Dear Editor:
The case of In re Miguel Gadda, Attorney, 23 I&N Dec. 645 (BIA Sept.
25, 2003), is the first Board of Immigration Appeals legal ethics decision in
about 10 years, and only the sixth of all time. I have recently written a
short discussion of the case, which will appear in a forthcoming issue of
Bender's Immigration Bulletin. As former chairman of the legal ethics committee, Washington-Baltimore
AILA Chapter, and frequent lecturer on the topic, I was somewhat surprised, and interested, to
see Mr. Gadda's letter to the Editor in yesterday's Immigration Daily, railing against the concept that he should be subject to discipline by his
state bar. While one can sympathize with Mr. Gadda's discomfort at getting
disbarred, by the California bar, by the U.S. Justice Department, and by
U.S. federal courts, his arguments fly in the face of the fundamental
organization of the U.S. legal system. I recommend that lawyers read the
BIA's decision, which is clear,
correct, and instructive.
Bruce A. Hake, Attorney at Law
Damascus, Maryland
|
Attorneys
Stumble It! | 
Add to del.icio.us | 
Digg this!