Description
Question will be attached when tutor accepts. There is no more files allowed. max of 6 pages single-spaced.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Douglas is an immigration and civil rights attorney based in Charlotte, NC. He is licensed to practice in
North Carolina and Georgia, and is able to practice before EOIR immigration courts because he is
licensed in at least one of the 50 states. His areas of expertise are asylum law, representing detained
clients in removal/deportation proceedings and representing immigrant plaintiffs in civil suits against
the Federal Government for injuries and civil rights violations while in ICE detention.
In early 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
implement a policy known as “metering” where ports of entry along the U.S./Mexico border limited the
number of people who were able to present themselves at the port of entry each day to request asylum.
After the metering policy was implemented, a waiting list was created so that asylum seekers would
know when it was their turn to present themselves at the port of entry to request asylum.
In response to a request for volunteers by the Florence Project, a non-profit organization providing
immigration legal services to immigrants and asylum seekers near the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona,
Douglas spends a week in November 2018 volunteering in Nogales, Mexico, which is directly across the
border from Nogales, AZ. During his week in Nogales, Mexico, Douglas completed legal screenings with
two dozen asylum seekers each day at a makeshift immigration screening clinic organized by the
Florence Project. At the beginning of each legal screening, Douglas had each person sign a limited
representation agreement from the Florence Project explaining that the meeting was a one time legal
screening and that the attorney the asylum seeker was meeting with was not agreeing to accept the
asylum seeker’s case for full representation.
Douglas is also very active on Twitter and after each day of volunteering, he tweeted out detailed
threads about his day volunteering with the Florence Project, including specific details about the stories
of the individuals he met with during each legal screening clinic.
At one legal screening appointment, Douglas met with Samuel, an asylum seeker from Guatemala.
Samuel is a human rights activist who has engaged in community organizing work in Guatemala to
oppose the MS-13, Calle 18 and other gangs in the country. Samuel fled Guatemala and crossed the
border into Mexico after receiving a series of death threats from the cartels related to his work. After
Samuel arrived in Mexico, he continued to receive death threats and he was kidnapped by a local cartel
in Northern Mexico that was affiliated with the gangs targeting Samuel in Guatemala. Realizing Samuel
was not safe waiting in Northern Mexico for his turn to present himself under the metering system,
Douglas offered to represent Samuel in his asylum application and accompany him to the port of entry
in Nogales, AZ to request that he be admitted immediately for urgent humanitarian reasons to request
asylum.
The next day, Douglas together with three law student volunteers, accompanied Samuel to the port of
entry to request he be admitted to pursue an asylum application. Because it was an emergency
humanitarian request outside of the metering system in place in 2018, the CBP agent at the port of
entry made Douglas, Samuel and the three law students wait outside of the port of entry for 3 hours
while the CBP Port Supervisor in charge of the port of entry reviewed the request. The request
submitted at the port of entry was prepared by Douglas on behalf of Samuel and included a G-28 Notice
of Appearance signed by Samuel and Douglas, so that Douglas would be formally recognized as the
attorney of record in Samuel’s case.
While they were waiting for a decision from the CBP Port Supervisor, Douglas began live tweeting from
the port of entry. His tweets included information about Samuel’s story and photos of Samuel and the
law students Douglas tweeted from his phone without permission from Samuel or the law students.
Eventually, the CBP Port Supervisor approved Samuel’s emergency request and admitted him into the
U.S. to pursue his asylum claim. As he was being processed, Douglas gave Samuel his card and told him
to call his cell phone once he completed initial processing and transfer to an ICE detention facility.
After being admitted, Samuel was transferred to an ICE detention center in Tuscon, AZ to undergo a
Credible Fear Interview (CFI). Per Douglas’s instructions, Samuel attempted to call Douglas’s cell phone
to let Douglas know where he was being detained and to prepare for his credible fear interview, but
Douglas did not pick up or return any of his phone calls. Because Douglas never responded to Samuel’s
phone calls or attempted to contact him, Samuel underwent his credible fear interview pro se without
the assistance of a lawyer. Thankfully, Samuel passed his Credible Fear Interview, but his request to ICE
to be released from ICE detention, which Samuel prepared and presented pro se, was denied. Since
Samuel is not a lawyer and because his English is limited, the request to be released from ICE detention
was denied because it did not conform with the standards set forth by the Agency. In March 2019, after
being held in ICE detention for nearly 4 months, Samuel is able to locate the phone number of Pedro,
one of the law students who accompanied him to the port of entry. Samuel calls Pedro to ask for help
finding Douglas or another lawyer to help him with his asylum claim. Pedro and his law professor
promptly follow up with Samuel to assist with his case, but they are unable to secure his release from
detention because Samuel had already made an unsuccessful request for release in December 2018.
Please answer the following questions:
Did Douglas’s conduct as described above conform with his duties under the Model Rules? If not, what
actions by Douglas were a violation of the Model Rules?
Did Douglas and Samuel have an attorney-client relationship?
If Samuel was Douglas’s client, did Douglas meet his duties under the Model Rules to Samuel as a client?
If not, how did Douglas fail to meet his duties under the Model Rules to Samuel?
What harm (if any) did Samuel suffer because of Douglas’s actions?
Douglas is an immigration and civil rights attorney based in Charlotte, NC. He is licensed to practice in
North Carolina and Georgia, and is able to practice before EOIR immigration courts because he is
licensed in at least one of the 50 states. His areas of expertise are asylum law, representing detained
clients in removal/deportation proceedings and representing immigrant plaintiffs in civil suits against
the Federal Government for injuries and civil rights violations while in ICE detention.
In early 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
implement a policy known as “metering” where ports of entry along the U.S./Mexico border limited the
number of people who were able to present themselves at the port of entry each day to request asylum.
After the metering policy was implemented, a waiting list was created so that asylum seekers would
know when it was their turn to present themselves at the port of entry to request asylum.
In response to a request for volunteers by the Florence Project, a non-profit organization providing
immigration legal services to immigrants and asylum seekers near the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona,
Douglas spends a week in November 2018 volunteering in Nogales, Mexico, which is directly across the
border from Nogales, AZ. During his week in Nogales, Mexico, Douglas completed legal screenings with
two dozen asylum seekers each day at a makeshift immigration screening clinic organized by the
Florence Project. At the beginning of each legal screening, Douglas had each person sign a limited
representation agreement from the Florence Project explaining that the meeting was a one time legal
screening and that the attorney the asylum seeker was meeting with was not agreeing to accept the
asylum seeker’s case for full representation. – Togstad/RLGL Sect 14
Douglas is also very active on Twitter and after each day of volunteering, he tweeted out detailed
threads about his day volunteering with the Florence Project, including specific details about the stories
of the individuals he met with during each legal screening clinic. – 1.6/1.18 – duty of confidentialty
At one legal screening appointment, Douglas met with Samuel, an asylum seeker from Guatemala.
Samuel is a human rights activist who has engaged in community organizing work in Guatemala to
oppose the MS-13, Calle 18 and other gangs in the country. Samuel fled Guatemala and crossed the
border into Mexico after receiving a series of death threats from the cartels related to his work. After
Samuel arrived in Mexico, he continued to receive death threats and he was kidnapped by a local cartel
in Northern Mexico that was affiliated with the gangs targeting Samuel in Guatemala. Realizing Samuel
was not safe waiting in Northern Mexico for his turn to present himself under the metering system,
Douglas offered to represent Samuel in his asylum application and accompany him to the port of entry
in Nogales, AZ to request that he be admitted immediately for urgent humanitarian reasons to request
asylum.
The next day, Douglas together with three law student volunteers, accompanied Samuel to the port of
entry to request he be admitted to pursue an asylum application. Because it was an emergency
humanitarian request outside of the metering system in place in 2018, the CBP agent at the port of
entry made Douglas, Samuel and the three law students wait outside of the port of entry for 3 hours
while the CBP Port Supervisor in charge of the port of entry reviewed the request. The request
submitted at the port of entry was prepared by Douglas on behalf of Samuel and included a G-28 Notice
of Appearance signed by Samuel and Douglas, so that Douglas would be formally recognized as the
attorney of record in Samuel’s case.
While they were waiting for a decision from the CBP Port Supervisor, Douglas began live tweeting from
the port of entry. His tweets included information about Samuel’s story and photos of Samuel and the
law students Douglas tweeted from his phone without permission from Samuel or the law students.
Eventually, the CBP Port Supervisor approved Samuel’s emergency request and admitted him into the
U.S. to pursue his asylum claim. As he was being processed, Douglas gave Samuel his card and told him
to call his cell phone once he completed initial processing and transfer to an ICE detention facility.
After being admitted, Samuel was transferred to an ICE detention center in Tuscon, AZ to undergo a
Credible Fear Interview (CFI). Per Douglas’s instructions, Samuel attempted to call Douglas’s cell phone
to let Douglas know where he was being detained and to prepare for his credible fear interview, but
Douglas did not pick up or return any of his phone calls. – 1.4 Duty of Communication & 1.3 Duty of
Diligence/Abandonment of Client Because Douglas never responded to Samuel’s phone calls or
attempted to contact him, Samuel underwent his credible fear interview pro se without the assistance
of a lawyer. Thankfully, Samuel passed his Credible Fear Interview, but his request to ICE to be released
from ICE detention, which Samuel prepared and presented pro se, was denied. Since Samuel is not a
lawyer and because his English is limited, the request to be released from ICE detention was denied
because it did not conform with the standards set forth by the Agency. In March 2019, after being held
in ICE detention for nearly 4 months, Samuel is able to locate the phone number of Pedro, one of the
law students who accompanied him to the port of entry. Samuel calls Pedro to ask for help finding
Douglas or another lawyer to help him with his asylum claim. Pedro and his law professor promptly
follow up with Samuel to assist with his case, but they are unable to secure his release from detention
because Samuel had already made an unsuccessful request for release in December 2018.
Please answer the following questions:
Did Douglas’s conduct as described above conform with his duties under the Model Rules?
–
Duty of Competence MR 1.1
Limited Services – RLGL 14 and Togstad
If not, what actions by Douglas were a violation of the Model Rules?
MR 1.6 – Twitter Threads
Did Douglas and Samuel have an attorney-client relationship?
–
Togstad – describe factors that would create client-lawyer relationship and cause Samuel to
believe Douglas was Samuel’s lawyer
If Samuel was Douglas’s client, did Douglas meet his duties under the Model Rules to Samuel as a client?
–
MR 1.6 – Confidentiality;
MR 1.4 – Communication – didn’t respond to calls;
MR 1.3 – Diligence/Client Abandonment
If not, how did Douglas fail to meet his duties under the Model Rules to Samuel?
What harm (if any) did Samuel suffer because of Douglas’s actions? – Being held in Detention. Danger
b/c Cartels know Samuel’s location
Midterm Exam:
Paul Jones is a solo practitioner and owner of Jones Law PLLC in St. Paul, MN. Since
graduating from law school in May 2012, he has practiced exclusively in the area of
criminal defense law. In January 2018, in an effort to drum up more business, Paul has
decided to expand his practice into the area of family law. Paul believes this will be a
good fit because Family Law was one of his top grades in law school and many of his
criminal defense clients also have questions about divorce, child custody and other
areas of family law. To “get up to speed” in this area, Paul skims through his case book
and notes from his Family Law course, completed his 2L year in the Fall of 2011. Paul
also joins the Family Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) but
does not attend any CLE programing offered by the section.
As part of his marketing efforts, Paul maintains a Facebook page for his firm, Jones Law
PLLC. On January 15, 2018, Paul makes the following post:
“Greetings! Jones Law PLLC has decided to expand into the area of family law. Please
let us know if we can assist you with your family law needs.”
A former criminal defense client of Paul’s, George Hill, responds to the Facebook post,
saying “That’s great news Paul. I have a family law issue that I’d like to run by you. My
ex-wife moved to Colorado with our son last month, right before Christmas, and I want
to make sure I get visits with him over the summer. Can you help?”
Paul immediately responds to the post, stating “No problem. Since your son is now in
Colorado, we will need to file with the local family court in Colorado, but we should be
able to help. Call my office to set up an appointment.” This exchange is visible to the
public via the Jones Law PLLC Facebook page. The information provided is erroneous
because, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA),
adopted by both Minnesota and Colorado, a family court action should be filed in the
child’s state of residence, defined as the last state where the child resided six months or
longer. Since George’s son has only resided in Colorado for approximately one month,
his state of residence under the UCCJEA is Minnesota and a family court action for
custody and visitation can be filed in Minnesota.
Over the next week, George calls Jones Law PLLC and leaves several voicemails to set
up an appointment. Paul does not return George’s calls and George lets the matter
drop. On July 15, 2018, after his ex-wife refuses to allow their son to travel to
Minnesota for a visit, George calls Jones Law PLLC again and Paul finally returns his
call.
1. What duties, if any, does Paul owe to George?
2. Has Paul breeched any of his duties to George? If so, what duties has he breached?
3. Has George suffered any harm as a result of Paul’s actions?
4. What consequences could Paul face as a result of his actions in George’s case?
Midterm Exam:
Paul Jones is a solo practitioner and owner of Jones Law PLLC in St. Paul, MN. Since
graduating from law school in May 2012, he has practiced exclusively in the area of
criminal defense law. In January 2018, in an effort to drum up more business, Paul has
decided to expand his practice into the area of family law. Paul believes this will be a
good fit because Family Law was one of his top grades in law school and many of his
criminal defense clients also have questions about divorce, child custody and other
areas of family law. To “get up to speed” in this area, Paul skims through his case book
and notes from his Family Law course, completed his 2L year in the Fall of 2011. Paul
also joins the Family Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) but
does not attend any CLE programing offered by the section. – MR 1.1 – duty of
competence
As part of his marketing efforts, Paul maintains a Facebook page for his firm, Jones Law
PLLC. On January 15, 2018, Paul makes the following post:
“Greetings! Jones Law PLLC has decided to expand into the area of family law. Please
let us know if we can assist you with your family law needs.”
A former criminal defense client of Paul’s, George Hill, responds to the Facebook post,
saying “That’s great news Paul. I have a family law issue that I’d like to run by you. My
ex-wife moved to Colorado with our son last month, right before Christmas, and I want
to make sure I get visits with him over the summer. Can you help?” – MR 1.9 – former
client in Crim Defense Matter & MR 1.18 Prospective Client in Family Law Matter
Paul immediately responds to the post, stating “No problem. Since your son is now in
Colorado, we will need to file with the local family court in Colorado, but we should be
able to help. Call my office to set up an appointment.” This exchange is visible to the
public via the Jones Law PLLC Facebook page. – MR 1.18 & MR 1.6 – duty of
confidentiality to prospective clients
The information provided is erroneous because, under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted by both Minnesota and Colorado,
a family court action should be filed in the child’s state of residence, defined as the last
state where the child resided six months or longer. Since George’s son has only
resided in Colorado for approximately one month, his state of residence under the
UCCJEA is Minnesota and a family court action for custody and visitation can be filed in
Minnesota. – MR 1.1 duty of competence b/c giving incorrect advice + MR 1.3 duty of
diligence b/c didn’t confirm/double check advice is correct. Harm to George because he
could file action in MN, the state where he lives. Also issue of deadline and not being
advised that child’s state of residence will change to CO 6 mo after moving (June 2018)
Over the next week, George calls Jones Law PLLC and leaves several voicemails to set
up an appointment. Paul does not return George’s calls and George lets the matter
drop. – MR 1.3 duty of diligence not returning call from former/prospective client.
Potential implied client-lawyer relationship based on exchange where George relying on
Paul to be his lawyer. On July 15, 2018, after his ex-wife refuses to allow their son to
travel to Minnesota for a visit, George calls Jones Law PLLC again and Paul finally
returns his call. – Harm to George – missed opportunity to file custody action in MN.
1. What duties, if any, does Paul owe to George?
– MR 1.1
– MR 1.3
– MR 1.9 + MR 1.18
– MR 1.18 + MR 1.6 duty of confidentiality
2. Has Paul breeched any of his duties to George? If so, what duties has he breached?
– MR 1.1
– MR 1.3
– MR 1.9 + MR 1.18
– MR 1.18 + MR 1.6 duty of confidentiality
3. Has George suffered any harm as a result of Paul’s actions?
Confidential information is public, including to mother of child/adverse party
Missed opportunity to file custody action/parenting time action in MN
–
Failure MR 1.1 – not aware of 6 mo deadline from date child relocated to
CO;
Failure of MR 1.3 – did not promptly file action in MN
4. What consequences could Paul face as a result of his actions in George’s case?
–
Disciplinary Action – reprimand, suspension, disbarment etc.
Tort Action for Malpractice
Midterm Exam:
Paul Jones is a solo practitioner and owner of Jones Law PLLC in St. Paul, MN. Since
graduating from law school in May 2012, he has practiced exclusively in the area of
criminal defense law. In January 2018, in an effort to drum up more business, Paul has
decided to expand his practice into the area of family law. Paul believes this will be a
good fit because Family Law was one of his top grades in law school and many of his
criminal defense clients also have questions about divorce, child custody and other
areas of family law. To “get up to speed” in this area, Paul skims through his case book
and notes from his Family Law course, completed his 2L year in the Fall of 2011. Paul
also joins the Family Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) but
does not attend any CLE programing offered by the section. – MR 1.1 Duty of
Competence. Can become competent through education and/or working with a lawyer
who is competent. Paul did not take these steps
As part of his marketing efforts, Paul maintains a Facebook page for his firm, Jones Law
PLLC. On January 15, 2018, Paul makes the following post:
“Greetings! Jones Law PLLC has decided to expand into the area of family law. Please
let us know if we can assist you with your family law needs.”
A former criminal defense client of Paul’s, George Hill, responds to the Facebook post,
saying “That’s great news Paul. I have a family law issue that I’d like to run by you. My
ex-wife moved to Colorado with our son last month, right before Christmas, and I want
to make sure I get visits with him over the summer. Can you help?”
Paul immediately responds to the post, stating “No problem. Since your son is now in
Colorado, we will need to file with the local family court in Colorado, but we should be
able to help. Call my office to set up an appointment.” – MR 1.6 duty of confidentiality.
Shouldn’t post this online where publicly visible. Best pr
This exchange is visible to the public via the Jones Law PLLC Facebook page. The
information provided is erroneous because, under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted by both Minnesota and Colorado,
a family court action should be filed in the child’s state of residence, defined as the last
state where the child resided six months or longer. Since George’s son has only
resided in Colorado for approximately one month, his state of residence under the
UCCJEA is Minnesota and a family court action for custody and visitation can be filed in
Minnesota. – MR 1.1 duty of competence
Over the next week, George calls Jones Law PLLC and leaves several voicemails to set
up an appointment. Paul does not return George’s calls and George lets the matter
drop. On July 15, 2018, after his ex-wife refuses to allow their son to travel to
Minnesota for a visit, George calls Jones Law PLLC again and Paul finally returns his
call. – MR 1.4 Duty of Communication, MR 1.3 Duty of Diligence
1. What duties, if any, does Paul owe to George?
MR. 1.1 Competence
MR 1.3 Diligence
MR 1.4 Communication
MR 1.6 Confidentiality
RLGL 14 – implied client lawyer relationship
2. Has Paul breached any of his duties to George? If so, what duties has he breached?
Implied client/lawyer relationship – exchange creates reasonable expectation that
Paul will assist him with family law matter. Duties owed as implied client.
3. Has George suffered any harm as a result of Paul’s actions?
Breach of MR 1.1 and MR 1.3/1.4 – George missed opportunity to file action in MN
his state of residence
–
Travel cost;
Finding lawyer in CO
Unpaid leave to travel for hearings and parenting time;
Paying second retainer
4. What consequences could Paul face as a result of his actions in George’s case?
– Civil tort action against Paul – duty, breach, proximate cause/but for
causation, harm, damages
– Disciplinary action – suspend license, retake MPRE or CLE requirement,
disbarment, admonishment.
Midterm Exam:
Paul Jones is a solo practitioner and owner of Jones Law PLLC in St. Paul, MN. Since
graduating from law school in May 2012, he has practiced exclusively in the area of
criminal defense law. In January 2018, in an effort to drum up more business, Paul has
decided to expand his practice into the area of family law. Paul believes this will be a
good fit because Family Law was one of his top grades in law school and many of his
criminal defense clients also have questions about divorce, child custody and other
areas of family law. To “get up to speed” in this area, Paul skims through his case book
and notes from his Family Law course, completed his 2L year in the Fall of 2011. Paul
also joins the Family Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) but
does not attend any CLE programing offered by the section. – MR 1.1 Duty of
Competence. Can become competent through education and/or working with a lawyer
who is competent. Paul did not take these steps
As part of his marketing efforts, Paul maintains a Facebook page for his firm, Jones Law
PLLC. On January 15, 2018, Paul makes the following post:
“Greetings! Jones Law PLLC has decided to expand into the area of family law. Please
let us know if we can assist you with your family law needs.”
A former criminal defense client of Paul’s, George Hill, responds to the Facebook post,
saying “That’s great news Paul. I have a family law issue that I’d like to run by you. My
ex-wife moved to Colorado with our son last month, right before Christmas, and I want
to make sure I get visits with him over the summer. Can you help?”
Paul immediately responds to the post, stating “No problem. Since your son is now in
Colorado, we will need to file with the local family court in Colorado, but we should be
able to help. Call my office to set up an appointment.” – MR 1.6 duty of confidentiality.
Shouldn’t post this online where publicly visible. Best pr
This exchange is visible to the public via the Jones Law PLLC Facebook page. The
information provided is erroneous because, under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted by both Minnesota and Colorado,
a family court action should be filed in the child’s state of residence, defined as the last
state where the child resided six months or longer. Since George’s son has only
resided in Colorado for approximately one month, his state of residence under the
UCCJEA is Minnesota and a family court action for custody and visitation can be filed in
Minnesota. – MR 1.1 duty of competence
Over the next week, George calls Jones Law PLLC and leaves several voicemails to set
up an appointment. Paul does not return George’s calls and George lets the matter
drop. On July 15, 2018, after his ex-wife refuses to allow their son to travel to
Minnesota for a visit, George calls Jones Law PLLC again and Paul finally returns his
call. – MR 1.4 Duty of Communication, MR 1.3 Duty of Diligence
1. What duties, if any, does Paul owe to George?
MR. 1.1 Competence
MR 1.3 Diligence
MR 1.4 Communication
MR 1.6 Confidentiality
RLGL 14 – implied client lawyer relationship
2. Has Paul breached any of his duties to George? If so, what duties has he breached?
Implied client/lawyer relationship – exchange creates reasonable expectation that
Paul will assist him with family law matter. Duties owed as implied client.
3. Has George suffered any harm as a result of Paul’s actions?
Breach of MR 1.1 and MR 1.3/1.4 – George missed opportunity to file action in MN
his state of residence
–
Travel cost;
Finding lawyer in CO
Unpaid leave to travel for hearings and parenting time;
Paying second retainer
4. What consequences could Paul face as a result of his actions in George’s case?
– Civil tort action against Paul – duty, breach, proximate cause/but for
causation, harm, damages
– Disciplinary action – suspend license, retake MPRE or CLE requirement,
disbarment, admonishment.
Douglas is an immigration and civil rights attorney based in Charlotte, NC. He is licensed to practice in
North Carolina and Georgia, and is able to practice before EOIR immigration courts because he is
licensed in at least one of the 50 states. His areas of expertise are asylum law, representing detained
clients in removal/deportation proceedings and representing immigrant plaintiffs in civil suits against
the Federal Government for injuries and civil rights violations while in ICE detention.
In early 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
implement a policy known as “metering” where ports of entry along the U.S./Mexico border limited the
number of people who were able to present themselves at the port of entry each day to request asylum.
After the metering policy was implemented, a waiting list was created so that asylum seekers would
know when it was their turn to present themselves at the port of entry to request asylum.
In response to a request for volunteers by the Florence Project, a non-profit organization providing
immigration legal services to immigrants and asylum seekers near the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona,
Douglas spends a week in November 2018 volunteering in Nogales, Mexico, which is directly across the
border from Nogales, AZ. During his week in Nogales, Mexico, Douglas completed legal screenings with
two dozen asylum seekers each day at a makeshift immigration screening clinic organized by the
Florence Project. At the beginning of each legal screening, Douglas had each person sign a limited
representation agreement from the Florence Project explaining that the meeting was a one time legal
screening and that the attorney the asylum seeker was meeting with was not agreeing to accept the
asylum seeker’s case for full representation.
Douglas is also very active on Twitter and after each day of volunteering, he tweeted out detailed
threads about his day volunteering with the Florence Project, including specific details about the stories
of the individuals he met with during each legal screening clinic.
At one legal screening appointment, Douglas met with Samuel, an asylum seeker from Guatemala.
Samuel is a human rights activist who has engaged in community organizing work in Guatemala to
oppose the MS-13, Calle 18 and other gangs in the country. Samuel fled Guatemala and crossed the
border into Mexico after receiving a series of death threats from the cartels related to his work. After
Samuel arrived in Mexico, he continued to receive death threats and he was kidnapped by a local cartel
in Northern Mexico that was affiliated with the gangs targeting Samuel in Guatemala. Realizing Samuel
was not safe waiting in Northern Mexico for his turn to present himself under the metering system,
Douglas offered to represent Samuel in his asylum application and accompany him to the port of entry
in Nogales, AZ to request that he be admitted immediately for urgent humanitarian reasons to request
asylum.
The next day, Douglas together with three law student volunteers, accompanied Samuel to the port of
entry to request he be admitted to pursue an asylum application. Because it was an emergency
humanitarian request outside of the metering system in place in 2018, the CBP agent at the port of
entry made Douglas, Samuel and the three law students wait outside of the port of entry for 3 hours
while the CBP Port Supervisor in charge of the port of entry reviewed the request. The request
submitted at the port of entry was prepared by Douglas on behalf of Samuel and included a G-28 Notice
of Appearance signed by Samuel and Douglas, so that Douglas would be formally recognized as the
attorney of record in Samuel’s case.
While they were waiting for a decision from the CBP Port Supervisor, Douglas began live tweeting from
the port of entry. His tweets included information about Samuel’s story and photos of Samuel and the
law students Douglas tweeted from his phone without permission from Samuel or the law students.
Eventually, the CBP Port Supervisor approved Samuel’s emergency request and admitted him into the
U.S. to pursue his asylum claim. As he was being processed, Douglas gave Samuel his card and told him
to call his cell phone once he completed initial processing and transfer to an ICE detention facility.
After being admitted, Samuel was transferred to an ICE detention center in Tuscon, AZ to undergo a
Credible Fear Interview (CFI). Per Douglas’s instructions, Samuel attempted to call Douglas’s cell phone
to let Douglas know where he was being detained and to prepare for his credible fear interview, but
Douglas did not pick
