LONGWOOD – Richard Loiseau, an established Longwood, Florida,
immigration attorney who also practiced in Indiana, was reinstated on May 4
from a series of suspensions implemented between November 2011 and January
In a Jan. 30, 2012, Department of Justice (DOJ) document,
the disciplinary counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
petitioned for an immediate suspension of Loiseau, which stemmed from a Nov.
22 suspension by the Supreme Court of Indiana for a period of no less than 90
days, without automatic reinstatement, effective Dec. 29.
Consequently, on Jan. 13, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
then asked that Loiseau be similarly suspended from practice before that agency.
On March 6, 2012, a DOJ document processed a final order of
discipline, where Loiseau was suspended from the practice before the board,
immigration courts and DHS for 90 days.
“(Loisea) was required to file a timely answer to the allegations contained in
the notice of intent to discipline, but has failed to do so,” the March 6
document said. “(His) failure to file a response within the time prescribed in
the notice constitutes an admission of the allegations therein, and he is now
precluded from requesting a hearing on the matter.”
These series of suspensions were based on a number of facts
based on Loiseau’s representation of a client and her husband in deportation
In 2008, the client attempted to reopen an immigration case
in which she had been represented by Loiseau.
“[Loiseau] filed a sworn affidavit (2008 affidavit) in which
he indicated that he had represented [the client] in deportation proceedings
and she had been ordered deported after failing to appear at a final hearing
set for May 7, 1997, (the May 1997 Hearing),” the Supreme Court of Indiana document
said. “His 2008 affidavit went on to state that there was no confusion or
misunderstanding about the date for the May 1997 hearing, that [the client]
kept him waiting for her in the hallway for the hearing and did not show up.”
However, at the hearing in this disciplinary case on
Sept. 10, 2010, the report explained that Loiseau stated that he missed the
May 1997 hearing because he had received a court order leading him to believe
that the hearing was actually set for a later date.
“The court agrees with the hearing officer's finding that [Loiseau]
lied when he stated in the 2008 affidavit that he had waited in the hallway for
S.G. to appear for the May 1997 hearing,” the court document said. “And
regardless of why [he] and [the client] failed to appear at the May 1997
Hearing, it is clear that at least one of [his] sworn explanations is false.”
Loiseau also represented the client’s husband in his
proceeding to seek asylum and avoid deportation.
In the court document, in response to a series of questions
by the immigration judge, Loiseau stated that he was representing the wife in
an asylum proceeding that was pending before a different judge. The court found
that Loiseau's representation that the wife had a pending asylum case in which
he was representing her was knowingly false.
Based on these incidents, the court found Loiseau failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness when he failed to appear for two
hearings, failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter, knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal and engaging
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
On May 4, a DOJ document on disciplinary proceedings explained that
Loiseau asked to be reinstated to practice before the board, the immigration
courts and DHS, and presented evidence that he is again authorized to practice
law in Indiana.
The document explained that based on Loiseau’s presented
evidence, he met the definition of “attorney” and complied with the
reinstatement requirements set forth from the EOIR disciplinary counsel. It did not oppose his request and found his evidence sufficient, thus he was