Taher Kameli

Taher Kameli

Ray, before addressing the substance of your accusations, it would have been better for you to identify yourself and explain your connection to the matter. You claim that “we hired him,” but the limited information in your post does not allow the firm to determine whether you are actually a current or former client, someone authorized to speak for a client, an unrelated third party, or someone affiliated with a competing firm. If you have a genuine client concern, you should identify yourself and contact the firm directly so that the matter can be reviewed through an appropriate confidential channel. The court decision you linked also does not support several of the accusations in your review. The decision does state that Mr. Kameli was absent from the final pretrial conference and the rescheduled trial, but it does not say that he simply abandoned the case. The court reported that, according to his paralegal, he was “held in transit” in Rome and that the emergency-continuance motion explained that he remained detained in Italy. The district court treated the initial absence as unexpected and granted the first continuance. Your statement that Mr. Kameli was “arrested” is speculation, not a finding contained in the linked decision. The decision does not say that he was arrested, identify any criminal charge, refer to any criminal proceeding or conviction, or find that the explanation concerning his detention was false. The decision also states that Mr. Kameli’s associate, Steven Burke, appeared at the rescheduled trial. The court did not permit Mr. Burke to act as trial counsel because he had not applied for admission to the district court’s general bar as the court had previously instructed. The Seventh Circuit addressed whether the district court acted within its discretion by denying a second continuance and enforcing its attorney-admission rules. It did not find that Mr. Kameli committed fraud, lied about his detention, or engaged in professional misconduct in that case. Mr. Kameli was the plaintiffs’ attorney in the linked case—not a party accused of fraud. The underlying dispute involved failed childcare franchises and claims between the franchise investors and the franchise operators. The decision you linked therefore does not support your claim that Mr. Kameli defrauded more than 100 clients. That accusation apparently refers to a separate SEC civil enforcement matter, which your review also describes inaccurately. The SEC’s official release refers to representations made to at least 226 foreign investors, but states only that “some” of those investors were immigration clients. It does not state that more than 100 of them were Mr. Kameli’s legal clients. The judgment was entered by consent without the defendants admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations. Your description of the monetary relief is also incorrect. The SEC release separately identifies $1,172,000 in disgorgement, $108,161 in prejudgment interest, and a $320,000 civil penalty. Only $320,000—not more than $1.5 million—was characterized as a civil penalty. The obligations were imposed jointly and severally, in varying amounts, upon multiple defendants and entities. The release does not establish that Mr. Kameli personally paid more than $1.5 million to the government as a penalty. Our professional obligations prevent us from publicly discussing confidential communications or private details concerning any actual representation. We can, however, correct material misstatements of the public record. The decision you linked does not establish that Mr. Kameli was arrested, committed fraud in that case, defrauded more than 100 legal clients, or personally paid a penalty exceeding $1.5 million. Serious accusations should be based on what the cited records actually say, not speculation or the conflation of unrelated proceedings.