Change Lawyers And Dance
A disciplinary complaint filed in Ohio alleges
In early 2015, G&G Star Enterprises, doing business as Fred Astaire Dance Studio in Morristown, New Jersey, filed an I-129 Petition for Non-Immigrant Worker (I-129 or petition) on behalf of Veronika Gadzheva. The petition requested that Gadzheva, a Bulgarian ballroom dancer, be permitted to enter the United States on an 0-1 B visa due to her extraordinary ability in the arts (dance).
The petition was granted but problems developed
Gadzheva immediately began working for G&G; however, problems soon began to develop in the employment relationship, and Gadzheva wished to change employers.
In or about July 2015, Gadzheva obtained an offer of employment from Londance III Studio in Laguna Niguel, California…
Gadzheva emailed respondent regarding the transfer of her 0-1 visa to a new employer. Gadzheva had been referred to respondent by a friend.
Respondent agreed to represent Gadzheva and to file a new I-129 petition on her behalf.
The allegations involve consequential neglect and false representations
On October 20, 2015, G&G Enterprises requested revocation of the I-129 petition that it had filed on Gadzheva’s behalf, and it was subsequently revoked. Because respondent had not yet filed a new petition, Gadzheva was now considered “out of status.” In addition, Gadzheva may have begun accruing days of “unlawful presence” in the United States. At 180 days of unlawful presence, Gadzheva could potentially face a three-year bar for re-entry to the United States, and at 360 days, Gadzheva could potentially face a ten-year bar for re-entry to the United States…
On December 3, 2015, Gadzheva emailed respondent and inquired into whether she could return to Europe before the new I-129 petition was approved. Despite the fact that Gadzheva was “out of status,” respondent falsely stated that she could travel to Europe because her existing 0-1 visa was “still good.” Gadzheva ultimately decided, however, not to travel to Europe until the new I-129 petition had been approved.
Between December 3, 2015 and April 15, 2016, Gadzheva and her employer, Patricia West, called respondent at least 20 times regarding the status of the I-129 petition. Even though he had not yet filed the petition, respondent consistently told Gadzheva and West that the petition had been filed and that it would be approved shortly. He told them that the immigration process moves slowly and led them to believe that he had other clients who were waiting for approvals as well. He also told them that certain times of the year, such as around Christmas, were very busy times for USCIS, which caused additional delays. Even when Gadzheva inquired into starting the process over and filing a new I- 129, respondent told her to wait another two weeks.
Finally
On April 15, 2016, and over seven months after he initially stated he had filed a petition, respondent filed an I-129 on behalf of Gadzheva. Prior to filing this petition, respondent did not provide it to West for her signature or review. Instead, respondent forged West’s signature on two different places on the petition.
Eventually new counsel stepped in
On July 11, 2016, HYIL filed a new I-129 petition on behalf of Gadzheva and requested expedited processing. It was approved on July 22, 2016 without any requests for further information; however, because Gadzheva was “out of status” at the time it was filed, she must leave the United States in order to activate her new 0-1 visa. She was – and still is – afraid to leave the country in order to activate her 0-1 visa due to uncertainty as to whether she accrued any days of unlawful presence, and if so, how many days.
The attorney is charged with dishonest conduct in both statements to the client and her employer as well as in responding to the bar complaint
Prof. Cond. R. 8 .4( c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by leading Gadzheva and West into believing he had filed an I-129 petition on behalf of Gadzheva and that the petition was pending and by altering the copy of the I-129 petition that he provided to relator.
He is also charged with IOLTA violations.
A sharp-eyed reader noticed that this post comes on the birthday of Fred Astaire.
A few years ago, a student shocked me when I mentioned Bob Hope by asking who Bob Hope was.
For those unschooled in the undeniable charms of the immortal Fred, here’s a snapshot. Rita Hayworth ain’t no slouch neither! (Mike Frisch)