“We Take Petitioner At His Word”
The Illinois Review Board has rejected a hearing board recommendation to deny reinstatement to a suspended attorney and opines that reinstatement should be granted.
Upon review, the Review Board found that the Hearing Board made findings that were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Review Board noted that Petitioner had held positions of trust and responsibility as a teacher at Notre Dame High School. Although Petitioner has not completed restitution, the Board concluded that Petitioner had made great strides in his attempts to make restitution and could continue to make restitution from his future income. While the Hearing Board expressed some concerns about Petitioner’s willingness to abstain from alcohol, the Review Board found that these concerns could also be addressed through conditions imposed upon Petitioner following his reinstatement. Accordingly, the Review Board recommended that Petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law with certain conditions imposed following his reinstatement and until Petitioner makes complete restitution
The misconduct
Respondent was licensed to practice law in 1990. From 1995 through 1998, Respondent participated in a scheme to obtain mortgage loans from certain lenders by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses. He struck his name from the Roll of Attorneys in 2003.
The good news
The Petitioner called six character witnesses, including two judges. While the Hearing Board found that only one of the witnesses knew Petitioner prior to his criminal conviction, this statement was inaccurate and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Two other witnesses testified that they knew Petitioner prior to his conviction. More importantly, the witnesses testified, without contradiction, that Respondent recently recognized his misconduct and was a “different person” than the person who engaged in the misconduct that led to his disbarment. Even Dr. Stafford Henry, who evaluated Petitioner at the request of the ARDC, testified that when he evaluated Petitioner in 2013, he saw a significantly different individual than the man he had previously evaluated in 2008. While the Hearing Board found that this change in attitude was fairly recent, the timing of the change is not as important as the change itself. Petitioner states that he now takes responsibility for his misconduct. While the Hearing Board dismissed Petitioner’s testimony, we take Petitioner at his word.
And prior alcohol problems are no problem
we believe that any concerns regarding Petitioner’s sobriety can be addressed through conditions upon his reinstatement. There was no evidence that Petitioner’s misconduct which led to his disbarment resulted from his alcohol dependence. Therefore, it would be unfair to preclude his reinstatement because of his dependence. With conditions requiring Petitioner to continue with treatment and periodic assessments and to refrain from further alcohol consumption, we are confident that the public will be adequately protected.
(Mike Frisch)