BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

PATRICK ANDREW FLEMING,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6184087.

Commission No. 2011PR00017

FILED --- March 8, 2013

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorneys Wendy Muchman and Eunbin Rii, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b) complains of Respondent Patrick Andrew Fleming, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 1, 1982, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

Conduct Involving Misrepresentations and Deceit

1. On July 12, 1996, Respondent, a naturalized United States citizen originally from England, met Tatiana (aka "Tanya") Surganova, a Ukrainian citizen, in Rome. Between July 1996 and March 1997, Respondent and Tanya continued to meet often in Europe. On March 8, 1997, Tanya moved into Respondent's home on North Greenview in Chicago.

2. In 1997, Tanya's mother, Antonina Surganova ("Antonina"), a Ukrainian citizen, came to the United States to visit Tanya. At that time, Antonina became acquainted with Joseph Beaudion ("Beaudion"), who resided near Respondent's Chicago home on North Greenview.

3. On April 9, 1998, Respondent married Tanya in a civil ceremony in Chicago.

4. Tanya later became pregnant, and in early 2000, Antonina returned to the United States to witness the birth of her grandchild. During this visit, Antonina resided with Respondent and Tanya at their new residence on Wrightwood Avenue in Chicago. After the child's birth, Antonina continued to reside with Respondent and Tanya to assist in her grandchild's care. During this period of time, Antonina resumed her friendship with Beaudion. Respondent provided financial support for Antonina.

5. On April 25, 2001, Antonina and Beaudion participated in a marriage ceremony. Subsequent to that ceremony, Antonina continued to reside with her daughter and Respondent. Antonina continued to care for her grandchild as well as several other neighborhood children at Respondent's Wrightwood home.

6. Between April 25, 2001, and November 18, 2003, Beaudion filed a petition to change Antonina's immigration status based on Antonina's marriage to a United States citizen.

7. On November 18, 2003, Respondent submitted Form-I-864, an affidavit of support pursuant to Section 213A of the Act, to Department of Homeland Security as a co-sponsor of Antonina's petition. Pursuant to the affidavit of support, Respondent agreed to be a joint sponsor and take on legal obligations for supporting Antonina, which obligations included his continued financial support. In his affidavit, Respondent stated under oath that Antonina was residing with her husband, Joseph Beaudion, at 501 N. Clinton Street in Chicago.

8. For purposes of immigration matters, Department of Homeland Security is a tribunal.

9. On June 11, 2004, Respondent filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Tanya. Respondent believed that Tanya had been unfaithful to him.

10. On June 11, 2004, Tanya filed for an order of protection against Respondent in which she alleged that he had been abusive towards her, had accused her of marital infidelity, had yelled at her, had called her derogatory names, and had threatened her with the involvement of the FBI. Attached to the order of protection was Tanya's affidavit, which indicated that since 2000, when their child was born, Tanya's mother, Antonina, had always resided at the Wrightwood residence in Chicago.

11. On June 28, 2004, at a hearing relating to the order of protection referenced in paragraph 10 above, Tanya testified that her mother had always resided at the Wrightwood address.

12. On July 7, 2004, Respondent caused a letter to be sent to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Investigations Section, in Chicago, requesting to withdraw his underlying affidavit of support for Antonina Beaudion, referenced in paragraph seven, above.

13. On July 14, 2004, Respondent caused a second letter to be sent to a supervisor at the United States Department of Homeland Security, Investigations Section, in Chicago, relating to his request to withdraw his affidavit. Attached to the letter was a second affidavit executed by Respondent under oath, which stated, in pertinent part: "I thought, of course, that they would move in together as husband and wife. This never happened…my mother-in-law never moved in with her husband."

14. At some point prior to May 22, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings of Antonina in her immigration matter, on the basis that her marriage to Joseph Beaudion was fraudulent in part because Antonina had never left Respondent's residence to reside with Beaudion.

15. On April 24, 2006, Respondent caused a complaint and jury demand to be filed against Antonina, requesting damages in excess of $1,000,000 for alienation of Tanya's affections to Respondent. The complaint alleged that, in part because she was angry that Respondent would not buy her a house, Antonina decided to cause the collapse of Respondent's marriage to Tanya, and had persuaded Tanya to have extra-marital affairs. The complaint contained many personal and embarrassing allegations against Antonina and Tanya, and attached personal emails and photographs of Tanya and her professional dancing partners. The matter was given Circuit Court of Cook County docket number 2006-L-4267.

16. On April 24, 2006, Respondent caused a complaint and jury demand to be filed against two defendants with whom Respondent alleged Tanya had engaged in extramarital affairs. The complaint requested damages in excess of $1,300,000. The complaint contained many personal and embarrassing allegations against Tanya, and attached personal emails and photographs of Tanya and the two defendants who were Tanya's professional dancing partners. The matter was given Circuit Court of Cook County docket number 2006-L-4268.

17. On May 22, 2006, Respondent appeared in the removal proceedings of Antonina and provided sworn testimony. At that time, Respondent was asked the following questions by Department of Homeland Security Counsel and gave the following answers:

Q: And who resided at the Wrightwood address between July and the present, as you mentioned earlier?

A: From July 2000 until June 2004, myself, Tanya, her mother, Antonina Surganova, her son, Anthony Surganova, and [Respondent and Tanya's child].

….

Q: At any time, to the best of your knowledge, and based on your own living experience with Ms. Surganova, did she ever live elsewhere?

A: No

Q: …you testified that Mr. Beaudion never lived in your house…Is it possible that Antonina lived with [Beaudion] somewhere else?

A: No, it's not possible.

Q: And why not?

A: Because with the exception of the occasional times when I may have been out of town on business or I may have gone on vacation, I was always living in the house and Ms. Beaudion was always living in the house.

18. In June 2007, after more than a year of activity on case 2006-L-4267, Respondent through his attorney, James Marcus, caused the matter to be voluntarily nonsuited.

19. In August 2007, after more than a year of activity on case 2006-L-4268, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

20. On September 12, 2007, the court entered a judgment dissolving Respondent and Tanya's marriage.

21. On July 20, 2010, the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission received a letter from the United States Court of Appeals, attaching an order from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the opinion of the Seventh Circuit, denying Antonina's petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The appellate court order expressed concern about reconciling Respondent's affidavit in support of Antonina's petition to change her immigration status and Respondent's subsequent statements and testimony that Antonina had never resided with Beaudion and had been living in Respondent's residence, stating that "the proper authorities need to investigate this further," and directed the Clerk of the court to forward the order and published opinion to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, for whatever action (if any) either one deems appropriate. After reviewing the letter, order and opinion, the Administrator docketed an investigation, number 2010IN03162, into Respondent's conduct.

22. On January 26, 2011, Respondent appeared pursuant to subpoena at the Commission's Chicago office to testify in connection with investigation number 2010IN03162. In the sworn statement, Beaudion's residence was referred to as "the Clinton Street address" or "501 N. Clinton." At that time, Respondent was asked the following questions and answered as follows:

Wendy Muchman, counsel for the ARDC, to Respondent:

Q: So for what period of time had [Antonina] moved out of your house and into the Clinton Street address?

A: Probably four to six weeks, maybe.

Q: So from when to when?

A: I would say from the end of September, beginning of October to maybe November.

Q: So it's your testimony here today that from the end of September 2003 until the end of November 2003 your mother-in-law resided full time at 501 North Clinton?

A: That was my understanding.

Q: Mr. Fleming, you lived at the house?

A: No, I understand that…But she was not in my house. She was out of my house, moved out of my house, that is correct…

A. …I saw that she had taken all her clothes and her personal belongings.

23. Respondent's statements set forth in paragraphs 7, 13, 17, and 22 were false, misleading and deceitful, and misrepresented to the tribunal(s) Antonina's whereabouts.

24. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

  2. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

  3. conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and

  4. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

25. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1, 2010, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of Rule 8.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

  2. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

  3. conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

  4. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully 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 law, and a recommendation of such discipline as is warranted.

Wendy J. Muchman
Eunbin Rii
Counsel for Administrator
130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-565-2600

Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:  Eunbin Rii