Texas Lawyer Implicated in Immigration Bribery Scheme
“Lawyers can't commit crimes,” said legal ethics lawyer Chuck Herring. “You can't bribe. That's sort of a no-brainer.”
May 30, 2019 at 02:11 PM
4 minute read
A Rio Grande Valley immigration attorney allegedly paid three immigration detention center employees for lists of detained immigrants' names and personal information, so the lawyer could solicit the immigrants' legal business, according to a recent indictment.
The indictment charges three immigration detention center employees—Benito Barrientez, Damian Ortiz and Exy Adelaida Gomez—with conspiracy to commit bribery and bribery, which respectively could bring 15 years and five years in prison, and a $250,000 fine per each charge. It's not clear who the attorney is, or even if it's a man or woman, because the indictment only identifies the lawyer as “Person A.”
When asked for more information about the attorney, Angela Dodge, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, wrote in an email, “There is nothing in the public record that indicates charges against anyone else or names anyone else.”
According to the indictment, the defendants all worked for Management and Training Corp., which contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to house detained immigrants. At the Willacy County Regional Detention Center in Raymondville, Barrientez was a classification clerk and Ortiz was senior program director. Gomez worked as a detention officer at the El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville.
All three defendants would obtain alien detainee rosters, which have names, dates of birth, home countries, detention identification numbers, and housing assignments, from the El Valle and Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos. The rosters contain sensitive information meant for law enforcement use only, and it's strictly prohibited to remove them from detention centers, noted the indictment.
But Barrientez and Ortiz on multiple occasions in January took payments ranging from $200 to $1,000 from the attorney and then give the rosters to the lawyer, or people working with him or her, according to the court filing.
Then, on Jan. 15, someone in the attorney's law firm visited a Honduran immigrant in the El Valle detention center to ask the immigrant to hire the firm for an immigration case.
William R. “Bill” Edwards Sr. of Corpus Christi's Edwards Law Firm said he thinks that the attorney in this case could face a criminal charge for barratry, or the illegal solicitation of a legal client. The attorney might also face civil lawsuits from the immigrants who were improperly solicited. Texas has a civil statute that allows a client to sue an attorney for barratry, Edwards said, meaning the client could seek a fee forfeiture for the underlying case and also collect attorney fees in the civil barratry lawsuit.
“Each of the people who were solicited would be subject to the civil action,” said Edwards, who has represented clients who sued lawyers for civil barratry.
But Herring & Panzer partner Chuck Herring of Austin, who represents attorneys facing discipline cases, said that he's unsure if the facts of this case qualify as criminal or civil barratry. However, if the lawyer is charged with bribery, that criminal case could bring ethics charges and attorney discipline.
“Lawyers can't commit crimes,” Herring said. “You can't bribe. That's sort of a no-brainer.”
Herring said disciplinary rules prohibit attorneys from committing serious crimes or engaging in any criminal act that reflects badly on the attorney's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. The rules say a lawyer can't engage in dishonesty, deceit, fraud or misrepresentation. If the attorney here is indicted and convicted, it could lead to compulsory discipline, he said.
Herring added that immigration attorneys can drum up good business from detained immigrants, who bring their life savings to cross the border and still have cash, or whose U.S.-based families will pay for a lawyer. Immigrants might make an easy target for an unscrupulous attorney because of what they've been through, the fact they sometimes speak little to no English, and their lack of knowledge of the U.S. legal system, he said.
Herring said, “It's so sad, because it's such a vulnerable population.”
Read the indictment:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readOvertime Rewind: Texas Court Ruling Unravels FLSA Salary Level Increases
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250