understand to incentivize immigrant victims to come forward there needs to be protection of their status and prosecutorial discretion and these motions are open would be helpful for that and i will just end by saying as mentioned with all this confusion around what might be for immigration reform or might not be we are definitely going to see this problem continue to exist so if you see in the community feel free to watch out for us. i can take complaints about a business you have seen an advertisement about because that helps us build a case later on or specific victim who would be interested in speaking with us, we were with the client and we can take the case as far as they went on civil, criminal and

immigration side. hopefully that answers your questions. >> thank you. we're going to go back to matthew now but to highlight as you just said, the cases you see in this fraud, it is largely happening in immigration world but also can landlord disputes, housing discrimination, wage theft and all these other areas of law where no one thought of themselves as attorneys of all areas. >> thank you. drilling down on one area in particular i known that you wants to raise and is important to highlight medical -- moving on from when a subject or defendant is part of a trial subsequently there is the issue of deportation where similarly deportation proceedings are

another area where the representation one receives can be determined, so talk to us more about that and how that ripples into a number of different areas of law. >> i will make use of power point briefly and hopefully it will get it to work here. this is an issue, i don't know how much is on the radar of the legal community in general all flow everything i am -- come across my desk a few times and when i started researching it it seems that it is more prevalent than one might fink. the term that gets used, a few terms, medical deportation, medical rendition are two i have heard used and basically what it is is to avoid costs for caring for an insuranceinsured patients

which are largely uninsured or underinsured immigrant patients many hospitals have begun repatriating immigrants in need of extended medical care. this is a picture of mr. jimenez were -- he was deported and died shortly after. what is happening is hospitals and getting urgent care, immigrant patients in who don't have insurance or are under in short and rather than giving them long-term care they are looking for ways to avoid that and taking it upon themselves to get them out of the country and going around any sort of official immigration service, not going for a homeland security or anything official. this is a picture of a different

mr. jimenez who was the courted by a florida hospital to college in guatemala and his story highlights the problem. he was an undocumented immigrant living in florida. was hit by a car and was basically on life support in florida for link the period of time and then was and rehabilitative stage for what appeared was going to take a couple years. and what the florida hospital decided to do was they initially tried to seek doing this the correct way, they went to state court to seek permission to forcefully remove him. he luckily had a guardian who had been appointed who fought back on that. the state court said sure, go ahead and have it removed. he immediately appealed and the appellate court said to tell the

hospital to respond to the guardian's assertion that the state court in the hospital has no jurisdiction or no ability to actually deport anybody but before the appellate court could even rule on that hospital under dark of night rented helicopter for $30,000 and flew the guy out of the country. which then prompted a contempt citation against the hospital and personal injury suits against the hospital. it was a confidential settlement that did result in recovery but nevertheless the guy is in guatemala instead of a hospital in the u.s.. one last example i am going to highlight here it is it doesn't only happen to undocumented immigrants. antonio torres as was the documented immigrant who was working in arizona, not surprisingly, within a car crash, the arizona hospital put

him in an automobile and drove him across mid to mexico and left him in a hospital. luckily his family was able to contact a california hospital that was willing to take command they got him back into the country for recovery in a california hospital. how big the problem is this? they have reported 800 documented cases. these are just once the document. most hospitals are trying to do this without anybody knowing about it. the costs of repatriation are high. obviously the care is not nearly as good for many people outside the country as it is here. the biggest problem i think is one of informed consent and this sort of goes to the padilla

argument from earlier. one of the things not being told to many patients are the immigration consequences of leaving, even documented immigrants who are injured and hospital has taken upon themselves to say we will fly you back to your home country to recuperate. nobody is telling them even though you are a lawful resident here if you are gone for six months than your ability to become a permanent resident may be jeopardized and so there are many people falling victim to that. often times, and this goes to the story that came across my desk that i want to relate to end this, there are often guardians appointed to these people who don't have the best interest of the patient in mind. we are all used the concept of a guardian being appointed to then look out for the interests of the person they are there to guard and to act in their best

interest. i had a case a couple years ago regarding a man who was a patient in fairfax hospital who was a patient from nepal. you miss documented on a diversity visa. naipaul is one of the countries that qualifies for diversity visas. he was authorized to work, worked at a local gas station and while crossing route 50, he didn't judge how quickly the traffic was coming and was hit by a car, was in a coma in fairfax hospital. his 20 when-year-old daughter was able to come over to be with him but the hospital convinced the virginia state court to rather than appointing her his guardian to appoint a lawyer who the hospital had chosen to be

the guardian under the pretext that she wouldn't be sophisticated in the ways of u.s. law never mind she would most likely have the interests of her father at heart. this guy, this lawyer decided it was in this man's best interest even though he was on life-support, and feeding tubes, to have a plane chartered for him, put him on this plane with all this machinery and fly him back to nepal. the one caveat being his daughter had his passport and refused to give it up. that they under no sense were eager to go to court. they wanted her to turn over the passport to the hospital and for them to put him on this plane and off he would go. we will likely able to resolve that pretty readily because fairfax's general counsel was probably smarter than other

hospitals. when we forwarded some of the instances such as the florida case where the hospital was found in contempt of court and personal-injury suits that result in this sort of actions they decided they changed their mind and did rehabilitative care for the man, but it led me to think that there are perhaps -- this is going on more than we know about. i guess i would leave you with if you do ever hear of anything like this going on, know that it is -- there is some abuse that can happen with this and to -- perhaps the patient or their families should be seeking assistance. >> thank you, matthew.

that hits home in this sense of how real this could be for any of us. i know in virginia some moving traffic violations could constitute a misdemeanor. for even a green card holder that could be disaster. with that, i think we will open up to questions from the audience and get some last comments from the panel. with that, to make sure we have enough time for your questions. >> is this on? if you are representing a client and you make an assertion to file a court document and later discovered that the client doesn't have lawful immigration status what are you supposed to do? i looked at the model rules, you have conflicting rules. one says the tribunal, the other

says the confidence of the plant should be kept. >> you mean if you have made an assertion that the person does have -- >> lawyers have -- >> there's something wrong with -- filing an action on behalf of a client that doesn't end when they -- their immigration status is and implicated isn't that you have a duty to volunteer -- >> i think there was a case where a lawyer was disciplined for failing to -- they made an assertion to the department of labor and some sort of filing and they were disciplined for failing to correcting the. >> i would assume if you had told the department -- trying to think why this would come up. if you told the department of labor's this person at work authorization or something that was part of the case and later found out that fact was not true i would think you would have a

duty to correct that but normally in a typical wage theft case that is not an element of the claim. an element of the claim isn't that they were authorized to work, just the they did work, they performed the work. i actually haven't ever been put in that situation. i don't know if anyone else has. >> i haven't. i already know my client's status for the most part. what i think the answer depends on is what we are talking about. i think if you say in an immigration filing that my client entered on x date at x location and obtain x status that is relevant material for the case 99% of the time. in the criminal context, again, i think it is not relevant on the habeas side but it depends on the nature. >> there is actually a set of laws that are in conflict with

each other on this point. for example for people who are filing matters before the department of homeland security, the components of the department of justice for immigration review there are federal regulations that require certain disclosures to the court or government agency with the tribunal as you mentioned. but before the tribunal, generally a requirement for attorneys as a matter of state law also and we talk about what the model rules are and how each state has adopted the model rules or some other version of the rules, those rules before the tribunal can be different from what federal regulations are. those things are in conflict but even more so there are duties of confidentiality as well to clients and that would be a matter of state rule as well as federal regulations. this is a big issue for immigration practitioners because we do have a duty to the

confidentiality which are counterbalanced to duties to the tribunal. it depends on the context you are looking at the situation. that is always important. once you know the context, you look at where to go from there. >> any questions? >> i wanted the back to padilla really quick. in terms of informing the client of their immigration consequences once a conviction is made how much is informing them? working on a case, when the judge said it you tell your client there are immigration consequences, the answer was yes and it is like what does that mean? how much is informing? do you have to say if you are convicted of what we say, you will have this consequence, it will be an aggravated felony and you won't get this released?

is that how explicit you need to be more generally say there will be immigration consequences? >> the supreme court says it depends. the supreme court, the statute in question with padilla was drugs. and was clear on the face of the session you have these drugs in your deportable. no question the supreme court was saying if the statute is clear, this conviction is going to lead to deportation and you have a duty to say not just there are immigration consequences but you are removable. what about this or that? in fact, contrary to -- in the past there has been a myth about complexity or lack thereof in immigration law when in fact it is extraordinarily complex. there are parts of the statute

that will be more complicated and you are putting together something from virginia or whatever it is because apparently to supply the statute names. applying that to your immigration analysis could be more complicated. i am not sure how you d chairman wind is so complicated you have to go out and get -- i was thinking if you don't know the answer at all you should immediately go get an immigration attorney and that is what i advise criminal attorneys. >> that is a good approach. what the padilla bench said, the supreme court, if the consequences are clear, you have to advise the criminal defendant what those consequences are. what the supreme court was contemplating a few open up the immigration nationality act and go to section 237 which is the primary section that talks about

how you can be deported from the united states and talk about what the criminal issues are that render deportation and removeability, in you see that statute what the problem is and that is fine. as we all talk about immigration law is complex. what constitutes an aggravated felony depends. you have to consult with different parts of the immigration nationality act and to look at court cases that interprets what things are aggravated felony. not just talking about federal court the state court, administrative law, board of immigration appeals as well, got to look at regulations and interpretations given to those regulations by the differing departments. it is very complex sell it is very clear, someone commits a murder, that is specified in the statute, you know that will result in deportation or removal. something little less clear. i always believe you should refer out to immigration counsel

to be able to give proper advice on that matter. >> also situation -- i am side -- of course i agree it is case law, the statues, everyone has to engage in statutory analysis, categorical and modify categorical and maybe not but also actually there are circumstances of the client so a person, this is what i mean by gets complicated because it could be this person entered the united states lovely ten years ago and never departed. is this person deportable for having an offense in the first five years? no. automatically look at the offense, is in fact really complicated and of course there is the other section of the lot and i personally have said to criminal defense attorneys i think you need to refer out all the time. and there are different ways they do it and it is good for them and covers them and they have to cover themselves because

the duties on them now. >> i will frequently be hired as an extra witness and i will do research and repair and expert legal opinion that will be submitted to a judge or asked to testify in court if need be to explain what the immigration consequences are. i meet meet with a criminal defendant directly or work with the criminal defense attorney. in those cases you can really plan what are the safe harbors, what are the things people can work with that have the least immigration consequences. i would always recommend that if someone is not a u.s. citizen or immigration attorney involved in a criminal charge. >> is that what has been raised because of padilla or idealistically we want them to refer to? i think the supreme court says if it is clear then you have an affirmative duty to inform them of what the consequence is. if it is not clear you have an affirmative duty to tell them

that there is there are immigration consequences related to that. then i think that is the only tricky part which is okay, do you just say this is really i don't understand, you have to go get an immigration attorney and i think the answer is to cover yourself as a criminal attorney the answer is you have to go get someone and we have to get this advice. if you as a criminal attorney know that your client, the defendant, has x why is the immigration status and may be something, you are not doing yourself a favor for the future by not forcing them into getting -- if they don't want to do it they don't want to do it but you got to cover yourself. lot of criminal defense attorney sino will make the call on their own. they just want to know. >> thank you. we have the next question come of the touches on a question i had before you. for each of you i am curious to

know how your practice has changed or how you have seen other practicees of other attorneys change in light of by the idc but as you touched upon it has had an impact on the way people run their practices particularly in how you see this play out in cases where because of a place where you are in the proceedings, time or resources also are limited to manage the case, i use seeing that attorneys are in fact branch in out and having consulting with colleagues in other areas of law in order to meet these standards? >> i am here so i will go first. i think there is a difference. i have to say that a lot of criminal attorneys i have worked with in virginia over the last ten years prior to padilla have been aware there are immigration consequences so i have long-term relationships with many attorneys where we're going back

and forth discussing it and for some think there is a change and for others there's not. other people are already aware this is something that affected their client and that is good. in terms of the -- i don't personally -- i do consult with some attorneys but i'm a regular practitioner as well. there is a place for that and a place where they really need this is in public defender's offices and those public defender's offices where they have that that is really amazing in my opinion. i am longstanding relationship with the pd office with fairfax county, alexandria county and arlington county and i do my best with that because the community is important to me but there's a limit to how much you can get. in maryland they have people who know so much more inside their office and the district of columbia and have the funding for it which i think it's remarkable. >> it is not just in the criminal defense context.

we reach out from attorneys but i do a lot of family law work and get hired as an expert attorney in family law cases where there are immigration components. i will be asked to advisor on a premarital agreement for example or to help somebody figure out whether child support is going to be an issue or how child custody is affected by international property rights, attorneys general lee who look at their clients as people who they want to help and want to surf on a holistic sense will be more likely to reach out for immigration assistance. i think attorneys to look at their job as being very discreet and limited and just in the context of the law in which they practice those attorneys are not going to ask anybody anything that relates to their cases. not for tax issues, bankruptcy issues or any other area of law because they just see they are doing a very discreet service some i think in those cases i try to educate attorneys when i

get a chance that they need to think about the overall approach and the impact that things can have, you can't just look at something in a very small box because people in our communities have a great number of legal issues and that touched on in many different areas like a criminal matter. >> to one area where i increasingly now give people the opportunity to have a second opinion is i get asked what are the risks particularly if i have an undocumented immigrant who has been a victim of discrimination or wage that and want to know what the risk is when they bring the suits of deportation. >> or personal injury. >> i tell them in my own experience i never had a client run afoul with that. but they should probably for peace of mind talk with someone else. i will give the referrals that

consult on that. >> this plays out in a pretty good way for all the clients involved in it. the entire fraud matter where a victim was being prosecuted because he had assisted in the overall scheme as well and so maryland public defender who was representing the victim in this criminal prosecution preferred to the person in his office that nose for recriminations issues and is there to advise criminal defense attorneys about possible immigration consequences and through working with the client, through her being involved as well realize this was actually a victim and was able to sort of refer the case and get it so they didn't prosecute or move forward on the case. i can even results on not prosecuting the matter when you have someone who can say this is an immigrant victim of a crime who because of issues with interpretation is being

prosecuted and because of some confusion are on the case. i have seen it play out that one time very well. >> how can you find out through the freedom of information act if a person is an american citizen, illegal or illegal immigrant? >> i guess you could file to c usc uscif. >> a birth certificate confirms a u.s. citizen i guess. but in terms of that i don't think you can get that information directly from them. >> not from -- >> not you as a random person. the person who wants the information for the department of homeland security is the person is that person. i want my file cockfighting u.s. ci

cis. >> you can do census data research and you can to other research through the government's national records agencies, they will do for example if you want to find out if somebody came over on a ship manifest, that information is available under the freedom of information act. some of it is published online so you can find out if somebody came to the united states but for someone's immigration records those are really a matter of privacy. so the federal government only releases those records to the individual who is requesting them. personal records were designated like an attorney. >> if you're contemplating a lawsuit against that person and trying to find out his status. >> if you sue somebody you have the right to discovery. if your question is relevant to your lawsuit you can keep that information in discovery. usually immigration status citizenship would not be

relevant to most matters that legal in the united states but perhaps in your particular case it might be relevant and subject to the discovery to the dispute about a judge to resolve that for you. >> prior to discovering or instituting a lawsuit how would you find out the status of a person? >> i don't think you can. if the person is a u.s. citizen you could do a regular. those breast documents are available ironically but other than that i don't think you can. >> it is possible if someone is a public figure you can get more information about that person. you could ask the person if you want as well. >> said the person has a license of some type. pilot's license. would he have to -- be able to check with the faa to see if he is a citizen or non citizen? >> i don't know the answer to the faa a question. i think that is going to be

regulated. whenever the agency is it is going to be regulated by one of the regulations are regulating that particular agency so if there's a licensing requirement whether it is this a requirement for federal requirement, then i think you would call them for the application but i don't know if they would issue that, i don't know that the status question will be a requirement. so there for that information may not even be there. >> the federal government is controlled by the freedom of information act and the federal privacy act so no matter what federal agency you go to your going to be governed by the same rules and the same all. >> thank you. any other questions? no more questions? i would like to know also -- if we could just some up. anne schaufele touchdown remedies available. as far as malpractice more

generally, the situation we discussed today, can you talk a bit about at the state level this is very important, different remedies available too to clients. >> the remedy depends on the rights we are looking for. i can only speak to the remedy of habeas in virginia because that is all i do on that level. for me and for my client. as i said it has already been limited by the commonwealth so that is the end of that. hopefully we are going to have the case ended will be one that falls within the requirements of the statute and we will get it in. >> how does that differ from your cases that the federal level too? in general? like your cases you might be

handling for immigration or asylum or etc. at the federal level? >> you mean the criminal cases? >> is there difference between state and federal? >> only to the extent that whenever the criminal outcome is, whether it is state or federal is going to have an effect on whatever is happening in the immigration context. i personally do not handle our habeas in the commonwealth of virginia because although i am licenses there i am not a criminal practitioner and so i have one in my house. my husband is in the firm. it is good to have that so that you can work on those issues and of course that would be a remedy. it translates itself in immigration court later rundown the road. with respect to the other issues that were raised, i would prefer to come back on that because i think at the end the negative won again because i think what

they're doing in maryland and in the district of real inspiration. we should have more in the commonwealth. the commonwealth has with the virginia state bar has, unauthorized practice of law committee and they do what they do in the context of the bar. the bar is designed to police lawyers, not necessarily non lawyers. their volunteer lawyers on that committee. it is a long road when you file a complaint with the virginia state bar they can only do the investigation and refer the cases to law-enforcement agencies. at an end of the day but virginia needs is a better statutes not unlike the one we are going to hear about from john and anne schaufele but we need more bite. we need to have more than just the possibility of having a platform misdemeanor hanging over your head. >> thank you. >> one of the issues we ought to touch base on at this point is

maryland has a specific statute that gives remedies when people use non lawyerss to provide terrible ineffective assistance. the maryland immigration consultant act is in the commercial what article 14-3301 through 3306 i believe. yes. the statute actually will prohibit immigration consultants from providing legal advice or legal services related to immigration matters but it goes beyond that. i had a little bit of involvement in a consulting role regarding the creation of a language. one thing it does require, immigration consultant has to have a written contract with individual about what services are that would be provided. they can't be legal services, they can only secretarial services such as translations or

typing down information as provided. the statute does describe the creation of legal services to providing forms, how to fill out forms, filing forms for them. and the creation of legal services. in addition to this and immigration consultant has to post in a conspicuous place in the business, the person is not an attorney license to practice law so that is clearly visible to people who might be seeking consultant services. the statute if there is a violation does provide the ability to sue civilly, to be able to obtain not just recuperation for the money paid to the consultant but three times that amount in damages and provides compensation for the attorney who is bringing the lawsuit. that is an important incentive for attorneys to be able to bring to such cases because then seeking compensation as well

does create criminal penalty as well, up to year in jail, at $1,000 fine or both, that is her in fraction. we is seen in these cases immigration consultants are not just taking on one case. it does have dozens of cases to bring in all of these potential charges, talking about a substantial penalty that can be applied. none of the older statutes. have been around less and ten years of hasn't been applied very frequently. but maryland's attorney-general has created a web site and provided information to the public to try to encourage people to come forward so there are remedies in this area. >> i would say the struggle d.c. even with maryland immigration consultant act is often it is too late when a client realizes they have been a victim of fraud to use the act because of the

1-year statute of limitations so that is something we're struggling to get the information to the community before the issue happens or directly after so that they can take advantage of some of these remedial measures. i would also say one of the issues we have seen with using the consumer protection act in the d.c. virginia context is they may jump ship or move all their money somewhere where we don't have access to it anymore. so i was interested to hear manuel say that, getting $11 million from puerto rico because lots of clients are still owed money from him so when he is released i am curious to know if we can look into that. that is probably the next step. i would say the tools in our tool to our great. we need more of a path to law

enforcement and more involvement and more concerted effort to address this issue and to assist victims on all fronts those that if there is a civil prosecution and consumer protection in office for instance could prosecute italy under the maryland immigration consultant act that they could file motions and eliminate to protect the status of the immigrant complaint. ..