Inadequate Argumentation – Sanction
Counsel’s woefully inadequate argumentation (“a single, underdeveloped legal argument” that, “(w)orse yet … was foreclosed by” prior precedent) not only dooms his client’s effort to resist deportation, notwithstanding palpable equities on her side, but has consequences for counsel himself:
… We are disturbed, however, by Baniassadi’s perfunctory performance. People in Wroblewska’s position face life-changing consequences from their immigration proceedings. Cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). Because Attorney Baniassadi’s effort fell far below the minimum standards for competent representation in this court, we are requesting the Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of this opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.
Currently pending in the supreme court: State v. Gregory K. Nielsen, 2010AP387-CR, review granted 4/12/11 (whether counsel entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before court imposes monetary or other penalty for alleged violation of appellate procedure rules). the purpose in posting Wroblewska is simply to underscore that for a sufficiently egregious violation, the hurt may run deeper than the purse. (Aside: too bad counsel’s advocacy obligations with respect to an immigration client’s “life-changing consequences” are measured with a timing mechanism.)