DU job ethicists and counselors... your input is needed

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

This is a bit involved. I work for a small firm that is on shaky financial ground to say the least. I have to beg for my paycheck every week and it's not fun. I have to listen to the two partners fighting every day over money. Moreover, the attorney I work for is not the most ethical person (quite a few issues there), I make very little money (despite his promise of a raise that has yet to materialize) and I am basically doing his job, in more ways than one (filing away his own crap, providing immigration advice since he knows nothing of the subject, etc.).

I interviewed for a job at a brand new firm on Monday and they are eager to offer me the position, but, as in the e-mail I received today, they are working on the details. The e-mail asks me to let them know if I'm considering other offers so that they can speed up their process.

Here is my dilemma. I want (or rather, I need, for my own sanity and financial situation) to leave this current position as soon as possible with as little notice as possible (yes, I realize it's not nice, but NC is a right to work state and I can get fired in a New York minute, so I think I should be able to fire my employer just as fast; I was planning on a week's notice). At the same time, I don't want to sound desperate to the other firm. I realize they may have their own procedures. So I'm trying to balance my need for a safe, secure paycheck with their needs.

I was thinking of perhaps indicating I am considering other offers, one of which must be answered by this Friday, to see if that would help.

Oh, DU sages and wise men/women... what do you think?

On an ancillary note, I am also having to deal with a very serious malpractice issue by my attorney and I am trying to look for suggestions on that one as well. Basically, before I worked here, a client indicated on his naturalization questionnaire that he had been arrested, charged and convicted of domestic violence. When the former paralegal completed the naturalization application, she checked "NO" on all questions pertaining to arrests, charges, etc. and my attorney boss (who knows practically nothing about immigration) signed off. Now, of course the paralegal may have made all mistakes in the world, but it is the attorney's responsibility to make sure the paralegal does the work correctly.

Anyway, now this person has passed his civics and English test, but the officer is now requiring in 30 days a notarized affidavit on why he didn't disclose on the application about his arrests, etc.

When I presented this to my boss, he said we could just say it was a miscommunication. I was irate. I told him that was not possible because he had indicated to us that he had been arrested and charged. So that excuse is out. He can't say it was attorney error, because there are five or more questions related to criminal history. While it may be attorney error to check "NO" on one of the questions by mistake, it is ridiculous to think that any lawyer would do so repeatedly.

The other problem I brought up is that this client could stand to lose his green card if he ever travels abroad, because the criminal charges will pop up at the immigration inspection (they do, trust me) and, as I suggested to my boss, we should advise him of this. He won't hear any of it. It's like he's trying to erase this client from his mind and worries, but I will be honest with you, this is worrying me, not for my boss, who's a lousy attorney, but for the client who hardly speaks English and whose future depends on his ability to retain his green card. But I digress...

I need to get out of here soon, which brings me back to point one... TIA

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

1. wow, didn't think it was that bad of a dilemma

and, yes, it's a shameless kick.

[lizziegrace]

2. I'm always entertaining other offers

or at least would if I had them. Maybe if you said you were considering other opportunities rather than offers, it would speed them up but not be lying on your part.


Good luck to you!

[Shakespeare]

3. I'd just give a non-answer about other offers. Honesty is best.

From what you said, they didn't ask you outright if you had other offers, but used the "let us know" thing. I'd say something as simple as "thanks, I look forward to hearing from you."

RE the malpractice thing, he's the one who'll ultimately have to decide what answer to (have his client) give IMS. Sounds like sloppy work more than something deliberately unethical (I've worked for an attorney who had both those areas covered, unfortunately); he has a duty to his client to try to fix this.

I hope you're able to get out soon--I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago (I work at a law firm, too), and it was NOT fun.

[deucemagnet]

4. Well, I'm neither an ethicist nor a counselor,

but I think lying is a bad way to start a relationship with a new employer, whether you think you'll be found out or not. I say tough it out. You've done it this long, you can probably do it a little longer.

As far as the malpractice goes, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you can put it on the back burner until you leave? In any case, it seems like it's more his problem than yours.

[petronius]

5. Don't be deceptive with your potential new employer - if you don't

have other job offers on the the table, then tell them 'no.' (They already know you're looking for a job, so their question clearly isn't asking if you're in general considering other employment.)

As for the other, my legal knowledge is puny but I like giving advice on the internet, so here goes: if the questionnaire with the arrest info was what the former paralegal used to fill out the application, then it seems obvious that she screwed up. If the questionnaire was something that was turned in to immigration seperately, and it didn't jibe with the application produced by your office, then either the client screwed up or the paralegal did.

It seems the only possible ethical course for your boss is to figure out exactly what happened as soon as possible - did the client lie to the FPL, did she screw up by accident, did she deliberately omit negative info? Once he knows the answer, he needs to pass it on to immigration, without any spin...

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

6. Knowing my boss as I do,

I think he's trying to put the blame on the former paralegal incorrectly filling out the form because he is the one who made the mistake. The other paralegal was not stupid (I worked with her for a week when I started). The questionnaire is an in-house form to gather information used to complete the form. But the naturalization application is a sworn statement to USCIS (f/k/a INS) and when a client and attorney sign off on it, they attest to the U.S. government that the information therein is the truth and that they could be subject to perjury.

This is not the only occasion when my boss' ethics have come into question. But I have a major problem with him trying to wriggle his way out of this one, especially as we (the firm) have to provide a notarized affidavit regarding the omission. Needless to say, the client was very upset about this and understandably so.

[petronius]

7. So the inaccurate info definitely originated in your firm, and only the boss

knows (or could find out) how it happened? It doesn't sound like there's much you can do - just make sure that your name is nowhere attached to that affidavit. You could give the former paralegal a quiet heads-up about what's going on, but if your boss knew you did that he could have repercussions.

Sounds like you really need to get out of there..

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

8. The other paralegal is long gone..

the problem is that I would be preparing said affidavit, since my boss never does any work on his own (and I'm not kidding). While my name would be nowhere on it, he would want me to notarize it (I am also a notary public) and that would put my name on the darn lie.

[petronius]

9. Sounds bad - I guess the only options you have are nuclear ones:

report your boss to the bar, or tell USCIS what you suspect. Other than that, you can keep encouraging him to do what's right, keep your head down, and get the heck out of there as fast as possible...

Good luck!

[Shakespeare]

12. But you aren't verifying the veracity of the document, only the authenticity of the signature.

I think you're OK in that regard.

[Deep13]

13. No way.

If you know someone is lying on a sworn statement, you cannot have any part of that. Really, what part of that sounds like a good idea?

[Shakespeare]

14. This is the text of a notary block.

This is the ONLY thing she's putting her signature to:

On __________ before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally appeared__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________ (Seal)

Edited to add: It is not within her capacity OR the parameters of her attestation as a notary to make any kind of judgment or other interpretation about the body of a document. It is ONLY to verify the signature.

Edited to further add: Nothing in what she's described so far gives any indication that the information in the affidavit is untrue. Unless she knows for sure that the former paralegal deliberately falsified information (which she has not said), and that it was not an error for whom the blame is shared between the attorney and the paralegal, then there is no problem here.

[Deep13]

15. Why do it?

What is in it for her? And only a fool would consider the text of a rubber stamp to be legal advice. I don't know about that state, but this one has a whole volume of statute dedicated to sworn documents. There is simply no reason to risk it. And nothing written on a piece of rubber changes the fact that she would be an accomplice to perjury.

[Shakespeare]

16. See my second edit.

There's no indication whatsoever that ANYBODY is perjuring him/herself here. It sounds as if she's more concerned that the attorney is putting all of the blame for an administrative error on the paralegal, instead of sharing the blame. That is utterly irrelevant to the the affidavit.

[Deep13]

17. I'm looking at criminal law, not notary regulations.

My understanding, and I might have read it wrong, was that the lawyer was claiming the client never disclosed the information. If the client told the last legal secretary or wrote it on a form and that has been noted in the file, then he as the one with the legal license knew about it. He cannot avoid liability by blaming it on an employee of his office even if it really was the previous secretary's fault in preparing the forms. By signing the federal forms he attested that he was relying on information provided by the client or known from other means.

The only way to avoid liability (which may not be very great) is to deny his office ever knew. That's what I understood the OP meant by a miscommunication. IF he does that he is committing perjury.

Regardless of what the proper function of a notary is, any knowing assistence in perpetrating a perjury makes the accomplice just as liable criminally as the principal actor. This is called aiding and abetting. Granted, she is not expected to read the lawyer's mind, but if she knows in advance that he is lying or that it is possible he is lying, she really has to steer clear of the situation in order to be dragged in herself. The reason accomplice liability is so harsh is because the law wants to make sure the consequences of cooperating with ones boss in a perjury are worse than getting yelled at or fired.

[Shakespeare]

18. I don't think you understand.

There are two documents at issue (I do this stuff for a living, btw). The first was an INS form filled out by the paralegal for the client to sign (and from what she said, the attorney looked it over and indicated it was OK to have the client sign it). That form did not disclosre the criminal conviction.

The INS has come back and requested an affidavit from the client explaining why the criminal conviction was not disclosed on the form. THIS IS WHERE THE OP IS UNCLEAR, but she seems to be saying that she doesn't know if the former paralegal deliberately checked the "no" boxes, or if it was an oversight. Either way, the attorney didn't catch it. The attorney is now saying it was a miscommunication/clerical error which it may well be., and is having the affidavit drafted to say as much.

The OP needs to be clearer on whether she knows for sure either way if the former paralegal just screwed up, or if they deliberately left the info off the form. Also unclear is whether the client--the person who will sign the affidavit that she will presumably notarize--is aware of why the original form contained the error (i.e., did he know that the form was incorrect when he signed it--he may not have known that, especially depending on how good his English is/was).

If it's just an administrative error and she's peeved with the attorney for blaming the paralegal, that's one thing, and should not give her pause at all to notarize the affidavit. If she *thinks* it was done deliberately, but doesn't know conclusively, she still is not in a position to refuse to notarize (unless and until she discusses it bluntly with the attorney).

[Deep13]

19. okay, I see.

I wrote a lengthy response but touched the wrong button on this technilogical piece of shit with my thumb nail and it got erased.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

20. I'm pretty sure the former paralegal had nothing to do

with completing the form. This is just the lawyer trying to blame someone else for his mistakes (not the first time, either). The reason why I believe (or rather, know) that it was not accidental is because there are 5-6 questions with YES/NO checkboxes on the naturalization application about arrests, charges, convictions, etc. One of these questions requires written responses with a YES answer.

I can understand that one erroneously checked box may be accidental, but 5 or 6 of them?????

As to the language issue, the questionnaire was provided in English and Spanish; the client completed it in Spanish and the former paralegal (who is a native Spanish speaker) translated the responses. Moreover, we have a copy of a court record in the files for misdemeanor assault on a female, communicating threats and two felony counts of breaking and entering.

My moral objection to this is to (1) actually prepare a document I know to be false (because the attorney does not do any work himself); and (2) notarize it which, though I am only attesting to the signature, makes me a moral part of this charade.

Knowing this attorney as I do, and being aware of his history on other cases with similar complications, I believe he went ahead with this application without regard to the outcome (our firm is in financial dire straits) and, more importantly, without advising the client about the potential effects of his criminal record on his green card should he take a trip abroad.

[Shakespeare]

21. Have you talked to your attorney about this?

I know you don't like or trust the guy, but if you want to decline to notarize the affidavit, you should probably talk to him about why you have a problem with it. I'm not suggesting it'll be an easy or pleasant conversation, but I'm not sure how else you'll explain your refusal to notarize the document.

[davsand]

10. Umm, can you tell the new job you are worried about getting let go if old boss finds out?

I dunno, but if they are lawyers, it would make sense to me that they might understand your situation--that you are worried about being let go if the old boss finds out you are looking. I think it'd be ok to bring that up when you talk to them because there ARE firms that get a bit touchy if they think you might leave them (and might take clients or info with you...)

No way would I lie, but I think it is fair to tell them you need to get gone from this old job with a minimal delay.


:shrug:


Laura

[Deep13]

11. Always tell the truth.

Now, that does not mean you must disclose every detail of the truth to the new employers. Not everything is their business.

As far as the malpractice matter, understand that is his problem, not yours. I always get a bit alamed when I see someone calculating possible answers for effect. Just tell the truth and be prepared to tell everything you know on the matter. Confidentiality belongs to the client, not the lawyer.