On Wednesday, April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court of California ruled on the disciplinary charges against Los Angeles attorney Salvador Ortiz accusing the latter of multiple instances of misconduct.

The case is styled ‘In re Salvador Ortiz’ and was brought by the State Bar of California, Office of Chief Trial Counsel, under case no. SBC-22-O-30141 and SBC-22-O-30562 (Consolidated).

The charges cited Former Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3-110(A), and Rules of Professional Conduct: rule 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(d)(4), 1.16(e)(1), and 1.16(e)(2).

The rules of professional conduct can be found on The State Bar of California page.

The Notice of Disciplinary Charges charged Ortiz with 16 counts of misconduct, accusing Oritz of failing to perform with competence and diligence his clients’ matters, failing to render an accounting of clients’ funds, and failing to return promptly return client files. Ortiz was further alleged to have committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, failed to refund unearned fees, and respond to reasonable status inquiries made by his clients. Additionally, Ortiz was alleged to have failed to participate in the State Bar’s investigation of pending allegations of misconduct in another disciplinary matter.

The filing states:

“On or about April 16, 2016, Fermin Bueno Mercado (Mercado) and Maricela Garcia (Garcia) employed respondent to perform legal services, namely to: file an I-130 Family Petition, an I-601 Provisional Waiver, a request for an FBI report, submit a FOIA request with USCIS, and help with consular processing, which respondent intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failed to perform with competence.”

The filing continues:

“Between on or about April 16, 2016 and on or about August 2019, respondent received from respondent’s clients, Mercado and Garcia, the sum of $4,530.00 as advanced fees for legal services to be performed. Respondent thereafter promptly failed to render an appropriate accounting to the client regarding those funds following the termination of
respondent’s employment on or about September 2019.”

The filing further alleges:

“Between on or about November 20, 2017, and until on or about August 2019 continued to hold himself as entitled to practice law before the immigration agencies by not informing Mercado and Garcia that he was suspended and subsequently disbarred from the practice of law before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Immigration Courts, and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and continued to submit Mercado’s and Garcia’s I-130 petition with USCIS on June 12, 2018, and August 5, 2019, when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that on and after November 20, 2017, respondent was no longer entitled to practice before the immigration agencies.”

The filing additionally notes:

“Between on or about November 20, 2017, and on or about August 1, 2018, respondent continued to collect and receive fees in the amount of approximately $2,300.00 from Ramirez and did not inform Ramirez that respondent was suspended and subsequently disbarred from the practice of law before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security when he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that Ramirez paid fees reasonably believing that Respondent was entitled to practice law before the immigration agencies.”

Accordingly, the Court ruled against Ortiz and entered an order disbarring the latter for his violation of the above-cited rules of professional conduct.

The disposition reads:

“The court orders that Salvador Ortiz (Respondent), State Bar Number 237940, is disbarred from the practice of law and that Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys.”

Ortiz was further ordered to pay restitution to his former clients and to pay monetary sanctions to the State Bar of California Client Security Fund in the amount of $7,000.

Ortiz practiced in Los Angeles, and he had been licensed in California. He graduated from Loyola Law School. Ortiz’s info can be found on allcaliforniaattorneys.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.