In the Matter of: JAIME TEODORO ZEAS, OF THE FILED AND AUG 22 2014 DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ATTYRECGH C0MM BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Chair Jeffrey S. Torosian Attorney-Respondent, No. 6288733. Commission No. 20UPR00069 ANSWER Jaime T. Zeas, Attorney-Respondent, answers the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission's, by his attorney, Peter L. Apostol, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), Complaint and responds that Respondent has not engaged in the following conduct as alleged which would subject Respondent to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770: (Dishonest Conduct-Kalila [sic] v. Zeas) 1. On June 23, 201 1, Bozena Kalita ("Kalita") filed a petition for dissolution of marriage from Respondent in the Circuit Court of McHenry County. Admitted. Respondent stating further, that his wife desired to be divorced on paper and live together with their $2mm pre-marital and marital estates raising their minor child, to which Respondent refused. The matter was captioned Bozena M Kalita v. Jaime T. Zeas, case number ll-dv-405. No response is required. The McHenry County court record speaks for itself. Attorney Peter F. Carroll ("Carroll") entered his appearance on behalf of Respondent. Admitted. Respondent stating further, Carroll was hired by Respondent during circa May 2011 through July 2012. Carroll and Respondent met while representing opposing parties during a prior dissolution proceeding during circa Year-2009, wherein, Respondent was successful in defeating Carroll at trial.
2. In July 2012, Carroll withdrew from representing Respondent. Admitted. Respondent stating further that the parties were attempting reconciliation, whereby, Respondent instructed Carroll to withdraw immediately prior to the parties and their minor daughter vacationing together in Paris, France and The Riviera Maya Mexico. 3. On September 28, 2012, the court found Respondent to be in default and entered a
judgment for dissolution ofmarriage in case number 1l-DV-405. Admitted. Respondent stating further that unbeknownst to Respondent, Respondent's former wife's counsel David Montenegro proceeded with the dissolution matter in obtaining the default judgment while the parties and their minor child were vacationing in the Riviera Maya, Mexico together without proper notice to Respondent, as well as without the apparent consent or authorization of Respondent's former spouse. 4. In February 2013, Respondent again retained Carroll, this time to represent him in matters related to preparing a motion to vacate the default judgment for dissolution of marriage described in paragraph three, above. Admitted. Respondent stating further that all pleadings referenced below had already been written by Respondent and presented to Carroll for review around February 2013. The pleadings were also presented to Respondent's subsequent substitute counsel Berger Schatz for review and were incorporated into pleadings ultimately filed with the Court. 5. Prior to April 3, 2013, Respondent drafted the following pleadings, on which he listed Carroll as the purported drafter: Admitted. Respondent stating further that Respondent drafted almost all substantive pleadings in the dissolution proceedings on behalf of Carroll for Carroll's review, editing and filing during the year of Carroll's representation. For instance, Respondent drafted the parties' 14 page Joint Parenting Agreement ("JPA"), that was entered by the Court during April 2012. a. Agreed Order to Vacate Default Order and Default Judgment ("Agreed Order"); Admitted. The Default Judgment was ultimately 3
voluntarily vacated by Respondent's spouse and her counsel during February 2014 after $80,000 had been unnecessarily expended by Respondent for various pleadings and an evidentiary hearing. b. Petition to Vacate and Set Aside Default Judgment Due to Lack of Notice, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fruadulent [sic] Omission, Unconscionable Judgment Terms Seeking Rule 137 Sanctions against Petitioner and her Counsel ("Petition to Vacate"); Admitted. The Default Judgment was ultimately voluntarily vacated by Respondent's former spouse and her counsel after a 3 day evidentiary hearing regarding Kalita's and Montenegro's abundant fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission and unconscionable judgment terms awarding Respondent's former spouse $1.8 mm leaving Respondent penniless and on the street. Respondent stating further, Respondent's subsequent counsel Berger Schatz did subsequently plead lack of notice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent material omission, unconscionable judgment terms, as well as sought Rule 137 sanctions against Petitioner. c. Motion for Reduction in Weekly Child Support Payments and for Overpayment Credit due to Significant Change in Circumstance ("Motion for Reduction"); and Admitted. Respondent stating further, Respondent's subsequent counsel Berger Schatz did subsequently file a pleading based on the above cited Motion which is currently pending before the Court. d. Motion to Disqualify Attorneys David Montenegro, Olivia Dirig and the Franks Gerkin Firm for Conflict of Interest and Nefarious Litigation Practices ("Motion to Disqualify"). Admitted. Respondent had direct communications with the Franks Gerkin firm via e-mail prior to the litigation and as such the Firm could have been disqualified. Respondent stating further, Respondent's former spouse committed abundant fraudulent misrepresentation and material omission by and through her counsel Montenegro. For instance, counsel 4
Montenegro attended 2 hearings while the parties were reconciling and vacationing together in Mexico and at prove-up offered up abundant misrepresentation and material omission. 6. Also prior to April 3, 2013, Respondent prepared a cover letter on the purported letterhead of Carroll, which Respondent addressed to Olivia P. Dirig ("Dirig") and David L. Montenegro ("Montenegro"), the attorneys who represented Kalita in case number 1l-DV-405. Admitted in part and Denied in part. Respondent stating further, as with all previously written substantive pleadings, Respondent prepared a cover letter that was e-mailed to opposing counsel. Respondent affixed the purported electronic signature of Carroll to the cover letter and attached the pleadings described in paragraph five, above. Admitted in part and Denied in Part. Respondent stating further, as with all previously written substantive pleadings by Respondent, Respondent prepared the cover letter and exhibits for e-mailing to opposing counsel. The cover letter stated that unless Kalita signed the enclosed Agreed Order to vacate the default judgment, Carroll would file the Petition to Vacate, Motion for Reduction, and Motion to Disqualify attached to the letter. Denied. The Cover Letter stated that unless the enclosed Agreed Order to vacated default judgment was signed by Kalita and her attorneys, as. well as Carroll and Respondent, that Respondent and his counsel would be forced to re-open and litigate the matter in family court. It cost Respondent $80,000.00 in attorney's fees and costs, from April 2013 to February 2014, to convince his former spouse and her counsel to voluntarily vacate the Default Judgment secured by their fraud. In addition, the cover letter stated that Carroll would seek attorney's fees and costs from Kalita and would raise "serious allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission," as well as "selective mail tampering" by Kalita. Admitted. Respondent states further that serious 5
allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and material omission, as well as selective mail tampering and Rule 137 sanctions (attorney's fees and costs) were in-fact pled by Respondent's subsequent counsel Berger Schatz which ultimately convinced Respondent's former spouse and her counsel to voluntarily vacate their ill-gotten default judgment during February 2014. 7. Respondent prepared the cover letter and pleadings described in paragraphs five and six, above without Carroll's knowledge or authority. Denied. Carroll was e-mailed the cover letter and pleadings many days, if not weeks, prior to their e-mailing to opposing counsel. Specifically, Carroll was e-mailed the Motions to Vacate, Motion to Reduce and Motion to Disqualify during circa February 2013 and the cover letter and agreed order days prior to the e-mailing during April 2013. 8. At no time did Carroll authorize Respondent to affix Carroll's electronic signature to the cover letter described in paragraph six, above. Denied. Carroll's non-responsiveness to repeated telephone calls, texts and e- mailings during late March 2013/April 2013 regarding the cover letter and pleadings led Respondent to believe that Carroll, through acquiescence and conduct was on-board with the extra-judicial strategy. Furthermore, Respondent was under a "due diligence" Section 1401 Petition to Vacate time pressure. In order to vacate a default judgment, a party must act with timely diligence upon discovery of the default judgment. Respondent had discovered the default judgment during late December 2012. Stating further, at no time in response to Respondent's telephone calls, e-mails or texts did counsel Carroll ever actively refuse or deny his authorization or not authorize Respondent's forwarding the e-mail and/or its attachments. On the very day Respondent forwarded the subject e-mail and attachments, Respondent e-mailed Carroll that the documents would be forwarded to 6
opposing counsel by close of business 5 pm Central time should Carroll have no suggested edits. 9. On April 3, 2013, Respondent caused the cover letter and pleadings referenced in paragraphs five and six, above to be sent to Dirig and Montenegro. Admitted. Respondent stating further, the cover letter and pleadings were e-mailed to Dirig and Montenegro and Carroll from Respondent's Crowell & Moring LLP (Washington, D.C.) law firm e-mail address bearing Respondent's name "From: James T. Zeas," conspicuous, known and obvious to Dirig, Montenegro and Carroll. 10. At no time did Carroll authorize Respondent to send the cover letter and pleadings referenced in paragraphs five and six, above to Dirig and Montenegro. Denied. Carroll's non-responsiveness to repeated telephone calls and e-mailings regarding his edits to the cover letter and pleadings led Respondent to believe that Carroll through acquiescence and conduct was on-board with the extra-judicial strategy. Furthermore, Respondent was under a "due diligence" Section 1401 Petition to Vacate time pressure and Carroll was aware of that time pressure. Stating further, at no time in response to Respondent's telephone calls, e-mails or texts did counsel Carroll ever actively refuse or deny his authorization or not authorize Respondent's forwarding the e-mail and/or its attachments. 11. Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs five through nme [sic], above was dishonest and fraudulent, and Respondent knew it was dishonest and fraudulent, since he knew that Carroll had not authorized him to send the cover letter and pleadings (paragraphs five and six, above) bearing Carroll's name and electronic signature to Dirig and Montenegro. Paragraph 11 requires no response as it calls for a legal conclusion. To the extent that any response is required, Respondent denies paragraph 11 and notes that Carroll was
forwarded the subject e-mail at the same time that Dirig and Montenegro did. 12. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged m [sic] the following misconduct: a. knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a third person, by conduct including preparing and sending a cover letter and pleadings purporting to be from Carroll to Dirig and Montenegro, in violation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); No response is required as 12(a) calls for legal conclusion. To the extent that an answer is required it is Denied. The cover letter and pleadings were prepared by Respondent, as were almost all of the previous substantive Carroll pleadings in the dissolution proceeding. Further, the documents were electronically mailed ("e-mailed") from Respondent's law firm e-mail address bearing Respondent's name "From: James T. Zeas" conspicuous, known and obvious to all recipients, including Dirig, Montenegro, as well as clearly courtesy copying ("cc'ing") Carroll. b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by conduct including preparing and sending a cover letter and pleadings purporting to be from Carroll to Dirig and Montenegro, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); and No response is required as 12(b) calls for legal conclusion. To the extent that an answer is required it is Denied. The cover letter and pleadings prepared by Respondent, as were were almost all of the previous Carroll pleadings in the dissolution proceeding. Further, the documents were electronically mailed ("e-mailed") from Respondent's e- mail address bearing Respondent's name "From: James T. Zeas" to all recipients, including Dirig, Montenegro, as well as clearly courtesy copying ("cc'ing") Carroll. threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, by conduct including ig stating to
Dirig and Montenegro that he would raise allegations of fraud and mail tampering against their client unless their client signed an agreed order, in violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). No response is required as 12(c) calls for legal conclusion. To the extent that an answer is required it is Denied. This is a strained reading of the grievant's alleged grievance and goes well beyond the four corners of the grievanfs submission. The sanctions for Kalita and Montenegro's fraud and Kalita's mail tampering were to be brought within the context of the civil dissolution proceeding by way of a Rule 137 sanction for attorney's fees and costs not in any criminal proceeding. In fact, Respondent was attempting to preclude any allegations of fraud against his former spouse (with whom he had been reconciling) in the context of civil dissolution proceeding's public documents which was the reason for the extra-judicial settlement/voluntary vacating strategy to begin with. WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted. WHEREFORE, Respondent notes that he was not acting in the capacity of an attorney representing a client during the time in question, but was rather a client himself during extremely dire circumstances, that Respondent was attempting to resolve this matter outside of Court to spare his spouse's reputation and limit the exorbitant and unnecessary costs of litigation, that Respondent drafted a 120 page Response (Exhibit A) including many of the answers above with documentary supporting exhibits demonstrating that the Administrator Office's understanding of much of the matter is incorrect, that this matter was initially presented to the Board for vote without the benefit of the Board having reviewed Respondent's 120 page Response, that the Board was reconvened for a vote at the behest of Respondent but apparently failed to fully review the 120 page Response in detail as the above allegations reflect 9
or was recalcitrant to changing its initial decision. This matter should not have been presented to Chair Torosian, this matter should not be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, a hearing should not be held, a panel need not make findings of fact or conclusions of fact and law and no recommendation of any discipline is warranted. Respectfully submitted^-'' s James T. Zeas James T. Zeas (#6288733) Law Offices ofjames T. Zeas, Esq. 7608 Geranium Street Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (815) 529-0098 (Tel.) (815) 526-7298 (Fax) j-zeas@nlaw.northwestern.edu 10