On Wednesday, August 24, 2022, the Office of Appellate Courts, Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota ruled on the petition for disciplinary action against respondent Patrick Chinedu Nwaneri, for violating the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

The case, titled In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Patrick Chinedu Nwaneri, was brought by the Director of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Case #A21-0547.

The charges cited Nwaneri’s violation of Rule 1.1, cmt. 5, Rule 1.3, cmt. 1 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides:

Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation. The required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence. An agreement between the lawyer and the client regarding the scope of the representation may limit the matters for which the lawyer is responsible. 

A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. For example, a lawyer may have authority to exercise professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect.

According to the filing:

“The Director of the Office of Lawyers ProfessionalResponsibility (Director) filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Patrick Chinedu Nwaneri, alleging that Nwaneri had violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by (1)submitting a faulty biometrics application for his client and failing to follow up in any way despite the known importance of biometric information to immigration proceedings, (2)failing to prepare for his client’s removal hearing or to be ready to proceed on his client’s claims for relief from removal, (3)effectively abandoning his client during the removal hearing, and(4)filing a complaint on a separate matter in the United States District Court on the morning of the removal hearing erroneously expecting to get a continuance on the removal matter, despite previous explicit instructions from the immigration court to the contrary.”
 
The filing continues:
 
“Following a 2-day hearing, the referee concluded that Nwanerifailed to represent his client competently, expeditiously, and with diligence, and that his conduct prejudiced the administration of justice. The referee further found that Nwaneri’s previous discipline, including public discipline, and his substantial experience in immigration matters are aggravating factors. The referee also determined that Nwaneri’s client was particularly vulnerable due to his uncertain legal status and potential to be removed from the country. The referee recommended that Nwaneri be suspended for 90 days, followed by 2 years of supervised probation upon reinstatement.”
 
Nwaneri asked the Court to depart from the referee’s recommendation and impose only a public reprimand and no probation by pointing out several cases in which he claims that some combination of neglect and misconduct related to a court hearing or process resulted only in a public reprimand.

The Court gave substantial weight to the referee’s recommended discipline, after a thorough review of the record, testimony, and briefed arguments from both parties.

The Court in giving substantial weight to the referee’s recommended discipline, stated among others:

“We conclude that the referee’s recommendation of a 90-day suspension followed by 2 years of supervised probation following reinstatement is appropriate discipline for the constellation ofNwaneri’s misconduct, combined with his record of previous discipline and his experience as an immigration lawyer. Nwaneri did not provide competent, diligent, and expeditious representation to F.M.:(1)he failed to list the correct address on F.M.’sbiometric form and failed to follow up on the status of the biometric form despite the known importance of having current biometrics on file;(2)he failed to prepare for and be ready to proceed with F.M.’s relief from removal request at the August 22 hearing;(3)he ignored the immigration court’s repeated admonitions that the August 22 hearing would focus solely on relief from removal because, absent action by the U.S. District Court reversing the revocation of the I-130revocation, there existed no basis for an application for adjustment of status—an appeal that he failed to file until the morning of August 22; and(4)he abstained from answering many of the court’s questions during the August 22hearing—even refusing to assist his client to preserve his right to appeal the immigration court’s removal decision. His refusal to participate during the August 22 hearing was also prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

The dispositive portion of the Opinion reads in part:

“Respondent Patrick Chinedu Nwaneri is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 90 days, effective 14 days from the date of this opinion.

Respondent shall pay $900 in costs, pursuant to Rule 24(a), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and comply with the requirements ofRule26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals).

Respondent shall be eligible for reinstatement to the practice of law following the expiration of the suspension, provided that respondent files with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serves upon the director an affidavit establishing that he is current in continuing legal education requirements, and has complied with Rules 24 and 26, RLPR.

Further, upon reinstatement, respondent shall be on supervised probation for a period of 2 years with terms and conditions as set forth by the Court.

Mr. Nwaneri is listed on the website of the law firm Nwaneri Law Firm as a practicing attorney. He completed his Juris Doctor from the College of Law, Saint Paul, Minnesota in 2002, and his Bachelor of Laws from the University of Nigeria in 1998. He practices in St. Paul, Minnesota and he has been licensed in Minnesota, license #0322003.

His info can be found online at nwaneri.com link. 

A copy of the original filing can be found here.