Not Only A Contract Attorney

An attorney who engaged in misappropriation and other misconduct should be disbarred, according to a recent report and recommendation of an Illinois Hearing Board.

One of the functions of the disciplinary system is to protect the public. In re Stamos, 2012PR00007, M.R. 26133 (Nov. 20, 2013). This Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of misappropriating entrusted funds. Respondent also has a multi-year history of particularly significant financial instability. Based on her statements at the hearing, Respondent does not currently have a stable residence and has been without a stable residence for quite some time. Even though Respondent’s debts were discharged in bankruptcy in 2010, Respondent has accumulated significant additional debts since that discharge. Those debts include two outstanding judgments and a tax lien. Thus, Respondent’s financial situation has not genuinely improved, despite her report that she is currently employed. Respondent suggested her present job would enable her to make restitution. That suggestion impressed us as either insincere or extremely unrealistic, since Respondent has not been meeting even her own basic needs, did not articulate any plan for managing her competing financial obligations and did not present any evidence of any efforts to make restitution since obtaining her present employment.

We do not mean to suggest an attorney cannot be trusted simply because that attorney is experiencing serious financial difficulty. The problem in this case arises from the combination of the circumstances as a whole. Respondent has exhibited a pattern of taking money belonging to others when faced with financial stress herself and failing to respond to inquiries about those funds. Respondent has had, and continues to have, particularly serious financial problems. In other words, she still faces problems similar to those which contributed to her past misconduct. Further, in past dealings with persons whose funds she has misappropriated, Respondent has purported to make a binding promise to repay, without genuinely intending to repay. These circumstances, in combination, leave us with serious doubt as to this Respondent’s ability to safeguard funds in the future.

We also perceived, from Respondent’s testimony, a lack of genuine understanding of the importance of maintaining reliable methods by which clients and others could communicate with her. According to Respondent’s testimony, she did not control either the post office box she used as her business address or her business telephone number, which had been transferred to a cell phone Respondent gave to her children. This added to our lack of any real assurance that this Respondent will practice responsibly in the future.

Respondent argued she is “only” a contract attorney and should be allowed to practice as such. However, the types of discipline available do not include an option to permit an attorney to practice in a limited capacity, such as Respondent seeks. See S.Ct. R. 770.

(Mike Frisch)