Attorney

[docboston]

Has anyone worked with attorney Kristi Crawford for green card? One of my friends is recommending her highly. I was thinking of going with usual, high profile lawyers, either, Rajeev, Siskind or shusterman

[hadron]

I don't know this attorney which means absolutely nothing. If she was recommended to you, talk to the referee to figure out whether the kind of case she did for this person is comparable to the work you need done. (an attorney might be great in getting removal proceedings reversed. as a result, the family of the client might think that this attorney is god. whether this attorney is versed in the ins and outs of physician immigration is a different story. attorneys just as surgeons are often not particularly good in sending patients to someone else who has more experience in a particular procedure)

It seems tempting to go with one of the big companies. One problem with these corporations is that you often deal with paralegals and secretaries instead of the attorney him/herself. It is the difference between having your attorneys pager programmed on your cellphone vs endless emailing back and forth with some marginally competent paralegal to get a simple question answered.

So, if you can find an individual attorney who is versed in the specific area of immigration law applicable to you, it can make things a lot smoother. Personal references from other physicians who had similar cases handled by this attorney are key.

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

It seems tempting to go with one of the big companies. One problem with these corporations is that you often deal with paralegals and secretaries instead of the attorney him/herself. It is the difference between having your attorneys pager programmed on your cellphone vs endless emailing back and forth with some marginally competent paralegal to get a simple question answered.

So, if you can find an individual attorney who is versed in the specific area of immigration law applicable to you, it can make things a lot smoother. Personal references from other physicians who had similar cases handled by this attorney are key.

I have observed several people commenting about this matter in the past few weeks. I think public perceptions are alarmingly incorrect.

My two cents are as follows:

I do not know about other firms, but our firm does not employ marginally qualified people. Trainees are not permitted to deal with any legal issues. I would invite any of our clients to come forward and post here if they have ever had trouble contacting me. Additionally, our legal fees have for the past ten years been on the web (See our home page under "Our Services"

http://www.immigration.com/ourservice/

We do not negotiate our fees. So everyone knows what they will pay.

The size of the firm is never a guarantee of care or competence. I have seen some really bad work from the largest law firms in the US.

The biggest problem with one-attorney shops is continuity. The lawyer is the office. No one reviews the work, no one fills in when the lawyer has to take off. When I was a one-attorney practice, I had an agreement with another one-attorney practice (my ex-partner) to take over emergency situations in case I were to become disabled or unavailable.

The sceond problem is resources. For instance, a lot of the smaller firms do not have access to online databases like Lexis, Westlaw (which can make a BIG difference) or the competence to escalate matters to court.

The third problem is many of the smaller firms take up any case that comes in the door: personal injury, divorce, immigration... It is impossible to practice good immigration law if you have a general practice.

I have never met Greg Siskind and have met Carl S. once. They seem to be competent counsel. Remember, ultimately, your case is the responsibility of the lawyer whose name appears on the firm's door. I am responsible for anything that goes wrong in our firm. EVERYTHING is my responsibility.

My choice for counsel will always be people who care and are competent. If hiring a one-attorney firm, ask them about these issues. If hiring a bigger firm, make sure you have access to lawyers and they care.

The way I view our practice is this: having you as a client is matter of pride for us. In hiring us you place your trust in us. That is matter of pride for us. Having us as counsel is a matter of privilege for you. We do not work with people who do not respect us. Whichever case we do accept, becomes ours. I do not believe in professional objectivity. If I mess up a case, it is matter of personal pain for me. To see a matter through is a joint responsibility, not just your problem. So we treat people with care and respect and insist on the same back. Simple.

[hadron]

Sorry Mr Khanna to have stepped on your toes there.

My comments where in no way or form relating to your office or specifically relating to any of the other large offices mentioned in this and other threads.

As I have pointed out before, there are undoubtedly advantages to working with a larger and more renowned firm. One is that these firms often have specialists for the various aspects of immigration law. One partner (or associate) might have special expertise in adjustment of status issues, another one might be the expert on NIW or EB-1 related issues (access to the standard legal research tools is certainly not limited to large practices, or is it ?).
But all that competence is worth little if it takes me a week to find out whether a certain piece of paper has actually been filed.......


My comments should not be understood that I suggest to take your J1 waiver+NIW+LC case to the 'abogado' at the street corner who deals with everything from wills to DUIs. But there are excellent attorneys working out of small 1 and 2 person offices who have specialized in physician or scientist immigration matters and successfully completed cases that some of the big firms had turned down. Key is to find someone competent in the area of law you need counsel. Websites and high-profile congressional testimony are certainly impressive, but nothing replaces the power of references from colleagues who had similar situations handled by the same attorney.

My comments are based on my personal experience as well as the experience of family members, friends and colleagues who worked with offices small and large ,know and unknown and had experiences ranging from great to abhorrent.




------------------------------------

In my experience there are 4 kinds of immigration attorneys. 2 to stay away from, 2 to choose from.

The predatory crooks:

This highly unethical breed will take every case, screw it up beyond repair, leech large amounts of fees out of their by now desperate clients. Every phonecall requires another cheque, the work is shoddy, deadlines are missed, receipt notices are kept from the client and dated correspondence is nowhere to be found. In the end the client faces in the best case just an interruption of his medical career in the US, in the worst case removal proceedings. The client has no recourse against these crooks and they know it. The bar associations are ineffective tools of attorney self-policing and just shrug their shoulders if a complaint is brought before them. In order to bring malpractice action against an attorney, you have to proove that he willfully harmed you or cooperated with the opposing side. (an attorney being incompetent is considered a normal feature of the profession and no grounds for malpractice action. Compare that with physician malpractice.....)


The storefront office family-reunion/H2b/H1b/deportation grocery store:

They will take every case but might have no clue about the issues specific to physician and scientist immigration.


The big companies:

They might have 7 or 10 partners and 20 staff associates. Yes, there are experts in every field and all the resources of the legal profession available. But working with them might involve a certain amount of 'friction loss' due to the internal hierarchy. They undoubtedly will get the job done, but sometimes you have to realize that you are just another number in their case docket. Another phenomenon is that initially (before the check with your retainer gets cashed), you are talking to the big name partner. Later, when the rubber meets the road, you get pawned off to some junior associate who is fresh out of law-school (kind of like seeing the attending orthopedic surgeon for the pre-op to find out that he has a PA to handle most of the post-op care and complication management....)
If you plan on going with one of these companies, be sure to talk to someone who had work done there. Don't be too impressed with websites or prominent positions of the seniors with AILA and the like. It is the work they do for YOU that counts, not the public appearance.


The experts:

Small, highly specialized offices concentrating on an area such as physician immigration. They will freely admit it if your case doesn't fit their profile or if they are currently too busy to take on another complicated case (and refer you to someone who can help you). If you find one, hold on to him or her and spread the good word in your hospital/residency program.

[ferdie]

I have worked with kristi crawford for my J1 waiver ( July 2005 ). she seems to be very appropriate and responses are quick with reasonable fees. i have further hired her to do my NIW, she has started the process but I am having difficulty in getting the letter of support from SC, dept of health as i started the process late around 10th sep.
so i think I will be stuck with priority dates issues.

I would recommend here highly as she only specializes in immigration issues especially physician. u can visit her website www.crawlaw.us

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Sorry Mr Khanna to have stepped on your toes there.

My comments where in no way or form relating to your office or specifically relating to any of the other large offices mentioned in this and other threads.

Oh no. No offense taken. This is an open forum. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. There is merit in much of what you say.

As I have pointed out before, there are undoubtedly advantages to working with a larger and more renowned firm. One is that these firms often have specialists for the various aspects of immigration law. One partner (or associate) might have special expertise in adjustment of status issues, another one might be the expert on NIW or EB-1 related issues (access to the standard legal research tools is certainly not limited to large practices, or is it ?).

I am not sure how other firms work. Our office is organized around practice groups with me in charge of everything. Every morning (and afternoon), I meet with every case manager and attorney individually to review cases and decide strategies. And Westlaw/Lexis are expensive. Not very many smaller firms subscribe, as far as I have seen.

I do not go around shaking hands or kissing babies to get clients. So I have a lot of time for real work instead of PR. The only trouble I see with bigger firms is that they spend entirely too much time in "marketing." We turn away almost 40% cases either because we choose not to practice in those areas or because we have enough work.

My comments should not be understood that I suggest to take your J1 waiver+NIW+LC case to the 'abogado' at the street corner who deals with everything from wills to DUIs. But there are excellent attorneys working out of small 1 and 2 person offices who have specialized in physician or scientist immigration matters and successfully completed cases that some of the big firms had turned down. Key is to find someone competent in the area of law you need counsel. Websites and high-profile congressional testimony are certainly impressive, but nothing replaces the power of references from colleagues who had similar situations handled by the same attorney.

I agree.

------------------------------------

In my experience there are 4 kinds of immigration attorneys. 2 to stay away from, 2 to choose from.

The predatory crooks:

This highly unethical breed will take every case, screw it up beyond repair, leech large amounts of fees out of their by now desperate clients. Every phonecall requires another cheque, the work is shoddy, deadlines are missed, receipt notices are kept from the client and dated correspondence is nowhere to be found. In the end the client faces in the best case just an interruption of his medical career in the US, in the worst case removal proceedings. The client has no recourse against these crooks and they know it. The bar associations are ineffective tools of attorney self-policing and just shrug their shoulders if a complaint is brought before them. In order to bring malpractice action against an attorney, you have to proove that he willfully harmed you or cooperated with the opposing side. (an attorney being incompetent is considered a normal feature of the profession and no grounds for malpractice action. Compare that with physician malpractice.....)

The standards for legal practice are exactly the same as medical malpractice. That is where you need to revise your opinion. Also, Bar complaints are investigated thoroughly (at least in our area).

The corner office H1b/deportation/familyreunion grocery store:

They will take every case but might have no clue about the issues specific to physician and scientist immigration.

There is nothing esoteric about scientists' immigration. For physicians, things can get tricky if one does not understand the issues related to J-1 waivers. A physician who is on H-1 with no prior J-1 has to go through EXACTLY the same steps for GC as the rest of the world.

The big companies:

They might have 7 or 10 partners and 20 staff associates. Yes, there are experts in every field and all the resources of the legal profession available. But working with them might involve a certain amount of 'friction loss' due to the internal hierarchy. They undoubtedly will get the job done, but sometimes you have to realize that you are just another number in their case docket. Another phenomenon is that initially (before the check with your retainer gets cashed), you are talking to the big name partner. Later, when the rubber meets the road, you get pawned off to some junior associate who is fresh out of law-school (kind of like seeing the attending orthopedic surgeon for the pre-op to find out that he has a PA to handle most of the post-op care and complication management....)
If you plan on going with one of these companies, be sure to talk to someone who had work done there. Don't be too impressed with websites or prominent positions of the seniors with AILA and the like. It is the work they do for YOU that counts, not the public appearance.

I agree with the later part of what you say, but the "friction loss" is matter of poor organization. That can happen in any size firm. You HAVE TO FIND PEOPLE WHO LOVE WHAT THEY DO AND CARE ABOUT THEIR CLIENTS.

The experts:

Small, highly specialized offices concentrating on an area such as physician immigration. They will freely admit it if your case doesn't fit their profile or if they are currently to busy to take on another complicated case (and refer you to someone who can help you). If you find one, hold on to him or her and spread the good word in your hospital/residency program.

There is nothing special about physicians' immigration. The J-1 is the complex area. Once the waiver is obtained, barring the rule regarding filing of 485 and NIW, everything is the same. Bottomline, keep the information flowing. Talk to each other. Educate each other.

[hadron]

First of all: Great site. Thanks for maintaining it and putting up with all the bitching from users if there are technical glitches ;-)) It has been an invaluable resource for many people.

> There is nothing esoteric about scientists' immigration.

I was talking about things like 'extraordinary ability' petitions or 'outstanding researcher petitions', NYS-DOT type NIW cases, 'special handling labor certs' O1 visas and the like.

I think they are a subspecialty area and the typical 'batch IT related H1b' office would probably not the right place to go to.

> For physicians, things can get tricky if one does not understand
> the issues related to J-1 waivers. A physician who is on H-1 with
> no prior J-1 has to go through EXACTLY the same steps for GC
> as the rest of the world.

Well, except that:
- he has the option of filing for a 'physician in underserved area NIW'.
- he might have to deal with 'ability to pay' issues if the case is filed by a small office organized as a 'P.C.' (which typically doesn't report the 135k annual 'profit' required for a LC based I140....)
- might have to deal with collections based income which might or might not be more than the arbitrary 'prevailing wage'.
- someone engaged in hardcore research might have some of the options mentioned above (circumventing 5 year labor certification times in some of the notorious states PERM nonwithstanding).

So, in the end I do believe it is a good idea to go to someone who handles physician cases on a regular basis.


> The standards for legal practice are exactly the same as
> medical malpractice. That is where you need to revise
> your opinion. Also, Bar complaints are investigated
> thoroughly (at least in our area)

Sorry to disagree with you there. In todays medicolegal environment, a bad outcome is defined as de-facto medical malpractice. Even if the physician can proove that he adhered to the standard of care, it means nothing to the 12 village idiots rounded up for the jury.

Bar complaints are investigated by other attorneys, not an entity independent from the profession. A bad outcome (negative CIS decision, lost trial) is not a reason to question the actions of the attorney. It takes egregious misconduct on the side of the attorney (and the ability to proove it on the side of the client) to prevail in an attorney malpractice situation.

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

First of all: Great site. Thanks for maintaining it and putting up with all the bitching from users if there are technical glitches ;-)) It has been an invaluable resource for many people.

Our pleasure. We enjoy maintaining and hosting it.

> There is nothing esoteric about scientists' immigration.

I was talking about things like 'extraordinary ability' petitions or 'outstanding researcher petitions', NYS-DOT type NIW cases, 'special handling labor certs' O1 visas and the like.

I think they are a subspecialty area and the typical 'batch IT related H1b' office would probably not the right place to go to.

+++++++++Agreed. But the point I was making is that there is nothing extraordinary about handling physicians and scientists cases if you do practice O/P/NIW/EB1 cases. That was my original point. There is no sub-specialization dealing with scientists and physicians. I have also done plenty of NIW's and EB1's for IT folks. The standards are the same (with one exception of NIW for physicians).

> For physicians, things can get tricky if one does not understand
> the issues related to J-1 waivers. A physician who is on H-1 with
> no prior J-1 has to go through EXACTLY the same steps for GC
> as the rest of the world.

Well, except that:
- he has the option of filing for a 'physician in underserved area NIW'.

+++++++Takes two extra documents. No big deal.

- he might have to deal with 'ability to pay' issues if the case is filed by a small office organized as a 'P.C.' (which typically doesn't report the 135k annual 'profit' required for a LC based I140....)

++++++++++++++No difference from general immigration issue of ability to pay.

- might have to deal with collections based income which might or might not be more than the arbitrary 'prevailing wage'.

++++++++++++Non-issue for NIW's (there is no prevailing wage) and cannot be dealt with for labor certifications (there are no exceptions for physicians).

- someone engaged in hardcore research might have some of the options mentioned above (circumventing 5 year labor certification times in some of the notorious states PERM nonwithstanding).

++++++++++++++++Part of the O/EB1 practice. Nothing special for physicians.

So, in the end I do believe it is a good idea to go to someone who handles physician cases on a regular basis.

++++++++++I have handled physicians cases numbering in thousands including PERM, RIR and EB1/NIW. I can tell you from experience, physicians' cases do not involve any voodoo. If the lawyers are competent in business and professional immigration, the criteria are the same.

> The standards for legal practice are exactly the same as
> medical malpractice. That is where you need to revise
> your opinion. Also, Bar complaints are investigated
> thoroughly (at least in our area)

Sorry to disagree with you there. In todays medicolegal environment, a bad outcome is defined as de-facto medical malpractice. Even if the physician can proove that he adhered to the standard of care, it means nothing to the 12 village idiots rounded up for the jury.

+++++++++++++++The two standards are the same. Just because a patient died, medical malpractice does not automatically ensue. See:

Legal Malpractice occurs when an attorney fails to perform according to the standards and codes of ethical and professional conduct that all attorneys must adhere to -- in dealing with the court, opposing counsel, his or her client, and third persons. An essential aspect of a legal malpractice case is that the attorney's failure to meet his or her professional obligations resulted in some form of harm, usually to his or her client's case.
http://public.findlaw.com/library/le...lpractice.html


Medical malpractice occurs when a negligent act or omission by a doctor or other medical professional results in damage or harm to a patient.
http://injury.findlaw.com/medical-ma...-overview.html

Bar complaints are investigated by other attorneys, not an entity independent from the profession. A bad outcome (negative CIS decision, lost trial) is not a reason to question the actions of the attorney. It takes egregious misconduct on the side of the attorney (and the ability to proove it on the side of the client) to prevail in an attorney malpractice situation.

Just as mere death of a patient is not a ground for medical practice, loss of a case by itself is never a cause for legal malpractice. In my younger days, I have handled both types of cases. The standards are basically the same.

Also Bar complaints are investigated by lawyers who are employees of the relevant investigative body. These guys are highly motivated to hang a lawyer if fault is found.

See this as an example of how many lawyers are disciplined:
http://www.vsb.org/disciplinary.html

Let me add here. The reason I am writing all this down is not to win any converts, but to present whatever info I have so our community is better educated. Like I said earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but all facts must be considered to get to an informed opinion. What do you all think?

PS Bottomline: the size of a law firm is never indicative of the standard of its competence, client care or specialization.

[hadron]

> Agreed. But the point I was making is that there is nothing
> extraordinary about handling physicians and scientists cases
> if you do practice O/P/NIW/EB1 cases. That was my original point.

And I fully agree with that. Unfortunately, there are enough offices out there who practice immigration law but mainly do family and maybe H1bs. They would not be the right place to go to for a O/NIW/EB-1 case. I didn't want to imply that physicians are fundamentally different from other types of educated professionals.

> No difference from general immigration issue of ability to
> pay.

Except that an employer for a 'specialty cook chinese' or 'manager car-wash' doesn't have to proove enough profit to cover 135k.

> Non-issue for NIW's (there is no prevailing wage) and cannot'
> be dealt with for labor certifications (there are no exceptions
> for physicians).

Unfortunately there aren't. There are just so many guys on waiver jobs who get screwed out of their deserved salary while taking call every night (so they can't moonlight). In addition to not knowing how to feed their family, this also jeopardizes their chances for a GC.

And lets just say we disagree on the physician/attorney malpractice issue. On paper, the standards for both professions seem to be the same. In reality, they are unfortunately very different.

[posmd]

Firstly, I want to thank Mr Khanna for hosting this site. It is indeed a invaluable tool where if not factual information is gleaned(though it often is) then thoughts and strategies are born and can be researched. I have discovered it about 1 yr ago and how I wish I had done this earlier, my situation/strategy could have been a lot better.

My above point exactly is what demonstrates why a competent attorney is needed, and why one is more likely to find such a situation with a lawyer who concentrates on physician immigration(though not necessarily so). I joined on a J1 waiver, did the waiver paperwork myself but retained the services of an attorney reccomended through the local hospital for whom they had done work for resp. therapists, nurses etc. I am left in no doubt that nearly 4 yrs on there is no doubt that the advise that that attorney gave or more importantly did not give then is likely the reason I am sitting without a greencard.
She suggested not to proceed with labour as the time frame to a green card is no different to that with a NIW and there is no point in filing NIW then as it can be done anytime in a waiver case. As anyone can see now, early NIW PD would have helped and labour filed in my area in 2001/2002 would have quite likely resulted in greencard by now.
On the issue of the malpractice issue, i would like to say that there are some clear differences. Firstly doctors have always been held to a higher moral if not legal standard, that affects jurors in their deliberations. When a lawyer argues a malpractice lawsuit to a group of jurors not versed in details of medicine it is a scenario that can be construed in many ways, and the better the lawyer in arguing the case the better the outcome. Malpractice lawsuits against lawyers are rare, I think that alone speaks for itself.
As Mr Khanna said size of the lawfirm is not an indicator of its competence, reputation clearly matters.
Those are my 2 cents based on my experiences.

[Rajiv S. Khanna]

Thanks. I wish I had a little more time to write on these issues further. Just when I thought I was going to spend more time on working on community matters and writing (two of my favorite things to do), I have become busy with a friend's hospitalization. Hopefully this situation will pass soon. I admire the collective intelligence of our community. My congratulations to all of you folks. Warm regads.

[happyneige]

Has anyone worked with attorney Kristi Crawford for green card? One of my friends is recommending her highly. I was thinking of going with usual, high profile lawyers, either, Rajeev, Siskind or shusterman

Kristi is my attorney. She worked on my J-1 waiver and H1-b petition and I am hiring her for change of status to green card after the waiver is over. She only practices immigration laws from what I know. Responses are prompt (either via email or by phone). She was pretty much on top of everything in terms of paperwork and filing. Most importantly, she is very pleasant to talk to.

I did have a phone consultation with her about channels to get a green card. If anything, she seemed to focus on the labor cert as the only sure way to get a green card and seemed to discourage all others (e.g. EB1/2). But to her defense, the assessment may be accurate and labor cert may be the only option in my situation.

It might be worthwhile to add that my practice group has been dealing with her quite a bit recently (to get things ready for my green card) and my office manager likes her a lot. They are hiring her to go over the waiver paperwork for another physician who will join us in July. I'd say she's worth checking out but read other messages posted here on this thread for more info before you proceed. Like mama says, 'You better shop around'.

Hope this helps,
HappyNeige...

[aashna_1]

I have been following this forum for quite some time and have found very helpful insights and advice especially regarding avoiding the J1.

Currently, I am working in a research position on H1 and am planning to file an EB1 petition prior to starting residency.

I would like your recommendations on an attorney. I have seen the other posts on this topic and have some names especially Stephen Jeffries.

One of my friends highly recommended the Fragoman law firm (NY), however the attorney who worked on her case has left, so I am hesistant. Please let me know if you any experience with them, your advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you !

[ursosweet]

Dear Docboston

I see that your question got sidetracked.
I think i may have shared the same view as yours. Although i have never worked with Rajiv, but he seems to be unlike other attorneys who never return your calls. I have contaced him via email for several questions and he has called me on some occasions to answer those, and this is without signing any retainers.
Coming back to your Q of Ms Crawford. I was a J1 doc, and had my waiver and GC process through her. I am not sure if i would recommend her wholeheartedly (but again always remember you cannot keep every client happy), as my PERM process took almost 1year after i paid the initial money and the delay has cost me my PD. Obviously with retrogression each day counts.
I would seriously spend some money and talk to atleast 3 different attorneys and try to get a feel before chosing. Most attorneys will not talk to you directly (big firm or a solo attorney), because if they were to talk to every client they can never finish their work. I guess its same for us Docs too.

I have heard good reviews abt. a few...Siskind/ Jeffries/ Rajiv/ sheila murthy AND KRISTI TOO.

BUT REMEMBER TALK TO ATLEAST A FEW ATTORNEYS AND AS MANY PEOPLE. OBVIOUSLY I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAD A GR8 EXPERIENCE WITH MY ATTORNEY, AND THATS WHY I RETAINED HER.

I guess i have left you at square one!!!!
all the best

PS thanks Rajiv for giving us this forum...i guess i don't check my email as often as i check this forum.

[roger2008]

At the commencement of the attorney-client relationship, the attorney shall explain to the employee the methods by which this section provides for the payment of the attorney's fee, and the employee shall select the method in which his attorney's fee is to be paid. His selection and statement that he fully understands the method to be used shall be submitted by his attorney.
================================================== ==
Roger
Our mission is to provide high quality end to end solutions to the BPO segment in a manner that will improve the operational efficiency while reducing the cost of the services to the client.
4thdimension1@gmail.com

[moonkhan253]

good ones..I had heard some of the others, I think this is my fave:

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?

WITNESS: Oral.

[aoberoi]

anyone has any experience with attorney Dayna kelly from NC for J-1 waiver and GC?

[rekhasein]

Attorneys if you're referring to more than one, ex. There were several attorneys attending the conference. Or attorney's if your referring to singular with ownership ex. It was my attorney's decision for me not to testify. It is the greatest asset and the most important intellectual property that any law firm can possess.