ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

---------------------------------------------------
)
In the Matter of: )
)
) Supreme Court No:
)
)
Peter Vucha )
Mr. Roeser )
Thomas Gooch )
Michael Gauthier )
)
)
---------------------------------------------------

TO: Illinois Attorney Registration

and Disciplinary Commission
130 N. Randolph Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601

ATTORNEY DISBARBMENT COMPLAINT

The Respondents Peter Vucha, his partner Mr. Roeser, Thomas Gooch and Michael

Gauthier are all charged with violating ARDC Rules 3.3(a) making numerous misstatements of

material fact and/or law to a Tribunal, to a Lake County Chancery Judge Margaret Mullein

violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) and 8.4. in Case No. 07 CH 70.

The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission was established by the Illinois

Supreme Court to deal with issues of professional misconduct of attorneys. The serious

allegations of professional misconduct that the Complainant has raised regarding the

Respondents are issues that are not before the Illinois Chancery Court Court in Case No: 07 CH

70. The issues of professional misconduct raised by the Complainant in this complaint are issues
that the Commission is solely empowered to act upon under the Illinois Rules of Professional

Misconduct and NOT any State Court Judge.

BACKGROUND

Peter Vucha and his partner Mr. Roeser represent Plaintiff(s) Max Stoller and are attempting to

represent the Estate of David Stoller on a contingent fee basis in a Lake County Controversy

over one and half million dollars which is being held in trust in case No. 07 CH 70 consolidated

with Case No. 09 L 44.

Thomas Gooch and Michael Gauthier represent interveners Jeanine Mazzaco and Stephanie

Stoller a contigent fee basis the same Lake County Case in Case No. No. 07 CH 70 consolidated

with Case No. 09 L 44.

On August 14, 2012 Respondents/Attorneys Roeser and Vucha filed a Motion for summary

Judgment based upon the perjured affidavit of Mark Stoller which is marked Exhibit F attached

to their Motion which is marked Exhibit 1 to this complaint.

On August 20, 2012 Respondent Attorneys Michael Gauthier and Thomas filed a Motion for

Leave to Join Plaintiffs’ Motion for summary Judgment, adopting Respondent’s Roeser and

Vucha’s fraudulent motion as their own. See Exhibit 2. Joining Roeser and Vucha in a

conspiracy to defraud and fraudulent induce Judge Margaret Mullen to grant their motion based

upon a perjured Affidavit of Mark Stoller Exhibit F.

1. Respondent have submitted a perjured affidavit of Mark Stoller (Exhibit F) in

support of their Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 1, as well known to their

counsel Vucha, Resiner, Gooch and Gauthier.

2. Respondent have violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct by

submitting to the Lake County Court a perjured affidavit of Mark Stoller in

 support of their motion for summary judgment. as well known to Respondents.

3. The method by which the Respondent attempts to establish, “strict proof to

support their fraudulent motion for summary judgment is a perjured affidavit of

Mark Stoller” (marked as Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof, see

Paragraph 16, Page 6 of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.)

4. The affidavit provided by Mark Stoller and filed by the Respondent, is a clear

perjury and professional misconduct. The following is an excerpt from Mark

Stoller’s sworn affidavit marked Exhibit F attached to Respondent’s motion for

summary judgment:

I, Mark Stoller, being first duly sworn, on oath state as follows:

1. I am the brother of the Plaintiff’s in the above-captioned

matter.

2. I have reviewed the deed to Willow Industries, Inc., a copy

of which is attached to this Affidavit.

3. Said deed purports to bear my signature.

4. At no time did I sign said deed to Willow Industries, Inc.

5. At no time did I appear before Sandi Waryck and

acknowledge that I signed said deed.

6. At no time did I authorize anyone to sign my name to said

deed.

7. At no time did I intend to give away to Willow Industries,

Inc. any interest which I may have had in the land
described in the deed.

8. In October 2006 I lived in Arizona.

9. My daughter is Stephanie Stoller and her date of birth is

12/19/1988 and in October 2006 she lived in Arizona.

5. Respondents proceeded before the Lake County court to use the falsely sworn

affidavits of client, Mark Stoller, and thus violate the Illinois Rules of
 Professional Conduct Rules 3.3(a) and 8.

6. Examining Mark Stoller’s perjured statements in his affidavit (Para. 6 and 7, of

the Affidavit), “At no time did I authorize anyone to sign my name to said deed”

and “At no time did I intend to give away to Willow Industries, Inc. any interest

which I may have had in the land described in the deed,” clearly represent

inconsistent statements by Mark Stoller that he’s provided in other prior sworn

affidavits relating to the identical subject matter as well known to Respondents

Vucha, Roeser, Gauthier and Gooch and their client.

7. In an earlier sworn affidavit by Mark Stoller, dated July 13, 2011, Mark Stoller

swor under oath (a true and correct copy marked as Exhibit 3, attached and made

a part hereof):

To Whom it May Concern,

I, Mark Stoller, gave my mother, Bernice Stoller, permission to sign both

my name and that of my, at the time, minor daughter, Stephanie Stoller, to
a quick claim deed transferring the Damien Subdivision/ Barrington
property into the company Willow Industries, Inc. I did this because I was
living in Arizona when the transaction was taking place in Illinois.

It is my understanding and belief that at the time my brothers, Max and

David Stoller, and my sister Janinne Mazzocco, all willingly signed the
deed and were monetarily compensated. Although, I do not know how
much they each received.

I have created this affidavit at the request of my cousin, Julia Bishop.

Evidently, the request has been prompted by my brothers’ attorney, Peter
Vucha, asking Julia during her deposition whether or not it was mine and
Stephanie’s signature on the deed.

I have no legal or monetary interest in the Damien

Subdivision/Barrington property, its sale, Willow Industries, Inc., or
the outcome of any litigation involving my brothers and Willow
Industries, Inc.

8. The false swearing charged here is clearly a violation of the Illinois Rules of

Professional Conduct. Respondents and their clients are well aware that the use
 of Mark Stoller’s false affidavit represents a violation of the Illinois Rules of

Professional conduct. This is not a simple case of two conflicting statements, this

is a case where Respondent chose knowingly and willfully to solicit a false sworn

affidavit from Mark Stoller which is inconsistent with other sworn affidavits

and pleadings by the same affiant, Mark Stoller and to submit this false affidavit

before Chancery Judge Margaret Mullen to induce her to grant their motion for

summary judgment in order to be awarded over one and half million dollars.

9. Coldwell Banker, et. al. v. Max Stoller, et.al, Willow Industries, et. al, Steven S.

Peerrigo, Case No. 09 L 44, was consolidated with case, No. 07 CH 70, as well

known to the Respodents. In the pleadings filed by Mark Stoller’s attorney, Jeff

Stone, under verification signed by Mark Stoller and under penalty of perjury,

Mark Stoller (Para. 15) makes the following statement under oath: “…that Mark

Stoller has no right, title, or interest in the subject real estate (Damien Subdivisin);

and that to seek a judgment against Mark Stoller would be a fraud upon the

court…”(see attached a true and correct copy of Mark Stoller’s Motion for Leave

to File Mark Stoller’s Reply, instanter, marked as Exhibit 4).

10. The ARDC the right to punish Vucah, Roesner, Gauthier, and Gooch for violating

the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a) and 8.4 .The filing of a

false affidavit falls under the category of Professional Misconduct.

It is indisputable that the Respondents have violated ARDC Rule 3.3(a) and 8.4. It is

indisputable that the ARDC is empowered to discipline attorneys for violation of the Illinois

rules of professional misconduct.

WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that the Inquiry Board immediately assign this matter

to a hearing, panel, that a date for hearing be immediately set, that the hearing be conducted and

that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation for such
discipline as is warranted by its findings.

Date: Sept. 12, 2012

Certificate of Mailing

This motion is being deposited with the U.S. Postal Service as first
Class mail in an envelope addressed to:

Illinois Attorney Registration

and Disciplinary Commission
130 N. Randolph Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601