| |
The
Community
The
first hint of what would soon materialize as a
problem for the Latino community was brought to
my attention in 1999 when I saw about 30 people
(all appearing to be Latino farm workers) lined
up outside the office of a local notary. This
was at a time when advocates in my program had
begun seeing ads in the local Spanish language
newspaper that had been placed by Margarita Noyola,
advertising immigration and notary services. The
real sign of trouble came when clients began seeking
advice from the Wenatchee office of Columbia Legal
Services (CLS) and other legal services providers,
on immigration problems caused by Ms. Noyolaâs
work. Many of the people seeking advice did not
want to bring any legal action against her and
were unwilling to testify or report to any authority,
including the Consumer Division of the state Attorney
Generalâs Office. Because Ms. Noyola had lived
in central Washington all her life, is a certified
interpreter, has many friends and is well known
in the Latino community, many saw her as being
connected and powerful. On the other hand, they
perceived themselves as powerless and vulnerable
because of their immigration status. As a result,
they were fearful of retaliation and other consequences
were they to speak out or take action about their
concerns relating to Ms. Noyola.
Most of the community members who came to CLS
for advice had unknowingly been placed into removal
(deportation) proceedings through Ms. Noyolaâs
actions. She either took her clients directly
to the INS office, had them fingerprinted and
placed into removal proceedings or she had her
clients send the INS a form letter, which she
drafted, asking to be placed into ãproceedingsä.
For each client she filled out an application
for Cancellation of Removal, to be delivered later
to the INS. Ms. Noyola took the clientsâ money
and encouraged them to believe they could obtain
legal immigrant status. She never told her clients
that their chances of success were few or noneö
extremely few people can meet the standards for
Cancellation of Removal. When the inevitable occurred
(commencement of deportation proceedings) and
her clients realized they had no defense, they
were shocked, since the process that got them
there had taken place without their knowledge
and understanding. The sad reality for many of
her customers is that they are, in fact, not eligible
for Cancellation and will eventually be deported.
Building the Relationship: The Community
and CLS
In order to gain the trust of the community and
to provide critical outreach to the community
most likely to be affected by Ms. Noyolaâs practices,
staff in our office commenced a focused community
education campaign. For example, to provide the
community with information about the rights of
customers of state-regulated Immigration Assistants
(right to a written contract, return of all documents
upon request, etc.), we went to migrant parent
meetings, labor camps, and ESL classes to put
on a funny but serious skit. The skit featured
the dilemma of an immigrant who gets conflicting
immigration advice from her 1) hair dresser, 2)
a notary who will charge $500 and guarantees a
win, and 3) a lawyer who wants $150 per hour,
or $4000 to take the case, and says a win is unlikely.
We undertook all of these efforts because we recognized
the importance of gaining the trust of the community
and sharing vitally important information with
them in a way that would be familiar to their
real-life experiences.
We also published three brochures- ãThe Difference
Between a Lawyer and a Notaryä, ãThe Ten-Year
Law- What you Should Knowä and ãImmigration Assistants-
What you Should Knowä (we had already created ãHow to Hire a Private Attorneyä). All
these are available in English and Spanish on www.nwjustice.org.
In addition, I spoke on two Spanish radio shows
and appeared in two Spanish newspaper articles,
through which I was able to provide the community
with information on the immigration assistant
statute (RCW 19.154.010 et seq.) and on the Cancellation
of Removal process. These efforts expanded community
understanding of limitations on state-regulated
immigration assistants, and awareness of the real
threat posed by the unlicensed and fraudulent
practice of law by ãnotariosä who promoted themselves
to the public and sold to customers relief that
was in fact not legally available. Eventually
one community person came forward and asked that
we represent him in putting a stop to Ms. Noyolaâs
practice.
The Results
After considering the gravity of the risks posed
by Ms. Noyolaâs practices on the most vulnerable
members of our client community, we determined
that this was an important consumer protection
case. We accepted the clientâs request for representation
and filed a class action. Others learned about
the case and asked to join as representative plaintiffs.
Our clients were all very frightened of the personal
consequences of taking a public stand, but nevertheless
decided to put their own fear aside to try to
stop the Defendant from victimizing other immigrants.
As part of our advocacy efforts and out of an
understanding and respect for our clientsâ concerns,
we proceeded with pseudonyms for each of them.
The parties are now under stipulated court order
not to reveal our clientsâ true names. A class
was certified, and now exceeds 1,950 people who
received services from Ms. Noyola.
The representative plaintiffs have shown inspirational
courage and concern for others. Though every one
of these clients faces removal proceedings and
even though the state court is without authority
to change the likely outcome of these proceedings,
these clients asked us to do what was necessary
to make sure that others would not suffer their
same fate. To this end, suit was filed seeking
to permanently enjoin Ms. Noyola from continuing
to conduct her business. Plaintiffs also sought
damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
violations of the Consumer Protection Act, unlicensed
practice of law, breach of fiduciary duty, and
malpractice. On September 15, 2003 our clients
received a decision from Superior Court Judge
John Bridges the effect of which will be to permanently
enjoin Ms. Noyola from engaging in the acts and
practices that have been so harmful to so many.
In addition, the judge awarded these clients over
$46,000.00 in actual damages for emotional distress
and compensation for other costs they expended
as a result of the actions of Ms. Noyola. Despite
our concern about the potential for significant
community backlash, our clients were resolute
in their determination not only to assert their
legal claims but to represent the interests of
all who were vulnerable to Ms. Noyolaâs predatory
and terribly harmful practices. Lawyer-client
teamwork and solid client involvement at the outset
of litigation empowered our clients and contributed
to their decision to take this stance.
As a result of this process, including
the creative and committed outreach, the various
know-your-rights campaigns, the strategic use
of Spanish language media, the courage of the
community members and the resulting litigation,
this Latino community has a new power base: knowledge
and the ability to recognize misleading immigration-related
practices and promises.
The Connection: some community lawyering
lessons
- The job of the legal
services attorney as I see it in this situation,
is first and foremost to get information out
to the community on their legal rights. This
has to be done quickly and as effectively
as possible, employing strategic and creative
approaches if necessary. The goal is to situate
the people so that they can know their rights
and take action, where necessary, to protect
themselves.
- If clients want advice
but are frightened to enforce their rights,
describe directly and candidly the risks and
benefits of various options. Do not gloss
over the risks. The goal is to respect clients
and the community by providing the information
they will need in order to make their own
decisions about whether they want to enforce
their rights or not. This directness is the
only way to earn the confidence of your clients
and the community.
- We were somewhat worried
about backlash from the Latino community.
Nothing materialized, I think in part because
we did the groundwork: 1) we already have
good relations in the Latino community- by
conducting regular education and outreach,
serving on boards, teaching ESL classes, doing
career day for migrant students, etc., 2)
we did community education and built community
relationships for so long before ever commencing
litigation, that once the community became
familiar with their rights and the problems
caused by some ãnotariosä, they realized the
Defendant had a chance to reform her ways
but chose not to, 3) the Defendant had chances
to settle, which she did not take advantage
of and, 4) the facts speak for themselves;
when the community learns of the facts they
understand why our clients and Columbia Legal
Services proceeded with the litigation; we
and our clients viewed and communicated the
need for the litigation as a sad necessity.
|
|
