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
Add a Comment
blong72left a comment