Conclusory Allegations Rejected

An Illinois Hearing Board has ordered a reprimand of an attorney, finding that the Administrator had proven one of four charges of violation of the ethics rules.

The board found that the attorney made a misrepresentation to opposing counsel.

The board was sharply critical of what it characterized as charges unsupported by evidence

…the Amended  Complaint does not allege the specific acts on which the charge of hiding assets  from a judgment creditor is based. The charge that Respondent was “hiding  assets” is simply a conclusion based upon conduct that is not identified in  paragraph 17(a) of the Amended Complaint. During closing argument  Administrator’s counsel explained that the “evidence demonstrates a course of  conduct by this Respondent . . . [of] hiding those funds from being known by Ms. Shymansky and her  attorneys.” (Tr. 223, 231-32). Administrator’s counsel identified various acts  by Respondent as being part of the course of conduct that purportedly show his  hiding of assets and dishonesty. One of those acts was the Assignment itself  that Respondent entered into with Susan Irwin. Another act was that, although  Respondent gave Shymansky’s attorney a copy of the Assignment, Respondent did  not explain any understanding, or side agreement, that he and Irwin had  regarding the Assignment. Additionally, Respondent’s transfers of funds to Irwin  for her personal use were “actions to subvert the purpose of a legally valid  lien [and] were dishonest.” (Tr. 217-18). Still another act referred to in  closing argument was that in an Answer filed to a Motion for Turnover,  Respondent stated “that the funds were absolutely assigned to his firm. And the  funds were, therefore, not subject to turnover.” (Tr. 221).

The Amended Complaint, however, does not allege  that the charge of hiding assets is based on a “course of conduct,” on the  Assignment itself, on the failure to explain the Assignment to Shymansky’s  attorneys, on the disbursement of funds to Irwin, or on the statement in  Respondent’s Answer to the Motion for Turnover.

Mitigation

It was stipulated that the Respondent has not been  previously disciplined. (Tr. 212).

Respondent testified that he is 69 years of age and  was admitted to the practice of law in 1973. He has been in private practice  since 1976. He reports about 400 hours of pro bono work each year, he has  been a member of the Illinois State Bar Association throughout his career, and  was a charter member of the Illinois Bar Foundation. He is also a member of the  National Bar Association and the Christian Law Society. He  mentioned various charitable and civic organizations in which he has been  active, including the Rutledge Youth Foundation, Habitat for Humanity, and  Sojourn House. (Tr. 141-59).

Five character witnesses testified on behalf of  Respondent.

Phil Chiles, a realtor and builder, met Respondent  in about 1994 when he and Respondent served on the board of Habitat for  Humanity. Chiles said Respondent’s reputation for honesty and integrity is above  reproach. (Tr. 162-65).

Kathleen Benner testified that she was Respondent’s  legal secretary for about 25 years. She said Respondent’s had a reputation for  being “most moral, decent, and honest.” (Tr. 167-69).

Sam Nichols, a commercial real estate broker and  developer, has known Respondent since the late 1970s. He said Respondent has a  reputation for being “a good lawyer” and “a good man.” (Tr. 170-74).

Avrum Mark Rabin, an attorney, was a law partner of  Respondent and two other attorneys for four years, starting in about 1986. He  said that Respondent’s reputation for honesty and integrity is excellent within  the legal community. (Tr. 175-78).

Brad Warren, an executive director at Benedictine  University, met Respondent at the church where they both attend. He said  Respondent has a reputation for being honest. (Tr. 179-81).

The Amended charges were filed on the day of the hearing, according to the board. (Mike Frisch)