"New" rules, or old school?

Well, maybe you won't be able to challenge a conviction that's this old.

Does a criminal defense attorney have to advise her client about the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court said yes, in a case called Padilla v. Kentucky.

The Massachusetts courts agreed, but now the SJC has gone a step further in a recent case: Commonwealth v. Sylvain, SJC-11400. In Sylvain, the court clarified that it's nothing "new" for criminal attorneys to advise their clients about immigration consequences. Attorneys in Massachusetts have been giving their clients this advice for years, and CPCS requires all public defenders and bar advocates to do it.

Because this is not a "new" rule of constitutional rights announced by the Supreme Court, the rule applies retroactively. People who are not U.S. citizens who have been convicted of crimes in the past may now challenge those convictions. They may be able to reverse their convictions if they did not get accurate advice from their lawyers, and if the bad advice affected the outcome of their cases.

 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that this is a "new" rule for federal purposes. See Chaidez v. United States for details. This means that inaccurate immigration advice from criminal convictions in other states and the federal system may not result in a finding of "ineffective assistance of counsel."

If you have questions about a past criminal conviction and your immigration status, or if you are facing criminal charges and you are not a citizen of the U.S., contact us today to see if we are able to help.

Supreme Judicial Court Protects Consumers in Recent Decision

In response to a request by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts opined that real estate closings are the practice of law and cannot be conducted by escrow companies. Clearing title and interpreting the status of title, as well as drafting and interpreting deeds and other documents by which legal rights are created, modified, surrendered or secured are acts which only an attorney should be doing in order to protect those bounds by these documents. "(W)e believe that a lawyer is a necessary participant at the closing to direct the proper transfer of title and consideration, and to document the transaction, thereby protecting the private legal interests at stake as well as the public interest in the continued integrity and reliability of the real property recording and registration systems. "

This decision will also have an effect on out of state immigration lawyers which have satellite offices in Massachusetts but no real presence for the consumers using their services.

When you call Glickman Turley, attorneys answer your calls. There is no one between you and your lawyer. We protect your interests.

The decision can be found on the website for the Supreme Judicial Court. It is Real Estate Bar Association v. National Real Information Services, 459 Mass. 512 (2011).