DePape v. Trinity Health Systems, Inc.
242 F. Supp. 2d 585 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney commits legal malpractice by failing to communicate material information about immigration options, limitations, and strategy to a client, thereby precluding the client from making an informed decision, and by advising the client to use a sham artifice to gain entry into the United States.
Facts:
- In March 1999, Dr. Gregory dePape, a Canadian citizen, entered into a five-year employment contract with Trimark Physicians Group, an Iowa-based medical group.
- Trimark retained the Blumenfeld law firm to handle immigration matters for both Trimark and Dr. dePape.
- Blumenfeld knew Dr. dePape was ineligible for the preferred H-1B visa as he had not taken the required USMLE exams, but failed to advise him of the consequences or suggest he take the exams.
- The firm decided to pursue a temporary TN visa, which limits physicians to teaching and research with only "incidental patient care," and does not permit intent to permanently immigrate.
- Without consulting Dr. dePape, Blumenfeld concocted a fictitious job description of "Physician Consultant" performing a "community health care needs assessment" for the TN visa application to circumvent the visa's limitations.
- Blumenfeld had only one six-minute phone call with Dr. dePape during the entire representation and never explained the TN visa's restrictions or the fictitious job strategy.
- On June 8, 2000, at the U.S.-Canada border, Dr. dePape was shown the fraudulent application letter for the first time by Blumenfeld's local counsel just minutes before his immigration interview.
- When questioned by an INS official, Dr. dePape truthfully stated his intent was to practice family medicine, leading the official to deny his entry and accuse him of lying.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. dePape filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa against Trimark Physicians Group, Ltd. and Trinity Health Systems, Inc., asserting claims of promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and negligence.
- Defendants Trimark and Trinity filed a third-party complaint against the Blumenfeld law firm, alleging legal malpractice and seeking contribution and indemnification.
- Dr. dePape amended his complaint to add a direct claim of legal malpractice against the Blumenfeld law firm.
- The case proceeded to a non-jury bench trial before the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit legal malpractice by failing to adequately communicate with and advise a client on the stringent limitations of a TN visa and by devising a sham job description for the visa application, thereby causing the client's entry to be denied and resulting in financial and emotional damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Bennett
Yes. An attorney commits legal malpractice by failing to keep a client reasonably informed to permit the client to make informed decisions and by counseling the client to perpetrate a fraud on a government agency. Blumenfeld breached its duty of care by having virtually no communication with its client, Dr. dePape, about his immigration options and strategy. This failure violated professional conduct standards, which require a lawyer to explain matters to the extent necessary for a client to make informed decisions. The court found that the "community health care needs assessment" was a sham artifice created by Blumenfeld to deceive immigration officials, as it knew Dr. dePape intended to practice family medicine full-time and immigrate permanently, both of which are forbidden under a TN visa. This breach directly caused Dr. dePape's damages; had he been properly informed of the limitations, he would have remained in Canada and started his practice there earlier, avoiding lost income and the severe emotional distress of the border incident.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the fundamental, non-delegable duty of an attorney to communicate directly and substantively with a client. It serves as a stark warning against using "aggressive" legal strategies that cross the line into fraud or misrepresentation. The court's willingness to hold the law firm fully liable for both economic losses and significant emotional distress damages highlights the severe consequences of such a profound breach of professional duty. The case establishes that an attorney cannot hide behind a layperson intermediary to fulfill their communication obligations and that concocting a sham legal strategy is a clear violation of the standard of care.
Unlock the full brief for DePape v. Trinity Health Systems, Inc.