Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

                                                                             FILED
                                                                         Dec 19 2023, 9:42 am

                                                                             CLERK
                                                                         Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                            Court of Appeals
                              IN THE                                          and Tax Court




      Indiana Supreme Court
                 Supreme Court Case No. 22S-DI-413

                    In the Matter of
             Marco Antonio Genesis Moreno,
                               Respondent.


                      Decided: December 19, 2023

                       Attorney Discipline Action

                    Hearing Officer Alicia A. Gooden



                          Per Curiam Opinion
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur.
Per curiam.

   We find that Respondent, Marco Antonio Genesis Moreno, committed
attorney misconduct by neglecting numerous client matters, charging and
collecting unreasonable fees, engaging in deceitful behavior, repeatedly
failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations, and ultimately
abandoning his law practice. For this misconduct, we conclude
Respondent should be disbarred.

  This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer this
Court appointed to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court
Disciplinary Commission’s “Disciplinary Complaint.” Respondent’s 2003
admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court's disciplinary
jurisdiction. See Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4.


Procedural Background and Facts
   The Commission filed an eleven-count “Disciplinary Complaint”
against Respondent on December 15, 2022. After Respondent failed to
timely file an answer, the Commission filed a motion for judgment on the
complaint, which the hearing officer granted following a hearing.

   When judgment on the complaint is entered, the allegations set forth in
the complaint are conclusively established as true. Ind. Admission and
Discipline Rule 23(14)(c)(3). Further, no petition for review of the hearing
officer’s report and entry of judgment on the complaint has been filed.
Accordingly, we accept and adopt the hearing officer’s findings. See
Matter of Hamilton,
34 N.E.3d 1204, 1205
 (Ind. 2015).

   Over the course of a year starting in August 2021, Respondent
effectively abandoned his immigration law practice in Marion County.
Eleven clients and one attorney filed grievances against him for similar
misconduct including: (1) failing to be competent and diligent in his
representation; (2) failing to communicate; (3) charging unreasonable fees;
(4) failing to properly end his representation upon termination; and (5)
engaging in deceitful behavior. Respondent’s neglect had adverse
consequences for several clients and required the clients to hire successor



Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023      Page 2 of 6
counsel to remediate the harms Respondent caused. Respondent
additionally failed to respond to the Commission’s demands for
information concerning the grievances, prompting the initiation of
numerous show cause proceedings and, eventually, an indefinite
suspension for serial noncooperation that remains in effect. See Matter of
Moreno,
192 N.E.3d 902
 (Ind. 2022). We summarize below some of the
more egregious counts of misconduct, distilled from a disciplinary
complaint comprising 34 pages and 225 rhetorical paragraphs.

   “Client 1,” a Korean national married to “Husband,” retained
Respondent to prepare a permanent residency application for her, paid
Respondent $5,410, and provided Respondent with all the necessary
documentation. Thereafter, Client 1 attempted to contact Respondent
numerous times by phone and email, without success. During this time,
Respondent changed the domain name of his email address without
informing Client 1. After she was unable to contact Respondent, Client 1
contacted the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office
(“USCIS”) directly and learned that none of the documentation she had
provided to Respondent had been submitted to USCIS. Client 1 retained
successor counsel (“Popp”) and filed a grievance with the Commission.
Shortly after, USCIS notified Client 1 it had received an application
submitted on her behalf, even though Popp had not yet prepared or
submitted anything. USCIS later sent Client 1 a request for evidence
referencing Husband’s signature on a form that Husband was not eligible
to submit. In fact, Husband had neither signed nor submitted this form.
Popp’s numerous attempts to contact Respondent about the request for
evidence and to obtain a copy of Client 1’s file were unsuccessful.
Respondent likewise failed to comply with the Commission’s subpoena
duces tecum for Client 1’s file and—in response to a separate grievance
filed by Popp—failed to address the authenticity of Husband’s signature.




Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023     Page 3 of 6
   “Client 4” paid Respondent $5,000 to prepare U-visas1 for his family, as
well as some temporary work visas. Client 4’s last contact with
Respondent occurred in December 2021, when Respondent falsely told
him that his pending matters were progressing as expected with USCIS. In
fact, Respondent did not prepare any work product for Client 4’s family,
and Client 4 never received a receipt number from USCIS for any pending
immigration matters concerning his family. Client 4 was unable to contact
Respondent at any point after December 2021, and Respondent failed to
respond to the Commission’s investigation of Client 4’s grievance.

   “Client 7,” who was Respondent’s landlord, retained Respondent to
represent Client 7’s sister in an immigration matter on a flat-fee basis.
They did not execute a written fee agreement. A landlord-tenant dispute
occurred when Respondent dissolved his law practice. After the landlord
sued Respondent, Respondent threatened a “noisy withdrawal” from the
sister’s immigration case and sent Client 7 an invoice demanding an
additional payment of over $10,000.

   “Client 8” retained Respondent on immigration and consular matters.
Client 8 agreed to an $8,000 total payment and remitted $4,000 to
Respondent as an initial retainer. Client 8 asked Respondent to prepare a
written fee agreement, but Respondent never did. In the interim, Client 8
elected to renew his Employment Authorization Card and paid
Respondent $400 to prepare the necessary application and paperwork.
Respondent later demanded an additional $1,050 to complete the work
Client 8 had already paid for. Soon after, Client 8 lost contact with
Respondent and discovered Respondent had closed his law office. Client 8
eventually tracked Respondent down and met with him in the cab of his
truck, at which time Client 8 learned Respondent had not prepared or
filed any paperwork concerning the immigration or consular matters.
Respondent later told Client 8 he had the renewed Employment
Authorization Card, demanded an additional $4,225 from Client 8 in




1   U-visas are residency visas for victims of violent crime and human trafficking.




Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023                       Page 4 of 6
exchange for the card, and told Client 8 he would file a collections lawsuit
and a complaint with USCIS if Client 8 failed to pay. Respondent failed to
respond to the Commission’s investigation of this matter.


Discussion
  We concur in the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclude that
Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules
prohibiting the following misconduct:

      1.1: Failing to provide competent representation.

      1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.

      1.4: Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
      matter and respond promptly to reasonable requests for information.

      1.5(a): Making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an
      unreasonable fee.

      1.16(d): Failing to protect a client’s interests upon termination of
      representation.

      8.1(b): Failing to timely respond to the Commission’s demands for
      information.

      8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
      misrepresentation.

      8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
      justice.

  “[A] license to practice law is a privilege, and that privilege is
conditioned upon the faithful performance of the responsibilities imposed
upon the attorney by the society that grants the privilege.” Hamilton, 34
N.E.3d at 1206–07 (quoting Matter of Keaton,
29 N.E.3d 103, 110
 (Ind.
2015)). We find this case substantially on all fours with Hamilton. Like the
attorney in that case, Respondent wholly abandoned his law practice,
neglected and lied to his vulnerable clients, retained unearned funds,
repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Commission’s investigations, and



Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023        Page 5 of 6
ultimately defaulted on his disciplinary proceedings. As we did in
Hamilton, we conclude disbarment is warranted under these
circumstances and Respondent’s privilege to practice law should be
permanently revoked.


Conclusion
  The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of
Professional Conduct as charged. Respondent already is under suspension
orders for serial noncooperation and failure to fulfill his continuing legal
education requirements. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the
Court disbars Respondent from the practice of law in this state effective
immediately. Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney
under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

  The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent and the
hearing officer is discharged with the Court’s appreciation.


Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.



RESPONDENT PRO SE
Marco Antonio Genesis Moreno
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR INDIANA SUPREME COURT
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Adrienne L. Meiring, Executive Director
Akash Burney, Staff Attorney
Indianapolis, Indiana




Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-DI-413 | December 19, 2023     Page 6 of 6