Second Chance

An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended the reinstatement of an attorney admitted in 2003 who neglected matters undertaken as a solo practitioner

Petitioner was licensed in 2003 and began his legal  career at the Harrison Law Offices. He then moved to Inman & Fitzgibbons in 2004  where he handled primarily workers’ compensation matters. After practicing with  Steven M. Pontikes & Associates from 2005 to 2007, he became a contract  attorney. Petitioner eventually started a solo practice in 2009. (Tr. 48-51;  Adm. Ex. 1).

Petitioner acknowledged it was too early in his  legal career to open a solo practice and that he was “a little over confident.”  (Tr. 52). He did not realize how challenging it would be. (Tr. 52). When  Petitioner was handling Ms. Heavey’s matter in 2008, his practice was not going  well and he was falling further and further behind. He was also handling a case  for his stepfather, which took up “the vast majority of his time.” Petitioner  testified he took his stepfather’s matter to trial and “ended up losing.” The  result was difficult for him and “made things uncomfortable with the family.” It  also pushed him further into “isolation mode.” (Tr. 52-54).

After his suspension

Petitioner closed his practice immediately upon his  suspension and was unemployed for approximately ten months. He then took a job  as a driver’s assistant with UPS and refereed volleyball games. In January 2012,  Petitioner was employed as an adjunct professor teaching criminal justice at  City Colleges of Chicago. (Tr. 59-62). Shortly after he was hired, he was also  assigned to the strategic planning and budgeting group. (Tr. 68).

Ellen Eason-Montgomery has worked for City Colleges  of Chicago since 1999. She was formerly the coordinator of the criminal justice  program and is now the coordinator of community connections. Ms.  Eason-Montgomery testified she knew Petitioner had a law degree and interviewed  him for a position as an adjunct professor During the interview, she referred to  Petitioner as “Attorney Sharping.” According to Ms. Eason-Montgomery, Petitioner  was very forthcoming and immediately advised her that he should not be addressed  as such and explained he had been suspended. Ms. Eason-Montgomery explained that  she then “tabled” that topic and left the issue for the Department Chair and  Human Resources to explore further.

The good news

In this matter, Petitioner has demonstrated his  rehabilitation, good character, and fitness to practice law by clear and  convincing evidence. There is no reason on the record before us to believe that  Petitioner poses a risk of harming the public or committing further misconduct.  We are encouraged by Petitioner’s statements that reinstatement would allow him  to assist in the City Colleges legal clinic. It shows he understands his past  mistakes and the pitfalls of opening a solo practice.

During these proceedings, we observed Petitioner to  be a mature, sincere, and dedicated professional. The compelling testimony  provided by his former students shows Petitioner used his period of suspension  as an opportunity to make a positive impact. He has not just made amends for his  misconduct. He has dedicated himself to inspiring his students and serving the  community. Therefore, based on the evidence presented and the lack of objection  by the Administrator, we conclude the Petitioner…has met his burden and recommend that he be re-instated to the  practice of law.

Love a good redemption story. (Mike Frisch)