The Master Roll Of Attorneys
An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a 90-day suspension and professionalism course for an attorney who engaged in unauthorized practice after being struck from Master Roll of Attorneys.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756 requires that attorneys admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois register and pay a registration fee to the ARDC on or before January 1 each year. Rule 756 further provides that the Administrator remove the name of any attorney who has not registered by February 1 from the Master Roll of Attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.
Andrew Oliva has been the registrar of the ARDC for the last two years and served as deputy registrar six years prior to that. The registrar administers the registration process and is the custodian of the Master Roll of Attorneys, a list of all attorneys admitted to practice within the State of Illinois. Mr. Oliva explained that before November 1 of each year, the ARDC sends an initial notice to all attorneys who are required to register…
Respondent filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the Circuit Court of Cook County, case no. 10 D 10744, on behalf of George Caleel. On March 16, 2011, Respondent signed and filed a Certification and Agreement by Counsel, in which Respondent represented there were no contested issues between the parties and requested a prove-up.
In e-mail correspondence with Mrs. Caleel’s attorney on March 10, 2011, Respondent referenced conversations with Mr. Caleel regarding visitation and stated, “I will get a revised copy to you in the next day.” On March 16, 2011, Respondent sent an e-mail to Mrs. Caleel’s attorney that stated, “Please find attached the revised [Joint Parenting Agreement]. The changes are highlighted.”On April 12 13, 2011, Respondent and counsel for Mrs. Caleel discussed further changes to the Joint Parenting Agreement by email.
On April 14, 2011, Respondent appeared in court as counsel for Mr. Caleel for a prove-up hearing. At that time, the parties filed and presented a Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, which included a Marital Settlement Agreement and Joint Parenting Agreement. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage.
Respondent admitted that he had been removed from the Master Roll during the time he was representing Mr. Caleel in the dissolution proceeding. However, he testified that he did not seek out Mr. Caleel as a client. Mr. and Mrs. Caleel were both friends of his and he did not want to “involve [himself] in a professional manner in that personal issue.” Respondent admitted he reviewed the Joint Parenting Agreement and “had some points that I thought should be clarified, some correspondence with [Mrs. Caleel’s] attorney, but it was a memo.” According to Respondent, Mr. and Mrs. Caleel were performing the edits and he was simply “memorializing them.” (Tr. 56-57). He described the Caleels as sophisticated people who came to their own agreement. He admitted he was “there for the entry of the order,” but “didn’t speak a word. I was just there to enter it.”
Respondent further testified that Mrs. Caleel’s attorney did the majority of the work preparing the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage and Marital Settlement Agreement. Respondent’s name appears as counsel for Mr. Caleel in the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, Marital Settlement Agreement, and Joint Parenting Agreement. In addition, at the bottom of the last page of the Marital Settlement Agreement and Joint Parenting Agreement, only Respondent’s firm name, address, telephone number, and firm ID number are listed. Respondent explained, “[Mr. Caleel], being the Petitioner, we put stuff on. I would file the matters and have it just because as a matter of course. I’m the Petitioner. I don’t think Respondents can file it.” Respondent added that the address on the documents was his home address “so I wasn’t holding myself out.”
The hearing board did not accept that explanation
Respondent’s characterization of his actions with respect to the Caleel matter were incredible and unpersuasive. Even if we were to accept that Respondent did not believe he was practicing law or did not intend to practice law, which we do not, we would still find a violation of Rule 5.5(a). The language of Rule 5.5(a) is clear, “A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.” “By its terms, Rule 5.5(a) does not require that the unauthorized practice of law be intentional or knowing. It makes no exception for the attorney who is uninformed or confused about his status. In effect, the rule creates a sort of ?strict liability’ for attorneys.” In re Thomas, 2012 IL113035, par. 77. Additionally, the Court has previously stated, “[a] common maxim holds that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and this is particularly true in a case where the person who claims lack of knowledge of a relevant directive is a practicing attorney.” In re Cheronis, 114 Ill. 2d 527, 535, 502 N.E.2d 722 (1986).
(Mike Frisch)