Supreme Court hears bid to suspend attorney Jeremiah Spencer Stiles over alleged neglect, deception

The Supreme Court on Oct. 29 heard arguments on a petition seeking the interim suspension of attorney Jeremiah Spencer Stiles after disciplinary counsel told the court that Stiles’ practice posed a continuing threat to clients.

Henry Cruz, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, told the justices the review committee unanimously recommended interim suspension based on undisputed facts: in a recent 14‑month period Stiles allegedly neglected four separate matters that resulted in deportation orders, repeatedly failed to supervise staff handling client matters and "willfully lied" to tribunals and disciplinary investigators to conceal misconduct. "The law practice is a ticking time bomb," Cruz told the court, urging immediate suspension.

Cruz also alerted the court to a transcript filed the morning of the hearing involving a criminal case he said showed the misconduct was not limited to immigration matters. He described an associate’s unsupervised conduct and said the firm’s pattern of turnover and inexperience put clients at risk. Citing ABA standards and the court’s precedent in Anschl (as referenced in the petition), Cruz said the cumulative misconduct could warrant disbarment.

Respondent’s counsel, Pedro Malecio of Lease Smart, said he received the additional transcript only that morning, did not have context about grievances connected to it and asked the court not to consider the document without fuller notice. Malecio said the record shows the most serious grievances to date arose from Stiles’ immigration practice and that he has not seen grievances tied to Stiles’ personal injury, criminal or family law work. "Based on the information I have in front of me, that's how I see them," Malecio told the court.

Malecio asked the justices to consider a narrower remedy limited to immigration matters, arguing that a practice‑wide suspension would cause collateral harm to staff and clients in other areas. He said Stiles has made staffing changes, expressed remorse and is exploring bringing in an experienced attorney to supervise immigration cases. When asked whether partner supervision was in place, Malecio said it was not but that the respondent would be open to supervision.

Several justices questioned the idea of "siloing" a suspension to only one area of practice when allegations center on supervisory failures, a lack of candor and systemic mismanagement that could manifest across practice areas. The court also probed who bears the burden if new evidence emerges after a review committee recommendation and what corrective steps would be sufficient to remove a restriction.

Cruz replied that the court does not need to wait for additional grievances to appear and that allowing an associate with less than six months’ experience to handle immigration matters without adequate supervision ‘‘is simply a recipe for more disaster.’’ He asked the court to order Stiles’ immediate suspension from the practice of law.

The court took the matter under submission after closing remarks and adjourned without issuing a ruling at the hearing. No formal suspension or other disciplinary sanction was announced during the session. The court record shows that Justice Owens was recused from the matter.

Next steps: the court will decide whether to grant the petition for interim suspension based on the record and filings; the hearing concluded without a decision and was submitted for the court’s determination.