Julian H. Lebeck (2016)

naturalization.Derivativeeligibilitywould have been available onlyifthe parents both had been erroneously asserted that the client was eligible for derivative citizenship through thefather's The client'shearing was set for February2012. Inprehearingbriefs, Mr. Lebeck

had thecase transferredto Immigration Court inBoston. mistakenlybelievedthat he was a citizen. Mr. Lebeck secured theclient'sreleaseon bond and but were not legally separated, and only his father was a naturalized citizen. The client had proceedings in another state after a misdemeanor conviction. Theclient'sparents had lived apart and was a lawful permanent resident. The client had been apprehended and place in removal Mr. Lebeck was hired to represent a client who had entered the United States as a minor

The matterarisesfrom Mr.Lebeck'srepresentationofclientsin twoimmigrationcases.

Committee for theissuanceofa publiccensure. issuanceofa publiccensure.The Court remanded thematterto theProfessionalConduct MassachusettsBoard ofBar Overseersofthe SupremeJudicialCourt ("theBoard")warrantsthe Supreme Court ruledthattheabove-captionedreciprocaldisciplinematterfrom the Inaccordancewith Supreme Court Rule 37(12), on June10,2016,theNew Hampshire

In the MatterofJulianK Lebeck,Esquire- LD-2016-0008

ScottH. Harris BarbaraJ. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * nonattorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson RichardD. Sager ElaineHolden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Georges J. Roy* Heather E. Krans,Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite102 Margaret R. Kerouac

April 7,2016,theBoard publiclyreprimandedMr. Lebeck. 2016,the Board voted to accept the stipulationofthe parties and theirjointrecommendation. On requesting that the matter be resolved by the impositionofa public reprimand. On March 7, The matter went before the Board on a stipulationofthe parties waiving hearing and

chargeswere clearlyexcessive. hour, mostofwhich were for emails and text messages infifteen-minuteincrements. Those refund.At Bar Counsel's request he providedabreakdownof his time and charges at $250 per Mr. Lebeck had not earned the entire fee paid by the client but failed to make a prompt

counsel who reopened and successfully pursued the petitions. petitions.By 2014,therepresentationhad beeneffectivelyterminated.The client hired new periodiccommunicationswith the client but took nofurtheractionofsubstancetoadvancethe denied.Mr. Lebeck submitted new requests with releases in November2011. Thereafter he had copies of records, but he did not include required releases by the client, and the request was In August2011,Mr. Lebeck sent a request to the Customs and Immigration Service for

approvalofthepetitionsfor a flat feeof$2,500. The client paid the fee. Lebeckagreed to investigate the statusofthe petitions, correct any deficiencies, and pursue relativepetitions for the children some yearsearlier,but the petitions had not been acted on.Mr. two ofthe client's grown children still living in his birthcountry.The client had filed alien In2011,a naturalizedcitizenconsultedMr. Lebeck aboutobtainingimmigrant visasfor

The motions weregrantedin late2014 and theproceedingsreopenedforhearingon the merits. stay and reopen theproceedingsbased on the assertionsofineffectiveassistanceby Mr. Lebeck. The clientsubsequentlydischargedMr. Lebeck and hiredanotherattorneywho moved to

removal. application forcancellationwas dismissed for that reason. The court again ordered theclient's before the hearing that the client had obtained updated biometrics as required, and the The client'ssecond hearing took place in September 2014. Mr. Lebeck failed to verify

Lebeck paid the fee and the proceedings reopened. court indicated that a motion to reopen would be entertained upon paymentofthe filing fee. Mr. been abandoned for failure to file the required application and entered a removal order. The At the hearing, the court ruled that theclient'sapplication forcancellationofremoval had

timelycorrectiveaction. forfiling.Mr. Lebeck received notice that the applicationwas not on file but failed to take applicationfor this relief butfailedtoincludethefilingfee,and theapplicationwas notaccepted discretionaryrelief throughcancellationofremoval.Mr. Lebecksubmitteda required naturalizedor werelegallyseparated.Inaddition,Mr. Lebeckassertedthe client'seligibilityfor p. 3 Page 3 of3

File Brian R. Moushegian, AssistantGeneral Counsel JulianH. Lebeck, Esquire Distribution:

DisciplineOffice'scollectionefforts. 37(19)(c).Mr. Lebeck shall beresponsiblefor any costsincurredas aresultoftheAttorney legally-availablepost-judgmentenforcement remediesand procedures. See Sup. Ct. R. any county in thestate,where it shall bedocketed as a finaljudgment and shallbe subjectto all The Committee may filea copyofthe finalassessmentofcostswith thesuperiorcourt in

in the state. Sup. Ct. R.37(19)(b). disagreement,or enforcetheassessmentofcosts bypetitionto thesuperiorcourtin any county explainingthereasonsfordisagreement.Sup. Ct. R.37(19)(b).The Committee may resolvethe (30) daysofreceiptoftheCommittee's statementofexpenses,listingeach disputedexpense and The assessmentofcostsshallbecome finalunlessMr. Lebeck responds in writing,withinthirty include,but are notlimitedto,copying and costsassociatedwith the publicationofthecensure. investigationand enforcement ofthisdisciplinarymatter. See Sup. Ct. R.37(19)(b).Costs can Mr. Lebeck shallbe responsiblefor theexpenses incurredby theCommittee in the IV. COSTS

Committee hereby issuesa PublicCensure. Supreme JudicialCourt. The Court concluded that apubliccensure iswarranted,and the is theequivalentto apublicreprimand imposed by theCommonwealth ofMassachusetts recommended to theCourt thatforpurposesofreciprocaldiscipline,a sanctionofpubliccensure The ProfessionalConduct Committee deliberatedthematteron May 17, 2016, and

Rule ofProfessionalConduct 1.16(d)as then in effect. Conduct 1.5(a), and his failure promptly to refund the unearned portion violated Massachusetts collectinga clearlyexcessivefee in thesecond case violatedMassachusettsRule ofProfessional Massachusetts RuleofProfessional Conduct1.1 and 1.3. Mr.Lebeck'sconduct in charging and Mr. Lebeck failed torepresentthe clientscompetentlyand diligentlyinviolationof

discipline. Inmitigationin the second case, therespondentlatermade a fee refund to the client. Mr. Lebeck was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 2004 and had no historyof