On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota disbarred Bloomington attorney Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani for failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client.

The case is entitled “In the matter of Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani” and was brought by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with case no. A21-0754.

The charges cited Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(c)(4), 1.15(h), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) which state:

A lawyer shall provide competence in representation to a client.

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.

A lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

A lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to the client or third person as requested the funds, securities es, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client or the third person is entitled to receive.

Every lawyer engaged in the private practice of the law shall maintain or cause to be maintained on a current basis, books and records sufficient to demonstrate income derived from, and expenses es related to, the lawyer’s private practice of law, and to establish compliance with paragraphs (a) through (f).

Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for the employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client it is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fees or expenses that have not been earned or incurred.

An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

Allegedly, the respondent breached his ethical duties to five clients, three of them are immigrants. Included in such misconduct are misappropriation of client funds and providing incompetent representation. The respondent also didn’t cooperate with the Director’s investigations of his misconduct.

The filing states:

“Less than a month after Ramirez retained the respondent, the respondent told Ramirez that the matter would cost a lot more money than the originally quoted fee so The respondent required more money to proceed. Ramirez informed the respondent that he did not want the respondent to proceed and requested the respondent to refund the $1,5000 Ramirez had already paid. Respondent told Ramirez that he would not do so and that he had the ability to go to court to collect the balance of the $3,000 fee from Martinez. Respondent performed an insignificant portion of the services that he agreed to perform in the matter. Respondent made no filings with the court and attended no hearings. Respondent did provide to the Director documents from his file, including drafts of a motion, supporting affidavit, and affidavit of service.”

The filing continues:

“Before the U-Visa expired, Martinez went to the respondent’s law office to initiate the application for permanent residency. The Respondent asked Martinez to get medical exams taken by a physician to include with the application. Martinez had those exams performed, paying the physician approximately S800 to $1,000. 25. Respondent failed to file an application for permanent residency before 25 the U-Visa expired. As a result, Martinez was no longer in legal status 26. Respondent then told Martinez that the respondent would not need those medical exams because the respondent could not file a permanent residency application without first obtaining a new U-Visa certification from the police in Arizona.”

The filing further states:

“By letter dated April 12, 2021, the Director informed the respondent that the Director had received none of the information or documents requested in the notice of investigation of the Martin Martinez Garcia complaint and requested the respondent to provide at that time his complete written response to the complaint and the documents requested in the notice of investigation. The Respondent failed to respond. To date, the respondent has failed to provide any of the requested information or documents requested in the notice of investigation of the Martin Martinez Garcia complaint and has failed to otherwise communicate with the Director about the matter.”

On the Petition for Disciplinary Action against the respondent, the Director requested that Mr. Undeani be disbarred from the practice of Law. Consistent with the facts and arguments of the Petition, the court concluded that the respondent failed to return the funds of the clients, failed to get countersigned receipts, failed to act competently, and failed to communicate properly during the investigation. For these reasons, the court decided to disbar the respondent.

The Disposition states:

“For the foregoing reasons, respondent Ignatius Chukwuemeka Udeani is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Minneso ta, effective on the date of this opinion. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs under Rule 24(a), RLPR.”

Prior to his disbarment, Mr. Udeani practiced in Bloomington, Minnesota. He was licensed in Minnesota with license #0300615. His info can be found on avvo.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.