The Indiana Supreme Court suspended attorney Edgardo Javier Martinez Suarez for 30 days with automatic reinstatement after determining he engaged in professional misconduct by neglecting a client's immigration matter. The disciplinary action was announced Dec. 11, 2025, in a per curiam opinion signed by Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter.
The discipline stems from Martinez Suarez's handling of an immigration case in 2023, where he failed to adequately represent a client who had paid him $2,500 for legal services. According to the stipulated facts in the case, the client had entered the United States in 2022 and was scheduled for an immigration hearing on May 19, 2023.
Two days before the scheduled hearing, the client contacted Martinez Suarez to ask about the procedure for the hearing. Martinez Suarez checked online case records, found that the government had not yet filed necessary paperwork, and advised the client she did not need to appear for the hearing. This advice proved to be incorrect and constituted a critical error in handling the immigration matter.
The disciplinary action was resolved through a "Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" submitted jointly by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Martinez Suarez. Under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b), such stipulated agreements allow attorneys and the disciplinary commission to reach agreed resolutions for professional misconduct cases.
Martinez Suarez was admitted to practice law in Indiana in 2005, making him subject to the state supreme court's disciplinary jurisdiction under Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution. The court approved both the stipulated agreement and the proposed discipline in its brief per curiam opinion.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about attorney competence and diligence in immigration law practice. Immigration law is a complex federal practice area where procedural mistakes can have severe consequences for clients, including deportation or loss of legal status. Attorneys practicing immigration law must maintain current knowledge of rapidly changing immigration procedures and court requirements.
While the stipulated facts do not reveal the ultimate outcome for the client or her current immigration status, the case demonstrates the importance of accurate legal advice in immigration proceedings. Missing scheduled hearings or receiving incorrect guidance about court appearances can result in in absentia removal orders, making it significantly more difficult for individuals to remain in the United States legally.
The 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement is considered a relatively moderate disciplinary sanction in the spectrum of attorney discipline. More serious violations can result in longer suspensions, indefinite suspensions requiring petitions for reinstatement, or disbarment. The automatic reinstatement provision means Martinez Suarez can resume practice after the 30-day period without filing a formal reinstatement petition.
Attorney discipline cases serve multiple purposes within the legal profession's self-regulation system. They protect the public from incompetent or unethical legal representation, maintain public confidence in the legal profession, and deter other attorneys from similar misconduct. The Indiana Supreme Court's disciplinary jurisdiction extends to all attorneys admitted to practice in the state, regardless of where they practice or the nature of their legal work.
The case also underscores the importance of thorough preparation and competent representation in immigration matters. Immigration attorneys must stay current on procedural requirements, court scheduling practices, and government filing deadlines to provide effective representation to their clients.
For Martinez Suarez, the suspension represents a professional consequence for failing to meet the standards expected of attorneys practicing immigration law. The discipline will become part of his permanent professional record and may affect his ability to practice in certain jurisdictions or obtain professional liability insurance.
The Indiana Supreme Court's disciplinary system processes hundreds of attorney misconduct cases annually, ranging from minor violations to serious ethical breaches. Most cases are resolved through negotiated agreements like the one in Martinez Suarez's matter, allowing for efficient resolution while ensuring appropriate consequences for professional misconduct.
Moving forward, Martinez Suarez will need to complete his 30-day suspension period before resuming practice. Upon reinstatement, he will be expected to maintain competent representation standards and avoid future disciplinary violations that could result in more severe sanctions.
The case serves as a reminder to all attorneys about the importance of diligent client representation and the serious consequences that can result from professional misconduct, particularly in practice areas like immigration law where clients' fundamental rights and legal status are at stake.