Case Number: 18PSCP00065 Hearing Date: December 11, 2018 Dept: O

Petitioner State Bar of California’s petition for assumption of jurisdiction over the unauthorized law practice of Vincent Enriquez is GRANTED.

Upon a finding by the court that it is more likely than not that the application will be granted and that delay in making the orders described in subdivision (e) will result in substantial injury to clients or to others, the court, without notice or upon notice as it shall prescribe, may make interim orders containing any provisions that the court deems appropriate under the circumstances. (B&P Code § 6126.3(j).)

Petitioner State Bar of California presents the following evidence:

Vincent Enriquez (“Enriquez”) has not and never has been an active member of the State Bar of California and has never been authorized to practice law in California. (See Declaration of Michael A. Chavez (“Chavez Decl.”) ¶ 13.)

Enriquez has never been registered with the California Secretary of State as a bonded, active Immigration Consultant or as an accredited Immigration representative with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). (Id. ¶ 12.)

Enriquez is doing business as NVE Associations, Inc. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 10.)

Enriquez and his wife offered an informational presentation to solicit immigration clients; introduced himself as an attorney who practiced immigration law; and stated that he obtained a work permit for a client, Alejandra Flores. (See Declaration of Crecencia Camarillo Rojas (“Rojas Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5; Declaration of Zenaida Garces (“Garces Decl.”) ¶ 5.)

Ms. Rojas, Ms. Garces and other attendees retained Enriquez to represent them and provided Enriquez with $1,500.00. (See Rojas Decl. ¶ 7 and Garces Decl. ¶ 7.)

Ms. Rojas suffered an order for removal from the EOIR based on Enriquez’s improper advice and assistance. (See Rojas Decl. ¶ 15 and Garces Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12.)

In 2008, the State Bar received multiple complaints against Enriquez and NVE Associates alleging the unauthorized practice of law, and sent Cease and Desist notices. (See Chavez Decl. ¶ 8.) Enriquez was reminded that as a paralegal, he is subject to Business and Professions Code Sections 6450 and 6456, which expressly prohibits a paralegal from charging any fees. (See Chavez Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Exhibit 2.)

Despite such warnings, Enriquez continues to hold himself out as an attorney and receive fees for paralegal services. (See Chavez Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; Rojas Decl. ¶¶ 4, 12; Garces Decl. ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Enriquez contends he consults with an attorney. (See Declaration of Vincent Enriquez ¶¶ 9, 11, 13.)

However, Enriquez does not dispute the fact that he provides paralegal services for which he impermissibly collects fees. He admits, “I will eliminate the entire paralegal service from the website.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Further, Enriquez does not attach a declaration from any practicing attorney, corroborating his assertion that he is being supervised by an attorney. Finally, Enriquez admits to taking on family law cases because they are “simple” particularly for a paralegal like him. (Id.¶ 14.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the State Bar has established that any delay in making the orders will result in substantial injury to clients or to others. (B&P Code § 6126.3(j).)

The request is GRANTED.