Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) - What You Need to Know Following the New York Federal District Court Order

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA as it’s commonly known, has an often complicated history.  Because of this, it’s not uncommon to see news stories about DACA and there is a lot of information floating around the internet about DACA, which can make getting accurate information difficult.  Currently, in light of the ruling from the federal courts, the government has been ordered to open up the process for new applications for DACA once again.  Today, let’s try to distill some of that information down to the basics.  Before we do that, however, a warning, it is impossible to definitively state eligibility in a vacuum.  If you think that  you might qualify for DACA, your best route is to talk to a licensed attorney who regularly practices immigration law to have them look at your specific immigration history and to advise you about the steps for you to take.

La Acción Diferida para los que Arrivaron en la Infancia, o DACA como se le conoce comúnmente, tiene una historia complicada. Debido a esto, no es raro ver noticias del DACA y hay mucha información flotando en Internet sobre DACA, lo que puede dificultar el obtener información precisa. Actualmente, a la luz del fallo de los tribunales federales se ordenó al gobierno abrir nuevamente el proceso para nuevas solicitudes de DACA. Hoy, intentemos resumir parte de esa información básica. Sin embargo, antes hacemos la advertencia de que es imposible afirmar definitivamente la elegibilidad. Si cree que usted puede calificar para DACA, su mejor opcion es hablar con un abogado con licencia que practique regularmente la ley de inmigración para que revise su historial de inmigración específico y le aconseje sobre los pasos que debe seguir.

First, what is DACA?  DACA is not a permanent path to citizenship.  Only Congress has to power to reform immigration law and to create new paths to citizenship.  But, the President, or the Executive branch, can choose how to enforce the laws passed by Congress.  That is why DACA is a form of deferred action, because our government is saying “we are not going to take action to remove this class of people from the United States at this time.”  So, DACA is not a permanent solution, but it is a stop-gap that has and can continue to help many people who might not otherwise have a way to remain in the United States.  However, it is important to remember, this executive action, because it is not permanent law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, can be revoked, which is why it is important to act without delay if you think you may qualify for DACA.

 Primero, ¿qué es DACA? DACA no es un camino permanente hacia la ciudadanía. Solo el Congreso tiene el poder de reformar la ley de inmigración y crear nuevos caminos hacia la ciudadanía. Pero el presidente o el poder ejecutivo pueden elegir cómo hacer cumplir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso. Es por eso que DACA es una forma de acción diferida, porque nuestro gobierno está diciendo "no vamos a tomar medidas para sacar a esta categoria de personas de los Estados Unidos en este momento". Entonces, DACA no es una solución permanente, pero es una solución provisional que ha ayudado y puede continuar ayudando a muchas personas que de otra manera no tendrían una forma de permanecer en los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, es importante recordar que esta acción ejecutiva, debido a que no es una ley permanente aprobada por el Congreso y promulgada por el Presidente, puede ser revocada, por lo que es importante actuar sin demora si cree que puede calificar para DACA.

Second, what are the minimum qualifications to apply for DACA?  There are seven requirements for DACA:

1. You must have been under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012
2. You must have come to the United States before your 16^th birthday
3. You must have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007
4. You must have been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and must still be physically present in the United States when you file for DACA
5. You must not have lawful status in the United States, both now and on June 15, 2012
6. You must currently be in school, have a high school diploma or certificate of completion, have a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or United States Military
7. You must not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

En segundo lugar, ¿cuáles son los requisitos mínimos para solicitar DACA? Hay siete requisitos para DACA:

1.  Tener menos de 31 años al 15 de junio de 2012.
2. Haber entrado a los Estados Unidos antes de cumplir 16 años.
3. Haber residido continuamente en los Estados Unidos desde el 15 de junio de 2007.
4. Haber estado físicamente presente en los Estados Unidos el 15 de junio de 2012 y aún debe estar físicamente presente en los Estados Unidos cuando solicite DACA.
5. No debe tener un estatus legal en los Estados Unidos, tanto ahora como el 15 de junio de 2012.
6. Estar actualmente en la escuela, tener un diploma de escuela secundaria o un certificado de finalización, tener un GED o ser un veterano dado de baja honorablemente de la Guardia Costera o del Ejército de los Estados Unidos.
7. No debe haber sido condenado por un delito mayor, un delito menor significativo, tres o más delitos menores, o representar una amenaza para la seguridad nacional o la seguridad pública.

Additionally, there are age restrictions which vary depending on whether you are currently in proceedings before an immigration judge or not.  If you are not in removal proceedings, you must be at least 15 years old when you file your application for DACA.  If you are in removal proceedings, you can be younger than 15 years old when you file a request for DACA. 

 Además, existen restricciones de edad que varían dependiendo de si se encuentra actualmente en proceso ante un juez de inmigración o no. Si no está en proceso de deportación, debe tener al menos 15 años cuando presente su solicitud de DACA. Si está en proceso de deportación, puede ser menor de 15 años cuando presente una solicitud de DACA.

Third, why seek DACA?  Seeking DACA may seem to be a risk.  After all, by submitting the required forms and documents you are giving immigration officials your contact information.  The benefit to DACA, and the intention behind the creation of DACA in 2012, is to bring people out of the shadows.  While you are under DACA protection, you will not be removed from the United States.  Furthermore, you will be granted work authorization, which opens the pathway to legally work in the United States, attend college, seek a driver’s license, and other benefits.  A warning, however, this does not mean that your DACA status is irrevocable.  If you end up with criminal convictions which disqualify you, for example, your status may be revoked.  Additionally, traveling outside the United States without receiving advance parole from immigration officials can cause you to lose your DACA status.

En tercer lugar, ¿por qué buscar DACA? Buscar DACA puede parecer un riesgo. Después de todo, al enviar los formularios y documentos requeridos se le está dando a los funcionarios de inmigración su información de contacto. El beneficio y la intención detrás de la creación de DACA en 2012, es sacar a las personas de las sombras. Mientras esté bajo la protección de DACA no será expulsado de los Estados Unidos. Además, se le otorgará una autorización de trabajo que le abre el camino para trabajar legalmente en los Estados Unidos, asistir a la universidad, solicitar una licencia de conducir y otros beneficios. Sin embargo, esto no significa que su estado DACA sea irrevocable. Si por ejemplo termina con condenas penales que lo descalifican, su estado puede ser revocado. Además, viajar fuera de los Estados Unidos sin recibir un permiso anticipado de los funcionarios de inmigración puede hacer que pierda su estado DACA.

So how do you file for DACA protection?  You prove your eligibility for DACA by submitting documents to show how you meet these requirements along with your DACA application, proof of your identity, and filing fee.  Putting together the evidence for DACA eligibility is where it is important to seek the assistance of a qualified attorney.  While a person does not have to be represented by an attorney to apply for DACA, an attorney can help you ensure that the documents are there to show how you meet every requirement and are assembled in a way that the immigration officer reviewing your request can clearly see your eligibility, and can advise you on issues such as criminal convictions which may make seeking DACA more difficult.

Entonces, ¿cómo se solicita la protección de DACA? Usted demuestra su elegibilidad para DACA mediante el envio de la solicitud, junto con documentos para mostrar que cumple con los requisitos, prueba de su identidad y tarifa de presentación. Para reunir la evidencia para la elegibilidad de DACA es donde es importante buscar la ayuda de un abogado calificado. Si bien una persona no tiene que estar representada legalmente para solicitar DACA, un abogado puede ayudarlo a asegurarse de que tiene todos los documentos para mostrar que cumple con los requisitos, de manera que el oficial de inmigración que revisa su solicitud pueda ver claramente su elegibilidad. El abogado tambien lo asesora sobre asuntos tales como condenas penales, que pueden dificultar la búsqueda de DACA.

What about the cost?  There are two costs associated with seeking DACA, what you pay the government to process your request and what you pay an attorney to advise and assist you in seeking DACA.  It is important to remember that filing fees, the amount paid to immigration services to process your application can change, so always check the current fees either on the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website or with your attorney when filing a request for DACA to ensure that you are paying the correct filing fee.  Currently, the filing fees are set at:

• DACA application form:                      $495
• Work Authorization request form:       $410
• Biometrics fee:                                     $85

¿Y el costo? Hay dos costos asociados con la búsqueda de DACA, lo que le paga al gobierno para procesar su solicitud y lo que le paga a un abogado para que lo asesore y lo ayude a buscar DACA. Es importante recordar que las tarifas de presentación o cantidad pagada a los servicios de inmigración para procesar su solicitud pueden cambiar, por lo tanto, siempre verifique las tarifas vigentes en el sitio web de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos o con su abogado al presentar una solicitud de DACA, para garantizar que está pagando la tarifa de presentación correcta. Actualmente, las tarifas de presentación se establecen en:

• Formulario de solicitud de DACA:                                        $ 495
• Formulario de solicitud de autorización de trabajo:             $ 410
• Tarifa de huellas digitales:                                                    $ 85 

The Law Offices of Russell S. Mainord are committed to providing quality legal services through our offices in Chattanooga, Grundy County, and Morristown, Tennessee.  We are one of the leading firms in Tennessee in the field of immigration while also offering services in criminal and family law matters and the drafting of wills, deeds, and powers of attorney through our general practice division of the firm.  We offer free initial, or first, consultations to new clients to determine your legal needs.  Currently, for persons seeking initial DACA applications, we are offering the following special through the end of 2020.  If you mention this ad, the legal fee, the amount our firm charges for our legal services, and you pay the balance in full upon signing the contract for legal representation with our firm, the legal fee is $750.  Our regular legal fee, for those who either do not mention this ad or who pay the legal fee across multiple payments, is $1,000.

Las Oficinas Legales de Russell S. Mainord están comprometidas a brindar servicios legales de calidad a través de nuestras oficinas en Chattanooga, el condado de Grundy y Morristown, Tennessee. Somos una de las firmas líderes en Tennessee en el campo de la inmigración, al mismo tiempo que ofrecemos servicios en asuntos de derecho penal y familiar y la redacción de testamentos, escrituras y poderes a través de nuestra división de práctica general de la Firma. Ofrecemos consultas iniciales gratuitas a nuevos clientes para determinar sus necesidades legales. Actualmente, estamos ofreciendo la siguiente oferta especial hasta fines de 2020 para las personas interesadas en solicitudes iniciales de DACA: Si menciona este anuncio, el monto que cobra nuestra firma por los servicios legales si usted paga el monto total al firmar el contrato con nuestra firma, la tarifa legal es de $ 750. Nuestra tarifa legal regular para aquellos que no mencionen este anuncio o que paguen la tarifa legal en varios pagos  es de $ 1,000. 

To contact the Law Offices of Russell S. Mainord to schedule an appointment to discuss your legal needs, call the following numbers:

• Chattanooga:               423-521-8472 (English and Spanish speakers available)
• Grundy County            931-692-8472 (English speakers available)
•  Morristown:                 423-839-1555 (English and Spanish speakers available)

 Para comunicarse con las Oficinas Legales de Russell S. Mainord y programar una cita para discutir sus necesidades legales, llame a los siguientes números:

• Chattanooga: 423-521-8472  (se habla Ingles y Espanol)
• Condado de Grundy 931-692-8472  (se habla Inglés)
• Morristown: 423-839-1555  (se habla Ingles y Espanol)

You may also email us at info@mainordlaw.com.  We offer both in person and telephonic appointments to provide flexibility and to protect the health and safety of all persons who have contact with our firm in light of current times.  We look forward to speaking with you about your legal matters, whether to seek DACA or to discuss whether other options may be available to you.

También puede enviarnos un correo electrónico a info@mainordlaw.com. Ofrecemos citas tanto en persona como telefónicas para brindar flexibilidad y proteger la salud y seguridad de todas las personas que tienen contacto con nuestra firma debido a los tiempos actuales. Esperamos poder hablar con usted sobre sus asuntos legales, ya sea para buscar DACA o para discutir si otras opciones pueden estar disponibles para usted.

Please click on the following link for a video The Law Offices of Russell S. Mainord attorney, Oscar Ruiz, filmed for Punto Latino about DACA:

Haga clic en el siguiente enlace para ver un video El abogado de Law Oficinas Legales de Russell S. Mainord, Oscar Ruiz, filmado para Latino Sobre DACA:

Punto Latino video on DACA

Due Process -- A Fundamental Right, Even for Immigrants

Just over a week to go until the 4^th of July and everyone is getting ready to celebrate.  But, what are we really celebrating?  Fireworks and time with family?  A day off?  Or, are we celebrating the principles for which our forefathers fought?

“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.  Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them.  Our strength in our unity of purpose.  To that high concept there can be no end save victory.” Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Powerful words from men who were facing the birth of one nation while leaving another.  Our founders also recognized the importance of protecting the rights of people by not allowing a person’s life, liberty, or freedom to be taken away without due process of law.  It is on this point that it seems the interpretation among everyone who has been expressing opinions about the immigration debate seems to diverge.

First, a historical note with regard to interpretation.  Due process is protected through two constitutional amendments.  The first, with regard to actions by the federal government, is controlled by the Fifth Amendment.  The second, with regard to state action, is controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Importantly, neither amendment restricts due process rights to citizens.  Rather, they both state that “no person shall be deprived.”

What does that mean with regard to today’s situation?  It means that our government must afford certain protections when detaining or otherwise affecting the lives of immigrants.  As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, due process requires that a person be given “an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his [or her] rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case … [a]side from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.”  But, wait, many will say, they entered illegally, they shouldn’t have as many rights.  Our federal courts, charged by the Constitution with interpreting our laws, have ruled differently.  “As old as the first immigration laws of this country is the recognition that non-citizens, even if illegally present in the United States, are "persons" entitled to the Fifth Amendment right of due process in deportation proceedings; once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all ‘persons’ and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority.”  Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681 (6th Cir., 2002); see also Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212, (1953) ("It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.") (citing Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101 (1903) ("The Japanese Immigrant Case"); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. 590, 598 (1953)

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the power to regulate immigration.  But, importantly, it has also noted that such power is still constricted by the Constitution.  With regard to custody determinations of the immigrant children who have been separated from their parents, such a determination clearly violates the fundamental right to parent which has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court.  See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997); Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).  The Supreme Court left no doubt in its recitation of how the fundamental right to parent had been protected throughout history: “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.”  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), citing Prince v. Massachusetts, 312 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).  This is why for so many of us, the recent actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement is so concerning.  If a fundamental right that has been long recognized can be so easily trampled because “these people don’t deserve rights,” despite the fact that the Constitution and our Supreme Court have clearly stated that they do have such rights, how long until this trampling of rights extends to other classes of society?  As John F. Kennedy recognized, “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

To hopefully quiet the naysayers who want to take my statements about due process to mean that I think we should just open our borders, etc… I am not saying that we should not have an immigration process.  Yes, we need to have a system in place.  But, that system must follow the principles of due process and seek to protect fundamental human rights.  At its core, that it what America is about; that is what we celebrate every year on the Fourth of July.  “America is great because she is good.  If America ceased to be good, America will cease to be great.”  Alexis de Tocqueville.  Do you really want to make America great again?  That ideal is not built on military strength or how tangibly rich we are.  Our greatness, our richness comes from the ideals this nation was founded upon and which bear repeating from the beginning of this discussion.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Every discussion, every decision must be guided by those truths.  Without them, America cannot be great because it will have strayed from its purpose. 

In a case decided today, Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S.____ (2018), 18 USC §16(b) has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as void for vagueness.  Specifically, the provision stated that “a ‘crime of violence’ [is] ‘any offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.’”  The Court likened the situation to a previous case, Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 133 (2015), in which the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residuary clause was struck down because it “created ‘grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime.”  Specifically, it required the judge to make an assessment based upon a possible situation “but provided no guidance” to what a crime’s “ordinary case was” as well as providing that same imprecise reasoning with no guidance to making a risk assessment.  The Court also dismissed the notion that the a less demanding vagueness doctrine should apply, quoting its own precedent in Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951), “’’in view of the grave nature of deportation,’ the most exacting vagueness standard must apply.”  The Court notes that removal proceedings have become increasingly connected to criminal matters as convictions have become more significant grounds in placement into removal proceedings and qualifying for relief.  This changes the viewpoint of aggravated felonies in that there must be clarity about what conduct leads to a finding of an aggravated felony and not open-ended speculation.  Subsequent litigation on these issues will be of interest as this new standard is applied and will change the analysis and argument that must be brought to relevant cases.

Information on 3 Year Work Permit Recall

We have received questions about the recall of some 3 year work permits issued for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") recipients.  Upon reviewing the information provided by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), here is what questions we can answer for you.

1. Do all 3 year work permits have to be returned?
a. No.  The recall does not apply to persons whose work permits were issued and mailed before February 16, 2015.  It only applies to work permits issued or mailed following the injunction placed on the changes to the deferred action program.
2. What do I need to do if I received a work permit after February 16, 2015?
a. USCIS will be reissuing work permits with the 2 year authorization period.  Included with the new 2 year work permits will be instructions for returning the 3 year work permits.
3. What will I need to return?
a. You will need to return both the 3 year work permit and any related approval notices.
We will update information as it is released by USCIS.  If you have additional questions during this time, please do not hesitate to contact one of our offices.

Hemos recibido preguntas sobre la retirada de algunos permisos de trabajo de 3 años emitidos para la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (“DACA”).  Al revisar la información proporcionada por los Estados Unidos Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (“USCIS”), esto es lo que podemos responder a preguntas que usted puede tener:
1. ¿Todos los permisos de trabajo 3 años tienen que ser devueltos?
a. No. El retiro no se aplica a las personas que se expidieron permisos de trabajo y fueron enviado por correo antes del 16 de febrero de 2015. Sólo se aplica a los permisos de trabajo emitidos o enviados por correo después de la orden colocada sobre los cambios en el programa de acción diferida.
2. ¿Qué tengo que hacer si he recibido un permiso de trabajo después del 16 de febrero 2015?
a. USCIS va a volver a emitir permisos de trabajo con el período de la autorización de 2 años. Incluido con los nuevos permisos de trabajo de 2 años, va a ver instrucciones para como devolver los permisos de trabajo de 3 años.
3. ¿Qué necesito devolver?
a. Usted tendrá que devolver el permiso de trabajo de 3 años y cualquier aviso de aprobación relacionada a la petición.
Vamos a actualizar la información en cuanto se publique por el USCIS. Si tiene preguntas adicionales durante este tiempo, por favor no dude en ponerse en contacto con una de nuestras oficinas.

New Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Filing Date

A date has now been released for filings based upon the new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) requirements.  The date for those filings to be effective will be February 18, 2015.

What does this mean from a practical standpoint?  If you think you may be eligible under the new guidelines, now is the time to contact an attorney to evaluate your case and assist you in preparing your application.

Here are the guidelines for the expanded DACA from the USCIS website:

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program
Who	Individuals with no lawful immigration status who are seeking initial or renewal DACA.
What	Extends the deferred action period and employment authorization to three years from two years, and allows you to be considered for DACA if you: Entered the United States before the age of 16; Have lived in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 2010, rather than the prior requirement of June 15, 2007; Are of any age (removes the requirement to have been born prior to June 15, 1981); and Meet all the other DACA guidelines.
When	February 18, 2015 (USCIS will not accept requests for expanded DACA before that date.)

OJ Simpson Trial - 20 Years Later - Impact On Criminal Law Practices

Perhaps one of the most widely publicized trials in recent history and certainly one which has shaped criminal justice practices and teachings.  I still remember my law professors covering this case and the discussion of trial practice and how it made such an impact on this case.

Perhaps the most defining item to note from this case is that the outcome of the case ultimately comes down to which side presents the most compelling story.  It is the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Here, there was enough reasonable doubt created for an acquittal.  This case also highlights that cases don't necessarily move quickly.  The trial itself in this case took over 9 months.  Sometimes the best strategy for a case is to be patient and let things unfold.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/13/us/oj-simpson-trial/index.html

What Does the President's Announcement on Immigration Reform 2014 Mean for You?

President Obama announced this evening that he will be putting forth executive action for immigration matters.  This action shall not grant permanent status, however, it offers temporary relief from removal from the United States for certain individuals and allow them an opportunity to work legally in the United States, “get right with the law,” and pay their taxes.

My comments below are not legal advice and should be taken to create an attorney-client relationship.  These comments are my opinion based upon the information that I have at this time and cannot be applied to each case individually.  The purpose of this post is to be informative for you.

Based upon the President’s statements, he seeks to give protection to individuals that are parents of United States Citizens or Lawful Permanent Resident children that have been in the United States for a period of five (5) years, I anticipate that this program will very closely model the program offered on June 15, 2012, which is referred to as DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  However, this program will likely require the following:

• ·        Proof of physical presence in the United States for the previous five (5) years with the beginning date currently unknown;
• ·                 Proof of Good Moral Character including any court dispositions for any citations, arrests, or charges; and
• ·       Proof that the individual has children that are either United States Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents in the United States.  This may require showing marriage licenses, birth certificates, and proof of status documents.

It is likely that individuals convicted of certain crimes will be disqualified from this program.  Individuals having the following conviction criteria will likely not qualify:

• ·        Aggravated felonies;
• ·        Gang affiliations;
• ·        Three (3) or more misdemeanors;
• ·        Convictions for significant misdemeanors such as
• o   Domestic violence;
• o   Sexual abuse or exploitation;
• o   Burglary;
• o   Unlawful possession or use of firearm;
• o   Drug distribution or trafficking;
• o   DUI; and
• o   One with time in custody exceeding 90 days;
• ·       Those apprehended for violating the immigration laws and cannot establish that they have been continuously present in the United States since 1/1/2014;
• ·        Those that have abuse visa programs; and
• ·        Those with a final order of removal issued on or after 1/1/2014

For the disqualifying factors there may be ways to overcome those issues, depending upon many factors which will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

It is important that if you think that this executive action will apply to you that you schedule an appointment with an attorney and get started gathering your documentation.  Here at my office we are prepared to begin the process immediately, please contact our office to schedule a free consultation.

Update!  The executive actions by President Obama are being reported to include the following details:

For parents of U.S. Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents:

-        Have been in the United States for more than 5 years

-        Relief from removal for 3 years

-        Work permits will be granted to qualifying persons

DACA will be expanded:

-        Eligibility will be expanded to those who arrived as minors before 2010 instead of the current date of 2007

-        The requirement that applicants be under 31 years of age will be lifted

It is unclear when applications can be submitted; although the process of preparing the applications for filing with the government need to be started now.

There will be new deportation priorities, which have been highlighted in the blog post above and which will be discussed in more detail in a later blog post.  The new deportation priorities will make those who have been present in the U.S. for longer than 10 years a low priority absent other factors, such as criminal history.   

Immigration Reform 2014

Many reports are coming out that Immigration Reform is imminent.  What does that mean for you? Right now, there are few specifics, so it could mean a lot of things to different people.  Here's what we can tell you, current and potential clients, right now:

First - immigration reform in whatever shape or fashion will likely include certain eligibility standards.  Past practice tell us that the exact standards will be released by the Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, but, for now, we can look to the DACA requirements to say that there will probably be an entry date cut-off, good moral character requirements, and a filing fee.

Second - whatever reform occurs will likely only be available to a certain number of people and then everyone else will go on a "waiting list" so to speak.  Even without that, there have been rumors that there may be discounts available for a certain number of naturalization applicants under a "new" process that is potentially going to be released.  Practically, that means that you need to be preparing for immigration reform now.  Having your immigration history evaluated, being advised on documents to have in your immigration file, and having an attorney on retainer to call you the moment reform and the eligibility requirements are announced are all important steps.

Third - have you ever had your immigration history evaluated?  When DACA was first made available, we found that many people who came in were actually eligible for more permanent forms of immigration status and were simply unaware of their eligibility.  Don't wait just because you think there's nothing that can be done because you very well may have a path to legal status now.

We will be monitoring updates on Immigration Reform 2014 closely as well as making staff available for initial consultations.  All initial consultations are free, so why wait?  Schedule an appointment today so that we can begin the process of helping you gain legal immigration status.

Unaccompanied Minors and Due Process

I recently received a comment on my Facebook page relating to a news article that I shared which discussed the possibility of legal representation being made more readily available for unaccompanied minors.  To fully deal with all of the issues that our Immigration system faces would require numerous blog posts, so I am going to attempt to keep the issues narrowed down to those most relevant to the Facebook comment that I received.

Our Constitution offers certain protections for all person in the United States.  The presence of these protections arise from the principles that our country was founded upon; namely that all men are created equal.  More specifically, the 5th and 14th Amendments provide for due process of law.  

“Immigration proceedings, although not subject to the full range of constitutional protections, must conform to the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of due process.”[1]  As the U.S. Supreme Court outlined in Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954), policies concerning immigration are uniquely concerned with the political conduct of the government, but the executive branch of the government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process when enforcing immigration policies.  In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940-41 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court went further in stating that the power of Congress over immigration matters is not open to question, but how this power is implemented must comport with the Constitution as its implementation cannot offend some other constitutional restriction. 

Due process means that there is a right to a fair process and to be heard.  In Immigration proceedings, this means that immigrants are given the right to a fair hearing and to present their case for relief from removal.  Calling for due process does not mean that we are giving away everything and that we are picking and choosing between the laws.

When I hear people talk like the comment I received, it makes me disappointed.  Disappointed in our media system and our politicians who are so eager to score political points or to make it big that they report things as fact that are not true or are not the whole story.  And, because these are the things that are reported, people who are not in a position to know otherwise believe these things as gospel.

The reality is that our immigration system is broken.  Immigration reform is desperately needed and, when you talk to most who are familiar with the issues in the Immigration system, the Immigration reform that is being called for is not amnesty; rather it is something far from it that would require years and the payment of significant fines to navigate.  Most of the talking heads in the political world refer to any Immigration reform that offers any path to legalization as amnesty.  However, amnesty is a true forgiveness without any punishment, which is what was done under the Reagan administration in the 1980s.  The Senate has already passed a bill, which the House refuses to bring to a vote, which would call for approximately $10,000 worth of fines per person; a 10 year probationary period; plus other requirements such as paying back taxes, ineligibility for certain tax benefits, learning and passing an English proficiency exam (which is already required for citizenship), passage of a civics exam (which is also already required), as well as a requirement to refrain from breaking any other laws (including most minor traffic offenses) of this country.  All to only become Lawful Permanent Residents and then not be eligible to apply for citizenship, with all of the hurdles of that application, for at least 5 years.  In essence, this is a much harsher sentence than many drug offenders, murders, child molesters, or other criminals face in our criminal system; yet it is being referred to as amnesty.  Let's add that the bill proposed would include a cut-off date requiring persons to prove physical presence in the United States for at least 5 years prior to that date, so it is not a blanket invitation for continued migration.  The main reason this is opposed is not out of some moral obligation or a sense of saving our nation money (because it would actually help lower our national deficit and debt, which will require a separate blog post to explain); it is because 80% of those estimated 7 million voters would vote for the Democratic party once eligible to vote (which would be at least 15 years).

Today, enforcement continues to be stepped up, but provisions to allow the Immigration courts to function keep being stalled.  Immigration proceedings truly are death penalty consequences in a traffic court setting.  Our Immigration judges are forced to decide which immigrants qualify for the limited forms of relief available while denying many more heartbreaking cases; cases where they know that their decision carries the equivalent of a death sentence to the person in front of them.  The denial rate for asylum cases alone is about 75%.  The numbers for the other limited forms of relief are not much better.  Practically, for the current influx of children crossing the border, asylum is the primary form of relief for which they would even possibly qualify for; staggering numbers when you consider the denial rate.

When appearing before the Immigration courts, immigrants are afforded a right to be represented by an attorney; yet it is a limited right because they must hire and pay for their own attorney.  This has always been a difficult task, but it has become even more difficult in recent years with nonprofits and schools that provide pro bono legal services losing funding.  Having an attorney is vital, though, in a system that many attorneys find to be confusing at best.  From a practical standpoint, having attorneys allows the Immigration courts to function more efficiently because attorneys can guide the immigrants to the forms of relief from removal for which they are eligible, advise those who wish to return to their home country on how best to do so, and ensure that rights are protected.

Moving back to the unaccompanied minors.  When news reports are shown, oftentimes what's shown are teenagers who come across.  While still minors and in need of assistance to navigate the system, it is easier for people who are not dealing with the system day to day to dismiss the need for added protection when it is teenagers.  However, what many do not think about are the many young kids, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old, just to name a few ages, who come across unaccompanied.  These children need assistance to navigate the system.  Yes, there may be some who do not qualify for immigration relief and the best that an attorney can do is to ensure that safeguards are in place when they leave rather than them simply being dumped a few miles across the border.  But, for others, they may be victims of crime at the hands of U.S. Citizens, have be kidnapped and trafficked across the border by the cartels, or be fleeing from persecution.  Without due process, these kids will not receive the protection they deserve; the protection that our laws call for.  How can we call the process fair or claim that they have been afforded the right to be heard with no protections?

Let us add that certain protections are necessary.  Some of these children being detained may very well be United States Citizens.  The comment on my Facebook page included a statement that we should be sending these children back their parents.  Yet, with these children, they may not even know who or where their parents are, may be orphans, or may be fleeing abusive situations.  They may also be runaways from within the U.S. who happened to be apprehended and sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement solely because of their ethnicity and/or proximity to the border.  There have been numerous reports from reputable sources recounting cases where children or mentally handicapped individuals were deported from the United States when they were second or third generation U.S. Citizens with their families living in the United States and unable to locate them for months and may only find them after reporting them missing and an FBI photo search locating them if a photo was taken for there to be a photo match.  Perhaps the myth needs to be dispelled that ICE and Border Patrol officers are friendly at the border, within the U.S., or even have the time or resources to create an environment in which children would recount their stories.  In fact, ICE agents are on a quota for the number of individuals they must deport every week, month, and year.  It is simply impossible for ICE and Border Patrol officers to be able to make the determination for every person entering and due process be afforded without going through the Immigration courts.  And, for children, it is impossible for this determination to be made without representation because they are simply not capable, due to their legal disability of being minors and lacking capacity, to be able to answer the necessary questions or to know the information necessary to navigate the Immigration system.

In answer to the Facebook comment that we do not allow children to get away with stealing and murdering just because they are children.  No, our judicial system provides punishments but it also provides for protections to ensure that those children's due process rights are upheld.

As I understand it, what the Obama administration is requesting is not as much appointing and paying private attorneys, although that would certainly go great lengths in solving many of the issues.  Most of the funding would go to nonprofit organizations who would oversee volunteers who take on the cases pro bono.  The money would fund technology and basic supplies needed to do the casework and would possibly offer some student loan forgiveness to encourage more people to volunteer.  The problem with our judicial system as a whole, not just Immigration, is that the cost of getting a law degree and maintaining a law license has increased 20 to 30 fold in the past 20 years.  As such, attorneys have been required to raise their fees and take on fewer pro bono or reduced rate cases in order to cover their expenses.  Also, attorneys are limited in their ability to volunteer hours to oversee law students or other persons who desire to work through a nonprofit that offers representation.  This particularly hits your disadvantaged groups, such as the lower end of the socio-economic scale, handicapped, minors, etc... who may not have any other recourse for seeking representation, eliminating from our country the long-held motto that there is liberty and justice for all and is closing off the courts to these disadvantaged groups.  It is a proven fact that those with money and means have a much higher success rate in all courts, which is driving our nation to be a nation of, by, and for the wealthy and is contrary to everything that our founders set forth as our American way of life.  

I ask those that feel they must weigh in on the Immigration issue to stop solely listening to the politicians and news media who provide limited information.  I also ask our politicians to begin listening to those who are most familiar with the Immigration system to design Immigration reform that actually addresses the problems rather than only advancing political agendas.  Meaningful reform can only happen when real, accurate information is provided and when an attitude that there should be no rights is departed from.  Our founders fought for the principle that all men are created equal.  Almost every major conflict our nation has ever been a part of has been to protect the rights of people around the world.  The fight for civil rights came about because of the misguided perception that certain persons were not equal and therefore were not entitled to Constitutional rights.  Because of the courage of civil rights leaders, due process rights, among other rights, where finally afforded in the manner our Founders intended, equal justice for all.  We say that we have emerged from those days, yet here we are once again.  It is a slippery slope, and one that we should not enter lightly because the consequences are severe; not only to those too whom we deny rights but to ourselves as well.

---

[1] Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Pangilinan v. Holder, 568 F.3d 708, 709 (9th Cir. 2009) (order); Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in deportation proceedings.”).

Tennessee State Senate Bill Regarding Pregnancy Drug Abuse

The Tennessee State Senate now holds a bill that passed the State House that would allow Tennessee authorities to arrest women for damage done to their infants as a result of their drug abuse.  The passage of this bill would reinstate the ability of state authorities to punish pregnant drug abusers, which was taken away two years ago when such criminal penalties were removed from the books.

This should create concern for Tennesseans.  Such action may prevent many people that are drug abusers from seeking professional help for their addictions once they have learned of their pregnancy, thereby putting the mother and the child at greater risk.  Mothers coming off of the addictions without the proper help could become suicidal or go into severe withdrawals, which would put both them and their child at risk, or they may be unsuccessful in their attempts.  Additionally, such legislation may prevent mothers from seeking prenatal help for their children.

Regardless, infants addicted to drugs when they are born pose a major problem that must be addressed.  Many had hoped that a bill labeled as the Safe Harbor Act passed last year would address this issue as it incentivized mothers to get treatment and kick their addiction.  Apparently, many state legislatures are giving up hope on that Act, which many assert has not had enough time to have an impact.

It will be interesting to see how this law can be enacted.  The big questions that remain to be answered are: when would a woman become liable for the damage to a fetus?  Is it with drug abuse after knowledge of pregnancy or after conception?  How does this apply to alcohol abuse?

Stay tuned as we watch to see what actions the Tennessee State Senate will take.

UPDATE - The Tennessee State Senate has now passed this bill and it is on way to the governor.

Immigration Detainers and Governmental Liability When A Person Is Wrongly Held - Galarza v. Szalczyk

In an opinion filed on March 4, 2014, (Galarza v. Szalczyk, Case No. 12-3991) the 3^rd Circuit potentially dealt Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) a major blow, subjecting local law enforcement to new litigation and liability, and offered those held on ICE detainers an avenue for relief.

In this precedential decision, the 3^rd Circuit ruled that a plain language reading of the federal law made the ICE Detainer a permissive basis for local law enforcement to extend the detention of individuals in local custody, but stated that the extended detention was not a requirement.  The Court reasoned that ICE could not mandate continued detention through the detainer as doing so would violate the anti-commandeering principle found in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As a consequence, the Court removed liability for wrongful detention from ICE and placed it firmly on local law enforcement officials.  To understand the importance of this ruling you must understand the ICE detainer system.

When ICE learns that an individual is in the custody of local law enforcement officials, it has the authority to issue a detainer to the local sheriff’s department requesting that the sheriff’s office notify them when the person has satisfied their terms of imprisonment and retain that individual in custody for 48 hours, allowing ICE an opportunity to take custody of that individual.  This must be broken down a little more in depth for greater understanding.  A person satisfies their terms of imprisonment when they have either completed the sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court or tribunal or posted a bond allowing them to be released from criminal custody. Additionally, it is important to know that the 48 hour period does not include weekends or holidays, and begins running upon the completion of the criminal custody.

With that brief explanation of the ICE detainer, let us now explore what Galarza tells us and the potential impact that it might have.  Currently, many local law enforcement officials are under a belief that the detainer is a federal mandate and will adhere to the detainer even when ICE has not done the same.  Galarza, at least within the 3^rd Circuit, for now, clarifies that this is not the case.  In Galarza, ICE had local law enforcement (Lehigh County) detain an individual following his completion of a sentence on a conviction for a drug crime.  This detention continued for three days beyond the completion of his sentence, and, as it turned out, the individual was a United States Citizen.  Mr. Galarza sued Lehigh County and the county attempted to argue that they were issued the detainer which was mandatory and should exempt them from suit.  The 3^rd Circuit ruling allowed the lawsuit against Lehigh to proceed.

The consequences of this decision are multi-faceted.  First, individuals wrongfully detained on an ICE detainer may have the ability to sue the local law enforcement entities detaining them. This is good news for many as they have been caught in that limbo world of attempting to find out who is responsible for the violation of their constitutional rights. 

As a result of their potential liability, many local law enforcement entities should think long and hard about whether or not they want to comply with an ICE detainer.  In fact, local entities lack the ability in many cases to determine the immigration status of an individual and they are at the mercy of ICE to get it right and do so very quickly.  As a result it is likely that litigation adverse local law enforcement entities may start refusing to cooperate with ICE detainers.  This could be a boon for the immigrant community allowing them to avoid ICE detention.  However, it will likely become much more difficult for ICE to detain potentially dangerous criminals, jeopardizing the safety of our communities.  Regardless, one impact that is will be seen is that ICE will become much more taxed and enforcement initiatives will be much more difficult to attain.           

If you or a loved one are detained by local law enforcement, it is still in your best interest to consult with an attorney trained in immigration law prior to paying a criminal bond.  This ensures that your (or your loved one’s) interests and rights are protected.  

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on the Right to Possess a Firearm and Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Convictions - United States v. Castleman

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. ____ (2014) confirmed what many people feared:  All misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, even in states where no violence is required for a conviction, bar individuals from possessing a firearm.

At issue in Castleman is 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9), which forbids the possession of firearms by any­one convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”  Castleman challenged that his conviction did not qualify under this law because Tennessee law did not require an act of violence.  The Court ruled that any conviction that required the use of force would qualify as a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9).  The Court's opinion can be found here: United States v. Castleman.

The practical take-away from this decision is that persons convicted of crimes must be proactive to learn exactly what they are or are not allowed to do or possess.  With this specific holding, arguments can easily be made for either side; however, the Supreme Court has spoken, making this holding binding across the land. 

The consequences of even innocent ignorance can be seen with the recent issue here in Grundy County where a man’s firearms were taken from his home because his son, who was on probation and not allowed to be in possession of a firearm, was living in his home.  There were other issues at play in that situation that are not relevant to this blog post, but the lesson to be learned remains.  If in doubt about your rights and responsibilities upon receiving a conviction (or those of family members), consult with an attorney who can explain such.  In all reality, the consequences of a conviction, especially when the result of a plea bargain, should be fully explained to you before the conviction occurs.

Be on the lookout soon for a blog post explaining the far-reaching consequences of convictions and plea bargains on immigration proceedings and why it is so important to be advised of these consequences.  Although post-conviction relief may be available in some situation, it is much better to avoid a situation where this relief is needed. 

Facing criminal proceedings and need legal representation?  Already have a conviction and want to see what its impact will be on your rights and responsibilities?  Contact The Law Office of Russell S. Mainord for a consultation today.  

Why I Offer Free Consultations

Why do I offer free consultations?

Many law offices charge consultation fees for individuals seeking to have their cases evaluated.  The idea is that the law firm is spending time and resources to evaluate your case and that they should be compensated for that time.  However, I do not share this belief.

An individual should never hire an attorney unless they are confident in that person or firm to meet their needs.  Many times, people pay a consultation fee and then hire the attorney because they already have an investment in the services that the attorney is providing; settling for that attorney regardless of their personal feelings for them.  Hiring an attorney, in most cases, is like taking in a family member and you should be very comfortable with that person before you sign a retaining agreement.  Paying a consultation fee, in my opinion, clouds that relationship. 

Furthermore, an attorney should attempt to answer your questions as honestly and quickly as possible.  To meet these needs, you must meet the attorney, discuss your case openly and honestly while the attorney gives honest feedback.  If a consultation fee has been paid, the attorney may feel a compulsion to tell you what you want to hear, take a designated time period to answer your question, or many times leave potential clients with a feeling that they have been taken advantage of.  There have been many times that I have sat across the table from a potential client and informed them that there is nothing that can be done to assist them or I have been able to resolve their situation within a couple of minutes without any costs to myself or the client.  Charging a fee would have left the potential client feeling like they were ripped off and, frankly, I would agree with them.

Legal services should be open and available to all people regardless of financial status.  Charging a consultation fee closes off access to legal services for many people.

When you come to my office for a consultation, you will never pay a consultation fee.  You will come in and sit down with either myself or a member of my staff and have an opportunity to explain your situation and what you are seeking.  I will then evaluate your case, explain the options as I see them, and outline how I can help you meet your needs. I will do my very best to make sure that you do not feel pressured to retain my services unless you feel ready to do so.

Call today to schedule your consultation. 

Madi Rogers 24 Hour Cold Water Challenge Accepted!

I Think I Need A Lawyer ... Now What?

It happens, usually when you least expect it ... you need an attorney.  Now, often, if we believed the movies and books that are so popular these days, the moment when you need an attorney is high action, high drama, everything is an emergency until the case is solved, and solved quickly.  Don't get me wrong, I love these books, movies, and tv shows as entertainment, but I think that they have skewed the view that people have of the practice of law to the point that most people don't know what to expect when the moment occurs that they need an attorney.

People need attorneys for all kinds of reasons; from the most day to day transactions, such as creating a will or drafting a real estate deed to the high drama of a major criminal case, personal injury, etc...  When that moment does occur that you need an attorney, you need someone that you can trust.

So, what can you expect when you need an attorney?  I can't answer for every attorney, but I can tell you how we handle things at The Law Office of Russell S. Mainord.

Usually, first contact is going to be made by either you calling our office or stopping in (we are located in Altamont, TN).  It is most certainly recommended that you call and set an appointment, as that allows us to devote the most undivided attention to your case.  While we take walk-in appointments, without knowing to expect you ahead of time, we cannot schedule accordingly to give you that same level of undivided attention.  When you call to schedule your appointment, we will get your name and contact information and a brief description of what legal matter you are needing assistance with (i.e. divorce, child custody, criminal, immigration, etc...).

When you come to your appointment, bring any documents that you have relating to your legal need(s) with you so that we can evaluate them to properly advise you.  Usually, there will be additional information that we will tell you that we need, but doing this certainly helps speed the process along.  Be prepared to answer questions as we will question you about your (potential) case much the way that you can expect to be questioned in court.  When the initial consultation is done, Russell will advise you as to the course of action that he sees being available for your case and will give you a quote for the legal fee.

Work on your case, and our attorney-client relationship with you begins when you sign the retaining agreement and pay your retainer.  Some cases will be set as a flat fee while others are completed at an hourly rate.  Don't worry, whichever is the situation for you, we will fully explain how everything works.

Assisting you with your legal matters is a partnership.  We work together with you to achieve the best possible solution for your case.  No attorney can promise to always win or that the best possible solution will be your preferred outcome.  But, what we can promise is to work extremely hard to zealously advocate for your interests.  With each step of the way, we will keep you informed, both through talking to you on the phone or in the office and through case update letters.  Although you are welcome to call with questions or concerns, please know that there is no need to call every day for an update, we will update you as there are changes in your case.  It is easy to get anxious and the want to call multiple times a day, but remember that the time spent on the phone is time that we cannot spend on other aspects of your case.  This is a big part of where trust comes in.  The other major area of trust is where we ask you to be completely and totally honest with us.  You must trust us enough to do so as that complete honesty is what allows us to determine that best course of action for your case.

What's the timeline of a case?  It depends on each individual case and its facts.  Cases can take anywhere from a few weeks for a simple matter of drafting a legal document to years.  This goes back to our perception based on books, movies, tv, etc....  Shouldn't everyone be able to take care of a major criminal matter in a matter of days as depicted on shows like The Good Wife?  The timeline of a case can be affected by so many outside factors, but we do our best to advise you as to the normal, average timeline and then to keep you informed as your unique case progresses.

No one wants to think about needing an attorney, but we will all likely need one at some point in our lives.  When you do need an attorney, it needn't be a scary or traumatic experience but, rather, a partnership with a trusted adviser.

Introducing The Law Office of Russell. S. Mainord

Many of you already know me and have asked me upon each meeting when I would return to Grundy County.  For those of you who do not, I hope that this post will serve as an introduction.  For any of you, I believe that this post will give you a clear picture of The Law Office of Russell S.Mainord and its goals for providing legal representation.

I have been a resident of Grundy County for the majority of my life.  Most of you know my family and many of us interacted at the ball field as that was a major part of my growing up years.  What time that I have spent away from Grundy County has always been balanced with my roots remaining here and a desire to eventually return and become active in county events once again.  My post-high school education has led me down many roads.  I completed my bachelor’s degree at The University of the South (Sewanee), working with the football program while there.  I could say much more about my time there, but let it suffice to say that the education I received and the friendships I developed are things that I am grateful for to this day.  My work with the football program while at Sewanee is what led to the opportunity to intern with the Tennessee Titans and to receive a master’s degree while working with the football program at The University of South Carolina.  In the midst of these events was also the ability to work as a coach and umpire with the baseball program here in the county, work at the state parks, and work with the Grundy County Herald.  Following a year as a teacher at the high school, I decided to pursue my desire to have a career in the legal field and attended the Cecil C. Humphrey’s School of Law in Memphis, Tennessee.

There is much to be said about the quality of education that I received while in law school.  While there, I had the privilege to study under the guidance of professors who are recognized experts in their field.  These professors did not make life easy on their students, but succeeded in their goals to mold capable attorneys regardless of the jurisdiction in which these students eventually became licensed.   As an American Bar Association accredited school, all graduates are eligible to apply for admission to practice throughout the United States.  Perhaps, though, the most significant event from law school was not the education that I received, but the opportunity to meet my wife, who went on to complete a legal degree as well.  During her time as a student at the law school, I worked with an immigration defense law firm in Memphis, Tennessee, gaining much experience in the process.  Following her graduation and the birth of our oldest daughter, we moved back to Grundy County when the firm opened an office in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  That practice merged with an attorney from the Chattanooga area, allowing me to develop my skills further as the merger resulted in the firm taking business and criminal cases as well as immigration. 

After five years as an attorney, I have made the daring leap to open my own law practice.  I have dubbed my new venture The Law Office of Russell S. Mainord, not very original I know, but it is as unique as I am. My office is to be a general practice law firm that will service all people regardless of race, color, creed, ethnic origin, or socio-economic class.  Our founding principles are simple: “Do unto others as you would have them do onto you.”

When considering the concept of opening my own firm, I thought of the things about the legal profession that made me dislike my chosen career and decided that as an owner of a firm I could take steps to manage my practice in a way that overcame those issues as much as possible and that I could feel was fulfilling my purpose on this earth.

Primarily, I have found that legal services are not affordable for the working class and attorneys are so focused on money that they forget their clients and even do more damage to their clients through their practices and rates that they charge.  Prospective clients have told me that they felt as if they were forgotten about once they had paid their money to previous attorneys.  In large part, it is these practices that have made attorneys the butt of many jokes and destroyed the image of attorneys.  At one point in time, the image that came to mind when people thought of attorneys was that which was cemented by the likes of Atticus Finch played by Gregory Peck from the 1962 on screen rendition of To Kill A Mocking Bird, the 1960 Harper Lee novel, but that often is no longer the case.

Through my research and exploration, I have determined that an attorney can be more like the Atticus Finch’s instead of the modern day money grabbing liars that the profession has become known as.  In fact, most attorneys are more like Atticus Finch than they perhaps realize, yet they do not desire to live to those standards.  Through my law practice, I hope to return to that olden year version of legal counsel that is the trusted and revered person that people will go to with their legal problems without fear of having to go deeply in debt to have zealous and competent representation that truly has their best interest at heart.

My parents instilled two principles in me that shall form the foundation of my law office:  (1) “Your customers are working class people just like you are;” and (2) “Leave nothing behind you but your good name and good work.”  I have examined a number of factors and discussed legal representation with a number of people that I would consider to be potential clients.  These individuals have come from all walks of life both culturally and socio-economically.  From these examinations and discussions, I have gathered a great deal of information that has helped me to shape my law firm from pricing structure to how we handle cases. 

Armed with the information that I have gathered I have found the foundation to build my firm.  The framework of my firm shall be based upon keeping overhead low, allowing me to keep costs low for my clients.  In our office you will not find expensive furniture, artwork, or lavish amenities.  Technologically, we have maintained a low cost footprint.  What you will find is furniture and technology that are designed to do their exact needs without being extravagant and artwork created by my wife through her photography business, Dottie Mainord Photography.  This allows us to keep prices at a very low level.  Additionally, we are building a firm that considers each client to be a family member. 

I have personally seen people pay an attorney for a consultation or legal representation only to be blindsided that they were not able to receive the results that they sought.  This, in and of itself is not surprising, but when the person tells me that they were not prepared for the possibility of the outcome, I am shocked and appalled.  To that end, we shall not charge consultation fees and will give honest assessments of a potential case and the potential outcomes.  It is our desire that at the end of the day, our clients will come away feeling that we have handled their case with the highest level of honesty, integrity, and care regardless of the outcome.  We cannot guarantee that each case will reach the desired outcome for our clients, but what we can guarantee is that our clients will be fully advised of all possibilities and our efforts to reach a desired outcome on their behalf and that we will make every effort to be zealous advocates on our clients’ behalf.

For these next few weeks, our office will be primarily open by appointment only as I complete my time at the firm with whom I have been an attorney.  If you have a legal need, please go on and contact us to schedule an appointment.  Even when we are not in the office, we will often have call-forwarding set up, voicemail (which will be checked regularly and phone calls returned), and email.  I look forward to beginning full-time hours in a few weeks and to being available to serve your legal needs.