In re Disciplinary Action Against Howe

843 N.W.2d 325 (2014)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Disciplinary Action Against Howe

North Dakota Supreme Court
843 N.W.2d 325 (2014)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD


Attorney Henry Howe (defendant) represented the Camachos in deportation proceedings. The Camachos were undocumented Mexican nationals who had lived in the United States for over 20 years and had one child who was a Mexican citizen and four who were American citizens. To prevent removal under federal immigration law, Howe had to show removal would cause one of the Camachos’ American children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The immigration judge told Howe he needed significant documentation, including detailing one child’s learning disability, and Howe received an information sheet instructing how to gather the required “biometrics,” including fingerprints and personal information. Six months later, the court held a merits hearing, but Howe submitted only the children’s school records and called only the Camachos as witnesses. The judge gave Howe 30 days to augment the Camachos’ application and reiterated what documentation Howe needed. The Camachos missed the rescheduled hearing, evidently because Howe had not told them about it, and the judge again rescheduled for nine months later. After Howe resubmitted duplicate documents, the court again rescheduled for another six months later. Howe submitted some articles about violence in Mexico and had the hearing rescheduled again for almost a year later. Howe obtained letters from the children’s teachers and a case manager and appeared with the Camachos at the rescheduled hearing, but the judge postponed ruling because an interpreter was not available and requested written submissions and arguments within two weeks. Again Howe failed to submit the requested materials. Seven months later the judge ordered the Camachos deported. The Camachos fired Howe, hired another lawyer, and appealed. When the disciplinary board (plaintiff) initiated proceedings against Howe, he blamed his failure to timely collect biometrics on calendaring errors and the Camachos’ having missed a hearing on a miscommunication due to a change in office staff and lacking an interpreter. Howe even claimed his failures were part of a deliberate strategy to keep the Camachos in the country as long as possible. The hearing panel report concluded that Howe nonetheless violated his professional obligations under the ethics rules. Howe appealed, objecting to the report.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership