Juana B. Matias, a Lawrence Democrat competing in the crowded Third Congressional District primary field, has repeatedly told voters she once served as an immigration attorney. It’s a key part of her resume in a race where immigration has been a regular issue.
But during the 11 months she was legally allowed to appear in immigration court as an advocate, Matias had yet to be admitted to the Massachusetts bar. To claim to have been a lawyer at that time is both “unacceptable,’’ according to legal ethics experts, and a potential violation of the code of conduct used to police the state’s legal profession.
“I think it is false and it’s inaccurate to say you were working as an immigration attorney if you were not admitted to the bar,’’ said Nancy J. Moore, a Boston University law professor and former prosecutor who specializes in professional ethics. “We have students who are licensed in clinics to go into court to perform the work of an attorney under supervision. But they would be clearly instructed to never refer to themselves as a lawyer.
“That, to me, is unacceptable,’’ she said.
Matias, a 30-year-old state representative who emigrated from the Dominican Republic as a child, said she did not misrepresent her credentials. She graduated from Suffolk University Law School and worked in the AmeriCorps justice program between 2014 and 2015, representing and providing legal guidance to unaccompanied minors.
Law students and graduates are allowed to work in immigration courts as “qualified representatives’’ but must work under the supervision of a bar-admitted attorney. Ellen VanScoyoc, Matias’s former supervisor at the Central West Justice Center, said it is common practice at nonprofit organizations.
“She certainly performed all the functions [of an attorney] and had the lawful authority to do it,’’ said Susan Church, an immigration attorney who has held a fund-raiser for Matias. “I don’t think her intention was to mislead.’’
Matias has repeatedly pointed to her courtroom experience when discussing immigration, an issue she considers deeply personal. At a debate in Lowell in late April, she emphasized her connections to the district, saying she returned to the area after law school as an “immigration attorney defending children in deportation proceedings.’’
Weeks earlier, she described herself to the Lowell Sun’s editorial board as both a “legal aid attorney’’ and an “immigration attorney,’’ according to the newspaper and a video it included online. And in a campaign video Matias released in December — and as of last Friday morning, was promoting at the top of her official Twitter account — she tells viewers she was a “justice AmeriCorps attorney.’’
Seven months after Matias left AmeriCorps, and the legal work she’d been performing, Matias passed the bar exam on her third attempt, in February 2016. She was formally admitted to the bar that June.
By mid-2016, Matias had already launched her successful campaign for a seat in the Massachusetts House. She currently cannot practice law because her license is under administrative suspension for non-registration, according to the state Board of Bar Overseers. Attorneys are required to pay a fee and register with the Massachusetts Bar each year.
Matias’s campaign did not make her available for an interview. In a statement, she said she was proud to have “represented children who had no voice.’’
“Anyone who knows me knows I would never exaggerate my work or accomplishments, and suggestions otherwise are nothing more than attempts to diminish my service to [a] community that are taken out of Donald Trump’s playbook to undermine successful women, immigrants, and working people,’’ she said.
Other Matias supporters insinuated that questions about her background mounted to a racial attack.
“This honestly sounds like the kind of dog whistle about a Latina immigrant that has no place in our politics,’’ said Emily Cherniack, executive director of the organization New Politics, which endorsed Matias.
But legal analysts say there’s a clear distinction between an attorney and a legal advocate — a term Matias has also used at times to describe her work, including on her campaign website.
Even in the context of the campaign trail, her claim of being an immigration attorney could run afoul of the Supreme Judicial Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct, experts say. Moore, the BU professor, said it could violate one rule that states an attorney “shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.’’
Michael Cassidy, a Boston College law professor who trains attorneys nationally on their responsibilities under professional conduct rules, said her comments could also violate a different section of the rules, which defines “professional misconduct,’’ in part, as conduct “involving dishonesty.’’
“Technically, it could be construed as a misrepresentation under the rules,’’ said Cassidy, though he said he doubts any disciplinary board would pursue formal action against Matias, given that she isn’t currently practicing.
“It’s up to the public to judge whether they think that’s a big enough deal to undercut her qualifications for public office,’’ he said.
Matias is one of 11 Democrats vying for the nomination to replace retiring US Representative Niki Tsongas. A Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll released in April showed the race was largely wide open, with 58 percent of likely Democratic voters surveyed saying they hadn’t settled on a candidate.
Andrea Estes of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mattpstout
