The “Susceptible Boy-Lawyer”

The Illinois Review Board has proposed a one-year suspension with six months stayed and probation for misconduct of an attorney who had represented himself.

The misconduct involved criticism of judges, for example

In January 2011, following a hearing at which  Respondent failed to appear, Judge Kennedy issued an order denying Respondent’s  outstanding motions. Respondent filed a motion to reconsider the order on  February 23, 2011. Respondent alleged that Judge Kennedy improperly ruled on  Respondent’s motions because the case had been set only for a status. Respondent  stated, “Such back-alley justice makes a mockery of the legal procedures that  gives parties notice of hearing and a right to be heard, procedures  traditionally sets our legal system form that of oppressive dictorial regimes.”  In December 2011, Respondent filed a pleading to substitute Judge Kennedy,  referring to Judge Kennedy and Attorney Janello as “predators” and to Judge  Kennedy as a “scourge on his profession.” Respondent referred to opposing  counsel Mr. Janello as a “susceptible boy-lawyer” who learned  from Judge Kennedy the power of corruption so he “can accept a judgeship,  representing the next generation of Illinois corruption.”

There was mitigation

We recognize Respondent offered evidence mitigating  his misconduct. Most importantly, Respondent’s misconduct in this matter arose  out of a case in which he represented himself. He did not jeopardize his clients  by engaging in the misconduct at issue here. In fact, according to Respondent,  he has represented clients without complaint. The Hearing Board found in  mitigation that Respondent acted without corrupt or dishonest motive and that he  testified he recognized that his language was inappropriate. Respondent has not  been previously disciplined. Respondent called two character witnesses who  testified as to his honesty and charitable acts. Respondent testified as to his  significant volunteer activities, including volunteering with the Red Cross,  volunteering with his neighborhood association, and providing some pro bono  legal services through the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation. He is  active in his church and in the local Masons Lodge. At the time of the conduct,  Respondent was a partner in a law firm with his significant other and mother of  his three children, Christina Manuel. He is no longer a partner with Ms. Manuel  but he continues to work for Ms. Manuel. Finally, in mitigation the Hearing  Board found that Respondent’s firm has a general practice and serves a lower  socioeconomic community in the Champaign area, a community that is underserved  by the legal profession.

The board found a violation of Rule 4.4(a), which the hearing board had not found. (Mike Frisch)