An attorney who split fees with a non-lawyer in debt relief matters should be suspended for a year and until further order, according to a recent recommendation of the Illinois Review Board.
The misconduct:
The Administrator alleged that in connection with CCDN activities the Respondent and Robert Lindsey, a non-lawyer, entered into a referral agreement. It is undisputed that Lindsey solicited and referred to Respondent at least 243 clients. Lindsey charged clients up to $5,900 and would then refer the client to the Respondent’s law firm. The only service Lindsey provided to the clients was the referral of the client to CCDN or Respondent’s firm. Lindsey paid Respondent approximately $211,000 in accordance with the agreement.
The Hearing Board concluded that the CCDN program clearly included the provision of legal services and accordingly, Respondent engaged in the misconduct alleged in the Administrator’s Complaint.
As to sanction:
We are troubled by Respondent’s admitted involvement in this scheme involving vulnerable consumers. While he testified he reported the fraudulent behaviors of his “lead generators” when he learned of the behavior, he took little to no action to monitor their statements when they contacted prospective clients. Respondent offered no logical explanation for his willingness to use individuals he described as “nefarious” to bring him business.
At the time Respondent was improperly soliciting employment by using “lead generators” who engaged in fraudulent behaviors and who took large fees from vulnerable, financially stressed clients, Respondent’s personal financial situation was precarious. Respondent had not filed a return or paid any taxes for the years 2006 to 2010. His explanation about the tax problem was also alarming. He said the money he received from CCDN was a loan. In 2006, a judgment was entered against Respondent and his wife in favor of a credit card company for about $30,000. Meanwhile, at about the same time, Respondent purchased a home for $915,000. At the time of the hearing, the mortgage on the house was in foreclosure. Respondent’s financial situation suggests that he was motivated by his need for money more than out of any true concern for the predicaments his clients faced.
His demonstrated lack of respect for the disciplinary process also troubles us. On the original date set for oral argument before this Board, he orally requested additional time within which to file a reply brief. This Board exercised its discretion and granted his request. However, Respondent failed to file the brief. On April 15, Respondent was sent notice of the rescheduled oral argument at his P.O. Box in Chicago, his address of record before this Board. Respondent then failed to appear at the rescheduled oral argument before this Board on June 14, 2103. His behavior does not inspire confidence that Respondent is able to conform his conduct to professional standards. See, e.g., In re Nash, 07 CH 68 (Review Bd., May 28, 2009), Respondent’s petition for leave to file exceptions denied, No. M.R. 23293 (Nov. 17, 2009) (respondent’s failure to file a brief conforming to the rules considered by this Board in recommending a suspension and until further order of the court).
Finally, Respondent has expressed no remorse for his misconduct or any recognition that he has engaged in any wrongdoing. He does not appear to grasp the importance of his professional obligations. His failure to understand the seriousness of his misconduct leads us to conclude that he should not be allowed to return to practice until he has demonstrated to the Court that he is committed to practicing law in an ethical manner. ‘