## Facts

- Henry H. Howe, a North Dakota lawyer, represented Elias Camacho-Banda and Margarita Maya-Morales (the Camachos), undocumented Mexican nationals, in federal removal proceedings.
- The Camachos had lived in the United States for more than 20 years and had five children, including four U.S.-citizen children.
- To obtain relief from removal, Howe needed to present evidence that removal would cause a U.S.-citizen child “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.”
- The immigration judge told Howe that substantial supporting documentation was required, including materials addressing one child’s learning disability.
- Howe received written instructions about collecting required “biometrics” (including fingerprints and personal information) for the immigration case.
- A merits hearing occurred about six months later. Howe presented only limited evidence (including the children’s school records) and called only the Camachos as witnesses.
- The immigration judge granted additional time (30 days) to supplement the application and repeated what documentation was needed.
- The Camachos missed a rescheduled hearing; the record indicated this occurred because Howe did not adequately inform them of the new date. The judge continued the matter.
- Over a series of continuances spanning many months, Howe submitted duplicate or modestly expanded materials (including general articles about violence in Mexico), and the hearing was repeatedly reset.
- Howe eventually obtained letters from teachers and a case manager and appeared with the Camachos for a later hearing, but the judge could not proceed because an interpreter was unavailable.
- The immigration judge requested written submissions and argument within two weeks; Howe did not submit the requested materials.
- About seven months later, the immigration judge ordered the Camachos removed. The Camachos discharged Howe, hired new counsel, and appealed.
- The Disciplinary Board initiated lawyer-discipline proceedings. Howe attributed problems to calendaring and office-staff issues and also asserted that delay was a strategy to keep the Camachos in the country as long as possible. A hearing panel found misconduct and recommended a six-month suspension, costs, and an accounting; Howe objected to the report.

## Issues

1. Whether North Dakota’s disciplinary authority and professional-conduct rules applied to Howe’s conduct in a federal immigration proceeding.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence showed Howe violated duties of competent and diligent representation and adequate communication with his clients during the Camachos’ removal case.
3. What sanction was appropriate given the misconduct and Howe’s prior disciplinary history.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court held it had disciplinary authority over Howe for conduct occurring in the federal immigration matter and applied North Dakota’s professional-conduct rules.
- The court concluded clear and convincing evidence supported the hearing panel’s findings that Howe violated professional duties in his handling of the Camachos’ case, including failures tied to preparation, delay, and client communication.
- The court suspended Howe from the practice of law for six months.
- The court ordered Howe to pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
- The court ordered Howe to provide the Camachos an accounting of all costs and expenses incurred during the representation.

## Legal Principles

- In lawyer-discipline cases, misconduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; the supreme court gives weight to the hearing panel’s findings but independently determines rule violations and discipline.
- Under N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.5(a), a lawyer admitted in North Dakota is subject to North Dakota discipline even when the conduct occurs in a federal tribunal and even if that tribunal does not impose discipline.
- A lawyer must provide competent representation, which includes adequate legal knowledge, thoroughness, and preparation; repeated failure to gather and present requested evidence after explicit judicial direction supports a finding of inadequate preparation.
- A lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness; repeated missed deadlines, repeated continuances linked to counsel’s inaction, and failure to submit court-requested materials demonstrate lack of diligence.
- A lawyer must keep clients reasonably informed and must communicate about key events such as hearing dates; failures that lead to a client’s missed hearing support a communication violation.
- A self-described plan to delay proceedings does not excuse failure to prepare, meet deadlines, or follow a tribunal’s instructions, particularly when the client faces severe consequences.
- Prior discipline for similar conduct is an aggravating factor when determining the sanction necessary to protect the public and the legal profession.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court disciplined Henry Howe for deficient handling of an immigration removal case marked by repeated delay, inadequate preparation, and failures to keep clients informed, holding that North Dakota’s ethics rules governed his conduct even though it occurred in federal immigration court and imposing a six-month suspension, costs, and a client accounting.


In re Disciplinary Action Against Howe, 843 N.W.2d 325 (2014)