Good Deeds Count

The Illinois Review Board has found substantial mitigation and recommended a two-year suspension with all but 60 days stayed in matter involving misuse of entrusted funds

Respondent conceded that did not handle his client trust account properly during this time period. In three cases, while he paid his clients the money they were due in settlement, he failed to pay the lienholders. In a fourth case, he took earnest money that was required to be escrowed in a real estate transaction. In sum, Respondent routinely took cash withdrawals from the account when he needed money without consideration as to distributions required to be paid to others or, in the case of the real estate transaction, without regard to his escrow obligations. While he attributed his mishandling of funds, at least in part, to his opening of a solo practice after the death of his law partner in 2006, he did not dispute that he knowingly took the funds in the following four instances.

The mitigation

…while Respondent’s misconduct is serious, he presented overwhelming evidence mitigating his misconduct. The mitigating evidence greatly exceeds the mitigating evidence discussed in the cases relied upon by the Administrator. The Hearing Board found that Respondent presented impressive character testimony. One of Respondent’s character witnesses, attorney Lester Barclay, testified that he was willing to act as a mentor to Respondent and work with him on his recordkeeping skills. Two of the clients whose matters were involved in this proceeding testified in support of Respondent and remain willing to hire Respondent in the future. Moreover, Respondent expressed sincere remorse for his misconduct and testified that he has taken steps to correct his bookkeeping problems, including watching online seminars offered by the ARDC.

Also in mitigation, Respondent presented extraordinary testimony regarding his efforts to provide pro bono representation to individuals in his neighborhood who are unable to pay his fees, stating that he believed about forty percent of his practice is pro bono. In addition, we have considered the testimony sealed by the Hearing Board, testimony that demonstrates Respondent’s upstanding reputation and commitment to the citizens of Chicago. Accordingly, while Respondent’s dishonest use of others’ money would ordinarily warrant a substantial suspension, we believe that such a harsh sanction would remove Respondent from the community to whom he has dedicated his career. We therefore decline to impose a two year suspension without probation, the sanction recommended by the Administrator. We believe that a suspension of two years, stayed after sixty days by probation, adequately meets the purposes of discipline.

(Mike Frisch)