BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: REEMA

NICKI BAJAJ, Attorney-Respondent, No. 6302338.

) )

)
)

Supreme Court M.R. No. Commission No. 2013PR00043

)
) )

NOTICE OF FILING TO: Daniel F. Konicek Thomas W. Dillon Counsel for Respondent Konicek and Dillon, P.C. 21 W. State Street Geneva, IL 60134 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 17, 2013, I will file the Parties' JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO FILE DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT, a copy of which is attached, by causing the original and four copies to be delivered to the Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in Chicago, Illinois. Respectfully submitted, Jerome Larkin, Administrator Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

By:~& Christine P. Anderson

Christine P. Anderson Counsel for Administrator 130 East Randolph Dr., #1500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 565-2600

FrLEO
JUL 1 1 2013 ATTY REG & DISC COMM
CHIC.4.GO

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Vicki J. Andrzejewski, on oath state that I served a copy of a Notice of Filing and the Parties' JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO FILE DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT on the individuals at the address shown on the forgoing Notice of Filing, by regular mail, proper postage prepaid, by causing the same to be deposited in the U.S. Mailbox located at One Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois on July 17, 2013 at or before 5:00 p.m.

Subscribed and sworn to before his 1ih day of Jul , 2013.

~: : "OFFICIAL SEAL" :
:
Notary Public, stat~ of llltnots : : My Commission Exptres 08130116

JOSEPHINE G. LA<;:O.

: .......................

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE .JUL 17 2013 ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND ATTY REG & DISC COMM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION CHICAGO In the Matter of: REEMA NICKI BAJAJ, Attorney-Respondent, No. 6302338.
) )

FILED

)
)

Supreme Court M.R. No. Commission No. 2013PR00043

)
) )

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO FILE PETITION TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Christine P. Anderson, and Respondent, Reema Nicki Bajaj, by her attorneys, Daniel F. Konicek and Thomas W. Dillon, and pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b)(1)(b), jointly request that the Hearing Board enter an order approving the submission of this matter to the Court as an agreed matter by way of the attached Petition to Impose Discipline on Consent. In support, the parties state: 1. 2. The Administrator's complaint in this matter was filed on May 9, 2013. The Administrator and Respondent have agreed to recommend to the Supreme

Court that the Court enter an order suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of the Court. The proposed Petition to Impose Discipline on Consent, which the parties seek to file with the Supreme Court, is attached as Exhibit One. 3. Supreme Court Rule 762(b)(1)(b) allows the parties to a disciplinary proceeding

pending before the Hearing Board to submit that matter to the Court as an agreed matter, with the Board's approval, by way of a petition to impose discipline on consent.

4.

The parties request that the Panel convene on August 20, 2013 at 10:00 am, for

the purpose of questioning the parties, discussing this motion and the proposed discipline, and ruling on this motion.
5.

The interests of justice will be served by the filing of the attached petition. A proposed order is attached.

6.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Hearing Board approve the filing of the attached Petition to Impose Discipline on Consent with the Supreme Court of Illinois. Respectfully submitted, Jerome Larkin, Administrator Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission By: Christine P. Anderson Counsel for Administrator One Prudential Plaza 130 East Randolph Drive, #1500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 565-2600

~ine P. Anderson

;1/, ~ ~ QNY,..__=---

By: One ofher attorneys Daniel F. Konicek Thomas W. Dillon Counsel for Respondent Konicek & Dillon, P .C. 21 W. State Street Geneva, IL 60134
MAIN LIB_#463058 _vI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS In the Matter of: REEMA NICKI BAJAJ, Attorney-Respondent, No. 6302338.
) ) ) ) ) ) )

Supreme Court M.R. No. Commission No. 2013PR00043

PETITION TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Christine P. Anderson, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b), with the consent of Respondent, Reema Nicki Bajaj, and with the approval of a panel of the Hearing Board, petitions this Court to enter an order suspending Respondent from the practice oflaw for a period of three years and until further order of the Court. In support of this petition, the Administrator states: I. SUMMARY OF PETITION 1. Respondent was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2010, is 27 years old, and a

graduate of Northern Illinois Law School. Since 2010, Respondent had been a general solo practitioner in Sycamore, Illinois, in the law firm entitled "Bajaj Law Offices, LLC" but has recently dissolved her law practice. In 2012, Respondent was convicted of prostitution. In addition to her criminal conduct, Respondent made misrepresentations to the Commission and on her bar application. Respondent's misconduct, and factors in mitigation, are set forth in section II, below. 2. The recommended sanction of a suspension for three years and until further order

of the Court, is within the range of discipline imposed by this Court in other cases involving attorneys who have engaged in criminal conduct and have made false statements in a disciplinary

matter and on bar applications, and is warranted by the particular circumstances of this case.

See, In re Chandler, 161 Ill.2d 459 (1994) and In re Friedman, M.R. 23720,08 CH 32 (May 18,
20 I 0). A full discussion of the recommendation for discipline is set forth in section III, below. Respondent's affidavit is attached as Exhibit One. 3. At the time this petition was prepared, a three-count complaint was pending

before the Hearing Board of the Commission. The members of the panel assigned to consider that matter have, as required by Supreme Court Rule 762(b)(l)(b), reviewed this petition and approved its filing with the Court. A copy of the Hearing Board order approving the submission of this matter to the Court is attached as Exhibit Two. A copy of the transcript of the Hearing Board proceedings is attached as Exhibit Three. II.
A.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Respondent's criminal conduct and conviction for prostitution

Between approximately 2005 and 2008, Respondent placed listings on an online

4.

website entitled, "AdultFriendFinder.com" ("Adult Friend Finder"). In the advertisements, she identified herself as "Nikita." 5. In approximately 2005, Harold Scott Pohl ("Pohl") contacted Respondent through After making contact with

a listing that Respondent had posted on Adult Friend Finder.

Respondent, she and Pohl corresponded through emails. In these emails, Respondent offered to perform sexual acts with Pohl for $200 an hour. Between at least 2005 and August 13, 2010, Respondent made approximately 25 appointments to meet with Pohl. occasions, Pohl paid Respondent $1 00 in cash for sex acts. 6. In approximately the winter of 2007, Allan Turner ("Turner") contacted On each of those

Respondent through a listing that Respondent had posted on Adult Friend Finder. After making

contact with Respondent, she and Turner corresponded through ernails.

In these emails,

Respondent offered to perfonn various sexual acts with Turner in exchange for money. Between approximately 2007 and January, 2011, on at least 10 to 12 occasions, Respondent made appointments to meet with Turner. On each of those occasions, Turner paid Respondent either in cash, or equivalent store gift cards or DVDs, for sex acts. In addition, in late 2010 or early 2011, in exchange for a sex act, Turner bought Respondent office supplies for her law office, totaling approximately $70. 7. Between April 7, 2011 and May l 0, 2011, Respondent and Turner exchanged

various emails. In those emails, Respondent offered to perfonn various sex acts with Turner and Turner's friend in exchange for money. In the emails, Respondent arranged to meet with Turner and his friend at Turner's home on Thursday, May 12, 2011, for the purpose ofperfonning sex acts in exchange for money. On Wednesday, May 11, 2011, Respondent was questioned by the DeKalb County Police and the emails between Respondent and Turner were viewed by the investigating officers. Respondent did not appear for the scheduled meeting with Turner and his friend on May 12, 2011. 8. On May 31, 2011, the Office of the DeKalb County State's Attorney filed a three-

count complaint charging Respondent with prostitution, in violation of720 ILCS 5/ll-l4(a). 9. On June 20, 2012, the State agreed to nolle prosse counts one and three of the

complaint and Respondent pled guilty to count two, a class A misdemeanor charge of prostitution. The parties stipulated to the factual basis for the charge. complaint set forth the following allegations against Respondent: on or about August 13, 2010, Respondent committed the offense of prostitution, in violation of Act 5, Section 1114(a), Chapter 720, Illinois Compiled Statutes, in that she did knowingly agree with Harold S. Pohl to perfonn an act 3 Count Two of the

of sexual penetration, sexual intercourse, for money, $100 United States Currency, said offense being a class A misdemeanor. 10. On June 20, 2012, the Honorable Robbin Stuckert accepted Respondent's plea of Judge Stuckert entered a judgment on the

guilt and the State's recommended sentence.

Respondent's guilty plea and sentenced Respondent to a term of two years of court supervision, ordered Respondent to perform 50 hours of community service, pay fines and costs totaling $2,500, obtain a psychological evaluation, comply with all treatment recommendations, and obtain HIV STD testing.

B.
11.

Making false statements in connection with a disciplinary matter

On September 21, 2012, Respondent appeared before the Administrator at the

Commission offices and gave sworn testimony relating to the events leading to her arrest and conviction for prostitution. During her sworn statement, Respondent was asked about whether she had ever been paid by Pohl, Turner or anyone else for sex acts. Respondent denied ever having received cash or gifts in exchange for sex acts from Pohl, Turner or anyone else. 12. Respondent's September 12, 2012 sworn testimony was false, and was intended

to mislead the Administrator, because Respondent received both cash and gifts from both Pohl and Turner in exchange for sex acts.

C.
13.

False statements on bar application

On February 26, 2008, Respondent submitted to the Board of Admissions to the

Bar an application for admission to the bar of Illinois ("application"). Respondent's application was made pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 704. On January 15, 2010, Respondent submitted to the Board of Admissions to the Bar an additional questionnaire ("questionnaire").

14.

In answer to Question 2A of the application and Question 8A ofthe questionnaire,

Respondent answered "No" to the questions, "Have you ever been known by any other first, middle or last name?" At no time did Respondent provide any additional information in

response to questions 2A and 8A. Respondent's answers to the questions, "Have you ever been known by any other first, middle or last name?" were false, because Respondent used the name "Nikita" during the period from at least 2005 to 2011. Respondent knew her answers were false. Respondent's responses to questions 2A and 8A, contained material omissions which were intended to deceive the Board of Admissions to the Bar. 15. Question 25 of the application required Respondent to provide the following

information: "List every job, ... including without limitation all temporary, part-time, full-time, and self employment, paid or unpaid, you have held for the ten year period immediately prior to the date of the filing of this application." Question 16 of the questionnaire, required Respondent to provide the following information: " ... subsequent to the filing of your most recent character and fitness questionnaire in Illinois, have you been employed, or continued to be employed, in any capacity including without limitation temporary, part time, full time, and self-employment, paid or unpaid? If yes, list jobs in reverse chronological order ... " In answer to questions 25 and 16, Respondent did not disclose her self-employment wherein she accepted cash and other monetary items in exchange for sexual acts from Pohl and Turner. Respondent knew her

answers to questions 25 and 16, were false, in that she omitted material information about her employment and character. 16. In answer to Question 53 of the application, Respondent answered "No" to the

question, "Is there any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualification or general fitness on your part that is not otherwise disclosed by your

answers to questions in this application?" At no time did Respondent provide any additional information in response to question 53. Respondent's failure to disclose her acts of prostitution in response to the question, "Is there any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualification or general fitness on your part that is not otherwise disclosed by your answers to questions in this application?" was an attempt to mislead the Board of Admissions to the Bar about her fitness, because at the time Respondent submitted her application, she had continued to engage in conduct involving the exchange of sexual acts for money and had done so beginning in at least 2005 and continuing until2010. Respondent knew her answer to question 53 was false, in that she omitted material information about her fitness. 17. On November 4, 2010, Respondent was admitted to practice law in Illinois. At no

time on or before November 4, 2010 did Respondent submit a corrected or supplemental application to the Board of Admissions to the Bar.

D.
18.

Conclusions ofMisconduct

By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the

following misconduct: a. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-14(a) and in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; making a statement of material fact known by the lawyer to be false in connection with a lawyer disciplinary matter and in a bar application, in violation of Rule 8.1 (a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4( c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct; conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and 6

b.

c.

d.

e.

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

E.
19.

Background and Additional Factors in Mitigation

Respondent is 27 years old and was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois in

2010. She has expressed remorse for her conduct and cooperated during these proceedings. If this matter had proceeded to a contested hearing, Respondent would have called character witnesses to testify that her reputation for truthfulness was good. 20. Respondent is complying with all of the court-ordered conditions of her

supervision. She has completed public service work at an animal shelter and with "Administer Justice," where she provided pro bono legal work. Since her admission, Respondent took on six
pro bono domestic relations cases.

Pursuant to the terms of her supervision, Respondent

received a psychiatric evaluation. She was not diagnosed with any psychiatric condition, nor was any treatment recommended III. 21. RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION OF PRECEDENT

The Administrator respectfully requests that this Court enter an order suspending

Respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of this Court. 22. The recommended sanction is within the range of discipline imposed by this

Court for attorneys who have engaged in criminal conduct and have made false statements in a disciplinary matter and on bar applications. The only disciplinary case in Illinois involving a misdemeanor prostitution conviction is the matter of In re Watt, M.R. 13693, Commission No. 97 CH 10 (May 30, 1997). In that case, the attorney pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor prostitution and was sentenced to court supervision. During the course of the disciplinary

investigation into her conduct, the attorney made various misrepresentations under oath
7

regarding her conduct and produced false evidence in an effort to impede the investigation. She was suspended by this Court for six months. 23. In this case, Respondent's criminal conduct was aggravated by her false

statements under oath during the Administrator's investigation and on her bar application. When an attorney makes a false statement in a bar admission application, discipline is warranted. See, e.g. In re JordanJ. 478 N.E.2d 316 (1985) (false statements in application for admission to bar warranted disbarment); and In re Connor, MR 8711, 90 CH 117 (March 19, 1993) (false statements in law school application and bar application warranted suspension for 30 months and until further order of the Court). 24. In In re Chandler, 161 Ill.2d 459 (1994}, the Court suspended an attorney for

three years and until further order of the Court after she lied to a mortgage lender about her income and employment history, and submitted false W-2 statements, tax returns and a false employment verification form. She also failed to inform the Character and Fitness Committee about the fraud she committed in obtaining the loan and the lender's ensuing foreclosure action. The court stated: That the present fraud concerns an attorney's personal life rather than professional affairs is of no moment here. The fraudulent act of an attorney acting in his own behalf in which he seeks personal gain, directly or indirectly to the detriment of honesty, is no less reprehensible than when he acts on behalf of a client. [citation omitted]. It is our duty to supervise the professional conduct of lawyers practicing in Illinois, and the fulfillment of that duty necessarily requires inquiry into the private conduct of attorneys to the extent that such conduct relates to professional competence or the dignity of the legal profession. [citation omitted]. In re Chandler, 641 N.E.2d 473, 480 (1994). 25. In In re Friedman, 08 CH 32, M.R. 23720 (May 18, 2010), the attorney was

suspended from the practice of law for three years and until further order of court after he engaged in a pattern of intentional deception to numerous entities, including making false statements on his bar application. On three separate bar applications, between 1999 and 2000, 8

Respondent falsely stated that he had not been detained, restrained, taken into custody, arrested, or accused of a violation of any law or ordinance, when in fact he had been arrested and taken into police custody after he and four fraternity brothers solicited an undercover police officer for sex in exchange for money. Respondent also engaged in a conflict of interest and argued positions that were materially adverse to his client's interests. 26. In Chandler, Connor and Friedman, attorneys who have engaged in comparable Like those lawyers,

conduct have received suspensions until further order of the Court.

Respondent's deliberate falsehoods on her bar application was designed to, and did, obtain for her a license to practice law in this State, without a full and fair examination of her fitness to do so. Because Respondent succeeded in evading the thorough character examination this Court requires of all bar applicants, she should be required to prove her fitness in reinstatement proceedings before returning to the practice of law. IV. 27. CONCLUSION

Given the precedent cited and the aggravating and mitigating factors described

above, suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of the Court, would be appropriate to serve the purposes of the disciplinary system.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator, with the consent of the Hearing Board, requests that the Court enter an order suspending Respondent, Reema Nicki Bajaj, from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of the Court. Respectfully submitted, Jerome Larkin, Administrator, Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

Christine P. Anderson Counsel for Administrator One Prudential Plaza 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 565-2600
MAINLIB_11462979_vi

10

Exhibit 1

I I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS In the Matter of: REEMA NICKI BAJAJ, Attorney-Respondent, No. 6302338.
) ) ) ) ) ) )

Supreme Court M.R. No. Commission No. 2013PR00043

RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVIT AS TO DISCIPLINE ON CONSENT Reema Nicki Bajaj, being first duly sworn, does state as follows: 1. That I have read the Administrator's Petition to Impose Discipline on Consent (the

"Petition"), to which this affidavit is attached. 2. That the assertions in the Petition are true and are complete when read together

with the facts in this affidavit. 3. 4. That I join in the Petition freely and voluntarily. That I understand the nature and consequences of the Petition.

Notary Pub

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: REEMA NICKI BAJAJ, Attorney-Respondent, No. 6302338.
) )

)
)

Supreme Court M.R. No. Commission No. 2013PR00043

) ) )

ORDER This matter coming to be heard on the motion to approve the submission of this matter to the Court as an agreed matter by way of a petition to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b)(l)(b); IT IS ORDERED THAT the motion is allowed, and the panel approves the submission of this matter to the Court as an agreed matter, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b)(l)(b), by way of the petition to impose discipline on consent.

Debra J. Braselton Chair of the Hearing Panel

Hearing Panel Member

Hearing Panel Member

DATE: ______________________