also need to set targets. targets are really important. when you're the prime minister japan has says he'll be 70% of women in the workforce -- 70% of the women will access to workforce. when you have the prime minister of korea saying the same thing, they're measurable results to be had. if you look at what the netherlands have done, eliminate all the discrimination, that doesn't improve the situation of dutch women accessing the job market. when you look at what the president of brazil did followed by president recess to subordinate certain indemnities, allocations and other welfare benefits to the fact that women can actually go to work and show up for work so the people who

eventually prevented over in the way because there's money in state does change the market entirely. we look at numbers. we look at the upside, the barriers and the obstacle. i give you a example. in many countries, tax is assessed on a family unit. guess why? the marginal rate of taxation applies much more heavily on the second page. guess what, women are generally paid less for the same job. they are the secondary ways. so they are taxed much more heavily because of the taxation system in place. if you change that instead of having a family unit, you have taxation of the individual and not discrimination, that this incentive goes away. those are the kinds of things the imf for the first time in studying in details and with empirical data.

[applause] >> if i could just add, you know, for many of us and before the lights when in my eyes i could actually see people i knew a tear. for many of us come in the argument for women's equality, for women's rights was first and foremost a moral argument. and it was a political argument. but i think where it is now as an economic argument is in many respects the maturing of the case women's rights are human rights, the vows we very important way of enlisting greater support. you are well known for your writing. when it comes to economic

activity you will not be as productive as you would otherwise. >> it's not only smart, it's strategic. >> it's very strategic. where women are more equal, you have less instability, fewer conflicts, greater democracy and accountable government. you know, these go hand-in-hand. [cheers and applause] part of what christine has done and i will toot her horn. the imf has only recently begun looking at the statistics because the imf has these three principal missions. governments listen to the imf. so when they make the case that increasing women's access to an full participation in the economy will raise your gross domestic product and that is true even in the united states. it's not just true somewhere else. the percentages are not as great here, but even in the united

states, what we are learning in sheryl sandberg with lean in, the report of google in the last 48 hours, the way women are treated is often much uglier, but no less damaging, not only for the individual women were meant, but the economy as a whole. that's a profound message i hope more and more people and institutions will help us make. [applause] >> let's go from the public to more personal. his is still a double standard in the media about how we talk about women in public life? [laughter] want to specifically because i had a lot of fun and i came across story. i can't believe it's true, the remaining with the foreign leader. you tied your hair back and when he came into the room she was really because he had heard when your hair was back in that you were to live or news.

[laughter] when your hair is short it means you will devalue them? >> i'll tell you, i had my hair a bit longer last october for the annual meeting. a journalist actually wrote a story, full page saying that because my hair was longer there would no longer be hair cut in the debt of the sovereign state. >> i guess that answers the question. >> you know, really tom -- [laughter] >> human sacrifice. >> there is a double standard. obviously, we have all either experienced it or at the very least cnet. and there is a deep set of cultural, psychological views that are manifest through this double standard. i remember as a young lawyer,

and this was so many years ago, there was a column in the paper in arkansas and it was advice about the workplace. one of the questions that i read one day whiskey or so is though, a man who wrote it and the writer said i've got a promotion. for the first time going to have my own office and i don't know how to decorate it. do you have any advice about the work place? with initials like h.r. so the answer was i can't tell from your initials whether you are male or female because if your mail, i recommend if you have a family, pictures in your office because then everyone will know you're responsible, reliable family man. if you are a female, don't have any pictures of your family because they may think he wanted to concentrate on your work. i remember reading not in this for so long ago.

and yet, some of those attitudes we know persist. if they persist in as open and in many ways transformational society as ours is right now on the 21st century, you know how deep they are. that is why it is important that we that we service them and why we talk about them. you know, help men and women recognize when they are crossing over from an individual judgment, which we are all prone to make and have a right to make about him by the common or woman into a stereotype come into applying some kind of gender-based characterization of a person. the double standard is alive and well and i think in many respects the media is the principle propagator of its persistent and i think the media needs to be a more

self-consciously aware of that. >> madam lagarde, answer the same question, but also talk about you had a major international law firm, first finance minister, first of the imf, but as a woman, is it bigger, thinner? how is it different trying to be a pioneer they are been here? many people don't know you did your senior year of high school in the united states. [laughter] >> you know, the glass figurine is different, yes. but there is equally a glass ceiling there as well. it is different because i was privileged to go up in a country, france, which has always regarded a woman go into work is something that was either necessary right after the second world war because there had been so many casualties, so many people had died from his

the women had participate in the work and the fact reason the schools in the service and i mean not to be righteous tree, but generally the goal was also convinced that it was mrs. kerry to bring the one man and he was the first one who gave the french women the right to vote and he was in power for long enough to actually make a mark. so there's always been there at least a solid society financing a child care centers and institutions that would actually help families, notches mothers to actually go to work unlike in germany and italy. in that way i was myself. but there are equal class yelling nonetheless. when i was hired as a young as

those yet or rather when i was contributed fiascoes yet, i went to the best law firm in france and they say the curriculum is fine. okay, will give you a job. i say great. what can i expect? don't expect to in parliament. why is that? he looked at me and that because you're a woman. so that was many years ago. i'm not sure that it has changed massively in the last 30 years or so. there is still that element of class you when and the smile is this the myself and board meetings and discussions when there are many issues around the table. whenever i speak about women's issue, women's access to the job market commenced a share in the economy. i see that little smile. and then i say, yes, i'm the

woman who talks about women. [laughter] [applause] >> given what you've both said, i know there's so many women here, pursuit or we don't women who would be interested in what is your best at rice to young women who want to rise up in this world, had the kindness pioneered careers you've had or the sexism and biases still exist? >> well, i get asked that question quite often, which i think is also quite telling that it is on the minds of so many young women. i always said, you know, you have to play both in outside and a game. on the outside, you have defined ways to raise these issues that are truly rooted in sexism or

old-fashioned, irrelevant ex-notations about women's lives, not in -- not just score a point, but to change your mind. so when christine was talking about sitting in the room and i've often been the only woman in a room and i've also had the experience of talking about women's issues and see the eyes glaze over in the mind just wondering. you have to think of some way to bring it back but i know you have a daughter. he must be proud of her. what do you want her to do? you have to think of ways to keep focus on what it is you're trying to convince the other person, predominately a man to believe. so there's a whole outside peace visit. the inside is equally important. one of my great predecessors and personal heroines was eleanor roosevelt. she famously said in the 1920s but if a woman wants to be involved in the public and in

her case politics, but it's true in professions from a, and better, she has to grow skin as thick as the height of a rhinoceros. so even back then, this is an obvious point of concern in contention. too many young women i think are harder on themselves than serpents dance is more and. they are too often selling themselves short. they too often take criticism personally and that is seriously. you should take criticism seers because you might learn something. but you can't let a crush you and you have to be resilient enough to keep moving forward despite whatever the personal setbacks, even insults that come your way might be. i take a sense of humor about yourself and others. this is hard advice i am now putting forth here.

so it's not like you wake up and understand this. [applause] but it is -- it is a process and you need other women. you did your friends to support you and when it male friend as well as female ones. you need good role models. all of that is true. but at the end of the day you have to be good if you have high aspirations. you have to be well-educated, well prepared and willing to take your chances when they come your way and cut yourself a little bit of slack. i'll end by saying at this point in my life and career of employees so many young people. one of the differences is whenever i would say to a young woman in what used to do this, take on the fixture was on stability, move up, almost invariably do is say to you think i can't?

or do you think i'm ready? it would be asking you if i didn't think you could admit you are ready. that is often the first a young woman. when asked the young man if he wants to move up, he goes how high, how fast and when do i start quiets there is just a hesitancy still words and women's work that we are going to have to continue to address some more young women feel free for their own ambitions to be successful. >> just a quick follow-up on that. [applause] you've talked about all this media attention, but there's only one person who gets to call your mom. what do you learn from her? >> she has worked very hard and very well and i think has kind of taken the best from bill and

me faithfully. she has come to you know, really high standards, but she also is passionate about her work. with her and her friend and what i've learned seeing as how how much they support each other. it was still somewhat rare when i was a young lawyer. there weren't that many young women lawyers, but now there is a very substantial group of young professional women that my daughter and her friends are part of and they really do have each other's back and i think we need to do more of that and encourage more young women to support each other as they seem at a daughter and her friends. >> matt lagarde on the advice question and also your son. >> i agree 100% with what melanne said about what women

should do and not women should do. i would add three things. one is as a priority, get yourself the best possible education you can as a young woman and throughout your life because while we are good, unfortunately we have to be better. so we have to be better. the third thing is i obviously believe women are better equipped than men to deal with all sorts of situations. i'm not saying women are better than men, but they are better equipped to do with all sorts of situations and able to adjust, which is a sign of intelligence. [applause] i mean -- so as a consequence of that, if my theory is correct, we are the threat and we are a

threat to men. i am serious. so we progress, when we affirm ourselves, we should not threaten them. they're okay, but they should be terrified of what we can achieve because we can achieve lots and lots of fabulous things in more than they can. hot [applause] and that is something i learned from nice runs. [laughter] the mac i stepped out of. that's actually a perfect segue to my next question. you both raise to these amazing height. is there any other job -- i mean [cheers and applause]

comptroller of the state of illinois are some green. you know what i mean. let me ask you a different way. when you think about the country -- when you think about america and you think about what we accomplish in the future, what are the courier of these? >> actually tom, that is the right way to go out of because because -- as i think we need that kind of discussion in our country. i spent four years traveling the world and we have for the united states. what to 112 countries nearly a million miles, all the

statistics and i came away from the next. even more confident and positive about our motto, about her potential. i don't want to sound chauvinistic, but i was proud to represent the united states. having said that, leadership is not a birthright that you inherit images keeps going. just as christine and i were saying you have to work hard, you have to be prepared, so do nations. we've got work ahead of us and that will require us reaching something of a consensus. there will always be disagreements about the particulars, but we've got to figure out how are going to make our economy do enough jobs so particularly young people, the 6,000,018 to 24-year-old americans who are neither in school nor a work of a ladder of

opportunity they are able to start climbing that produce inclusive prosperity. i'm a product of the american middle class. i am grateful for everything i was given as a child to prepare me to have a fascinating life obvious way. i don't want to see other children denied that opportunity. it is an economic issue. the moral issue. it's a political issue. i want to get back to evidence-based decision-making. there is too much that has gone on in our politics recently and that is just pure ideology, pure partisanship. the disguise of commercial interests behind the political façade and the result is we are kind of marching backwards instead of forwards. so from my perspective, we often

reach these points in american has eerie. we're trying to decide which way we go, whether we can validate, whether we embrace the future, how we go about doing it. it's one of those times and if we are going to be true to what else i'm aware that election coming up this year and we have to be paid attention to that because that will set the parameters for a lot of what can or should be done. as christine was saying, the administration's certainly supported imf reforms. we think they are in our interest, the world's interests, but the congress colla wrapped a around misconceptions frankly and political infighting, mostly again the white house. we need a very open, evidence-based mature conversation. they may lead to places that

when the choices, the compromises an essential part of running a democracy. people who tonight are right for compromise. i want to see it start on the editorial pages where you write about this and try to make really good points that i think are important, but we need in people's kitchens and offices and on the field watching your kids play soccer. we need people to start talking and to not be afraid to talk somebody who disagrees with you. if we don't begin to talk across all the lines that divide us, we will get further and further separate. we can afford to do that. [applause] >> quick follow-up and then i want to conclude with modern

lagarde. when you look at your time as secretary of state, what are you most proud of and what you feel it's unfinished and would love to have another crack at? >> well, i really see -- that was good. [laughter] >> look, i really see my role as secretary and leadership in general in a democracy as they please. you run the best race you can come to hand off the baton. some of what hasn't been finished may go on to be finished. when president obama asked me to be secretary of state and i agreed, we had the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we have two wars. we have continuing threats from all kinds of corners around the world that we had to deal with. it is a perilous time frankly. what he said to me if i have to

be dealing with the economic crisis. i wanted to go represent us around the world and was a good division of labor because we needed to make it clear to the rest of world we are going to get our house in order. we were going to stimulating road get back to positive growth and work with our friends and partners. so i think we did that. i'm proud of the stabilization is a solid leadership says he provided that i think now leaves us to be able to deal with problems like ukraine because we have not to worried about a massive collapse in europe and china trying to figure out the bond holdings in the problems we were accessories. i think we really restored american leadership in the best sense that one again people begin to rely on not to look at us as setting the values,

setting standards. i just don't want to lose that because we have dysfunctional political situation in washington. and of course a lot of particulars. i am finishing my book synovial to read all that you you see zacatecas also laid the predicate without the sanctions is something people don't see. >> i write a whole chapter about this because this is the kind of slow boring words of max weber talks about in politics, which also applies to me. it is painstaking, microscopic advantages in putting together the international coalition to impose tough sanctions on iran is but eventually changed the calculus inside the iranian government and brought them to the negotiating table now for a coaster and here we two readings. but it took an enormous amount of effort on the part of a lot of us to put that into motion. so yes, part of the work we did.

[applause] >> secretary clinton, thank you. not an lagarde, i was reading the economist the other day and a set of the e.u. were a company, its board would've been backed. if it were a football team, it would've been relegated to the second tier. it needs new leadership. christine lagarde can be the change. president of the european commission, which should be very interesting. [laughter] [cheers and applause] i had to ask you. but seriously, when you -- at least when you leave your post

as m.d. at the imf, what is that you hope you will accomplish and left behind because this is really sad -- he says this job i'm incredibly critical time for the global economy. >> well, i hope i can leave behind an institution that is confident. part of the work were doing around the world, which has support where women have a place and have a voice, not only around the border table, but at the moment has 24 men and no women except me, but also throughout the entire organization. >> i know how you feel today. [laughter] >> but we are not near. >> that's true. >> and where we will have

provided meals are at it down practical value, u.s. stays or sticks in my mind. when i went to man mark a few months ago and she said to me, i want to thank the imf for what you've done for my country and how you felt us improve the economic situation and go one more step in the direction of the. i cried. you can do many of those things around the world. i will have done something good. [cheers and applause]

♪ ♪ double >> tonight on c-span2, but tv in prime time featuring books on world war ii. at 8:00 p.m., author of operation paperclip. the and program that brought not a scientist to america. then the book the pope and mussolini. the secret history and the rise

of fascism in europe. later, a panel the russian on the monuments men. not to use in the greatest treasure hunt in history. booktv in prime time on this week starting at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> tonight on c-span from a panel discussion on the future of conservatism and the republican party. among the speakers, the national affairs founding editor and warmer white house domestic policy staff member from the george w. bush administration. here's some of what he said. >> i think one way to think about the problem we are facing is the change that we are facing. our idea of what america is issued by a postwar america that

couldn't possibly come back and it didn't exist before the war is never going to exist again anywhere in the world. the country that one out for in a way that strengthen its economy while all this competitors burned each other to the ground. so for decades they could basically contain in itself the growth of global capitalism and all votes did rise in a way, at least to some extent. that model defines our expectations and away that will be very difficult to change. i had the experience last year of reading the new book and this started in exactly the same way. what an introduction that is pure nostalgia for the early 1960s. and they are right, those are the years that we should miss. but our politics is far too oriented as to how can we bring that back rather than what does the world look like now and how can we make the most of

america's strengths today. that's not just a conservative problem but both are are intellectually exhausted and in a way that is very bad for the country. >> the government labor was big. and there was a lot of economic dynamism of the same time. but that doesn't mean that we can do that today. >> what is the future? >> you guys were busy on the thing that you call the internet. [laughter] >> i think technically we had fun. >> not just technically, we really did. >> you can see more of the panel on the future of conservativism at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> cryptology is an ancient art

hurtig is back to the very beginning of human history and we don't like go back that far. but we do have some interesting artifacts that really help people to understand the need for cryptology. when we talk about the united states, it is important to note that the making and breaking of posts will has been a part of america even before we gained our independence. one of our most precious artifacts is referred to as the jefferson box. truth in advertising is very important to note that we do not have any definitive list of evidence that this particular device belongs to thomas jefferson. but there are some interesting facts about it. one, this device was found in an antique store very close to monticello. and it appears to have the ability to cipher french and english and we know that jefferson was ambassador to france and probably the most

compelling point is that there is a drawing very similar to this in his privately for street even so, we can't say for sure that jefferson owned. the will can say is that this is an excellent example of how people use cryptology. >> from the national cryptologic news museum sunday at six and 10 eastern part of american has a tv this weekend on c-span3. >> american university's washington college of law hosted a discussion tuesday on legal issues facing documented and undocumented immigrants. next we hear from a panel of hispanic we will legal advocates discussing possible legal services and hospitals reporting immigrants who cannot pay for medical care. this panel is two hours.

smack good afternoon, everyone. thank you so much for coming and thank you for this great conference and i would like to thank everyone that puts the together. so as we said, my name is fernando rivero and i'm president of the hispanic bar association of the district of columbia. and we are in our 37th year and we are a core part of the latino lawsuit community here in the district of columbia. we do this because it is the right thing to do. and we do this because we are here to support those of you who are set to become lawyers, successful ones. and those of you who are in the audience are practicing leaders as well. so my bit of the infomercial if you can check out our organization and all of the benefits that it offers you as

well. including an annual convention that we are going to be putting on with the hispanic national bar association in september. one of the focuses that we offer is the focus serving the community. as justice sotomayor recently said, ours is really the only profession where helping others is part of this. and we do ethically you have to understand that we have an amazing amount of power as a latino lawyer. latino lawyers bring their families out of poverty. and you don't even have to be a lawyer.

and so we know the answer. and he has agreed to which the hispanic community holtz's attorneys and esteem is a good indication and we want to protect us community of from those practitioners who shall we say are somewhat lacking. you have to take one class or credit and you need a small amount of a given law school. but it impacts everything you

do. and we also have to do that with respect to legal services they provide whether paid or not. and we have the same standard of ethical conduct if you have a part of that for free. i would like to play close attention to make sure that we understand the importance of serving the community and the importance of understanding that you are paragon to the latino community and we are here with all of the other ones to ensure that you have the resources that you need to be the best and i thank you so much for your time

and i look forward to speaking with you all later in the conference. i will be around as well. [applause] >> we are honored to have manuel leiva who served as president. >> yes, that is right. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm the current president of the association for the commonwealth of virginia. in the next group of panelists i'm going to talk to you about, those of us who practice in virginia have known all too well the problems from the commonwealth and within the last

year that hispanic bar association and its members have prevented that in our state and we have practice in this along with other latino organizations and have written a letter to the governor urging them to sign legislation which was penalized those that see their statutory authority with services which under virginia law they are not allowed to do so. and i'm also proud of the fact that some of our members

assisted local prosecutors within this pastor to go after them. so the gentleman by the name of luis rivera is actually received a two-year prison sentence. and the reason i want to bring this up to you is because those of you want to become attorneys, we police ourselves, we are self-regulating. we should also police those who

dabble in the legal profession. and by that i mean those who are not trained as lawyers, but those who we know are out there giving legal advice and taking money from members of our community and more often than not, causing more damage than good. so i will quickly highlight mr. ramirez and what he did in our community. he was not a lawyer. never went to law school. and we submitted an application and paid $5 and became the republic. which under virginia law means that he was only able to test the signatures on documents. he was a con man and he was a savvy business marketer. and he was able to convince a radio station in virginia to give him a one-hour program where he dispensed legal advice on the air. and of course he got his telephone number in his address for people to come the and if they had any legal issues that they wanted addressed.

and so mr. ramirez was also able to convince spanish print media to write pieces on him. i'm sorry for my was i had an overhead projector because i have pieces that i've written about him. i will does highlight some that are pretty interesting and entertaining. and the one was an article that we had written about him that the democrats were to tittering running him for the u.s. senate and that the internal democratic poll shows that if he ran with the former governor alan, and he was also a former u.s. senator, that he would win that race. and he also had a piece written about him after he pled guilty

and the puerto rican government had just awarded him the title of chief lobbyist for the puerto rican government and they paid him $11 million to lobby state congressmen and senators to pass statehood on behalf of the puerto rican commonwealth. all of that was done in order to gain credibility with in the latino community. what was interesting about this gentleman was that not only did he charge as much as attorneys said, but in most cases he charged even more and then he took clients away and individuals have very good attorneys and convince those individuals that he was better and he had a political connection and he would show them the newspaper articles. again, they would hire him and they would pay him a life-saving

and he would take the cases and more likely than not people went to jail because of his lack of representation. because he was not an immigration attorney even though he's dead that he was. and so what you will hear from our panelists as information that i hope for each of you, even if you don't practice immigration, we hope you will take it to heart. we are self policing is a profession and i ask those of you who have mafeking contact within the community to not only watch what attorneys are doing to our community, but watch what others are doing to our community as well. so thank you. [applause] >> hello, good afternoon. it is my honor to be here today

moderating this distinguished panel and i think everyone is in for an exceptional gathering of attorneys that truly are specialized in this area and not just in policy and political debate that we hear so often about. but in addition with such pragmatic with very rich experiences. so by way of background, i will briefly introduce the subject that we will talk about as well as introducing our panelists. in general we are going to talk about this case he might have hurt so much about. for those of you who might not know, the details on the case, in 2010 this case was essentially decided and existed on related to counseling clients who also had certain immigration

status issues about the broader consequences of criminal convictions on their other potential civil war immigration situations. so the panelists here today are going to talk about not just the role that defense attorneys in criminal cases have with their clients and the duties and ethics behind their role in defending their clients in making sure that the client understands all of the various applications of criminal conviction, but they will also discuss about broader civil law implications and benefits and other ways in which different civil and criminal trials can affect any one individual in a way that makes the representation constitutionally deficient as stated in this case. so what we want to ensure that everyone has her representation that meets their constitutional

rights. that is what i think you will hear largely about and so what needs to be done and the experiences of these practitioners day today. so we have the founding partner in arlington virginia. she keeps a diverse practice, including family, naturalization, business him and asylum cases. also concentrating on federal matters and she is also a great supporter of immigration reform and has frequently spoken to neighborhood associations on the rights of noncitizens in the u.s. and presented before judges and other political and authoritative entities on the issue. ofelia calderon is from maryland. she has practiced in a number of

district courts as well as courts of appeals for the court circuit and she's currently serving as president of my immediate past. and it's dedicated to providing services and she has also served as the dc chapter chair to the immigration in arlington virginia. and ofelia calderon has been constantly speaker and panelist at national conferences and on immigration issues and web seminars and the national immigration project in the fall

of 2005 in portland, oregon. she contributes her time to the board of immigration appeals as well. and she received her law degree from the university of san francisco school of law. the next is the director of litigation at the washington lawyers committee or urban affairs or to act as focuses on the civil rights abuses with its termination, with wage theft, and public accommodations discrimination as well. as a long-time advocate for the rights of immigrants and workers who have suffered from discrimination and mistreatment in their day-to-day work. prior to joining the committee he was a partner at a law firm where he represented on workers who have been trafficked and otherwise abused.

also advocating on issues of accessible housing for detainees as well. before joining, he was an attorney and prior to that he served as a law clerk for william wayne justice, the u.s. district judge for the western district of texas. he was a peace corps volunteer in nepal where he served for two years as a rural instruction generic and he has been recognized also is a rising star and graduating with high honors from the university of texas school of and he earned his atlas from princeton. welcome. so next to him is jonathan green. from the green law firm in

columbia, maryland. he practices before the court of appeals in the u.s. district court for maryland and the u.s. would've appeals for the circuit in the u.s. supreme court. he's also an adjunct professor and he's earned his bachelor's degree from the university of maryland as well as his jd. it's the only attorney for her as both the chair of the maryland state bar association immigration section as well as the virginia chapter. he has also served as a member of the national board of governors and is a member of the nominating committee as well. he has advocated for years before the general assembly on immigration and he currently serves on the conference committee as well as previously serving under the panel is and as the liaison for distance-learning committees. he has published numerous

articles on immigration and family law and he has written many others for the journal of international and comparative law and he is also published a handbook that was released by the american bar association commission on domestic violence. he has represented pro bono clients on behalf of the maryland volunteer lawyers society catholic charities and kids in need of defense. he has also served as a guest lecturer on immigration law at the university of baltimore law school and he frequently serves as an expert witness on immigration matters. and last but not least we have anne schaufele. she is a project attorney who provides direct representation

in dc matters that she's a 2013 graduate of the washington college of law where she was student attorney with the immigrant justice comic and while in law school she was a summer fellow where she researched the scope and the dc metro area. anne schaufele has also been a dean's fellow through the international law clinic. and prior to law school she was a fulbright fellow researching the effects of deportation on immigrants and she served for two years as staff assistant to the aba commission on immigration. thank you all for being here and to walk you through the panel we will start with an overview with its implications on responsibilities and then we will expand a bit visible areas

that i mentioned that are also touched by this decision and by implicating other responsibilities of those representing the immigrant client. we will start with you, ofelia calderon. can you give us an overview what exactly are the duties and can you give us a brief context as to what led to this ruling? [inaudible] >> at the time of the issuance in 2010, she had been a permanent resident of the united states for more than 40 years. and i should point out that the united states had served in the vietnam war and the armed forces and really been a part of the community. in 2001 for whatever reason, he was charged with -- well, he was

arrested and then in the end had multiple charges in this includes possession of her finale at an au weight issue on his tractor. he ended up reading guilty to three counts -- two good distribution of marijuana, which under immigration laws are considered an average contract aggravated felony. and so he was rendered removable from the united states at that moment. so the deal was that he had a criminal attorney ardsley defendant in a criminal court and he was advised by his criminal attorney at pleading guilty would not be a problem for his immigration status so he wouldn't have to worry about

anything. he was wrong. affirmatively wrong. so obviously the proceedings were initiated against him in russia polyp removal. and that is the position that he found himself in. he actually earned his cave in 2004 in context both of our responsibilities are and i'm also why people do this or not. that sort of thing. so he started his journey in 2010 he had granted his own case and this includes immigration consequences that are not merely collateral. it's different for defendants to go back to the courts and say

that i got the wrong advice and now as a result of this advice i'm facing removal from the country and i now have deportation. because there were -- for whatever reason, it was the argument that i think was part of this, that any immigration consequence was collateral to the point of the actual criminal case in the supreme court held that it wasn't collateral but they were so significant in nature and you have a right to effective counsel that includes combatant advice on your immigration consequences and that was the gist of it. supreme court said yes and that means we will apply this which

is the traditional assistance of counsel analysis that is conducted mostly in criminal cases. so this was a really big deal and there's no question about it because it opened the conversation about what is the role of criminal counsel and what do we need to do when we have an immigration client. i should say as we talk more about this that there had been -- we're not going to spend a lot of time on, but i want to say that a subsequent pace from this court said that it's not retroactive and that's something to think about as well as we go forward.

so in any event that is the just a bit even if they have if they advise their attorneys properly. that's the backdrop. >> thank you. >> package is a great setting to talk about how in practice we are seeing that suddenly attorneys managing these housing discrimination cases were toward litigation are suddenly having to lawyerly address immigration consequences within part of the scope of effective representation. so can you talk a bit more about that. the areas of law to focus on criminal convictions. this is setting a precedent for others in law.

>> sure, thanks. many of the issues they face and this does highlight the fact that one you counsel be client, we have to understand how this affects the claim. i practice is focused on civil litigation. primarily in the areas of employment discrimination and waged a public accommodations discrimination. although we don't hold ourselves out this way. about half of our intakes to come from the immigrant community and i think that's largely because of the particular phone ability that the immigrant residents face in employment as well as housing they are going about their daily

lives. and so i think in the first instance but there are many immigrants both documented and undocumented that are often reluctant up for it and be if they have had theirs or a violated because they are afraid potentially of the immigration is. one of the things we have to be sure that we are counts them about his almost all of our civil rights laws, that it doesn't matter whether you are a documented immigrant or u.s. is in or if you are undocumented. normally your rights are the same and the remedies are often different. and that is were becomes most important. so we have had two ongoing cases

in my office lately. pregnancy discrimination, wrongful termination claims and in one case it was a woman who was fired shortly after announcing that she was pregnant. but it turns out that she was not authorized to work. in another case it was a u.s. citizen that was terminated and both of them have right under our federal employment discrimination laws. but the remedies are going to very a great deal. if you're authorized to work, then you are entitled not only to compensatory damages, meaning promotional and mental anguish of back pain, which can often be the larger of the two components. if you're not authorized work and you're not entitled to the economic damages that result

from wrongful termination. so assessing a case in making sure that the client is going forward with a matter really means that you have to be sure that they understand how their immigration status will affect this and that means that you have to be sure that they understand how the status will affect the strength and the size of the potential recovery that they are going to see. to wage that is an area where this comes up very often. i think a lot of workers do not like this. they are reluctant to come forward when they have not been treated fairly. many think that they don't have the authorization to work. so that is not true. if you have worked with have not

been paid correctly under the law, regardless of your immigration status and whether you're authorized work or not, you are entitled to payment for that work. and so the only difference being that if an employer retaliated against you for complaining about your lack of overtime pay or minimum-wage pay and decides to fire you because of it, you would not be entitled to be reinstated back in your job. whereas if you are authorized to work, you have those greater protection. so that is very meaningful. so if i have a client come to me and say that i work at a job that i'm not authorized work out. i'm working at this job or not been paid the minimum wage or overtime and i would like to try to recover those wages, i have to make sure that i am counseling them to know that yes, you're entitled to that and

we can do something about it. to do keep in mind that if your employer decides that when we raise this issue and they decide to fire you, you're going to be out of a job and i cannot -- the law will not force them to reinstate you. so in a civil context we have to take this whatever we can. we have two is best for one's immigration status is and how that affects the vice we, as lawyers, are able to give them. so i think maybe that will circle back. >> shirt. actually what you just touched upon, it's a nice segue to a john touched upon. we are also is being that this has been a part of the state level in certain legislation passing as well as her positions. so can you talk to us about how we have a practice that may have changed where these kinds of

rules and regulations that may have come up. >> thank you. >> i can speak live with a microphone or without. i want to commend everyone who is here today because the subject that we are discussing is really important and the thing that we are all talking about include access to justice and that is really the focus that we all have here. i practice in the state of maryland and so we bring some different perspectives and i want to share with you what is going on in terms of what immigrant opportunities are taking place. when she mentioned is that one of the big questions that came out of this case was whether it would apply on a retroactive basis. you know that when there is a

new law that comes out, one of the big decisions is whether that the case should apply in a retroactive basis. in other words if the criminal defense attorney had included the council many years ago prior to this decision, then that person could have been in action in maryland to get the actual criminal conviction looked at again. and so didn't matter how far back he wanted to go. you could go back as far as he wanted. so they took another look and said we do not think it is a retroactive application and so what happened then import that there is an independent basis of state law and then you can't

apply retroactively. but don't look to our federal decision of jurisprudence to apply retroactively. the state of maryland had said that this will apply as of two years earlier. so malin was probably the only state that could apply to be retroactive. that is until a gentleman in the maryland court of appeals in october of 2013, just nine month later they said we don't see any independent grounds and we have that nice gap between february and october and frankly the court of appeals closed the door there. i will say it's not 100% closed. so what did leave that as a

remote possibility that tried to bring that forward. but law students, don't forget to think outside the box is maybe you can open that little bit further in terms of access to just is. in terms of how this is being practically applied, i would say that a lot of this involves a criminal conviction issue and for many of the people out there in our community, there is a perception that the criminal conviction issues are pretty good to. if you're convicted over a crime you are not a u.s. is in, maybe you shouldn't be here in the united states. but the problem with that thought is that the u.s. immigration system has a very raw definition as to what it needs to be convicted of is for congress. most state laws if you get conviction before judgment and

have a little speeding issue or any kind of criminal matter, you would find that's not exception when you apply for a job. so you apply honestly i don't have a record. at the national immigration system says that is still a conviction for immigration purposes until it isn't just that. there are civil infractions and people who engage in jaywalking or other minor offenses not criminal in nature. but those are looked at just the same as colonel conviction for immigration purposes. so it's not as simple if you're convicted of a major crime. the immigration system catches a

lot of people who have minor scrapes with the law. the full weight of it pursued the same right for rights you would normally think would be available to individuals. the problem in this context is that it looks safe to plead guilty to a lot of criminal defenses and criminal defense attorney, all of you who are in moscow you are in a lucky place because you have the opportunity to go and practice, knowing the immigration isn't a trick important component. and you will know that this is important for your practice. so you're not going into this one. but many people already have criminal records and we asked him what happens here. and they say we don't have a criminal record.

in my defense attorney said no problems. and then we say this is a really big problem because the probation is the same. and so i was diverted and i agreed that i would do a diversion program which is often considered the same thing as a conviction. so we have to counsel people do have problems. people could face deportation based on these kinds of matters. making it admissible to get a green car permanent residence or come back into the united states. people will find that they have problems getting naturalization or even something much more simple to get a temporary status as many people seek to have an

afternoon on a regular basis. people who want to get deferred action which is not really status but those who came to the united states in the maybe barred from doing these things due to very minor scrapes with the law, things we would hold against a citizen. so we find out that criminal defense attorney individuals have said i know it shouldn't be a problem because the probation and it's something that couldn't possibly be a problem lo and behold it's a huge immigration problem. so we find people that want to reopen the case. and we can't go back before it is effective. and so things that are newer on people's terminal records to give rise to the circumstance.

and i will tell you they can tell you as well there's really good attorneys it can do a great job at criminal defendants who don't know anything about immigration laws and they will say they don't know anything about it. the word about these and other cases have not gone out to the extent that it has. the people in our communities need to know that they are entitled as a matter of the u.s. constitution to have effective assistance of counsel for criminal defense content. if they meet with a defense lawyer they have a right to have these issues brought up. so in many cases we will talk to people about whether or not we want to reopen the criminal defense foundations. just because the case is reopened as a main charge goes away and it's always there's always a risk involved because we could be tried again is whether the person would be convicted or not, but there could be multiple charges and

they have lesser immigration consequences or perhaps some other arrangement that can't be worked out. and perhaps someone has already done their service. so you look at those cases closely. there is and awareness as we go back. if you go back 10 or 20 years to constitutional law point of view, we as citizens of lesser rights under the constitution. and that still the case when the government is involved in making decisions. so it applies to everybody and immigrants as well.

immigrants don't get it lesser rights in this country. the constitution should apply to everyone when it comes to criminal defense. >> this includes also this, and we're not talking about those who don't choose to represent themselves. >> i want to talk lately about that and i will pass it over to ofelia calderon. in a state of maryland we have a rule that requires judges to make sure criminal defendants are advised that there may be immigration consequences about pleading guilty to a criminal charge. so it isn't simply that there is a constitutional right to have a defense attorney tell you what is owing on. but the judge also by maryland will have two informed that

there may be immigration consequences. so we are seeing that ability in our state. and when we looking at in virginia? >> a lot of jurisdictions have that they're asking the defendants at the time that they are entering their plea. so i think that's slightly different. because we have an individual who is not represented, he or she is not receiving advice from an attorney. and i think there's more burden on that in that case to get the advice that they need. so i think it was to simply say that there might be an immigration consequence and then the burden shifts again back to the defendant. and i don't know how often that

would take place in that moment. suddenly think it's part of the process of virginia and i would say that. >> there's also there is also an evolution here. because if you look 20 years ago, you didn't have this as an opportunity. judges didn't have to advise people there might be immigration consequences and so the jurisprudence is actually moving into the realm of making sure that immigrants have better right. it's not perfect but a long way to go. so we have now is much better. >> i would definitely agree with that. i do think that things are moving perhaps a little bit faster on the other side of the potomac.

we just have this discussion prior to the panel. >> not only is there a difference between what happens, but even what happens in virginia and i think things can be a little bit tougher and so i will say that with respect, and the that period of time that it was okay to be retroactive. commonwealth -- i don't know what to say, to be honest. it was pretty much the same issue. the weight of virginia has limited this and assess what should be a right to effective counsel is by limiting the way

that you get up the courage. so we also have a green card holder and he went back into the court and held a series of motions so was the bread in virginia not to be confused and also hideous. so there's a lot thrown in like, hey, guess what, their basis for that was essentially the those two were exceptionally designed to correct errors of fact and it wouldn't be an arafat or but

just, too bad, i guess. so the only way to go back now is on a hideous and it is self restricting rights statute, which you can only file it within two years of the final order. so that is a done deal for. your final order was 2005 and we are way past two years. in addition there is a case on requirement not in the attitude. but that you must be in custody and that is really a big deal. so you filed a petition and there's always these two and i find the attorney general, i don't know if you found this, but i do find that it the attorney general's office they handle is a hideous petition and not the attorney. they always have the same argument in their argument is if

it's outside, is this a part of that. so we are actually understanding what the question is part of custody. so at the end of the day from all attorneys do their job in many ways they are diametrically opposed as to what we want them to do. they want to get you off with the least amount of time you're not supposed to go to jail and that is what their goal is. do they go to law school and i like hey, hey, i'm an attorney. and i think, okay, no, there's this bigger picture. and we are constantly part of this. they like, i don't understand. and it's like, okay, i don't want that.

and this is a constant conflict between immigration attorneys. and they are also giving competent and corrected by. because that's not what happened obviously. but even if you don't know, you start to say something and you must advise your client that there could be immigration consequences even if you don't know what those immigration consequences are. and that includes an overarching theme here. took a little bit like this in the sense that i don't think it is a new rule that an application of existence.

and that deportation is not a collateral consequence. >> we have these rights as well. as far as how we are spread out further, in terms of the awareness of imminent and issues and things that are going on and i want to thank that we have a little bit of pride that involves special immigrant juvenile cases. so are the people who come to united the united states are under 21 from other countries, they cannot be reunified because they suffered abuse or neglect by one or both parents, there's an opportunity to pursue a green card in the united states for permanent residence and this is up until they reached the age of

21. must it's a fun event 18. and we are allowed to seek this up until the age of 21 under federal law. and so i can think of only one state that has the ability and i'm hoping others may be able to adopt it as well. but this is an example of how the ability to give rights to people that are immigrants is turning to take root in some areas. but here in maryland, for example, there is the ability that we should have been offered to people.

>> we can all be sensitive to the different societal context in the united states. >> and the lack of one sense that you don't have rights. ..

>> okay, so here you go. there we go. >> there we go.

>> just that it curious -- curiosity how many of you in the room have taken immigration law or have taken a? this panel just shows you why more of you need to take it then regardless of your focus. >> it's and appropriate beginning to have technical issues because i do remember that from wcl. this is my second home so it's nice to be back. the maryland bar foundation is on board because maryland and d.c. will have seen this problem of fraud flourish as there has been a lack of legal services. you have the right to

representation but not the governments expense so you have no right to counsel on the font family side law or the immigration side and then taking that further if you are in immigration detention you also don't have the right to counsel. so what that has meant is that the services that are provided or being provided by private attorneys are nonprofit attorneys have to have a high caseload in order to meet the demand and to keep the cost low so that can be a very challenging practice area as you will soon probably learn if you going to immigration law. what has also happened with immigration law is that the federal government recognizes that because there's so much need there should be a carveout for individuals who are not licensed attorneys to provide services. here you have a list of who could revive services under federal law so you have licensed attorneys and whenever we have a new client command who has a

concern about the previous representation they proceed would have to go to the state bar and see where they actually license. unfortunately people can come through the door where the advertisement says there are other languages wherein we have clients from morocco or tunisia and it might be a different language. it may be an african newspaper where it says i'm an attorney and her is my court license number and then we will go and look them up and we find they are not licensed anywhere. so we all in this room had paid $200,000 gone to law school for a few years or did a program and paid a significant amount of money sat for the bar, passed the bar and that is how we got to be attorneys. meanwhile we have other people in the community who just take out a newspaper ad and they too are attorneys. so that is one area and we actually have some and that can

be -- there can be ported immigration appeals accredited organizations who have representatives that may not have an attorney but may have been able to show to the board of appeals that they have someone to consult with questions of the law so they are able to provide representation for a nominal fee. then we also have law students and graduates under the supervision of an attorney with no direct compensation for an attorney to practice outside of the u.s. and this is important because you also if you look at some of the newspapers in this area you will see i am accredited to the supreme court of el salvador and guatemala and all sorts of places that means i can practice law. i've actually just had an argument the other day with someone who is like where did you go to law school? you know what federal law is? yes i know what federal law is. then you know i can practice. you have to tell me what state you are licensed and.

i don't know what's going on in tennessee but he's not licensed in tennessee. they are going to meet this need like attorneys meet the need and doing it without the three years of law school and sitting for the bar. you have individual say i'm a repeatable individual in providing this service and this individuals apportionment or clergy member. and when you see the individuals we see in the community representing 100 people there's no way they can say 100 people are their their neighbor unless they live in a big commune which i guess is possible but anyway then we move to what is the practice of immigration law. those are the individuals who can practice and what is the practice? for this i think the best description in the mean this is the law but the best description is from a 1982 opinion from the

immigration and nationality services which basically says that if you go into business and you are not sure the application you are filling out the individuals selecting the form is saying oh you're here because you want to gain protective status. here is the form and you are eligible because of x, y and z. if you entered with your application and you said i just need you to translate my answers to these questions i have been applying year after year for the last 11 years then that would not be the practice of law and supported to this decision. it matters whether not the person is charging and if they are charging for more than just their interpretation or translation fees. so the next slide is really to explain why there is this confusion in the community because we see our clients as incredibly rational actors. they save up their money for legal services but they also

have a perspective from home countries of these being the businesses in the way that people advertise their services as lawyers. they may be advertising themselves as a notario who has already served as an attorney for five years. there is person of good moral character and have passed a rigorous exam and that's also a person who has sort of a status in the community is being a good confidant for all people services and not just whatever the person is looking to them for. when someone in this area uses that same word it can cause confusion because they may just be anyone here over 18 who has gone to washington cc and paid $5 in virginia and is taking an exam and they will authenticate this signature on documents and

that is the authentication on the notary nothing more. so when you create that confusion that would lead to the next slide which is what it looks like locally. this is a d.c. storefront on top of virginia advertisement on the web which is the case i will talk about and then a maryland print advertisement. all of these locations you have a very similar look to what we have seen on the previous slide in mexico. if you see this in your community and you have known it from your home country you may go to these individuals for services. i have seen this on 14th street. they they're open on saturdays and sundays and they don't open on saturdays and sundays as much as the community would like. unfortunately what that means is that they are able to put out the shingle and provide a service. when they provide the service

you can lead to damage on immigration case area that sometimes irreparable so i will talk a little bit about remedies on the immigration immigration side of the input on the whole it's very difficult to correct mistakes. it's very difficult to correct mistakes that happen on the criminal side initially facing charges so that is what ofelia calderon talked about. it's incredibly difficult to reverse an act once it has been done especially if it's not retroactive and similarly when you have applied for something that's difficult to undo an application for immigration and especially if you were never eligible in the first place. with the ramirez case what we saw too was he did solicit i guess other businesses where there was an attorney and he would want to essentially go to the business and he would say i will bring it to will bring you the clients and new hire me as your paralegal for each of the representations.

where you come to an ethical issue with that is if you are the supervising attorney at this nonattorney who is engaging in unauthorized practices of law because he's the only one with the client contacting giving legal advice and assistance then you have this rule 5.5 issue. if you make a complaint here locally to the virginia state or d.c. bar with her unauthorized practice of law committees you can have that attorney suspended, disbarred or referred for criminal prosecution. i think that's important to note because it is a situation that you can find yourself in the future where you think it's great this person can help me find clients and- >> also a question there's the issue that a lot of people because they are not attorneys it's a lot more intangible. how do you go after these people can you talk a little bit about that?

>> sure. i will address that again with the last lights to give you concrete examples but essentially we look at this as a consumer protection issue in part and in maryland we have the maryland immigration consultant at which we will touch on later but in virginia we have essentially the consumer protection act which is the many acts that each state has that model the federal trade commission act which is what the federal agency can use to prosecute. so i will give you a couple of case examples because i think i could answer that question. we already heard a bit from men well about the ramirez case and the ramirez case we saw about four victims who actually we saw one just a couple of months ago who had just heard now that this individual is not an attorney. he really did convince a lot of people. he did that by having a picture of president obama in his office

and he worked in sort of these offices with lots of cubicles. he moved around and whenever you move to an new office it was in office with different businesses. he would just say he was responsible for all of them. in president obama was his friend. i'm really some month that you can have confidence in. i wish i could say ramirez was the only one in the community but unfortunately we have seen a lot of other folks that we are trying to lodge complaints against. we really need victims to come forward and to feel comfortable to make a complaint. sometimes that means we can work with them to make an anonymous complaint if they are not interested in using their own name or if they are not interested in using their address we could try to do what we can to protect any questions at the immigration status as it's not relevant to the proceedings against this individual who is practicing.

what we saw what the luis ramirez case the collaboration between law enforcement and the hispanic our association between civil attorneys -- there was a group of attorneys that brian keep it took a civil case of the ramirez victim and were able to get an injunction to that case and also restitution for that victim and fines up to $25,000. so we thought saw these things happening sort of at the same time but unfortunately what didn't happen with didn't happen with that case and this is something we are trying to address next time is that there warns immigration attorneys that were advising some of the victims because if there were we would have advised that they prosecute him in addition to the crimes he was prosecuted for theft etc. for extortion. you have this "washington post" article where it shows he was threatening people with i'm going to report you and say you're a drug trafficker. i'm threatening her immigration status and in virginia a threat to criminal prosecution is extortion. we want them to prosecute for

extortion and they weren't willing to do that once things had gone through. the way they address the issue is holistically. there should be a conversation on the criminal civil side when these individuals are brought to justice. the last case and i'll just say briefly was an isa impersonator in maryland who provided fraudulent immigration services and worked alongside a fraudulent health clinic. he was able to defraud victims over 90 of them in maryland virginie and dca of $1.2 million. the effects of the disastrous on the community and again this is something that in light of the discussion on immigration reform we need to tell the community that if someone is presenting themselves i can get you in the line for immigration reform. and i have got the connection that they really need to have the red flag when they hear conversations especially when

they see someone who is posing in the community who may have an i.c.e. badge and they are not able to verify the status of that individual they need to raise the issue with authorities. that is why we started the project ayuda 40 years ago and it's now a family immigration legal services and social services provider. when we started this project it was to go back to the roots and say we needed to address the issue before it came to ayuda because of the damage had been done it was difficult to work with the clients. so you asked about what are the remedies and on the civil side and mentioned begin use the consumer protection act in states and we can make customer complaints of the federal trade commission and again if they have that pattern of practice we can go after them and ask for restitution or monetary damages. on the criminal side there are several things that apply to

these cases like theft, fraud and extortion and there are some remedies that would exist. on immigration side this is highly fact-dependent so we wrote a manual which is on ayuda's web site that essentially outlines possible immigration remedies for victims of fraud. as we talk about motions to open effective the assistance of trial. it actually could apply to counsel provided i that attorney if you are creative with your argument as an attorney on the case. and on the eubie society -- syed extortion is a qualifier and in the ramirez case you have individuals who are severely affected by the amount of money they lost in the damage this did to their immigration case the cost at least some of those lions having to be on sleeping pills and depression and mental harm. we do think the facts are

sometimes around for a victim of fraud. there's a case in oregon just recently where there were several victims who applied for eubie successfully and some of the victims, there was one victim who attempted suicides suicide so the harm is there. what we would like to see happen is that uscis immigration services would understand to incentivize immigrant victims to come forward there needs to be a protection of their status. we think the eubie prosecutorial discretion would be helpful for that. i will just end by saying us mention with all this confusion comprehensive immigration reform and what might not need we are definitely going to see this problem continued to exist. if you see it in the community please feel free to reach out to us. i can come take complaints about a business that you see an advertisement from or advertisement from oregon no

specific victim who is interested in speaking with us. we work with the client where they are adamant can take the case as far as they want on immigration side. i hope that answers your questions. >> thank you and go and we are going to go back to matthew now but to highlight inn as you just said the cases you see in this fraud are largely happening in the immigration realm but also in tenant landlord disputes in housing discrimination and wage and theft and these areas of law thank you. drilling down on one area in particular that i know matthew wants to raise i think it's important to highlight so moving on from a defendant is part of a trial that subsequently there is the issue of deportation where

similarly the deportation proceedings are an entirely other area where the representation can also be determinant and so matthew if you could talk to us about that and how that represents a number different areas of law law. >> absolutely and i'm going to make use of our point briefly and hopefully we will get it to work here. this is an issue that i don't know how much is on the radar of the legal community in general although everything -- it has come across my desk a few times and when i started researching for a bit it seems that it is more prevalent than one might think and the term that gets used are a few terms. medical deportation, medical rendition are to that i've heard

use. basically what it is is to avoid costs for caring for uninsured or underinsured patients which are largely or i should say uninsured or underinsured immigrant patients many hospitals have begun repatriating immigrants that are in need of extended medical care. this is a picture of mr. jimenez deported by a chicago hospital to mexico and died shortly after. hospitals are getting urgent care immigrant patients and who don't have insurance or underinsured 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 going around in a sort of immigration services, not going through homeland security or i ses or anything

official. this is a picture of a different mr. jimenez it was deported by a florida hospital to remote village in guatemala. his story highlights the problem. this -- he was an undocumented immigrant living in florida and was hit by a car and was basically on life-support in florida for a lengthy period of time and was in a rehabilitative stage for what appeared was going to take at least a couple of years. but the florida hospital decided to do was they initially tried to do this the correct way. they went to a 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 you can go ahead and have it removed

the guardian immediately appealed and the appellate court said, told the hospital to respond to the guardian's assertions that the state court in the hospital have no jurisdiction and no ability to actually deport anybody. before the appellate court could rule him out the hospital in the dark of night rented a helicopter for $30,000 flew the guy out of the country. which then prompted a contempt citation against the hospital and personal injury suit against the hospital which i'm told did result in recovery. nonetheless the guys in what a mall instead of in the u.s.. one last example i'm going to highlight here is this doesn't only happen to undocumented immigrants. he was an undocumented immigrant who was uninsured and working in

arizona not surprisingly and was in a car crash and the arizona hospital, they put him in an automobile and drove to mexicali and left him in the hospital. luckily his family was able to contact a california hospital who was willing to take him and were able to get him back in the country under recovery. how big of a problem is this? there have been reports there have been at least 800 documented cases and these are ones that are documented. most hospitals are trying to do this without anybody knowing about it. the cost of repatriation are high. obviously the care is not nearly as good for many people outside of the country as it is here. the biggest problem i think is

really of informed consent and this sort of goes to, back to to our padilla argument from earlier. one of the things that is not in told her the immigration consequences and some of it to undocumented immigrants that are injured in the hospitals of taken it up -- taken on themselves to say we are taking it back to the dash to recuperate. many people are falling victim to that. oftentimes in this goes to the story that came across my desk and i want to relate to in this is that there are guardians appointed to these people who don't have the best interest of the patient in mind. we are all used to the concept

of a guardian appointed to look out for the interest of the person they are to guard and to act in their best interest. i had a case a couple of years ago regarding a man who is a patient in a nova fairfax hospital who is here. he was a patient from nepal. he was documented and here on the university visa. nepal is one of the countries that qualifies. if you are an immigrant visa authorized to work, work at a local gas station when crossing route 150 he didn't judge how quickly the traffic was coming and was hit car. he was and a coma in a nova fairfax hospital. his 21-year-old daughter was able to come over to be with him but the hospital convinced the

virginia state court rather than appointing her is his guardian to appoint a lawyer for the hospital had chosen to be the guardian under the pretext that she would be sophisticated in the ways of u.s. law to provide that she would have the interest of her father of hard. this lawyer decided it was in this man's best interest even though he was on life-support on feeding tubes to have a plane chartered to put them on this plane with this machinery and fly them back to nepal. the one caveat that his daughter had a hold of his passport and refuse to give up. under no sense where they even to try to go to a court. they wanted to turn the passport over to the hospital and to put them on this plane and off he would go. we were luckily able to resolve that readily because the nova

fairfax general counsel is probably smarter than other hospitals when they forwarded some of the instances such as the florida case where the hospitals found in contempt of code court resulting in this action. they decided to change their mind and they did find rehabilitative care for the man. it has 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 there is some abuse that can happen with this and perhaps the patient or their families should be seeking assistance.

>> thank you matthew. i think that hits home in the sense of how real this could be for any of us or for example i mean in virginia some moving traffic violations could get to the constitute a a misdemeanor soap or green card holder that could be disastrous. with that i think we will open it up to questions from the audience and then get some last comments from the panel. but that i want to make sure we have enough time for your questions. >> if you are representing a client and you make an assertion to file a court document and you later discover the client doesn't have authorization

status would be supposed to do? i look at that the model rules and you have conflicting rules. one says -- and one says confidence of the client -- confidence of the client should be kept. >> you mean if he made an assertion that the person does have -- there's nothing wrong with filing an action on behalf of a client wind their immigration status is implicated. it's not that you have a duty to volunteer with that. >> i think there was a case where a lawyer was disciplined for failing -- they made an assertion to the department of labor and they fail to correct it and they were disciplined for that. >> i would assume if you were told and i'm trying to think why this would necessarily come up. he told the department of labor that this person had work

authorization or something that was part of the case. i think you would have a duty to correct that normally bake in a typical wage theft case that is not an element of claim. annulment of claim is that they were authorized to work and is just that they perform the work. i actually haven't ever reported that situation. >> i haven't because i ready know my client status. i think the answer depends on what we are talking about. i think if you say in an immigration filing that my client entered on x day and x location and obtained x status that's really relevant and material to the case 99% of the time. in a criminal unless you run a habeas