Payback

The Illinois Review Board has recommended that a petition for reinstatement be denied.

He was disbarred as a consequence of a federal felony conviction

In 1985, Petitioner was convicted in federal court of conspiracy to defraud the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development of funds designated for the construction of a low income housing project in East St. Louis, Illinois. Petitioner was also convicted of soliciting bribes while acting in an official capacity, theft of funds and filing false income tax returns. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. In 1986, Petitioner was disbarred. In 1986, Petitioner was convicted in state court of theft by deception by taking funds belonging to a Park District Board. In 1992, the Court denied Petitioner’s first petition to the practice of law.

One problem

Petitioner primarily contends that the Hearing Board erred in considering his lack of restitution as evidence of his lack of rehabilitation. Petitioner continues to contend that restitution is not appropriate because no courts have ordered him to pay restitution. As noted by the Hearing Boards in both of Petitioner’s reinstatement proceedings, Petitioner misunderstands restitution in the context of a disciplinary reinstatement proceeding. An order of restitution by a court is not a prerequisite to the establishment of restitution in a reinstatement proceeding. In a reinstatement context, the question is whether there is either “an improper benefit to the disbarred attorney or a loss to some victim.” In re Alexander, 128 Ill.2d 524, 536, 539 N.E.2d 1260 (1989). Disgorgement of an improper benefit and repayment of funds taken illegally or improperly are viewed as a factor indicating a petitioner’s rehabilitation. Here, Petitioner clearly obtained an improper benefit by receiving illegal kickbacks and his conduct resulted in a loss of funds to HUD.

Thus

Petitioner’s employment and his charitable activities following his disbarment have been commendable. However, as found by the Hearing Board, Petitioner failed to demonstrate on balance that reinstatement to the practice of law is warranted at this time. Petitioner has not yet presented sufficient evidence as to his understanding of his misconduct and as to his plans to avoid future misdeeds. To recommend reinstatement, we should be confident that Petitioner has recognized the causes of his misconduct, has made amends for his misdeeds by making restitution, has refrained from engaging in misconduct for a reasonable period of time, and has presented a realistic, detailed plan to face any future challenges.

(Mike Frisch)