The Illinois Review Board has recommended a six-month suspension of an attorney who had failed to pay a referral fee and engaged in dishonest conduct.

The attorney had claimed that the rules prohibited payment of such fees but

Respondent’s failure to pay Crowley the referral fees was intentional. Even if he did so under the mistaken belief that the referral agreements were not valid, the effect of his actions was that for more than seven years he misrepresented the situation to the [client] Paulsons, who clearly believed that the agreements were valid. This misrepresentation worked to Respondent’s benefit, since the Paulsons hired him because of Crowley’s recommendation and continued participation.

We also conclude that Respondent’s conduct was dishonest. Respondent claimed that Crowley never signed the agreements because with the amount of work and the advanced costs that these cases would require, he could not afford to split the legal fees unless Crowley shared in both. According to Respondent, he and Crowley discussed the matter several times, but although Crowley wanted the benefits of the Paulson cases, namely the referral fees, he was not willing to assume any responsibility for them. Therefore, he never signed the contracts. As far as Respondent was concerned, Crowley had chosen not to participate in these matters, and therefore he had no claim to any of the fees.

Crowley denied that Respondent ever asked him to share in the legal work or the expense of the Paulson cases. He performed no work on them once Respondent was involved, just as had been the case in his previous referrals. Although he did not sign the attorney-client agreements as he had in the earlier cases, he did not believe that he was required to do so as the referring attorney. While he did not see the agreements, he felt “absolutely confident” that Respondent had obtained the Paulsons’ signatures on them before proceeding on their behalf.

The Hearing Board held that in view of its findings, it was not necessary to resolve the conflicting testimony as to the reason that Crowley did not sign the Paulson agreements. In considering this evidence in relation to a possible violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4), we find that the evidence does not support Respondent’s testimony.