False CJA Bills Draw Consent Suspension

A recent disciplinary sanction from Illinois

Mr. Neely, who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for two years and until he makes certain restitution and complete the ARDC Professionalism Seminar. While serving as a Federal Public Defender, he submitted verified forms containing false claims for reimbursement, including submissions that requested payment for more than 24 hours on a given days. He also double-billed the federal program for certain work. The suspension is effective on October 13, 2015.

Details are provided in the consent discipline petition

Respondent is 63 years old, was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1982, and is not currently engaged in the practice of law. Between May 2006 and October 2013, Respondent served as a Federal Public Defender panel member appointed to represent defendants in federal criminal cases as part of the Criminal Justice Act (hereinafter “CJA”). In connection with those cases, Respondent submitted verified forms containing false claims for reimbursement, including submissions that requested payment for more than 24 hours on a given days and double-billed for his work…

In mitigation, Respondent has not previously been disciplined and has expressed regret for his conduct. At the time of his misconduct, Respondent was distracted by demands and concern arising in connection with the illness and deaths of several family members. He later participated in an investigation of his invoices, and accepted a resolution whereby he agreed to accept a substantial reduction of his requested fees..

 During the time period of 2006 and 2010, on at least nineteen occasions, Respondent billed for more than 18 hours per day, with billings for more than 24 hours on 11 of those days. Respondent’s billing records contained other inaccuracies, including billing for hours when not present in court and overbilling for in-court work. In his invoice for work on one case, a case in which Respondent argued for a resolution using “fast track” policies, Respondent submitted duplicate billings for 83.5 hours of purported research and briefing time when he had already performed that work and billed for it in a prior case. When asked by the presiding judge, the Honorable Blanche Manning, to justify the invoice in the second case, Respondent submitted a letter referencing the prior case, rather than the case about which Judge Manning was inquiring, and again claimed that the time was accurate.

The Illinois Supreme Court accepted the petition. (Mike Frisch)