ILNews

Attorney general files 'notario publico' civil suits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office filed a pair of civil consumer deception lawsuits Wednesday against two non-attorneys for offering immigration services that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Both defendants offered immigration-related services normally done by attorneys to their Spanish-speaking clients, but neither is a licensed attorney and Attorney General Greg Zoeller alleges that neither is legally certified or trained to provide advice to clients on immigration law.

One suit was filed in Allen Circuit Court against Evelyne O. Casiano, who has been doing business as United Hispanic Caring Hearts in Fort Wayne. The second suit is in Marion Superior Court against The Mexican Civic Association of Indiana Inc. and M. Esther Barber, doing business as Asociacion Civica Mexicana De Indiana Inc. in Indianapolis.

The Fort Wayne suit alleges that Casiano operated as a “notario publico” since 2008, and two consumers paid her for services such as selecting, completing, and filing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services forms for them. Although Casiano claimed to be an “assistant to an attorney,” the suit says that no such relationship existed. One customer who complained of paying thousands of dollars in fees for legal assistance now faces deportation proceedings as a result of Casiano’s actions, according to AG spokesman Bryan Corbin.

In the Indianapolis case, the lawsuit alleges that Barber has advertised herself to the Spanish-speaking community as someone who can assist with immigration issues and since 2006 she has allegedly done similar selection, preparation, and completion of USCIS immigration forms for a fee.

The lawsuits both allege the defendants knowingly violated the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act by providing services without the required license and training, and the suits seek injunctions against Barber and Casiano to prevent them from advising consumers about immigration policies or doing that type of work without first obtaining a license to practice law.

Each lawsuit also seeks consumer restitution for unlawfully obtained funds, civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each knowing violation and up to $500 for each intentional violation of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, as well as attorneys’ fees.

Separate from the civil consumer suit, the AG also used the office’s limited criminal jurisdiction to have a search warrant issued Wednesday on Barber’s business and residence in Indianapolis as part of an investigation into possible tax offenses. Authorities seized records from the residence and business and those documents are still being reviewed. No charges have been filed at this point for any tax violations that may have occurred.

Zoeller is trying to raise awareness about the larger issue of non-English speakers seeking immigration assistance from individuals called “notarios” who aren’t licensed to practice law but who might be assumed to be attorneys by the immigrant population. In the U.S., a notary public is a person certified to serve as a state-authorized witness for the notarization of documents. But in Spanish-speaking nations, the term “notario publico” can refer to an attorney with specialized training. Language barriers or misunderstandings might make immigrant clients more trusting of advice they receive from notaries here.

These suits are the first actions filed against “public notaries” since the December 2005 decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in State of Indiana ex rel. Indiana State Bar Assoc., et al. v. Ludy Diaz, 838 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 2005), which specifically focused on this type of activity and determined it constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

While this isn’t a UPL action specifically, Corbin says that possibility is still available and could happen against one or both of these individuals. The AG, Indiana Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission, and Indiana State Bar Association are the three entities with power to file UPL actions. Corbin said this civil litigation was chosen because it can be addressed immediately and an injunction can be issued more quickly than what is typical through the UPL investigation and litigation process.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT