No Violation Proven

An illinois Hearing Board rejected allegations that an attorney had engaged in misconduct in a divorce matter  and recommends that ethics charges be dismissed.

The board described the attorney’s background

Respondent was first licensed to practice law in 1962. Since then, he has been a member of and active in a number of bar associations, including the Chicago Bar Association, Illinois Bar Association, and North Suburban Bar Association. In addition, since 1966 until 2014, he was a fellow at the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. He has presented Continuing Legal Education Seminars and has written articles for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on various family law topics. He has received numerous certificates commending his service to a number of bar associations, the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, as well as additional legal organizations. He has also taught family law classes at DePaul Law School, guest lectured at Loyola University Law School, and assisted in teaching classes at a paralegal college. In addition, in 2003, he was recognized as one of the top Family Lawyers in Illinois by the Leading Lawyers Network, and in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010, he was recognized as an Illinois Super Lawyer in Family Law. Moreover, over the years, he has provided pro bono legal services through Legal Aid and Chicago Volunteer Legal Services. 

On the merits

The Administrator filed a one-count Complaint alleging Respondent, while representing his client in a divorce matter, presented knowingly false information to the court with respect to the value of his client’s retirement account and ownership status of property belonging to his client. Although Respondent admitted some factual allegations, he denied knowing the information at issue was false at the time presented. He also denied all allegations of misconduct.

The Hearing Board found the Administrator failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knew the information presented to the court was false. Accordingly, the Hearing Board recommended the charges of misconduct be dismissed.

The board found the attorney credible but rejected testimony of opposing counsel

In making these findings, we considered Mr. Hopkins’ testimony that Respondent’s legal conclusions were unfounded and his decision to change the ownership status of the Nottingham house in the MSA-2 was merely to deceive. Yet, after listening to his lengthy testimony, observing his demeanor while testifying, and considering his obvious bias as he, at the time of the hearing in this matter, represented Ms. Callahan, we find his testimony to be completely incredible. Id. Shortly into Mr. Hopkins’ testimony it became apparent that he had strong, passionate opinions with respect to this matter that were formed in his role as an advocate for Ms. Callahan and not as a neutral, disinterested expert witness. Accordingly, Mr. Hopkins’ opinions with respect to this matter have been given very little weight…

…although we recognize the Administrator need not prove a respondent’s motive in order to prove the charged misconduct, we find the absence of any identifiable motive here noteworthy. The evidence offered in mitigation, which is summarized below, is a testament to Respondent’s experience and contributions to the legal profession. Numerous judges testified on his behalf regarding his exemplary character and legal skills. It is not clear why Respondent would make intentionally, false statements and thereby, compromise a pristine legal career for the sake of a $7,000 uncontested divorce case. No such reason was provided by the Administrator. As a result, we find the lack of an identifiable motive lends support to Respondent’s claim and our conclusion that he did not make knowingly false statements as charged in the Complaint.

The attorney had believed that his client wanted to fairly treat his wife

The Administrator failed to introduce any evidence that Respondent or [a contract attorney working under his supervision]] Ms. Bernstein were aware of an attempt by Mr. Callahan to take advantage of Ms. Callahan. Rather, there was credible testimony presented by both of them regarding their belief that Mr. Callahan desired to care for and support Ms. Callahan both during the legal separation and after their divorce. Mr. Callahan also offered credible testimony to that extent. Moreover, Ms. Bernstein testified credibly that she never got the impression Mr. Callahan was trying to take advantage of Ms. Callahan, and Ms. Callahan never voiced any objections to the terms of the marital settlement agreements during their conversations. Additionally, for the reasons articulated in Section II(B), we are not convinced Respondent made knowingly false statements to Judge Hardy-Campbell on September 10, 2008. Accordingly, we find the Administrator failed to prove Respondent violated Rule 3.3(a)(6) by assisting Mr. Callahan in any knowingly fraudulent conduct.

(Mike Frisch)