Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alisha Ann Portillo, Misc. Docket AG No. 22, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Biran, J.
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT The Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent, Alisha Ann Portillo, from the practice of law in Maryland. Ms. Portillo violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1, 19-301.4(a) and (b), 19-303.3(a)(1), 19-308.1(a), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d). Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Ms. Portillo, who engaged in serious misconduct in two client matters. Ms. Portillo advised both clients that failing to appear for their immigration hearings was an acceptable option. Based on Ms. Portillo’s improper advice, both clients decided not to appear for their hearings, resulting in the immigration court issuing orders for their removal from the United States. Ms. Portillo also made knowing and intentional false statements to the immigration court and to Bar Counsel, and failed to participate in these proceedings. Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 482879-V Argued: Argument waived/submitted on papers
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG No. 22
September Term, 2020 _____________________________________________
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
ALISHA ANN PORTILLO _____________________________________________
Barbera, C.J. McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran,
JJ. _____________________________________________
Opinion by Biran, J. _____________________________________________
Filed: May 27, 2021
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic.
2021-06-17 14:44-04:00
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk As an officer of the court, a Maryland attorney should not advise a client that failing
to appear at a court hearing at which the client’s presence has been ordered is an acceptable
option. This case concerns an attorney, Alisha Ann Portillo, who gave that improper advice
to two immigration clients. To make matters worse, after the clients failed to appear for
their hearings based on Ms. Portillo’s advice, Ms. Portillo made false statements to the
presiding immigration judges about the clients’ whereabouts and her firm’s last contacts
with the clients. And, after the clients subsequently complained about Ms. Portillo’s
actions, Ms. Portillo provided false and misleading statements to Bar Counsel. In light of
this serious misconduct, on March 26, 2021, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Ms.
Portillo. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Portillo, 472 Md. 721 (2021). We explain in this
opinion the reasons for that action.
I
Background
On July 15, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”),
acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action
(“Petition”) against Ms. Portillo, in connection with two complaints filed by former clients
concerning their immigration matters. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Portillo violated
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 19-301.1 (Competence),
19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 19-303.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-308.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-
308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).1
On July 17, 2020, under Maryland Rules 19-722(a) and 19-727, this Court
designated the Honorable Joan E. Ryon of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to
conduct an evidentiary hearing, and to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Thereafter, Ms. Portillo was served with a writ of summons, the Petition, Petitioner’s
interrogatories and request for production of documents, and request for admissions of facts
and genuineness of documents. Ms. Portillo failed to comply with Petitioner’s discovery
requests and to respond to the charges filed against her. The hearing judge entered an order
of default on October 21, 2020. The circuit court provided Ms. Portillo with notice of the
order of default, which advised Ms. Portillo that she could move to vacate the order of
default within 30 days after its entry. Ms. Portillo did not move to vacate the order of
default.
On November 25, 2020, the hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing
remotely via Zoom for Government. Bar Counsel appeared, but Ms. Portillo did not. Under
Maryland Rule 2-424(b), the matters set forth in Petitioner’s request for admissions of facts
and genuineness of documents were deemed admitted, and the hearing judge received those
1 The Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct are codified as Maryland Rule 19-300.1 et seq. In an effort to enhance readability, we use abbreviated references to the prior codifications of these rules, which are consistent with the ABA Model Rules on which they are based (e.g., Maryland Rule 19-301.1 will be referred to as Rule 1.1). See ABA Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards (Am. Bar Ass’n 2017).
2 admissions and documents in evidence. On January 13, 2021, the hearing judge issued
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Neither party filed exceptions.
On February 11, 2021, Petitioner filed a request to waive oral argument in this
Court. On February 16, 2021, we entered an order directing Ms. Portillo to show cause why
oral argument should be held; Ms. Portillo did not respond. On March 10, 2021, we granted
Petitioner’s request to waive oral argument. We subsequently considered this case on the
papers.
II
The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact
We summarize here the hearing judge’s findings of fact.
Ms. Portillo was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 17, 2014. During the period
relevant to this case, Ms. Portillo was employed at the Law Offices of Hale W. Hawbecker,
PLLC (the “Firm”), in Woodbridge, Virginia.
Representation of M.D.
M.D. left her native country of El Salvador in August 2016 and entered the United
States on September 3, 2016. She was detained in Texas and placed in removal
proceedings. On October 19, 2016, M.D. was released on bond and moved to Fairfax,
Virginia. In January 2017, her case was transferred to the immigration court in Arlington,
Virginia, and a Master Calendar Hearing was scheduled for October 5, 2017.
On August 23, 2017, M.D. met with Mr. Hawbecker and retained the Firm to
represent her. She executed a retainer agreement that provided for a flat fee of $6,000, with
3 $1,000 to be paid at the outset, $500 by September 13, 2017, and $250 per month until paid
in full. After the initial meeting, Mr. Hawbecker assigned Ms. Portillo to handle M.D.’s
case. Although Mr. Hawbecker oversaw the Firm’s immigration matters, Ms. Portillo was
the attorney responsible for M.D.’s matter.
A paralegal at the Firm prepared M.D.’s asylum petition. The petition stated that
M.D. left El Salvador and feared returning because she was abused and threatened by her
partner’s brother, who was a gang member. Ms. Portillo reviewed the asylum petition, and
on August 31, 2017, filed the petition in the Arlington immigration court, as well as her
notice of appearance on behalf of M.D.
On October 5, 2017, Ms. Portillo appeared with M.D. at the Master Calendar
Hearing. The court scheduled M.D.’s individual hearing for December 11, 2018. Ms.
Portillo told M.D. that, prior to the December 2018 hearing, M.D would need to provide
her with additional evidence to support her asylum petition.
In November 2018, Ms. Portillo reviewed M.D.’s file and realized that M.D. had
not provided her with any additional corroborating evidence. Ms. Portillo called and left
voicemails for M.D. three times between November 2018 and December 3, 2018, but did
not receive a response prior to December 4, 2018.
On December 4, 2018, having not heard from M.D., Ms. Portillo prepared and filed
a supplement to M.D.’s asylum application. The supplement contained general evidence
addressing the treatment of El Salvador’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community. On December 10, 2018, M.D. called the firm about her hearing the next day.
The receptionist told M.D. to come to the office at 10:00 a.m. the following day to meet
4 with Ms. Portillo prior to the 1:00 p.m. hearing, which M.D. did. Although Ms. Portillo
can speak Spanish, Ms. Portillo frequently used interpreters during her meetings. At the
meeting between M.D. and Ms. Portillo on the morning of December 10, 2018, Ms.
Portillo’s assistant served as an interpreter.
Ms. Portillo advised M.D. during the meeting that M.D.’s case was weak and that
she would likely be deported if she appeared at the hearing. Ms. Portillo advised M.D. that,
if the court denied her asylum application, M.D. could appeal the decision, but it would
cost an additional $2,500 in legal fees. Ms. Portillo further advised M.D. that M.D. would
be able to remain in the United States longer if she did not appear for the hearing. At the
conclusion of their meeting, Ms. Portillo told M.D. that she had until noon to decide
whether to appear at the 1:00 p.m. hearing that afternoon.
Based on Ms. Portillo’s advice, M.D. decided not to appear for the hearing. Ms.
Portillo told M.D. that she would inform the immigration court that she had lost contact
with M.D. after the October 2017 hearing.
Ms. Portillo appeared at M.D.’s hearing that afternoon. When the immigration court
asked Ms. Portillo about her communications with M.D., Ms. Portillo knowingly made
false statements to the court:
[O]ur office’s last communication with [M.D.] was in May of 2018, when we had her come in and do her application for her biometrics appointment. In October, we were calling her last known phone number and not receiving a response. We ended up mailing out a letter at the end of October, and from that letter, her ex-partner contacted our office and told us that she had left in October and returned to El Salvador, and they were no longer together and no longer on speaking terms.
5 The hearing judge found that “Ms. Portillo fabricated her alleged communications with
M.D.’s partner to mislead the immigration court regarding M.D.’s whereabouts.”
Based on M.D.’s failure to appear at the hearing and Ms. Portillo’s false
information, the immigration court deemed M.D.’s asylum application abandoned and
ordered M.D. removed to El Salvador. The hearing judge found that, as a result of the
removal order, M.D. could have been arrested and deported at any time.
Complaint of M.D.
On February 12, 2019, M.D. filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On March 5, 2019,
Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Portillo, enclosed the complaint, and requested a response. Ms.
Portillo submitted written responses to Bar Counsel on March 25, 2019 and June 6, 2019.
In both responses, Ms. Portillo failed to disclose her false statements to the immigration
court. The hearing judge found that Ms. Portillo’s statements to Bar Counsel were
knowingly and intentionally misleading.
Representation of M.R.
M.R. and her minor son, V.S., left their native country of El Salvador in October
2013 and entered the United States on November 20, 2013. They were detained in Texas
and placed in removal proceedings. On November 25, 2013, M.R. and V.S. were released
and moved to Maryland to live with G.H., M.R.’s fiancé and V.S.’s father. M.R. and G.H.
were married in August 2014.
On or about June 15, 2014, M.R. and G.H. met with Mr. Hawbecker and retained
the Firm to represent M.R. V.S. was a derivative party in M.R.’s immigration proceedings.
M.R. executed a retainer agreement that provided for a flat fee of $3,250. M.R. made an
6 initial payment of $1,000 that day and monthly payments thereafter. On August 13, 2014,
Mr. Hawbecker filed a request to change venue from Houston, Texas to Arlington,
Virginia. On November 28, 2014, Mr. Hawbecker lodged an asylum application with the
immigration court in Houston.
In early 2015, M.R.’s case was transferred to the immigration court in Arlington,
Virginia, and thereafter to Baltimore. On March 8, 2016, Mr. Hawbecker filed an asylum
application on behalf of M.R. in the immigration court in Baltimore, and M.R.’s individual
hearing was scheduled for August 21, 2018.
In June 2017, Ms. Portillo began working for the Firm, and Mr. Hawbecker assigned
M.R.’s case to Ms. Portillo. Ms. Portillo was the attorney responsible for M.R.’s matter at
the Firm.
In May 2018, having reviewed M.R.’s case file, Ms. Portillo called M.R. and
requested that she schedule a meeting and provide additional evidence to support her
application. In late May 2018, M.R. and G.H. delivered the requested documents to the
Firm but did not meet with Ms. Portillo or anyone else that day. In early August 2018, Ms.
Portillo called M.R. and left a message requesting that she schedule a meeting to prepare
for the August 21 hearing. M.R. called the firm and scheduled a meeting for August 17,
2018.
On August 3, 2018, Ms. Portillo filed a supplement to M.R.’s asylum application.
On August 17, 2018, M.R. and V.S. met with Ms. Portillo to prepare for the August 21
hearing. Ms. Portillo advised M.R. that she would likely lose her case and that the court
would order her to leave the country in 30 days. Ms. Portillo told M.R. that it was M.R.’s
7 decision whether to attend the hearing. Based on Ms. Portillo’s advice, M.R. was scared of
being deported and did not appear at the hearing on August 21, 2018.
On August 21, 2018, Ms. Portillo appeared at M.R.’s hearing and made knowingly
false statements to the immigration court:
The last contact that our office had directly with the lead Respondent, [M.R.], was in March of 2016. Her husband has been the one that has been in contact with us and actually brought us evidence back in May, which we submitted in the supplement.
However, when we brought her in to start her declaration, the husband informed us that [V.S.], who was enrolled in school, was having problems at school and moved in with his aunt, Reina (phonetic) in Virginia, and that [M.R.] and [V.S.] were living with Reina. We were given the phone number. When we spoke with Reina, Reina advised us that they had moved back with the husband, and the husband is stating that they do not reside there…. So we have lost contact with them. And we honestly don’t know where they are. Both are saying that they live with the other.
The hearing judge found that “Ms. Portillo fabricated her alleged communications with
M.R.’s husband and sister to deceive the immigration court.”
Based on M.R.’s failure to appear for the hearing and Ms. Portillo’s false
information, the immigration court deemed M.R.’s asylum application abandoned and
ordered M.R. and V.S. removed to El Salvador. The hearing judge found that, as a result
of the removal order, M.R. and V.S. could have been arrested and deported at any time.
Complaint of M.R.
On March 20, 2019, M.R. filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On April 12, 2019,
Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Portillo, enclosed the complaint, and requested a response. Ms.
Portillo submitted her written response to Bar Counsel on May 20, 2019. In her response,
Ms. Portillo stated that, leading up to the August 21, 2018 hearing date, she attempted to
8 contact M.R. on several occasions to schedule a meeting for August 17. Ms. Portillo further
stated that M.R.’s husband called the office and advised that M.R. and V.S. were living
with M.R.’s sister in Virginia. Ms. Portillo stated that she contacted M.R.’s sister, who said
that M.R. and V.S. had moved back to Gaithersburg with M.R.’s husband. Ms. Portillo
further stated in her response that she did not meet with M.R. or her family on August 17,
2018, or at any time prior to the August 21 hearing. The hearing judge found that Ms.
Portillo’s statements to Bar Counsel were knowingly false.
III
The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law
Based on the record and the above-summarized findings of fact, the hearing judge
concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Portillo violated Rules 1.1, 1.3,
1.4(a) and (b), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d). Neither Ms. Portillo nor Petitioner
filed exceptions.
IV
Standard of Review
“This Court has original and complete jurisdiction in an attorney disciplinary
proceeding and conducts an independent review of the record. The hearing judge’s findings
of fact are left undisturbed unless those findings are clearly erroneous. We review the
hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Hoerauf, 469 Md. 179, 207-08 (2020) (cleaned up). Where, as here, neither party files any
exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we “may treat the findings of fact as
9 established.” Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A). We deem the hearing judge’s findings of fact to
be established in this case.
V
Ms. Portillo’s Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct
We now consider the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. For the reasons we discuss
below, we hold that clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Ms. Portillo violated
Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the
Tribunal), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d)
(Misconduct). We conclude that Ms. Portillo did not violate Rule 1.3 (Diligence).
Rule 1.1 (Competence)
Rule 1.1 dictates that an attorney “shall provide competent representation to a client.
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
Ms. Portillo violated Rule 1.1 in both client’s matters when she suggested that M.D.
and M.R. could decide not to appear for their individual hearings and told them that they
likely would be able to stay in the United States longer if they failed to appear. Although
Ms. Portillo may have correctly gauged that both clients were unlikely to prevail in their
asylum applications, by suggesting that an acceptable and perhaps preferable option was
to fail to appear – a choice that both clients made after receiving Ms. Portillo’s advice –
Ms. Portillo effectively eliminated any chance the clients had to succeed in their petitions.
Ms. Portillo’s deficient advice resulted in the immigration court deeming the clients’
asylum applications abandoned and ordering M.D., M.R., and V.S. removed to El Salvador.
10 As the hearing judge noted, after they were ordered removed, both clients (and V.S.) could
have been arrested and deported at any time. Although Ms. Portillo competently
represented both clients initially, her serious lapse in judgment shortly before both clients’
hearings negated the competent work she had done up to that point, and compels us to
conclude that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 1.1.
Rule 1.3 (Diligence)
Rule 1.3 provides: “An attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client.” Although we are greatly troubled by Ms. Portillo’s conduct as
found by the hearing judge, we do not perceive a lack of diligence on her part. In these two
client matters, the problem was not that Ms. Portillo failed to act with promptness,
neglected to review the case files or obtain necessary information from the clients, missed
deadlines, failed to appear for the hearings herself, or otherwise neglected any important
client-related matters. Dishonesty does not necessarily equate with a lack of diligence. Ms.
Portillo failed her clients, the immigration court, Bar Counsel, and ultimately herself by
violating several other rules of professional conduct, but she did not violate Rule 1.3.
Rule 1.4 (Communication)
Rule 1.4 provides:
(a) An attorney shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is required by these Rules; (2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
11 (4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the attorney’s conduct when the attorney knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) An attorney shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
This Rule requires that attorneys “communicate with their clients and keep their clients
reasonably informed of the status of their case.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards,
462 Md. 642, 699 (2019).
We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 1.4(a)
and (b) in both matters when she failed to adequately explain to M.D. and M.R. the
consequences of not appearing for their individual hearings. Ms. Portillo further violated
Rule 1.4(b) in both matters when she failed to adequately advise M.D. and M.R.,
preventing them from making informed decisions about their cases.
Rule 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal)
Rule 3.3(a)(1) provides that an attorney shall not knowingly “make a false statement
of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the attorney.” The duty of candor “stems from the
proposition that every court has the right to rely upon an attorney to assist it in ascertaining
the truth of the case before it.” Hoerauf, 469 Md. at 211 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Thus, Rule 3.3(a)(1) requires that an attorney be candid at all times with
a tribunal. Id. Attorneys violate this rule when they knowingly provide a court with false
information. Id.; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ambe, 466 Md. 270, 295 (2019); Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 32 (2006).
12 The hearing judge found that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) in both matters
by knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting her communications with M.D. and M.R.
with the intent to deceive the immigration court. Ms. Portillo falsely told the immigration
court that her last communication with M.D. took place in May 2018, when, in fact, she
had met with M.D. earlier that very day. In addition, Ms. Portillo falsely stated that M.D.’s
ex-partner informed Ms. Portillo that M.D. had returned to El Salvador. With respect to
M.R., Ms. Portillo falsely told the immigration court on August 21, 2018, among other
things, that the Firm’s last direct contact with M.R. was in March of 2016, and that they
had “lost contact” with M.R. and her son. In truth, Ms. Portillo had met with M.R. on
August 17, 2018.
The hearing judge’s conclusion of law is correct. Ms. Portillo plainly violated Rule
3.3(a)(1) by knowingly making false statements to the immigration court in both cases.
Rule 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters)
Rule 8.1(a) provides, in relevant part, that “an attorney in connection with a …
disciplinary matter … shall not … knowingly make a false statement of material fact.” The
hearing judge concluded that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 8.1(a) with respect to M.D.’s
complaint when, in her March and June 2019 responses to Bar Counsel, she intentionally
misled Bar Counsel about the reasons that M.D. decided not to appear for her hearing, and
failed to disclose her false statements to the immigration court. The hearing judge further
concluded that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 8.1(a) with respect to M.R.’s complaint when she
falsely stated in her May 2019 response to Bar Counsel that M.R.’s husband and sister
provided conflicting information about where M.R. was living in August 2018. The hearing
13 judge concluded that Ms. Portillo further violated Rule 8.1(a) when she falsely stated that
she did not meet with M.R. on August 17, 2018, or at any other time to prepare for the
August 21, 2018 hearing.
We agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 8.1(a) in her
responses to Bar Counsel regarding both clients’ complaints.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct)
Rule 8.4 provides, in relevant part:
It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; … (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; [or] (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]
An attorney violates Rule 8.4(a) if they violate any other rule of professional conduct.
Hoerauf, 469 Md. at 214. “Dishonest acts, in and of themselves are violative of Rule
8.4(c).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gisriel, 409 Md. 331, 383 (2009) (citations
omitted). “Generally, an attorney violates [Rule 8.4(d)] when an attorney’s conduct
impacts negatively the public’s perception or efficacy of the courts or legal profession.”
Hoerauf, 469 Md. at 214-15 (cleaned up).
Having violated several other rules of professional conduct, Ms. Portillo violated
Rule 8.4(a). Id. at 215. We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Ms. Portillo’s
acts constituting violations of Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.1(a) also violated Rule 8.4(c). We
further agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Portillo violated Rule 8.4(d) by her conduct
14 in both clients’ matters. “Conduct which is likely to impair public confidence in the
profession, impact the image of the legal profession and engender disrespect for the court
is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Agbaje, 438 Md. 695, 717 (2014) (citation omitted). Advising clients that failing to appear
for a scheduled immigration hearing is something they should consider, because it may
allow them to stay in the United States longer than they otherwise would, is prejudicial to
the administration of justice. When Ms. Portillo then lied to the immigration court about
the circumstances that led to the clients’ failure to appear, she compounded her already
prejudicial and disreputable conduct.
VI
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
“Bar Counsel has the burden of proving the existence of aggravating factors by clear
and convincing evidence.” Edwards, 462 Md. at 708 (citation omitted). “The Respondent
in an attorney disciplinary proceeding must prove the presence of mitigating circumstances
by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).
We have enumerated the aggravating factors that, if found, are relevant to the
appropriate sanction:
(1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the [Rules]; (5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the Maryland Rules or orders of this Court or the hearing judge; (6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature; (8) the victim’s vulnerability; (9) substantial experience in the practice of law; (10) indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences; (11) illegal conduct, including
15 that involving the use of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct.
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling & Sperling, 459 Md. 194, 275 (2018) (citation
omitted).
The hearing judge found the existence of five aggravating factors: (1) a pattern of
misconduct; (2) multiple offenses; (3) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings;
(4) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct; and (5) vulnerability of the
victim. We agree with the hearing judge that these aggravating factors are present in this
case.
The hearing judge correctly found that Ms. Portillo demonstrated a pattern of
misconduct in both matters and committed multiple offenses. Ms. Portillo engaged in the
same type of misconduct in two cases and violated several rules of professional conduct in
both matters. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chanthunya, 446 Md. 576, 607 (2016)
(finding pattern of misconduct present where the attorney engaged in similar misconduct
in representing two clients in different matters); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter,
441 Md. 416, 530 (2015) (“Factor (d), ‘multiple offenses,’ is implicated when an attorney
violates multiple disciplinary rules.”).
Further, the hearing judge correctly found that Ms. Portillo engaged in bad faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by failing to participate in the hearing. See, e.g.,
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Young, AG No. 23, Sept. Term 2019, slip op. at 26-27 (Md.
Mar. 31, 2021). Ms. Portillo similarly failed to participate in the proceedings in this Court.
See id. The hearing judge also correctly concluded that Ms. Portillo failed to acknowledge
16 the wrongful nature of her misconduct. Indeed, she lied about her actions to Bar Counsel.
Finally, the hearing judge correctly concluded that M.D. and M.R are vulnerable victims.
See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Riely, 471 Md. 458, 500 (2020) (“Immigrants,
especially those at risk of removal from the United States, are a marginalized group that
this Court has recognized as vulnerable victims of professional misconduct.”).
Ms. Portillo did not present any mitigating factors and, therefore, has not proven
any mitigation.
VII
The Sanction
In deciding the appropriate sanction, “[w]e are guided by our interest in protecting
the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession.” Attorney Grievance
Comm’n v. Lewis, 437 Md. 308, 329 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“As a result, our purpose in deciding the appropriate sanction is not to punish the lawyer,
but to protect the public, and deter other lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct.”
Edwards, 462 Md. at 711 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “When
determining the appropriate discipline, we consider the facts and circumstances of each
case and order a sanction that is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations
and the intent with which they were committed.” Id. at 712 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Ms. Portillo’s numerous and severe
violations of the MARPC. Ms. Portillo’s advice to both clients that they could consider not
appearing for their individual hearings was an egregious dereliction of Ms. Portillo’s duty
17 as an officer of the court. Of course, if a client is ill or there are other extenuating
circumstances that prevent the client from attending a hearing, an attorney can and should
seek a waiver of the client’s presence (if appropriate) or a postponement. But an attorney
should never advise a client that it is permissible or, even worse (as Ms. Portillo implied to
both of her clients), preferable for the client to willfully fail to appear for a hearing. See
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224, 254-55 (2002) (“When an officer
of the legal system improperly thwarts the mechanisms within it, he shows a disrespect for
that system and the public confidence in the legal profession as a whole necessarily suffers
a devastating blow.”). Based on Ms. Portillo’s improper advice, both clients decided not to
appear for their hearings, thus ensuring that the immigration court would deny their asylum
petitions and order them removed from the United States.
Furthermore, Ms. Portillo exhibited dishonesty on multiple occasions. She brought
the legal profession further into disrepute through those acts of dishonesty. “Unlike matters
relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely
entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make
intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse. Honesty and dishonesty
are, or are not, present in an attorney's character. Disbarment ordinarily should be the
sanction for intentional dishonest conduct.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 457 Md.
159, 223 (2018) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418
(2001)).
18 Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, which demonstrated a pattern of
serious misconduct, we concluded that the public would only be sufficiently protected if
Ms. Portillo were disbarred. See Hoerauf, 469 Md. at 218; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Bah, 468 Md. 179, 218 (2020) (explaining that the attorney’s “multiple infractions
involving multiple client matters warrant disbarment”); Edwards, 462 Md. at 712 (finding
a “pattern of dishonesty [involving multiple clients and multiple infractions] in and of itself
warrants disbarment”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 228-29
(2012) (same).
For these reasons, on March 26, 2021, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Ms.
Portillo. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Portillo, 472 Md. 721 (2021).
19 The correction notice(s) for this opinion(s) can be found here:
https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/appellate/correctionnotices/coa/22a20agcn.pdf