Kari E. Hong

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Summer 2025

Abstract

In general, if an attorney makes a mistake, they can cure it by notifying the forum and filing the appropriate remedy. Immigration law, by contrast, stands alone by requiring the client (or a new attorney) to corroborate any mistake by filing a bar complaint against the first attorney. This requirement was established in a 1988 case, called Matter of Lozada. Much has been written on how the Lozada rule is unnecessary (a mistake does not need to be corroborated by a bar complaint and state bars are complaining about a deluge of unnecessary complaints for negligence) and harms the immigration practitioner (immigration law is difficult enough without the added possibility of having a bar complaint filed against a lawyer who had been helping a client to the best of their ability). As much as this is true, this article adds to the conversation by illustrating how the Lozada requirement is an egregious violation of legal ethics. Lozada requires an attorney to turn against their former client and reveal (and weaponize) secrets, confidences, and communications in an adversarial forum that the Board of Immigration Appeals, and government attorneys themselves, use against the non-citizen. The Lozada rule is a chimera of justice, a means not to cure attorneys’ mistakes but to weaponize attorneys against their clients and separate lawyers from a population who critically need representation. Whether intended or not, these consequences of the Lozada rule are compelling reasons to abandon the bar complaint requirement to determine if a former attorney made a mistake.

Download

Share

COinS