Bribery Conviction Leads To Ethics Charges

The Illinois ARDC has filed a complaint alleging ethics violations in a case arising out of the attorney’s federal bribery conviction. The complaint alleges:

Respondent represented individuals and entities in matters relating to the Illinois Department of Revenue (hereinafter “Department”).

Between July 2002 and June 2003, the Department employed auditors including Michael Krol, Chuck Maali, and Leo Langley. It was the auditors’ job to perform audits relating to Illinois state sales taxes and submit accurate audits to determine appropriate tax liabilities.

Between July 2002 and June 2003, the Department’s rules prohibited employees from referring taxpayers to an attorney or law firm in connection with any official business involving the Department. The Department’s rules also required employees to report to the Department any offer of a bribe or any unethical practice by tax practitioners.

The Department received in excess of $10,000 in federal funding each year, making the Department subject to Title 18 United States Code, Section 666(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. §666(b) which establishes the statute’s applicability to a state agency that receives, in a one-year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 from the federal programs.

Between November 2000 and October 2003, Respondent paid cash bribes totaling approximately $40,000 to the auditors in exchange for referrals to Respondent by the auditors of taxpayers’ legal work involving transactions of $5,000 or more.

Respondent made the payments in cash to conceal the fact that he was making the payments.

Between November 2000 and October 2003, when Respondent made the cash payments, he knew it was illegal for him to do so, and he did so anticipating favorable treatment by the auditors on behalf of his clients.

As a result of the cash payments, Respondent received approximately $148,000 in legal fees and also received favorable treatment from the auditors on his client’s cases including: lowering the final tax liability for certain clients; providing confidential internal Department documents to Respondent relating to clients Respondent was representing; and providing advice to help Respondent represent his clients in connection with their cases.

(Mike Frisch)