10/23/09 8:33 AMBEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THEPage 1 of 7https://www.iardc.org/09CH0053CM.html

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARDOF THEILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATIONANDDISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

SAMIR ZIA CHOWHAN,

Attorney-Respondent,No. 6274702. Commission No. 09 CH 53FILED - October 21, 2009

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorneys,Athena T. Taite and Wendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of RespondentSamir Zia Chowhan, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 8, 2001, and alleges thatRespondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or tobring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

COUNT I

(Neglect and Misrepresentation in Shirin Oliaei's Immigration Matter)

1. Before or in April 2003, Motorola and Omid Oliaei ("Omid"), an Iranian researcher, agreed that Omidwould emigrate to the United States of America to work for Motorola. To work legally for Motorola in theUnited States, Omid required approval from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").2. Before or in April 2003, Motorola retained the law firm of Gessler Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym,Ltd. ("Gessler"), to file its petition and related applications for Omid to obtain a visa to work for Motorolain the United States.3. Before or in April 2003, Respondent, as an associate attorney at Gessler, accepted responsibility for filingMotorola's petition and the related applications.4. Before or in April 2003, Omid entered the United States to work for Motorola on an L-1B visa, whichallows a person with specialized knowledge to work in the United States.5. About April 22, 2003, Respondent filed various petitions or applications with USCIS regarding Motorolaand Omid, including Omid's application to adjust his L-1B status to permanent resident.6. About May 10, 2004, Shirin Chegeni ("Shirin"), Omid's spouse, entered the United States on an L-2 visa,which allows the spouse of an L-1 worker to enter the United States.7. About May 2004, Respondent accepted responsibility for filing an application with USCIS to adjustShirin's status from L-2 to permanent resident.8. About July 2004, Respondent prepared or caused someone to prepare a check from Gessler for filing fees,so he could file Shirin's application for adjustment of status.9. At no time before April 2005 did Respondent file Shirin's application.

10/23/09 8:33 AMBEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THEPage 2 of 7https://www.iardc.org/09CH0053CM.html

10. About July 2004, Omid contacted Respondent about the status of Shirin's application. On at least oneoccasion, Respondent told Omid that he had filed Shirin's application.11. Respondent's statement that he had filed Shirin's application, as described above in paragraph 10, wasfalse and Respondent knew that it was false, because he had not filed Shirin's application.12. About July 16, 2004, USCIS granted Omid's application to adjust his status to permanent resident.13. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, after Omid became a permanent resident, Shirin wasno longer the spouse of an L-1 worker. As a result, Respondent had to file Shirin's application foradjustment of status based on her status as the spouse of a permanent resident. Respondent had to file theapplication by December 16, 2004, or within 180 days of Omid's adjustment of status.14. As of December 16, 2004, Respondent had not filed an application for adjustment based on Shirin'sstatus as the spouse of a permanent resident.15. About April 6, 2005, Kalman Resnick ("Resnick"), a partner at Gessler, sent an e-mail to Respondentabout Shirin's status. Respondent received the e-mail shortly thereafter.16. In April 2005, in response to Resnick's e-mail, Respondent filed an application with USCIS foradjustment of Shirin's status. With the application, Respondent sent the check described above in paragrapheight.17. About April 13, 2005, USCIS returned the application described in paragraph 16, above, to Respondent,because Respondent had paid the filing fees with a stale check.18. About April 2005, Gessler removed Respondent from having responsibility for Shirin's application.19. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing aclient, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violationof Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; andd. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme CourtRule 770.

COUNT II

(Neglect and Misrepresentation in Amit Bajaj's Immigration Matter)

20. Before February 2008, Nand Bajaj ("Nand") retained Respondent to file a petition for his nephew AmitBajaj ("Amit") to obtain a visa via the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Premium ProcessingService, which provides faster processing of certain petitions and applications filed with USCIS.Respondent requested $320 for filing fees, $1,000 for Premium Processing fees and $1,250 for attorney fees.About February 12, 2008, Nand paid the fees that Respondent had requested.21. At no time before February 2009, when Respondent's representation had been terminated, did

10/23/09 8:33 AMBEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THEPage 3 of 7https://www.iardc.org/09CH0053CM.html

Respondent file a petition for Amit's visa.22. Between February 12 and April 16, 2008, on at least two occasions, Nand attempted to contactRespondent by phone or e-mail and asked that Respondent contact him about the status of Amit's visa.23. About April 16, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Nand in which Respondent stated:I should be hearing something early next week. Unfortunately, I will be out of townnext week. As soon as I receive any type of notice, I will contact you. Additionally,Amit does not have to do anything at this time. Once the approval notice comes viaregular mail, I will mail to Amit, the original approval notice along withinstructions for applying for the visa in India (one must set up the appointment oncethe approval notice is received). I will take care of instructing him and sending himthe required documents. I will touch base with you as soon as I receive something.24. About April 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Nand in which Respondent stated:While I was gone I received a call from Immigration. I spoke to them this pastweek, they wanted a clarification of a couple of things in the application. I shouldhear from them anytime regarding a decision. I will keep you posted.25. Respondent's statements described in paragraphs 23 and 24, above, were false, and Respondent knewthat they were false, because Respondent had not filed a petition for Amit's visa.26. Between April and August 2008, on at least four occasions, Nand or Nand's wife attempted to contactRespondent by phone, e-mail or in person and asked that Respondent contact Nand about the status of Amit's visa. Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that Nand and Nand's wife were attemptingto contact him.27. About August 6, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Nand, explaining that he had been in and out of town due to his mother's illness. Respondent also stated that he assumed that the petition for Amit's visa wasstill being processed, and that on August 18, 2008, he would forward a copy of the petition to Nand.28. Respondent's statement that he assumed that the petition was still being processed, as described above inparagraph 27, was false, and Respondent knew that it was false, because Respondent had not filed a petitionfor Amit's visa.29. About September 17, 2008, after not receiving a copy of the petition from Respondent, Nand contactedRespondent by e-mail, stating that he would contact the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission("ARDC") if Respondent did not contact him.30. About September 22, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Nand in which Respondent stated:…I think I've figured out what has happened. It seems like the application was notput into premium processing and is in the regular processing line which takes about6-9 months. I am fairly certain this has happened because I went through myrecords and discovered that the $1000 check for the premium processing was notcashed. It seems that in their mailroom, the premium processing part of theapplication somehow was mishandled.Today I have resent the premium processing form with check to immigration tohave the case converted from regular processing to premium. This should give us aresponse within 2 weeks at the latest….