A Canadian couple, Michael and Barbara Seguin, hired Lawless in 1987 to help them acquire permanent residency status in the United States. Lawless initially contracted to acquire residency status for Michael Seguin for a flat fee of $5,000 plus expenses. The Seguins later met with Lawless and paralegal Charles Aboudraah. Although Aboudraah did not work in Lawless’s office, Lawless had worked with the paralegal and said he was experienced in immigration cases. Lawless said he would supervise the case, but the Seguins were to contact Aboudraah if they had questions.

From March 19, 1987, through February 11, 1988, the Seguins paid $12,546 to Aboudraah, including $725 to pursue a visa for Barbara Seguin. They thought these payments included the remaining $2,500 of Lawless’s flat fee and that Aboudraah gave Lawless a share of these payments. Aboudraah told the Seguins their paperwork had been filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and that they were waiting for the INS to send visa cards.
In January 1990 the Seguins received a letter from the INS seeking information about their residency status and indicating that they had not responded to other letters about the matter. When the Seguins asked Lawless and Aboudraah about the letter, they were assured Aboudraah was handling their case.
Soon, however, the Seguins learned that the INS was investigating Aboudraah. Aboudraah became less available to them and he ultimately closed his office. The Seguins contacted Lawless, who discovered that there was no application on file for either Barbara or Michael Seguin.
Thus, the Seguins had been living illegally in the United States since 1986.
In April 1990 Lawless told the Seguins he had not received any money from their payments to Aboudraah. He also said he had not been associated with Aboudraah in more than two years. Although Lawless submitted visa applications for the Seguins, they eventually consulted another attorney because they did not think Lawless understood the immigration procedures needed to conclude their case. The Seguins ultimately obtained visas that allowed them to live legally in the United States and operate their business.
The Bar filed a formal complaint against Lawless in 1992. . . .
The Bar argues that given Lawless’s disciplinary history, nothing less than a ninety-one-day suspension is an adequate sanction. Lawless contends that a public reprimand is sufficient because this Court has imposed public reprimands in other cases involving a lawyer’s failure to supervise nonlawyer employees. . . .
First, we uphold the referee’s recommendation that Lawless pay restitution to the Seguins during his probation. We agree with the referee that ‘‘had it not been for [Lawless], the Seguins would not have been subjected to Charles Aboudraah’s misconduct.’’ Lawless’s initial contract with the Seguins called.....

Questions about the Case 1. Was the paralegal Aboudraah an employee or an independent contractor?
What facts support your conclusion? Does it make any difference in this case?
2. What do Model Rule 5.3 and the definitions of paralegal say about independent contractor paralegals? Is the lawyer’s duty any different for them?
3. Did the attorney Lawless supervise the paralegal adequately? What is the basis for your conclusion?
4. Did the attorney Lawless maintain a direct relationship with the clients?
What is the basis for your conclusion?
5. Do you believe the sanctions were appropriate?
6. What do you think would have happened if the clients had filed a malpractice suit?