Professional Conduct for Practitioners-Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 76914-76927 [E8-30027]

Agencies

• Executive Office for Immigration Review
• Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 244 (Thursday, December 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76914-76927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30027]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for Immigration Review

8 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1292

[Docket No. EOIR 160F; A.G. Order No. 3028-2008]
RIN 1125-AA59


Professional Conduct for Practitioners--Rules and Procedures, and 
Representation and Appearances

AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, in part, the proposed changes to the 
rules and procedures concerning the standards of representation and 
professional conduct for practitioners who appear before the Executive 
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which includes the immigration 
judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). It also clarifies 
who is authorized to represent and appear on behalf of individuals in 
proceedings before the Board and the immigration judges. Current 
regulations set forth who may represent individuals in proceedings 
before EOIR and also set forth the rules and procedures for imposing 
disciplinary sanctions against practitioners who engage in criminal, 
unethical, or unprofessional conduct, or in frivolous behavior before 
EOIR. The final rule increases the number of grounds for discipline, 
improves the clarity and uniformity of the existing rules, and 
incorporates miscellaneous technical and procedural changes. The 
changes herein are based upon the Attorney General's initiative for 
improving the adjudicatory processes for the immigration judges and the 
Board, as well as EOIR's operational experience in administering the 
disciplinary program since the current process was established in 2000.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective January 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John N. Blum, Acting General Counsel, 
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 
2600,

[[Page 76915]]

Falls Church, Virginia 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a toll-free 
call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    On July 30, 2008, the Attorney General published a proposed rule in 
the Federal Register (73 FR 44178). The comment period ended September 
29, 2008. Comments were received from four commenters, including a 
local bar association, a national immigration lawyer association, and 
two attorneys. Because some comments overlap, and three of the 
commenters covered multiple topics, the comments are addressed by 
topic, rather than by reference to each specific comment and commenter. 
The provisions of the proposed rule on which the public did not comment 
are adopted without change in this final rule. Additional technical 
changes and changes made in response to public comments are discussed 
below.

II. Regulatory Background

    This rule amends 8 CFR parts 1001, 1003, and 1292 by changing the 
present definitions and procedures concerning professional conduct for 
practitioners, which term includes attorneys and representatives, who 
practice before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 
This rule implements measures in response to the Attorney General's 
assessment of EOIR with respect to EOIR's authority to discipline and 
deter professional misconduct. The rule also aims to improve EOIR's 
ability to effectively regulate practitioner conduct by implementing 
technical changes with respect to the definition of attorney and 
clarifying who is authorized to represent and appear on behalf of 
individuals in proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals 
(Board) and the immigration judges. The regulations concerning 
representation and appearances were last promulgated on May 1, 1997 (62 
FR 23634) (final rule). The regulations for the rules and procedures 
concerning professional conduct were last promulgated as a final rule 
on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39513).
    When it was part of the Department of Justice, the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) incorporated by reference 
in its regulations EOIR's grounds for discipline and procedures for 
disciplinary proceedings. Since then, the functions of the former INS 
were transferred from the Department of Justice (Department) to the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS's immigration regulations 
are contained in chapter I in 8 CFR, while 8 CFR chapter V now contains 
the regulations governing EOIR. The rules and procedures concerning 
professional conduct for representation and appearances before the 
immigration judges and the Board are now codified in 8 CFR part 1003, 
subpart G. The rules for representation and appearances before the 
immigration judges and the Board are codified in 8 CFR part 1292. The 
rules for representation and appearances and for professional conduct 
before DHS and its components remain codified in 8 CFR parts 103 and 
292.
    Both sets of rules provide a unified process for disciplinary 
hearings as provided in 8 CFR 1003.106, regardless whether the hearing 
is instituted by EOIR or by DHS. See generally Matter of Shah, 24 I&N 
Dec. 282 (BIA 2007) (imposing discipline on attorney who knowingly and 
willfully misled USCIS by presenting an improperly obtained certified 
Labor Condition Application in support of a nonimmigrant worker 
petition). Finally, both sets of rules provide for cross-discipline, 
which allows EOIR to request that discipline imposed against a 
practitioner for misconduct before DHS also be imposed with respect to 
that practitioner's ability to represent clients before the immigration 
judges and the Board, and vice versa. See 8 CFR 292.3(e)(2) (DHS) and 
1003.105(b) (EOIR). Additional background information regarding 
professional conduct rules for immigration proceedings can be found in 
the proposed rule, 73 FR at 44178-180.
    This rule amends only the EOIR regulations governing representation 
and appearances, and professional conduct under chapter V in 8 CFR. 
This rule does not make any changes to the DHS regulations governing 
representation and appearances or professional conduct.
    Currently, the disciplinary regulations allow EOIR to sanction 
practitioners, including attorneys and certain non-attorneys who are 
permitted to represent individuals in immigration proceedings 
(``representatives''), when discipline is in the public interest; 
namely, when a practitioner has engaged in criminal, unethical, or 
unprofessional conduct or frivolous behavior. Sanctions may include 
expulsion or suspension from practice before EOIR and DHS, and public 
or private censure. EOIR frequently suspends or expels practitioners 
who are subject to a final or interim order of disbarment or suspension 
by their state bar regulatory authorities--this is known as 
``reciprocal'' discipline.
    The Attorney General completed a comprehensive review of EOIR's 
responsibilities and programs, and determined that, among other things, 
the immigration judges should have the tools necessary to control their 
courtrooms and protect the adjudicatory system from fraud and abuse. 
Accordingly, the Attorney General determined that the existing 
regulations, including those at 8 CFR 1003.101-109, should be amended 
to provide for additional sanction authority for false statements, 
frivolous behavior, and other gross misconduct. Additionally, the 
Attorney General found that the Board should have the ability to 
effectively sanction litigants and practitioners for defined categories 
of gross misconduct.
    As a result, this rule seeks to preserve the fairness and integrity 
of immigration proceedings, and increase the level of protection 
afforded to aliens in those proceedings by defining additional 
categories of behavior that constitute misconduct.
    In part, the rule responds to the Attorney General's findings and 
conclusions by adding substantive grounds of misconduct modeled on the 
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (2006) 
(ABA Model Rules) that will subject practitioners to sanctions if they 
violate such standards and fail to provide adequate professional 
representation for their clients. Specifically, the grounds for 
sanctionable misconduct have been revised to include language that is 
similar, and sometimes identical, to the language found in the ABA 
Model Rules, as such disciplinary standards are widely known and 
accepted within the legal profession. Although EOIR does not seek to 
supplant the disciplinary functions of the various state bars, this 
rule aims to strengthen the existing rules in light of the apparent 
gaps in the current regulation. See Matter of Rivera-Claros, 21 I&N 
Dec. 599, 604 (BIA 1996). In addition, these revisions will make the 
EOIR professional conduct requirements more consistent with the ethical 
standards applicable in most states.
    This rule will also enhance the existing regulation by amending the 
current procedures and definitions through technical modifications that 
are more consistent with EOIR's authority to regulate practitioner 
misconduct. See Koden v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 564 F.2d 228, 233 (7th 
Cir. 1977); 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1362. For example, the rule amends the 
definition of ``attorney'' at 8 CFR 1001.1(f) by adding language 
stating that an attorney is one who is eligible to practice law in a 
U.S. state or territory.

[[Page 76916]]

Additionally, this rule amends the language at 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(2) to 
clarify that law students and law graduates must be students and 
graduates of accredited law schools in the United States. Accordingly, 
the rule will allow EOIR to investigate and prosecute instances of 
misconduct more effectively and efficiently while ensuring the due 
process rights of both the client and the practitioner.

III. Responses to Comments

A. General Comments Concerning the Practitioner Discipline Regulations

    Comment. One commenter raised concern about the ability of 
immigration judges to use these rules ``to commence retaliatory 
disciplinary proceedings against attorneys who complain of their * * * 
practices.''
    Response. The comment misunderstands EOIR's disciplinary procedural 
structure. In 2000, the Department addressed the issue as to whether 
immigration judges had the authority to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings or impose disciplinary sanctions. See Professional Conduct 
for Practitioners--Rules and Procedures, 65 FR 39513, 39520-39521 (June 
27, 2000). Under the current regulations, which have been in place 
since then, immigration judges have no authority to initiate 
disciplinary proceedings against a particular attorney. Immigration 
judges can file complaints about attorneys with EOIR's disciplinary 
counsel, just as aliens, attorneys, or others involved in an 
immigration proceeding may file such complaints. These complaints are 
independently reviewed by EOIR's disciplinary counsel, who then 
determines, after an independent investigation, whether to close the 
complaint, informally resolve it, or initiate formal disciplinary 
proceedings. If an attorney believes that an immigration judge 
improperly filed a complaint as a retaliatory action, the attorney may 
file a complaint against the immigration judge with the Office of the 
Chief Immigration Judge. See www.usdoj.gov/eoir/sibpages/IJConduct.htm.
    Comment. One organization commented that EOIR should adjust the 
practitioner disciplinary procedures because EOIR is greatly expanding 
the scope of its grounds for discipline. The commenter stated that up 
until the proposed rule, EOIR mainly imposed discipline due to criminal 
convictions or reciprocally based on discipline imposed by other 
jurisdictions. The commenter was concerned that the current 
disciplinary structure is not adequate for the new independent 
disciplinary scheme that the proposed rule contemplated establishing.
    Response. EOIR regularly cooperates with attorney disciplinary 
agencies at the state and federal levels to impose reciprocal 
discipline with regard to practitioners who have been suspended or 
disbarred in other jurisdictions. EOIR also takes prompt action to 
prohibit practitioners who have been convicted of serious crimes from 
practicing before EOIR. However, EOIR's practitioner disciplinary 
procedures were never intended to adjudicate matters involving only 
reciprocal discipline or criminal convictions. At its inception 50 
years ago, the practitioner disciplinary regulations provided ten 
grounds for discipline that were original in nature. See 23 FR 2670, 
2672-2673 (April 23, 1958). These regulations contemplated the 
possibility that practitioners would be charged with misconduct arising 
from practice before the Department, and that Department officials 
would need to adjudicate these charges without reference to another 
tribunal's findings as to misconduct, whether ethical or criminal in 
nature. As reflected in several published cases, these practitioner 
disciplinary procedures have been used to adjudicate original charges 
of professional misconduct. See Matter of Sparrow, 20 I&N Dec. 920 (BIA 
1994) (case involving both reciprocal and original charges); Matter of 
De Anda, 17 I&N Dec. 54 (BIA, A.G. 1979); Matter of Solomon, 16 I&N 
Dec. 388 (BIA, A.G. 1977); Matter of Koden, 15 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 1974, 
A.G. 1976). None of these cases reveals a deficiency in the procedures, 
and these procedures were upheld by a federal court of appeals. See 
Koden U.S. Dep't of Justice, 564 F.2d 228, 233-235 (7th Cir. 1977).
    In 2000, the Department completely reviewed, revised, and expanded 
the practitioner disciplinary procedures. 65 FR at 39523. These 
regulations expressly created summary disciplinary procedures for cases 
based on reciprocal discipline and criminal convictions, which are not 
used in proceedings involving original charges of misconduct. See 8 CFR 
1003.103-106. When the Department published these new procedures, it 
also consolidated and added additional grounds for discipline. The 
Department's major renovations in 2000 to the hearings and appeals 
procedures for original charges of misconduct were intended to be 
sufficient to adjudicate the eleven original grounds for discipline in 
the current regulations. The addition of several more grounds for 
discipline established in this final rule does not change the 
sufficiency or adequacy of these existing procedures.
    Comment. One commenter stated that EOIR should define ``accredited 
representative'' and should issue identification cards to accredited 
representatives so that immigration judges will be able to verify that 
an individual appearing in court is accredited to practice before EOIR.
    Response. The regulations at 8 CFR 1292.1 presently state that a 
person entitled to representation before EOIR may be represented by, 
among others, an accredited representative. This section cross-
references 8 CFR 1292.2, which provides detailed information concerning 
accredited representatives. Because accredited representatives must go 
through a special process to receive accreditation, the regulations 
already provide more information about accredited representatives than 
they do about attorneys or any other type of representative. Further, 8 
CFR 1003.102(a)(2) specifies the compensation that accredited 
representatives may receive for their services. Therefore, it is 
unnecessary to further define the term ``accredited representative.'' 
The Department also declines, at this time, to issue identification 
cards to accredited representatives. The regulations at 8 CFR 1292.2(d) 
require EOIR to maintain a roster of accredited representatives. This 
roster is available online at https://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/statspub/
accreditedreproster.pdf. Immigration judges may easily refer to the 
roster to determine if an individual is an accredited representative. 
Thus, contrary to the commenter's concern, immigration judges are not 
``forced to accept assertions of accredited representatives that they 
are, in fact, accredited.''
    Comment. All of the commenters proposed that the Department apply 
the professional conduct regulations to government attorneys involved 
in immigration proceedings. Three commenters asserted that the 
practitioner disciplinary regulations should apply to both private 
practitioners and DHS attorneys who practice before EOIR. Further, two 
commenters indicated that immigration judge misconduct is a problem and 
one of those commenters argued that rules governing the conduct of 
immigration judges should be published contemporaneously with these 
final rules.
    Response. As an initial matter, the Department would note for 
clarity that the ``rule'' of professional conduct for immigration 
judges referenced by the

[[Page 76917]]

commenter was not a proposed rule, but a notice published in the 
Federal Register seeking comment on draft ``Codes of Conduct for the 
Immigration Judges and Board Members.'' 72 FR 35510 (June 28, 2007). 
This notice did not include a process by which to discipline 
immigration judges or Board Members. Rather, this notice recognized 
certain ``canons'' of professional conduct. Id. at 35510-12. Attorneys 
concerned with an immigration judge's conduct may follow the procedures 
for filing a complaint regarding the conduct of an immigration judge. 
See https://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/sibpages/IJConduct.htm.
    In 2000, the Department addressed the reasons why government 
attorneys, including immigration judges, are not subject to the same 
process used for disciplining practitioners. See 65 FR at 39522. The 
reasons stated in 2000 with respect to the current practitioner 
disciplinary process remain valid, notwithstanding the fact that the 
government is now represented in removal proceedings by attorneys 
working for DHS rather than the former INS.
    Like the former INS attorneys who were subject to investigation by 
the Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional 
Responsibility, DHS's Office of the Inspector General and the Office of 
Professional Responsibility for Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
investigate DHS attorneys. Further, DHS attorneys are also required to 
comply with the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the 
Executive Branch, found at 5 CFR part 2635, and other standards 
applicable to government employees. In fact, DHS has adopted a formal 
disciplinary process for its employees that provides similar hearing 
and appeal rights as EOIR's practitioner disciplinary process, 
including removal or suspension from employment. See 5 CFR 9701.601-
710. Moreover, applying this rule to DHS attorneys was not included in 
the proposed rule, and cannot be adopted in this final rule in the 
absence of prior notice and comment. Accordingly, the Department 
declines to adopt the comments requesting contemporaneous publication 
of the Code of Conduct for Immigration Judges and Board Members and a 
rule addressing professional conduct of government attorneys.
    Comment. Two commenters indicated that there is a perception that 
an inherent conflict of interest exists when immigration judges 
adjudicate practitioner disciplinary cases. One of the commenters 
expressed the view that immigration judges do not have training in 
attorney discipline matters, private practice experience, or sufficient 
time to spare from their immigration case workload. The commenter 
argued that EOIR should constitute disciplinary hearing panels composed 
of private practice attorneys and members of the public to hear and 
decide practitioner discipline cases.
    Response. The use of immigration judges as adjudicators in 
practitioner disciplinary cases was codified over twenty years ago, in 
1987. See Executive Office for Immigration Review; Representation and 
Appearances, 52 FR 24980 (July 2, 1987). In 2000, the Department 
amended the practitioner disciplinary regulations to provide that both 
immigration judges and administrative law judges could be assigned to 
adjudicate practitioner disciplinary cases. When that final rule was 
published, the Department gave a detailed explanation concerning the 
use of immigration judges as adjudicating officials in practitioner 
disciplinary cases. See 65 FR at 39515-16. That explanation remains 
valid.
    However, in recognition that these final rules significantly 
increase the regulation of practitioner conduct, EOIR has chosen to 
create a corps of adjudicating officials made up of immigration judges 
and administrative law judges who will receive specialized training in 
professional responsibility law, and who will hear and decide 
practitioner disciplinary cases as part of their normal caseload. 
Further, EOIR acknowledges the concern raised by the commenters and 
notes that the current regulations require that an immigration judge 
appointed to hear disciplinary cases is not the complainant and not one 
whom the practitioner regularly appears before. 8 CFR 
1003.106(a)(1)(i).

B. Section 1003.102--Grounds of Misconduct

1. Section 1003.102(e)--Reciprocal Discipline
    This rule sought to amend the existing rules that only allow the 
imposition of discipline where a practitioner resigns ``with an 
admission of misconduct'' to allow ``the imposition of discipline on an 
attorney who resigns while a disciplinary investigation or proceeding 
is pending.'' 73 FR at 44180. No comments were received regarding this 
part of the proposed rule. Accordingly, this rule will be adopted 
without change.
2. Section 1003.102(k)--Previous Finding of Ineffective Assistance of 
Counsel
    Comment. Two organizations commented on the proposed amendment to 8 
CFR 1003.102(k), which would expand the existing rule to sanction 
practitioners based on a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel 
by a federal court. One commenter questioned whether it was appropriate 
for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel to serve as a ground 
for discipline. The commenter asserted that ineffective assistance of 
counsel is normally raised by aliens when seeking reopening of 
unfavorable decisions in their cases, and that because of this, 
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are ``rampant.'' The 
commenter thought that the circumstances under which ineffective 
assistance of counsel is raised can put well-intentioned and competent 
attorneys at risk of discipline. The other commenter appreciated that 
the proposed rule would expand consideration of ineffective assistance 
of counsel findings ``outside the parameters of the immigration 
courtroom.'' This commenter also suggested that the rule be revised to 
make clear that the ground of discipline must be based on a ``final 
order'' finding ineffective assistance of counsel, either by an 
immigration judge, the Board, or a federal court.
    Response. The purpose of amending this rule is to permit EOIR to 
impose disciplinary sanctions on practitioners who have been found to 
have provided ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration 
proceedings before EOIR, regardless of whether that finding of 
ineffective assistance of counsel was made by an immigration judge, the 
Board, or a federal court. Although one of the commenters thought that 
practitioners would be placed at risk for discipline based on 
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that are made by 
aliens only seeking reopening of their immigration cases, EOIR has been 
administering this ground for discipline since 2000 without 
inappropriately disciplining a practitioner. As stated in the 
supplemental information for the rule that proposed ineffective 
assistance of counsel as a ground for discipline, an adjudicating 
official may determine not to impose disciplinary sanctions 
notwithstanding a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in an 
immigration proceeding. See Executive Office for Immigration Review; 
Professional Conduct for Practitioners--Rules and Procedures, 63 FR 
2901, 2902 (January

[[Page 76918]]

20, 1998) (proposed rule). Moreover, the EOIR disciplinary counsel does 
not automatically initiate disciplinary proceedings based on a finding 
of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rather, proceedings are initiated 
based on EOIR disciplinary counsel's independent review of the matter. 
Finally, if proceedings are initiated, practitioners receive a full and 
fair opportunity to dispute the underlying finding of ineffective 
assistance of counsel before being disciplined.
    Another commenter agreed with the proposed amendment to this ground 
for discipline; however, the commenter misunderstood the scope of this 
amendment. The EOIR disciplinary process remains focused on 
disciplining practitioners based on a finding of ineffective assistance 
of counsel that occurred before EOIR in immigration proceedings (or 
before DHS in the case of charges brought by the DHS disciplinary 
counsel).
    One commenter also suggested that EOIR limit discipline to matters 
in which the finding of ineffective assistance of counsel was made in a 
final order. We will not adopt this recommendation because the finding 
of ineffective assistance of counsel is usually not located in a final 
order by an immigration judge or the Board. This is because aliens most 
commonly assert ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis for 
getting their cases reopened. If an alien prevails in the ineffective 
assistance of counsel claim, the adjudicator who issues this 
determination will do so in an order that reopens the proceeding, and 
such an order granting reopening is itself not a final order because 
further proceedings will be held after the case is reopened. Therefore, 
for all of the reasons stated above, the Department adopts the proposed 
amendment to this ground for discipline as originally proposed.
3. Section 1003.102(l)--Failure To Appear in a Timely Manner
    One commenter provided a comment agreeing with this change. No 
other comments were received. Accordingly, this rule is adopted without 
change.
4. Section 1003.102(m)--Assist in the Unauthorized Practice of Law
    Comment. Two comments were received regarding section 1003.102(m). 
One comment stated that this is ``one of the most valuable rules 
proposed.'' The other commenter did not take a position on the rule, 
but suggested revising the rule to include a ``knowingly'' mens rea 
requirement to this ground of discipline that prohibits practitioners 
from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.
    Response. The Department did not propose a modification to this 
ground for discipline. This ground was only re-printed in the proposed 
rule to delete the period at the end of this provision and add a semi-
colon. Accordingly, the Department declines to make any substantive 
amendments to this rule, such as including the word ``knowingly.'' Such 
a change is not necessary because practitioners should make certain 
that any other practitioner they work with is authorized to practice 
before EOIR. However, the Department believes that additional 
clarification of what constitutes the practice of law would be helpful 
to practitioners. Therefore, a clarifying statement will be added to 
this ground for discipline that will state that the practice of law 
before EOIR means engaging in practice or preparation as those terms 
are defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(i) and (k).
5. Section 1003.102(n)--Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of 
Justice
    Comment. Two commenters were concerned with the language used in 
this proposed provision. One commenter believed it was too vague. The 
other commenter, while acknowledging that this proposed provision is 
based on ABA Model Rule 8.4(d), stated that this rule was extremely 
broad and suggested that the Department narrow this ground by adding 
text from the supplemental information in the proposed rule or from the 
ABA's comments to Rule 8.4(d).
    Response. This ground for discipline is based on ABA Model Rule 
8.4(d). As such, it is a well-known ethical rule with which most 
attorneys must comply whenever representing parties before a tribunal. 
Therefore, we do not believe that additional language needs to be added 
to the proposed rule. The Attorney General expects that EOIR's 
disciplinary counsel, adjudicating officials, and the Board will 
consider the ABA's comments to ABA Model Rule 8.4(d), and how this rule 
has been applied in interpreting and applying this regulatory 
provision, so that this new ground for discipline would not be applied 
in a manner that is inconsistent with the prevailing interpretations 
with which attorneys are already familiar. Therefore, we are adopting 
the proposed rule without change.
6. Section 1003.102(o)--Competence
    Comment. One commenter commended the addition of this provision, 
which is based on ABA Model Rule 1.1. The commenter suggested that the 
Department add additional text to the provision from the ABA's comments 
1, 3, and 5 to Rule 1.1.
    Response. As indicated in the proposed rule, this ground for 
discipline uses text that is nearly identical to ABA Model Rule 1.1. 
The proposed rule also included one sentence from the ABA's comment 5 
to Rule 1.1. The Department has considered adding additional text to 
this ground for discipline from the ABA's comments 1, 3, and 5 to Rule 
1.1. However, the Department believes that the proposed rule, as 
originally proposed, provides sufficient information for practitioners 
to be on notice of their duty to represent their clients competently. 
The Department's decision not to add additional text does not mean that 
the ABA's comments 1, 3, and 5 are not relevant to interpreting this 
provision. Because this ground for discipline is based on ABA Model 
Rule 1.1, relevant ABA comments concerning Rule 1.1, and relevant 
judicial interpretations, can be considered as an important aid in 
interpreting this ground for discipline.
7. Section 1003.102(p)--Scope of Representation
    Comment. One commenter was concerned by this provision because the 
commenter believed that the provision would interfere with retainer 
agreements between attorneys and their clients, which are traditionally 
governed by state law. The commenter agreed that immigration judges 
should have a role in determining whether a practitioner can withdraw 
from a case; however, the commenter thought that this provision would 
require practitioners to continue to represent a client even when there 
is a conflict of interest. The commenter urged the Department to adopt 
standards governing whether immigration judges should permit the 
withdrawal of practitioners from cases. Finally, the commenter 
suggested that the Department permit limited appearances and allow 
practitioners to withdraw from cases in which clients have failed to 
pay fees. Another commenter views this change as ``an excellent 
proposal'' but suggests that the rule require clear contracts between 
attorneys and clients.
    Response. Upon review, the Department has decided to remove the 
text from the proposed provision that is not based on ABA Model Rule 
1.2(a) and add additional text from ABA Model Rule 1.2(a) concerning a 
practitioner's ability to ``take such action on behalf of the client as 
is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.'' The 
Department is

[[Page 76919]]

making this change because this provision, which involves the scope of 
representation, should not include text discussing the withdrawal or 
the termination of employment of practitioners. The commenter's 
suggestion that the Department adopt standards governing whether 
immigration judges should permit the withdrawal of practitioners is 
outside the scope of this rule. This rule only involves practitioner 
disciplinary matters and does not include proposed amendments to 
procedures in immigration proceedings, such as 8 CFR 1003.17. Likewise, 
the suggestion that the Department permit limited appearances is an 
issue involving immigration proceedings that is not appropriately 
addressed in this final rule.
8. Section 1003.102(q)--Diligence
    Comment. One commenter noted appreciation for this proposal but 
suggested that the Department add a good cause exception to the 
requirement that practitioners act with diligence and promptness. The 
commenter stated that there may always be unforeseen emergencies that 
occur. The commenter also suggested that the Department permit nunc pro 
tunc filings in immigration cases for good cause shown.
    Response. The inclusion in this provision of a good cause exception 
is unnecessary. This provision requires ``reasonable'' diligence and 
promptness. Therefore, practitioners will not be expected to anticipate 
every possible contingency, such as a truly unforeseen emergency, in 
order to avoid discipline under this rule. However, practitioners 
should make an effort to prepare for foreseeable exigencies. As stated 
in response to a previous comment, this rule only involves practitioner 
disciplinary matters and does not include proposed amendments to 
procedures in immigration proceedings. Therefore, the Department will 
not adopt, as part of this final rule, a provision that permits late 
filings if there is good cause.
9. Section 1003.102(r)--Communication
    Comment. Two commenters stated that this provision's requirement 
that practitioners communicate with aliens in their native language 
would be unduly burdensome. One commenter believes that the rule would 
transfer the expense of translation services from aliens to 
practitioners. Another commenter believes that the requirements in this 
provision would make it difficult for aliens who speak unusual foreign 
languages to obtain representation. The commenter asserted that aliens 
often rely on friends and family to translate for them, and 
practitioners should not be required to ensure that those translations 
are accurate. One commenter suggested that this provision should only 
require practitioners to make a diligent and reasonable effort to 
communicate in the alien's language. Finally, one commenter was 
concerned that the provision would require practitioners to locate 
their clients to communicate with them; the commenter suggested that 
the rule only require communication using the contact information 
provided to the practitioner from the client.
    Response. The Department accepts the suggestions from the 
commenters and the final version of this provision has been modified to 
ensure that practitioners are not required to provide all translation 
services for their clients. However, practitioners must make reasonable 
efforts to communicate with clients in a language that the client 
understands. Further, the Department agrees that practitioners should 
not have to locate their clients and should be able to rely on the 
contact information provided by their clients. However, if a 
practitioner cannot locate his or her client, the practitioner is 
responsible for informing EOIR that the practitioner is unable to 
contact his or her client.
10. Section 1003.102(s)--Candor Toward the Tribunal
    Comment. One commenter took issue with the explanation for this 
rule in the supplemental information and requested that the rule make 
clear that ``the duty of the lawyer is only to make reasonable 
disclosure of contrary authority known to him,'' not to assist DHS in 
preparing its brief against the lawyer's client.
    Response. This provision is extremely narrow and will not require 
practitioners to seek out legal authority that is contrary to their 
client's cases just to disclose this information to EOIR. This 
provision only applies to controlling legal authority that is directly 
contrary to the client's position when this controlling legal authority 
is already known to the practitioner and the other party did not 
provide it to EOIR. In this regard, the commenter is correct that this 
rule does not view an alien's attorney as having a duty to also conduct 
research for the opposing party.
11. Section 1003.102(t)--Notice of Entry of Appearance
    Comment. One commenter thought that the proposed provision was too 
broad because it subjects practitioners who provide pro bono services 
to discipline if they do not sign pleadings or submit a Form EOIR-27 or 
EOIR-28. The commenter suggested that disciplinary sanctions only be 
imposed when filings demonstrate a lack of competence or preparation, 
or the practitioner has undertaken ``full client services.'' Another 
commenter approved of this change, but suggested that pro se aliens be 
provided notice of this requirement in their own language and that 
immigration judges inform all who appear before the court of the 
requirement.
    Response. The Department believes that all practitioners should 
submit Forms EOIR-27 and EOIR-28, and sign all filings made with EOIR, 
in cases where practitioners engage in ``practice'' or ``preparation'' 
as those words are defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(i) and (k). It is 
appropriate to require practitioners who engage in ``practice'' or 
``preparation,'' whether it is for a fee or on a pro bono basis, to 
enter a notice of appearance and sign any filings submitted to EOIR. As 
stated in the supplemental information to the proposed rule, this 
provision is meant to advance the level of professional conduct in 
immigration matters and foster increased transparency in the client-
practitioner relationship. Any practitioner who accepts responsibility 
for rendering immigration-related services to a client should be held 
accountable for his or her own actions, including the loss of the 
privilege of practice before EOIR, when such conduct fails to meet the 
minimum standards of professional conduct in 8 CFR 1003.102. It is 
difficult for EOIR to enforce those standards when practitioners fail 
to enter a notice of appearance or sign filings made with EOIR. 
However, in an effort to ensure clarity of this ground for discipline, 
a sentence will be added to this provision that makes it clear that a 
notice of appearance must be submitted and filings signed in all cases 
where practitioners engage in ``practice'' or ``preparation.'' If a 
practitioner provides pro bono services that do not meet these 
definitions, then a notice of appearance is not necessary.
    As for the suggestions made by the second commenter, the Department 
declines to codify in the regulations a rule that requires notice to 
pro se aliens or anyone appearing before an immigration judge of an 
attorney's obligation to enter a Notice of Appearance. The scope of 
this rule is to provide notice to attorneys of their responsibilities 
when engaging in practice and preparation before EOIR and to provide 
grounds for discipline when an attorney fails to carry through on his 
or her responsibilities.

[[Page 76920]]

12. Section 1003.102(u)--Repeated Filings Indicating a Substantial 
Failure to Competently and Diligently Represent the Client
    Comment. One commenter stated that the proposed rule fails to 
acknowledge that boilerplate language is sometimes appropriate where 
used in briefs where cases present common issues of law, analysis, and 
argument. The commenter was concerned that the proposed rule would 
punish the repeated use of briefing materials regardless of the 
material's relevance to the case at hand. The commenter proposed 
limiting the proposed rule's effect to filings that reflect 
incorporation of incorrect or irrelevant material. Another commenter 
agrees with this change, but questions how the ``repeated filings'' 
will be tracked such that the rule will be enforceable.
    Response. The rule, as written, is sufficient to meet the concerns 
of the first commenter and is therefore adopted as the final rule. The 
rule makes it clear that conduct that will lead to sanctions only 
includes filings that use boilerplate language that reflect little or 
no attention to the specific factual or legal issues in a case and 
thereby show a lack of competence or diligence by the practitioner. As 
stated in the supplemental information to the proposed rule, EOIR seeks 
to deter practitioners from filing briefs that provide no recitation of 
the specific facts in the case and fail to explain how the cited law in 
the brief applies to the facts of the case. Therefore, this rule is 
sufficiently circumscribed to ensure that a practitioner's use of a 
legal argument in one case, which is copied from the practitioner's 
brief in another case, will not subject the practitioner to sanctions 
unless the argument fails to connect the legal issues raised in the 
brief with the specific facts in the case in a manner that shows a lack 
of competence and diligence.
    As for the enforceability of the rule, the proposed rule explained 
that the Board has already experienced these situations. 73 FR at 
44183. In light of this experience, the Board has already developed the 
means to identify cases where the same attorney is filing boilerplate 
briefs. Immigration judges, on the other hand, may be able to identify 
instances of concern based on their ongoing interaction with the 
practitioners who appear before them.

C. Section 1003.103--Immediate Suspension and Summary Disciplinary 
Proceedings

    Comment. One commenter stated that a petition to immediately 
suspend a practitioner should not be filed until a final order is 
issued suspending, disbarring, or criminally convicting the 
practitioner in another jurisdiction.
    Response. The regulations currently permit the imposition of an 
immediate suspension of a practitioner who has been suspended or 
disbarred on an interim basis. The proposed rule sought to clarify this 
authority; however, the proposed rule did not seek to broaden or change 
it. It is appropriate to immediately suspend a practitioner based on an 
interim suspension from a state licensing authority or a Federal court 
pending the issuance of a final order because any practitioner who is 
under a suspension from another jurisdiction does not meet the 
definition of an ``attorney'' under 8 CFR 1001.1(f). Such a 
practitioner is not qualified to practice before EOIR under 8 CFR 
1292.1(a)(1). Further, it is beyond argument that it is appropriate to 
immediately suspend practitioners who have been convicted of serious 
crimes. The regulations protect practitioners because they require that 
all criminal appeals be completed before EOIR will issue a final order 
imposing a suspension or expulsion on a criminally convicted 
practitioner. See 8 CFR 1003.103(b).
    Comment. One commenter was concerned that EOIR did not have a 
provision that would permit it to vacate an immediate suspension order 
imposed on a practitioner who later has an underlying state bar 
suspension vacated.
    Response. The regulations expressly provide that upon a showing of 
good cause, the Board may set aside an immediate suspension if it is in 
the interests of justice to do so. 8 CFR 1003.103(a)(2). If an 
immediate suspension was solely predicated upon a state bar suspension 
that was vacated, it would be in the interests of justice for the Board 
to set aside its immediate suspension order.
    Comment. One organization disagreed with the proposed change in the 
standard of proof in practitioner disciplinary proceedings from 
``clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence'' to ``clear and 
convincing evidence.'' The commenter stated that removing 
``unequivocal'' makes lawyers more vulnerable to discipline without 
providing a corresponding benefit to the justice system and indicated 
that the standard of proof in practitioner disciplinary cases should 
not mirror those in removal proceedings.
    Response. The proposed rule indicated the Department's intention to 
change the standard of proof in practitioner disciplinary cases to 
clear and convincing evidence because this is now the standard of proof 
used in removal proceedings adjudicated by the Board and immigration 
judges. This is appropriate given the reason why ``unequivocal'' was 
first adopted as part of the standard of proof in practitioner 
disciplinary proceedings. See Matter of Koden, 15 I&N Dec. 739, 748 
(BIA 1974, A.G. 1976). In Koden, the Board decided that the standard of 
proof should be clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence, rather 
than clear and convincing evidence as argued by the respondent, because 
many other jurisdictions used ``unequivocal'' as part of their 
disciplinary standard, and also because the Board and other immigration 
adjudicators were already familiar with applying the clear, convincing, 
and unequivocal evidence standard as that was the standard applicable 
in deportation proceedings. See id. It is appropriate for the standard 
of proof in practitioner disciplinary cases to be adjusted to the clear 
and convincing standard because that is now the standard that the ABA 
recommends for all jurisdictions to adopt in disciplinary cases, see 
Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement R. 18 (2002), and also 
because that is the standard the Board and immigration judges now apply 
in removal proceedings. The latter reason is supported by both Koden 
and the regulations at 8 CFR 1003.106(a)(1)(v), which state: 
``[d]isciplinary proceedings shall be conducted in the same manner as 
Immigration Court proceedings as is appropriate . * * *'' Further, 
while the concerns raised by the commenter were presumably directed at 
a reduction of the burden the government will bear in proving charges 
of misconduct, it is important to note that practitioners also receive 
a benefit to the change in the standard of proof. Practitioners have a 
reduced burden of proving affirmative defenses and proving that they 
are morally and professionally fit to be reinstated after being 
disciplined. See 8 CFR 1003.103(b)(2); 1003.105(a)(2); 1003.107(a)(1).
    Comment. One commenter suggested that the regulations concerning 
reciprocal discipline be revised so that reciprocal discipline imposed 
by the Board will run concurrently with the discipline imposed by the 
practitioner's state bar. The commenter believed that the proposed 
revisions to 8 CFR 1003.103 would cause practitioners to be suspended 
or disbarred for periods of time that are different than that imposed 
by the state bar without any basis or finding as to why that result is 
appropriate.
    Response. EOIR attempts to ensure in reciprocal disciplinary cases 
that a

[[Page 76921]]

suspension or expulsion before EOIR will be as contemporaneous as 
possible with discipline imposed by state bars. The regulations at 8 
CFR 1003.103(a) permit the Board to impose an immediate suspension on a 
practitioner who has been suspended or disbarred, and the time served 
during the immediate suspension can be credited toward the term of 
suspension or expulsion in the final order. Id. However, the Board 
cannot issue an immediate suspension order against a practitioner 
contemporaneously with a state bar order of suspension or disbarment 
unless the practitioner complies with 8 CFR 1003.103(c) and informs 
EOIR of the suspension or disbarment in a timely fashion. In cases 
where practitioners fail to inform EOIR of state bar discipline, EOIR 
will have no alternative but to impose discipline at a later date after 
learning of the discipline. Even though Board precedent establishes 
that identical or comparable discipline is generally to be imposed in 
reciprocal disciplinary matters, see Matter of Truong, 24 I&N Dec. 52, 
55 (BIA 2006); Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 843, 848 (BIA 2005); Matter 
of Gadda, 23 I&N Dec. 645, 649 (BIA 2003), EOIR will not reward a 
practitioner's failure to comply with his or her duty to timely inform 
EOIR of state bar discipline by shortening the length of the reciprocal 
discipline imposed.
    Further, while the Board generally subscribes to the concept of 
identical or comparable reciprocal discipline, there have been 
circumstances where the Board has imposed non-identical reciprocal 
discipline or denied reinstatement to a practitioner who has since been 
reinstated to practice before his state bar. See Matter of Krivonos, 24 
I&N Dec. 292, 293 (BIA 2007) (denying reinstatement to practitioner who 
had been convicted of immigration-related fraud even though 
practitioner was reinstated by the state bar); Matter of Jean-Joseph, 
24 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 2007) (suspending practitioner for double the 
length of state bar suspension because practitioner violated the 
Board's immediate suspension order). Therefore, while identical or 
comparable reciprocal discipline is generally employed by the Board, 
the Board must have the flexibility to respond to the facts and 
circumstances presented in each case.
    Comment. One commenter suggested that the rule allowing for public 
postings of immediate suspensions require that such postings be placed 
in the waiting rooms of the immigration courts.
    Response. The regulatory language specifically states that ``the 
Board may require that notice of such suspension be posted at the 
Board, the Immigration Courts, or the DHS.'' In all immediate 
suspension orders issued by the Board to date, the Board has included a 
requirement that the immediate suspension be posted in a public area. 
In addition, such information is accessible to the public online at 
https://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/profcond/chart.htm.

D. Section 1003.105--Notice of Intent To Discipline and Section 
1003.106--Hearing and Disposition

    Comment. One commenter suggested that a Notice of Intent to 
Discipline should only be issued when there is a preliminary finding 
that the charges of misconduct could be sustained on clear and 
convincing evidence.
    Response. This comment involves an existing regulation that was not 
subject to amendment in the proposed rule and, therefore, is outside 
the scope of the proposed rule. In 2000, the practitioner disciplinary 
regulations were amended to provide that a Notice of Intent to 
Discipline would only be issued when there is sufficient prima facie 
evidence to warrant charging a practitioner with misconduct. 8 CFR 
1003.105(a). However, those charges would have to be proven by clear 
and convincing evidence. 8 CFR 1003.106(a)(1)(iv). Therefore, implicit 
in the filing of all charges is the belief by the EOIR disciplinary 
counsel that the charges can be proven by clear and convincing 
evidence.
    Comment. One commenter took issue with the proposal to limit the 
circumstances under which a preliminary inquiry report will be served 
with a Notice of Intent to Discipline. The commenter understood the 
proposal to mean that the practitioner will no longer be informed of 
the basis for the charge of disciplinary action.
    Response. The supplemental information and language of the proposed 
rule clearly state that this limitation applies only in summary 
proceedings because those proceedings will always be brought as a 
result of a disciplinary decision issued by a state licensing authority 
or a federal court, or a criminal conviction which will be set forth in 
the Notice of Intent to Discipline itself. Thus, a preliminary inquiry 
report would do nothing but repeat the basis of the charges already 
contained in the Notice. Accordingly, this final rule adopts this 
proposed rule without change.
    Comment. One commenter disagreed with the proposed language for 
limiting a practitioner's eligibility for a hearing where the 
practitioner is subject to summary disciplinary proceedings.
    Response. In light of the comment and upon further consideration of 
the proposed change to 8 CFR 1003.105 concerning the availability of 
in-person hearings in summary disciplinary proceedings, the Department 
has decided not to adopt the proposed language. Rather, the Department 
will codify in the regulations the prevailing standard in Board 
precedent concerning evidentiary hearings in summary discipline cases. 
In Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 843, 848 (BIA 2005), the Board held 
that in summary disciplinary proceedings, a practitioner must show that 
there is a material issue of fact in dispute that necessitates an 
evidentiary hearing. Id. Therefore, the final regulations reflect this 
standard. The Department has also decided that this provision should 
appear in 8 CFR Sec.  1003.106 because it relates to a practitioner's 
right to a hearing. 8 CFR Sec.  1003.105 involves filing Notices of 
Intent to Discipline and answers to those notices. Therefore, it is 
more appropriate for this provision to be located in the section 
related to disciplinary hearings.

IV. Technical Amendments to Regulations

    This final rule also includes technical changes to 8 CFR 1003.101-
108 that were not included in the proposed rule. In 8 CFR 1003.101, 
1003.103, 1003.104-105, and 1003.107, the words ``Immigration and 
Naturalization Service,'' ``the Service'' and ``the Office of the 
General Counsel of the Service'' are being replaced with the term 
``DHS,'' which is defined at 8 CFR 1001.1(w). As discussed above, since 
the promulgation of the final rule concerning the practitioner 
disciplinary process in June of 2000, the functions of the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) were transferred from the 
Department to DHS. These changes reflect the creation of DHS and the 
transfer of the former INS's functions.
    The definition of the term ``practice'' in 8 CFR 1001.101(i) is 
being updated to reflect the fact that immigration judges, and not 
``officers of the Service,'' are the adjudicators at the hearing level 
in immigration proceedings before EOIR. The definition has been 
unchanged since its adoption nearly forty years ago. See 34 FR 12213 
(July 24, 1969). At that time, INS officers held hearings in 
immigration cases and the Board decided appeals from INS's decisions. 
However, those INS officers eventually became immigration judges 
employed by EOIR. Therefore, the Department is updating the definition 
to remove

[[Page 76922]]

reference to the ``Service'' and ``officer of the Service,'' and is 
replacing them with the terms ``DHS'' and ``immigration judge.''
    In 8 CFR 1003.103-108, the term ``Office of the General Counsel of 
EOIR'' is being replaced with the term ``EOIR disciplinary counsel'' as 
it is used in 8 CFR 1003.0(e)(2)(iii). This change is made to more 
accurately reflect EOIR's practice of assigning an attorney within the 
Office of the General Counsel to serve as the chief prosecutor for 
practitioner disciplinary matters. The EOIR disciplinary counsel is 
responsible for the day-to-day management of the disciplinary program 
for attorneys and accredited representatives, and investigates 
allegations of misconduct against practitioners, including referrals 
from EOIR's anti-fraud officer concerning ``instances of fraud, 
misrepresentation, or abuse pertaining to an attorney or accredited 
representative.'' 8 CFR 1003.0(e)(1), (2)(iii). The EOIR disciplinary 
counsel determines when to dismiss complaints against practitioners, 
informally resolve those complaints, or initiate disciplinary 
proceedings.
    The Department has also made technical changes to 8 CFR 1003.105-
106 to replace the terms ``Office of the General Counsel for EOIR'' and 
``Office of the General Counsel of the Service'' with ``counsel for the 
government.'' These changes are made to the provisions that relate 
directly to the litigation of practitioner disciplinary cases. Finally, 
8 CFR 1003.106(a)(1)(iii) is being amended to clarify that both parties 
to a practitioner disciplinary case, and not just the practitioner, 
have the right to examine and object to evidence presented by the other 
party, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by 
the other party. Further, an additional sentence is being added to this 
provision to indicate that if a practitioner files an answer to the 
Notice of Intent to Discipline but does not request a hearing, the 
parties have the right to submit briefs and evidence to support or 
refute any of the charges or affirmative defenses.

Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving 
it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects 
only those practitioners who practice immigration law before EOIR. This 
rule will not affect small entities, as that term is defined in 5 
U.S.C. 601(6), because the rule is similar in substance to the existing 
regulatory process.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed 
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804). This 
rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to 
compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Attorney General has determined that this rule is a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 
3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and, accordingly, this rule has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of 
Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR 
part 1320, do not apply to this proposed rule because there are no new 
or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 1001

    Administrative practice and procedures, Immigration, Legal 
services.

8 CFR Part 1003

    Administrative practice and procedures, Immigration, Legal 
services, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 1292

    Administrative practice and procedures, Immigration, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 1001, 1003, and 1292 
of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 1001--DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1001 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103.


0
2. Amend Sec.  1001.1 to revise paragraphs (f) and (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1001.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (f) The term attorney means any person who is eligible to practice 
law in and is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court 
of any State, possession, territory, or Commonwealth of the United 
States, or of the District of Columbia, and is not under any order 
suspending, enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise 
restricting him in the practice of law.
* * * * *
    (i) The term practice means the act or acts of any person appearing 
in any case, either in person or through the preparation or filing of 
any brief or other document, paper, application, or petition on behalf 
of another person or client before or with DHS, or any immigration 
judge, or the Board.
* * * * *

PART 1003--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

0
3. The authority citation for part 1003 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 1252 note, 1252b, 1324b, 
1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950, 3 
CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002; section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100.

[[Page 76923]]


0
4. Amend Sec.  1003.1 by removing from paragraph (d)(5) the citation 
``Sec.  1.1(j) of this chapter'' and adding in its place the citation 
``Sec.  1001.1(j) of this chapter''.

Subpart G--Professional Conduct for Practitioners--Rules and 
Procedures


Sec.  1003.101  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  1003.101 by:
0
a. Removing from paragraph (a)(1) the words ``Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (the Service)'' and adding in its place ``DHS'';
0
b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) the words ``the Service'' and adding 
in its place ``DHS'';
0
c. Removing from paragraph (b) the words ``the Service'' and adding in 
its place ``DHS''.

0
6. Amend Sec.  1003.102 by:
0
a. Removing from paragraph (j)(2) the citation ``Sec.  1003.1(d)(1-a)'' 
and adding in its place the citation ``Sec.  1003.1(d)'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (e), (k), (l), and (m); and by
0
c. Adding paragraphs (n) through (t), to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.102  Grounds.

* * * * *
    (e) Is subject to a final order of disbarment or suspension, or has 
resigned while a disciplinary investigation or proceeding is pending;
* * * * *
    (k) Engages in conduct that constitutes ineffective assistance of 
counsel, as previously determined in a finding by the Board, an 
immigration judge in an immigration proceeding, or a Federal court 
judge or panel, and a disciplinary complaint is filed within one year 
of the finding;
    (l) Repeatedly fails to appear for pre-hearing conferences, 
scheduled hearings, or case-related meetings in a timely manner without 
good cause;
    (m) Assists any person, other than a practitioner as defined in 
Sec.  1003.101(b), in the performance of activity that constitutes the 
unauthorized practice of law. The practice of law before EOIR means 
engaging in practice or preparation as those terms are defined in 
Sec. Sec.  1001.1(i) and (k);
    (n) Engages in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice or undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. 
Conduct that will generally be subject to sanctions under this ground 
includes any action or inaction that seriously impairs or interferes 
with the adjudicative process when the practitioner should have 
reasonably known to avoid such conduct;
    (o) Fails to provide competent representation to a client. 
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation. Competent handling of a particular matter includes 
inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the 
problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of 
competent practitioners;
    (p) Fails to abide by a client's decisions concerning the 
objectives of representation and fails to consult with the client as to 
the means by which they are to be pursued, in accordance with paragraph 
(r) of this section. A practitioner may take such action on behalf of 
the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation;
    (q) Fails to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client.
    (1) A practitioner's workload must be controlled and managed so 
that each matter can be handled competently.
    (2) A practitioner has the duty to act with reasonable promptness. 
This duty includes, but shall not be limited to, complying with all 
time and filing limitations. This duty, however, does not preclude the 
practitioner from agreeing to a reasonable request for a postponement 
that will not prejudice the practitioner's client.
    (3) A practitioner should carry through to conclusion all matters 
undertaken for a client, consistent with the scope of representation as 
previously determined by the client and practitioner, unless the client 
terminates the relationship or the practitioner obtains permission to 
withdraw in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. If a 
practitioner has handled a proceeding that produced a result adverse to 
the client and the practitioner and the client have no