The One-Week Asylum Filing
A solo general practitioner accepts an asylum case from a community legal clinic. The client, a 23-year-old Honduran national, must file Form I-589 within seven days. The client says gang members threatened him after he reported an extortion attempt to police and that his brother was killed two months ago. The lawyer has never handled an asylum case, has a three-day contract bench trial beginning Monday, and has a two-week vacation booked starting Friday. At intake, the lawyer says, 'I'll get it done,' does not mention the lack of asylum experience or the vacation, and does not associate experienced immigration counsel. The lawyer files a skeletal I-589 on the deadline without the client's declaration, country-conditions evidence, or corroborating police report, then leaves for vacation. The client calls twice and emails once; the lawyer does not respond. An asylum hearing is set in 45 days.
1. Evaluate the lawyer's conduct under the competence, diligence, and communication rules. What should the lawyer have done at intake?
Read the worked answer
The lawyer violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. Competence requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary; a lawyer may take a novel matter by becoming competent or associating with experienced counsel, but not by filing a skeletal form and disappearing. Diligence required the lawyer to calendar the seven-day deadline, prioritize the filing, and secure the declaration and corroborating evidence. Communication required prompt, meaningful updates about the lack of asylum experience, the vacation, the trial conflict, and the realistic risks. At intake the lawyer should have either declined, associated experienced immigration counsel with the client's informed consent, or negotiated a realistic schedule; saying 'I'll get it done' without disclosure was misleading. The lawyer also should have documented the client's account and explained that missing evidence could be cured later only at a cost. The vacation and trial were foreseeable, not emergencies. The 45-day hearing makes the prejudice concrete: the client may face removal on an incomplete record.
2. What must the lawyer do now, after the skeletal filing and missed client communications?
Read the worked answer
Now the lawyer must act quickly and candidly. First, communicate with the client about what was filed, what is missing, and the risks. Second, assemble the declaration, country-conditions evidence, police report, and any corroboration, and file a supplemental or amended submission as soon as permitted. Third, associate an experienced immigration lawyer if the client consents; if not, consider transferring the case. Fourth, if more time is genuinely needed, seek a continuance, but do not mislead the court about the reason. Withdrawal is possible only with the tribunal's permission if it will not materially prejudice the client; Rule 1.16(c)-(d) requires protecting the client's interests, and abandonment is not an option. The lawyer should also assess whether the flat fee must be refunded in part under Rule 1.16(d) and whether malpractice notification is required. The client should receive a written plan and a new calendar. The lawyer should not blame the client for the missed communications.
3. The lawyer considers requesting a continuance and telling the court only that 'counsel needs more time to prepare.' Is that permissible? What must the lawyer disclose?
Read the worked answer
A request for a continuance cannot be built on a misleading half-truth. Rule 3.3(a)(1) prohibits false statements of fact or law to a tribunal, and Rule 8.4(c) prohibits dishonesty. Saying only 'counsel needs more time to prepare' may imply a scheduling or evidence-gathering problem while concealing that the lawyer missed the deadline and filed an incomplete case. The lawyer may ask for additional time and explain that essential corroborating evidence and a declaration must be obtained, but should not falsely attribute the delay to the client or to the government. If the court asks directly why the filing was skeletal, the lawyer must answer truthfully or decline to answer on a proper privilege ground; the lawyer cannot affirmatively mislead. The lawyer should also correct any earlier representation that the filing was complete. The client's confidentiality does not require the lawyer to participate in a fraud on the court; Rule 1.6 permits disclosure to comply with Rule 3.3. The best course is to fix the record and be candid about the need for time.