301 Ga. 901 FINAL COPY
S17Y1684. IN THE MATTER OF EMMANUEL LUCAS WEST.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the renewed petition for
voluntary discipline filed by Emmanuel Lucas West (State Bar No. 748658)
prior to the issuance of a formal complaint, see Bar Rule 4-227 (b) (2). This
Court has rejected two prior petitions filed by West seeking to resolve this
matter. See In the Matter of West, 299 Ga. 731 (791 SE2d 781) (2016); In the
Matter of West, 300 Ga. 777 (798 SE2d 219) (2017). In this petition, West, who
became a member of the Bar in 2002, admits the same underlying facts as in his
prior petitions. In the summer of 2014, an individual paid him $3,500 to
represent her minor son in an immigration matter. The son, who was a citizen
of Guatemala, had been detained in Texas and was facing removal proceedings.
After discussing the matter through an interpreter, West agreed to represent the
son in seeking asylum in the United States and timely completed the application
for asylum. West did not read the application to the client in the client’s native language, however, and he signed the client’s name where required in the
application and supporting documents, despite the fact that one of those
signatures was under penalty of perjury and required an attestation that the client
had signed the document in West’s presence. West claims that he signed the
client’s name knowing that an applicant generally is allowed to amend or
supplement his or her application freely up until the time of the hearing, and
maintains that he fully intended to supplement with the client’s real signature at
a later date.
In West’s initial petition, he sought a Review Panel reprimand for
violating Rule 1.2 (d)1 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and
suggested in mitigation of discipline that he has no prior disciplinary history; he
had no selfish or dishonest motive; he made full and free disclosure and
displayed a cooperative attitude in these proceedings; he otherwise has exhibited
good moral character and integrity and has a positive reputation in the
1 Rule 1.2 (d) says: A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, nor knowingly assist a client in such conduct, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
2 community, attaching to his petition several letters to that effect; he is apologetic
and remorseful; he refunded the entire $3,500 fee paid to him; and his conduct
ultimately did not harm his client, who was granted asylum through the efforts
of another lawyer. This Court rejected West’s initial petition because the facts
he admitted did not show that he violated Rule 1.2 (d). Instead, the facts
suggested that he violated other Rules, such as 1.2 (a) and 8.4 (a).2 The Court
declined to express an opinion as to the appropriateness of a Review Panel
reprimand for the conduct admitted by West.
In his second petition, West acknowledged that the Investigative Panel
found possible violations of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.4,3 and 8.4 (a) (4), but he admitted
2 Rule 1.2 (a) says, in relevant part: Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. . . . Rule 8.4 (a) (4) says it is a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” 3 Rule 1.4 says: a. A lawyer 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 (h), is required by these Rules; 2. reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; 3. keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; 4. promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
3 only to having violated Rules 1.2 (a) and 1.4 by failing to communicate properly
and consult with his client as to the means by which the client’s objectives were
being pursued. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a) and 8.4
(a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 1.4 is
a public reprimand. West sought the imposition of a Review Panel reprimand
for his admitted violations, citing the same mitigating circumstances listed in his
first petition and noting that he agreed to accept a Review Panel reprimand as
a result of negotiations with the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel
following its investigation of this matter. West denied violating Rule 8.4 (a) (4),
arguing that he did not have the requisite mental culpability. He also argued that
a contrary finding should not alter the level of discipline under the
circumstances, particularly in the light of the mitigating factors. This Court
rejected West’s second petition because the petition and the State Bar’s response
failed to adequately address the Rule 8.4 (a) (4) violation, a matter of particular
importance given the seriousness of a violation of that rule.
5. consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. b. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
4 West’s present petition is similar to his second petition, making the same
admissions of fact, citing to the same factors in mitigation, and reciting the same
considerations and case law in support of his suggested discipline of a Review
Panel reprimand. West made one significant addition to the present petition,
however. He explained that two sections of the asylum application were left
unsigned, for the client to sign when his case proceeded to an appearance, at
which time the applicant would be required to sign an affirmation that explicitly
addresses whether any prior misstatements in the application were in need of
correction.
The State Bar responded to West’s petition, recommending that this Court
grant West’s petition and impose a Review Panel reprimand. The Bar concurs
with West’s assertion that the “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”
standard from Rule 8.4 (a) (4) contains an implicit intent element, which was not
present in West’s conduct. See In the Matter of Woodham, 296 Ga. 618, 625
(769 SE2d 353) (2015) (“Rule 8.4 (a) (4) prohibits ‘professional conduct
involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,’ that is, conduct that
is intended or likely to mislead another.”) (emphasis supplied). The Bar notes
that West asserts that he did not intend or expect to deceive anyone, given that
5 the general practice is to allow subsequent amendments or supplements to such
applications, at which point the client’s signature could have been added, an
explanation bolstered by the language found in the affirmation addressing
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
301 Ga. 901 FINAL COPY
S17Y1684. IN THE MATTER OF EMMANUEL LUCAS WEST.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the renewed petition for
voluntary discipline filed by Emmanuel Lucas West (State Bar No. 748658)
prior to the issuance of a formal complaint, see Bar Rule 4-227 (b) (2). This
Court has rejected two prior petitions filed by West seeking to resolve this
matter. See In the Matter of West, 299 Ga. 731 (791 SE2d 781) (2016); In the
Matter of West, 300 Ga. 777 (798 SE2d 219) (2017). In this petition, West, who
became a member of the Bar in 2002, admits the same underlying facts as in his
prior petitions. In the summer of 2014, an individual paid him $3,500 to
represent her minor son in an immigration matter. The son, who was a citizen
of Guatemala, had been detained in Texas and was facing removal proceedings.
After discussing the matter through an interpreter, West agreed to represent the
son in seeking asylum in the United States and timely completed the application
for asylum. West did not read the application to the client in the client’s native language, however, and he signed the client’s name where required in the
application and supporting documents, despite the fact that one of those
signatures was under penalty of perjury and required an attestation that the client
had signed the document in West’s presence. West claims that he signed the
client’s name knowing that an applicant generally is allowed to amend or
supplement his or her application freely up until the time of the hearing, and
maintains that he fully intended to supplement with the client’s real signature at
a later date.
In West’s initial petition, he sought a Review Panel reprimand for
violating Rule 1.2 (d)1 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and
suggested in mitigation of discipline that he has no prior disciplinary history; he
had no selfish or dishonest motive; he made full and free disclosure and
displayed a cooperative attitude in these proceedings; he otherwise has exhibited
good moral character and integrity and has a positive reputation in the
1 Rule 1.2 (d) says: A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, nor knowingly assist a client in such conduct, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
2 community, attaching to his petition several letters to that effect; he is apologetic
and remorseful; he refunded the entire $3,500 fee paid to him; and his conduct
ultimately did not harm his client, who was granted asylum through the efforts
of another lawyer. This Court rejected West’s initial petition because the facts
he admitted did not show that he violated Rule 1.2 (d). Instead, the facts
suggested that he violated other Rules, such as 1.2 (a) and 8.4 (a).2 The Court
declined to express an opinion as to the appropriateness of a Review Panel
reprimand for the conduct admitted by West.
In his second petition, West acknowledged that the Investigative Panel
found possible violations of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.4,3 and 8.4 (a) (4), but he admitted
2 Rule 1.2 (a) says, in relevant part: Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. . . . Rule 8.4 (a) (4) says it is a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” 3 Rule 1.4 says: a. A lawyer 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 (h), is required by these Rules; 2. reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; 3. keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; 4. promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
3 only to having violated Rules 1.2 (a) and 1.4 by failing to communicate properly
and consult with his client as to the means by which the client’s objectives were
being pursued. The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a) and 8.4
(a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 1.4 is
a public reprimand. West sought the imposition of a Review Panel reprimand
for his admitted violations, citing the same mitigating circumstances listed in his
first petition and noting that he agreed to accept a Review Panel reprimand as
a result of negotiations with the State Bar’s Office of the General Counsel
following its investigation of this matter. West denied violating Rule 8.4 (a) (4),
arguing that he did not have the requisite mental culpability. He also argued that
a contrary finding should not alter the level of discipline under the
circumstances, particularly in the light of the mitigating factors. This Court
rejected West’s second petition because the petition and the State Bar’s response
failed to adequately address the Rule 8.4 (a) (4) violation, a matter of particular
importance given the seriousness of a violation of that rule.
5. consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. b. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
4 West’s present petition is similar to his second petition, making the same
admissions of fact, citing to the same factors in mitigation, and reciting the same
considerations and case law in support of his suggested discipline of a Review
Panel reprimand. West made one significant addition to the present petition,
however. He explained that two sections of the asylum application were left
unsigned, for the client to sign when his case proceeded to an appearance, at
which time the applicant would be required to sign an affirmation that explicitly
addresses whether any prior misstatements in the application were in need of
correction.
The State Bar responded to West’s petition, recommending that this Court
grant West’s petition and impose a Review Panel reprimand. The Bar concurs
with West’s assertion that the “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”
standard from Rule 8.4 (a) (4) contains an implicit intent element, which was not
present in West’s conduct. See In the Matter of Woodham, 296 Ga. 618, 625
(769 SE2d 353) (2015) (“Rule 8.4 (a) (4) prohibits ‘professional conduct
involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,’ that is, conduct that
is intended or likely to mislead another.”) (emphasis supplied). The Bar notes
that West asserts that he did not intend or expect to deceive anyone, given that
5 the general practice is to allow subsequent amendments or supplements to such
applications, at which point the client’s signature could have been added, an
explanation bolstered by the language found in the affirmation addressing
whether any prior misstatements in the application were in need of correction.
The Bar explains that these considerations indicate that it is not a foregone
conclusion that a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) could be demonstrated by clear
and convincing evidence. The Bar also notes that this Court looks to the ABA
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions for guidance in determining the
appropriate sanction, see In the Matter of Morse, 266 Ga. 652 (470 SE2d 232)
(1996), and based on the factors enumerated in ABA Standard 4.42, a
suspension is not appropriate, as there was no pattern of neglect and no
indication in the admitted facts that West knowingly failed to perform services
for the client. The Bar notes that each of West’s proposed mitigating factors is
appropriate except for the fact that the client was able to obtain asylum through
the services of another attorney, which the Bar concedes does not fall within the
factors stated in ABA Standard 9.32, but which the Bar asserts has some
relevance to the inquiry under ABA Standard 4.4, as West’s misconduct did not
cause the client to suffer actual harm to his application. In aggravation of
6 discipline, the Bar notes the vulnerability of the victim and West’s substantial
experience in the practice of law. The Bar adds that a reprimand is appropriate
where an attorney’s misconduct includes signing a client’s name to a document,
even where a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is found, and says that it is not aware
of any case in which this Court has imposed a suspension where the sole
misconduct was improperly signing a client’s name. Finally, as to West’s
unwillingness to admit a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4), the Bar says that the facts
are not consistent with a dishonest and objectively unreasonable belief that he
did not violate that Rule, In the Matter of Suttle, 288 Ga. 14, 16 (701 SE2d 154)
(2010), and that even an assertion of innocence ultimately adjudicated to the
contrary is not necessarily an aggravating factor. See In the Matter of Davis,
291 Ga. 169 (728 SE2d 548) (2012); In the Matter of Eddings, 300 Ga. 419 (795
SE2d 183) (2016).
Having reviewed the record, we agree that imposition of a Review Panel
reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this matter, and we therefore accept the
renewed petition for voluntary discipline. Although this Court rejected the two
prior petitions filed by West, we did so on the basis of concerns about the fit
between the facts admitted in the petitions and the disciplinary rules pursuant
7 to which punishment might be imposed, concerns which have been allayed by
the present petition and response. In particular, this Court was concerned with
the failure of the last petition and response to address whether West’s conduct
constituted a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4). West and the Bar have now addressed
this concern, and we agree that West’s conduct in this matter was not necessarily
sufficient to support a finding that he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4). See Woodham,
296 Ga. at 625. We find that a Review Panel reprimand is the appropriate
sanction for his admitted violations of Rules 1.2 (a) and 1.4. Accordingly, the
Court hereby orders that West receive a Review Panel reprimand in accordance
with Bar Rules 4-102 (b) (4) and 4-220 (b).
Petition for voluntary discipline accepted. Review Panel reprimand. All
the Justices concur.
8 Decided August 28, 2017.
Review Panel reprimand.
Warren R. Hinds, for West.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William J. Cobb, Assistant
General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.