News

The Mouth that Pours

Continued from page 2

In an answer to Norton's complaint, Wong denies that accommodations were requested, let alone denied; that Wong said Norton's blindness would show well on the firm; that Norton was harassed or discriminated against; that Wong compared her to a dog. Wong admits that Norton was "informed" that she should not have filed a petition for an alien who owed the firm money and that Norton requested and was provided with "clerical help" shortly before her firing. But Wong denies approaching Norton's current employer after Norton spurned an offer to return.

What may be most interesting about the Norton complaint is the way it echoes an earlier dispute between Wong and Tracy Harves, the attorney Wong allegedly called "knocked-up."

Harves learned she was pregnant soon after she joined the firm. She gave birth five weeks prematurely and was slow to recover. Harves sought more than two months' paid maternity leave. Her pay stopped after two-and-a-half weeks. Her lawsuit claimed that Wong had said previously that she would pay whatever maternity leave Harves needed. Wong denied making such a promise and said that Harves was insubordinate upon her return to work.

The Harves and Norton cases are similar, in that both women claimed that Wong defined them by their characteristics. Just as Wong supposedly referred to Harves as "knocked-up," she supposedly introduced Norton to clients and colleagues as "legally blind." But aside from impolitely announcing their reproductive state and visual impairment, Wong was alleged by both women to have suggested that their conditions could be used to win preference. In her suit, Harves claimed that Wong told her to tell government officials that her pregnancy affected her judgment, "in an attempt to obtain a more favorable outcome for a client." The suit also claimed that Wong asked Harves whether she could have a cesarean section, around which to plan her time away from work.

Wong denied Harves's allegations, though the court record shows that she eventually settled with Harves for $45,000.

By virtue of her success and professional longevity, Margaret Wong casts a long shadow over the local immigration trade. "Most of the lawyers in town have a history with me," she says. "Most of the lawyers, they either have looked for a job with us and we won't hire them, or they have shadowed me, or they talked to me.

"They know my mode of practice. They know how much we charge. They're perpetually undercutting me and saying, 'Oh, she's too expensive.' I can tell you stories. I mean, every client who walks in here, they'll say, 'So and so said, "You're gouging fees." So and so said, "You're unethical." So and so . . . ' I know what people say."

Lawyers who have worked for Wong do say those things, though none would speak to Scene on the record. A few have spoken while under a court order. Michael Sharon, an attorney who worked for Wong for 16 years, was asked in a deposition if Wong ever asked him to do anything that he believed was unethical. Yes, he said. "For example, she would ask to charge additional fees to clients above and beyond what was originally quoted," he said. Sharon was asked whether Wong explained why additional fees should be charged. He said that he was told do so, in some instances, when cases had been successfully litigated. And "sometimes she said they can afford it."

Indeed, Wong makes a point to meet her firm's many clients. One reason, former attorneys say, is that it allows her to gauge their wealth (an uncalloused handshake, for instance, signals a white-collar professional) and set fees accordingly.

Even before Wong greets clients, the balance of power tilts in her favor. Prospective clients can be made to wait hours for the great Margaret Wong. The wait puts a thought in clients' heads: "Ah, she must be successful." One former client says he waited an hour for a five-minute meeting with Wong at her Columbus office. The client, who asked that his name not be used, says he sat on the floor because the lobby lacked furniture. He says the meeting ended abruptly, because Wong said he annoyed her by asking too many questions.

Another former Wong attorney, Anikó Kálnoki, was also made squeamish by the firm's business practices. Kálnoki said in a deposition that Wong asked her to embellish the facts, to "pad it out," so that clients could make a reasonable claim for, say, asylum.

Sharon and Kálnoki were two of the attorneys who left abruptly and were later sued by Wong. They denied breaking the law or violating ethics canons. In fact, they argued in a counterclaim that, while at the firm, they tolerated "disquieting improprieties," including billing and accounting irregularities, and occasions when they were asked "to take actions which would violate their ethical obligations and may otherwise have been fraudulent or illegal."

Eventually, both sides agreed to drop their claims. The accusation that Wong bills unfairly remains just that: an accusation. She has a clean record with the state Supreme Court's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Of course, of the more than 7,000 grievances filed against Ohio attorneys last year, just 111 resulted in sanctions.

Wong's reputation for being expensive, however, needs no 28-member discipline board for review; it is well established. "Some people say she delivers. Some people say she solved their problems," says Ola Elsaid, the former program director at the Arab-American Community Center for Economic and Social Services. "I've heard the same about other lawyers. The one thing she stands out for is she charges a lot more than others." As an example, a competitor says, Wong may charge $1,000 to seek a work permit when most attorneys would charge only a few hundred. Bills for more elaborate immigration work can reach five figures. Wong's firm sued one former client, a medical doctor, who refused to pay the remaining $2,000 of a $20,000 contract to seek permanent residency and a waiver of the requirement that he return to his home country for two years.

Asked whether she is expensive, Wong employs a retail analogy. "I am not Kmart. I am not Wal-Mart. I am Target," she says.

McLaughlin says that prospective clients can and do shop for they what they perceive to be the best value. "Sometimes the client will decide to pay a little more to an attorney, because they think that attorney has more experience in an area or is liable to be more successful, perhaps," he says.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
Next Page »