COMPLAINT
On June 2, 2016, the Office of the Bar Counsel received a complaint from Lynette Fast Horse regarding Attorney Paul T. Shane. The complainant, a former employee, believes that Shane has failed to appropriately handle immigration matters. Fast Horse alleges that Murray is in violation of Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4(c).
FACTS
Fast Horse has provided information regarding nine separate complaints, a synopsis of each complaint is as follows:
Complaint #1
On March 7, 2016, Myung Ah Kang and her employer hired Shane to assist in filing a H-1B visa petition. On April 15, 2016, Shane emailed Kang asking her to sign documents, and send scanned copies back. A scanned copy of the H1-B visa petition was filed on April 16, 2016, with the Vermont Service Center
On May 6, 2016, Kang informed Shane that her H1-B visa petition was rejected and sent back, the next day Kang and Shane met to discuss the petition. Fast Horse asserts that forms were rightly rejected because they were photocopies not originals, and that Shane never provided instructions regarding the original signed documents. Additionally, Shane informed the client shortly after their meeting via e-mail that the new documents had been sent to USCIS; Fast Horse asserts that the client’s …show more content…
In this case, Fast Horse explains that Shane did not properly utilize charts from DOS and USCIS to determine when the client’s I-140 and I-485 could be filed. When the error was discovered Shane did not explain that he had misread the information but rather blamed the error on the DOS’ bulletin. After the error was discovered Shane was misleading as to when the priority date for Fils would be assigned and a USCIS card for temporary work would be issued. Again, Fast Horse asserts that cost of the process was placed entirely on the employee, and Fils was charged more than other clients in similar
On June 2, 2016, the Office of the Bar Counsel received a complaint from Lynette Fast Horse regarding Attorney Paul T. Shane. The complainant, a former employee, believes that Shane has failed to appropriately handle immigration matters. Fast Horse alleges that Murray is in violation of Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4(c).
FACTS
Fast Horse has provided information regarding nine separate complaints, a synopsis of each complaint is as follows:
Complaint #1
On March 7, 2016, Myung Ah Kang and her employer hired Shane to assist in filing a H-1B visa petition. On April 15, 2016, Shane emailed Kang asking her to sign documents, and send scanned copies back. A scanned copy of the H1-B visa petition was filed on April 16, 2016, with the Vermont Service Center
On May 6, 2016, Kang informed Shane that her H1-B visa petition was rejected and sent back, the next day Kang and Shane met to discuss the petition. Fast Horse asserts that forms were rightly rejected because they were photocopies not originals, and that Shane never provided instructions regarding the original signed documents. Additionally, Shane informed the client shortly after their meeting via e-mail that the new documents had been sent to USCIS; Fast Horse asserts that the client’s …show more content…
In this case, Fast Horse explains that Shane did not properly utilize charts from DOS and USCIS to determine when the client’s I-140 and I-485 could be filed. When the error was discovered Shane did not explain that he had misread the information but rather blamed the error on the DOS’ bulletin. After the error was discovered Shane was misleading as to when the priority date for Fils would be assigned and a USCIS card for temporary work would be issued. Again, Fast Horse asserts that cost of the process was placed entirely on the employee, and Fils was charged more than other clients in similar