Truth Be Told
The Illinois Review Board has proposed a 30-day suspension of an attorney who made a false statement in litigation and unauthorized payments in two matters,
The lie
Respondent represented Tri-County Special Education in a workers’ compensation claim brought by Michelle Wise. Wise was represented by Carbondale attorney R. James Giacone (“Giacone”).
In December 2012, the Wise case was scheduled for arbitration. Respondent asked Giacone whether he would be willing to continue the Wise matter because Respondent had a personal matter to which he had to attend. Giacone told Respondent he would agree to a continuance but also stated that Wise was very interested in resolving the matter. Accordingly, they agreed they would arbitrate the matter at the next available docket date on March 12, 2013 in Herrin, Illinois.
Respondent had two other matters requiring his attention on March 12, 2013. One was a matter in Caruthersville, Missouri and the other was a matter in Springfield, Illinois. On March 11, Respondent told Giacone he could not get the Caruthersville matter continued. However, they agreed that Respondent would go to Caruthersville in the morning of March 12 and then would come to Herrin by that afternoon. Giacone agreed to explain the situation to the arbitrator and try to keep the arbitrator available for that afternoon.
Respondent testified that later in day on March 11, he resolved the Caruthersville case. However, he did not tell this to Giacone. Instead, he testified he decided to go to Springfield. On March 12, Respondent sent several text messages to Giacone falsely advising him he was in Caruthersville. When it appeared he might not make it to Herrin, they agreed to have a pre-trial conference by telephone. Respondent then repeated the lie to the arbitrator, again falsely stating he was in Caruthersville. The arbitrator continued the matter. The case ultimately settled.
The Hearing Board found that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud or misrepresentation) by intentionally lying to the arbitrator and intentionally lying several times to Giacone and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by causing unnecessary delay in the Wise matter.
On sanction
Respondent’s misconduct was not confined to one matter but rather to several. There were a number of relatively harmless infractions of some very basic Rules. Pursuant to the Rules, lawyers are prohibited from lying to opposing counsel and to the decision-makers in their clients’ cases. The effective administration of justice depends on lawyers behaving honestly even when a lie would be so much easier than telling the truth. Likewise, lawyers are required to communicate relevant information, including negative information, to their clients. Settling a client’s matter without the client’s knowledge, even if benefitting the client, removes the client’s ability to make important decisions regarding the representation and thus distorts the fundamental relationship between lawyer and client. Each day, lawyers must decide whether or not to comply with the Rules or take a seemingly easy, harmless way out of an uncomfortable situation. In this matter, Respondent’s repeated failure to make the right decisions to comply with the most fundamental rules governing our profession warrants a sanction greater than a censure.
In order to protect the integrity of the legal profession and deter other attorneys from engaging in similar acts, we believe that a thirty day suspension is warranted. We recommend that Respondent Thomas E. Margolis be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days.
The Hearing Board felt that the suspension should be for 60 days. (Mike Frisch)