EUGENE ALPERN
P.O. Box 672
Morton Grove, IL 60053





July 7, 1997


Mr. John R. Cesario
Attorney Registration and
      Disciplinary Commission
130 E. Randolph Dr. - #1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219

Dear Mr. Cesario:

            Re:   Theodora Gordon, 97-CI-1994

Thank you for sending me a copy of Ms. Gordon's response to the charges of ethical misconduct filed by me on April 21, 1997.

Ms. Gordon continues to claim that she does nothing wrong, both before this Commission and before the Illinois Courts. Apparently Ms. Gordon has a problem understanding and complying with her ethical requirements.

In her response, attorney Gordon did not deny any of the allegations made against her - in fact, she supported my claims of misconduct. Further Ms. Gordon made intentional misrepresent- ations as to the law to the ARDC in an attempt to impede the Commission's investigation.

Theodora Gordon admitted that she did not review the entire record of the case, as she had a legal and fiduciary duty to do. She admitted that she only reviewed the documents given her by her client.

As an attorney, Theodora Gordon knew or reasonably should have known, that an attorney may not rely on the client's representations, but must make a separate and independent inquiry into the facts of a case before making any filing. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Anderson, 177 Ill.App.3d 615, 532 N.E.2d 595 (1st Dist. 1989); A & A Acoustics, Inc. v. Valinsky, 202 Ill.App.3d 516, 559 N.E.2d 1180 (1st Dist. 1990); Edwards v. Estate of Harrison, 235 Ill.App.3d 213, 601 N.E.2d 862 (1st Dist. 1992). This is especially true when her client presents her with only a void judgment as the basis of her defense.

Ms. Gordon had before her the pleading from attorney Terrence M. Jordan, which presented the true facts to the court. [Exhibit A]. Instead of relying on the pleadings of another attorney which presented the evidence why the judgment was void, and instead of relying on the record of the 90-D-2724 and the 91-D-5122 cases, she decided to rely on the purported judgment provided her by her client. Since a void order is void even before reversal, Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920), Ms Gordon continues to believe that even without a Petition in the record of the case, a condition that was affirmed by three Justices of the Appellate Court and the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and further without any compliance with the many Supreme Court's decisions on the subject, she, and only she, can decide whether a judgment is valid or not. I suggest that this is another example of her misrepresentations, and that she has made a intentional misrepresentation to this Commission in order to impede this Commission's investigation.

Having been presented with contrary allegations, Ms. Gordon had the duty under law, and not the discretion, to review the complete record of the 91-D-5122 action. In fact Ms. Gordon represented to the 96-CH-5651 court that she needed to review the entire record, and did in fact, informed the court as to the purported immense size of the record to review, and on that allegation by her to the Court, she asked for and received a period of time from December 6, 1996 to January 21, 1997. She did not deny that she asked the 96-CH-5651 court for time to review the voluminous record of the 91-D-5122 proceedings (had she denied it, my claim would be substantiated by the transcript of the December 6, 1996 proceeding). Theodora Gordon has now admitted in her response that she did not make a complete review of the record of the 91-D-5122 case, as she had represented to the Court that she would, and which she had a legal and fiduciary duty to do. As an attorney, Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was making an intentional misrepresentation to that court.

Ms. Gordon supports her position by claiming she reviewed the selected favorable documents presented to her by her client. Where are the unfavorable documents that her client did not intentionally present to her? Why did Ms. Gordon not comply with the law and review the entire record of the 90-D-2724 and the 91-D-5122 cases?

Is attorney Gordon suggesting to this Commission that her reliance on the allegations made by her client supersede the facts presented by another attorney? the record of the case? or the law?

Ms. Gordon has not only unequivocally admitted that she did not make the required review of the record of the case, she has further admitted that she did not comply with applicable law.

It is very hard to understand how Ms. Gordon can use a void judgment to support her argument that the same judgment is valid. She has presented no evidence that the judgment has any validity.

Gordon's excuse is contrary to all law, and as an attorney, she knew, or reasonably should have known that her excuse was contrary to law. Ms. Gordon made intentional misrepresentations to this Commission.

Even if I had filed charges of unethical conduct against other attorneys, Ms. Gordon has a separate and independent duty, under Himmel, to file charges of unethical conduct against these same attorneys. As an attorney, Ms. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was engaged in actions in violation of Himmel. Ms. Gordon acknowledged that she had not complied with her duties under Rules 8.3 and 8.4.

Contrary to Ms. Gordon's allegation, there is no requirement for an attorney to be of counsel in a case for the attorney to be involved in the act of connivance. Ms. Gordon connived as an accessory after the fact of the actions of the attorneys in the prior 90-D-2724 and 91-D-5122 identical actions. She further intentionally connived by making misrepresentations to the Courts, and to this Commission.

Connivance (Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition) is defined as:

      "The secret or indirect consent or permission
      of one person to the commission of an unlawful or
      criminal act by another.  A winking at; voluntary
      blindness; an intentional failure to discover or
      prevent the wrong; forbearance or passive consent."

As stated, there is no requirement in the definition of connivance for an attorney to be of counsel. Ms. Gordon acted within all respects within the legal definition of connivance.

Further, attorney Gordon, after having been advised of her requirements under the Rules of Professional Conduct shortly after April 21, 1997, Supreme Court Rules, and of the facts of the action, intentionally and willfully failed to make disclosure to, and therefore made misrepresentation by omission to, the First District Appellate Court in case no. 1-92-2905, in proceedings that she filed since April 21, 1997. She can no longer lawfully claim that she was not part of any proceedings in which she directly made misrepresentations to a Court.

Disciplinary Commissions have held that the act of making misrepresentations to a court, whether by commission, by omission, by silence, or by concealment, is engaging in acts of moral turpitude. [Exhibit B].

In conclusion, Theodora Gordon has admitted all of the charges of ethical misconduct filed by me on April 21, 1997 - she has not denied any of them. Her action of giving excuses for not complying is still not complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct, Supreme Court Rules, and the law.

Both our Supreme Court and the Supreme Court have ruled that fraud upon the court made the decisions of a court, in this case the 96-CH-5651 court, void. Schwarz v. Schwarz, 27 Ill.2d 140, 188 N.E.2d 673 (1963); Dunham v. Dunham, 162 Ill. 614 (1896). Fraud upon the court has been ruled to have occurred when an officer of the court makes any misrepresentation to the court. Attorney Gordon engaged in acts of misrepresentation to the courts and to this Commission, she intentionally acted to create a fraud upon the court, and she intentionally made the decision of the 96-CH-5651 court a void decision. Williams v. Board of Regents of Univ. of GA., 90 F.R.D. 140 (1981); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536 F.2d 1115 (1976).

Further, after receiving notice of the charges of ethical misconduct from the ARDC and being under investigation by the ARDC, Theodora Gordon did not notify any of her then current clients nor any of her future clients that she was under investigation by the ARDC, as she was required to do under law.

In conclusion, Theodora Gordon intentionally and voluntarily engaged in actions in violation of the law and the Rules of Professional Conduct, including but not limited to, Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.3, and 8.4. Gordon knew, or reasonably should have known, that she engaged in a course of conduct to violate the law and the Rules of Professional Conduct. She did not deny that she had engaged in such conduct, and in fact, provided this Commission with admission that she had done so, and had made intentional misrepresentations to this Commission, and engaged in actions ;of moral turpitude.