More Than A Missed Telephone Status Conference

The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging that

Respondent was employed as an associate by the law firm of Wilson Elser Moscowitz Edelman & Dickler LLP (“Wilson Elser”) in Chicago. Among Respondent’s responsibilities at Wilson Elser was that she cover a telephonic status conference that was scheduled to take place at 2:00 (CST) that afternoon in a case pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Valladares v. Singh, et al., docket number 1:14-cv-00542-TWP-MJD. Although Respondent was aware of the need to call in for the Valladares telephonic status conference, she did not do so, and after the conference concluded Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore issued a rule for Respondent and for Allison Burns, a partner in the firm who was lead defense counsel in the case, “to show cause why they failed to appear telephonically for the October 3, 2014 status conference in this matter.” Respondent received electronic notice of the issuance of the rule to show cause within moments of its entry.

 Respondent filed in the Valladares case a document entitled “Statement of Counsel for Defendant to Show Cause” (“the declaration”), in which she stated, in part:

“Due to unexpected circumstances, less than 24 hours before the scheduled conference in this matter, an emergency petition was received in another matter being handled by Counsel for Defendants and scheduling the petition for hearing on October 3, 2014 at 1:00 P.M. (CST). Given the emergency nature of the hearing and the relief sought, it was necessary that Counsel appear in person and conclude the hearing. Counsel mistakenly believed that the hearing would be concluded prior to the telephonic status conference in this matter.

The emergency hearing ran long and did not conclude until 2:45 p.m. (CST).

Respondent’s statements in the Valladares declaration were false, because she had not participated in an emergency hearing on the afternoon of October 3, 2014, nor had any hearing run late or prevented Respondent from participating in the status conference in the Valladares case. Respondent knew that there had been no emergency hearing and that her statements in the declaration were false.

…Magistrate Judge Dinsmore, in reliance on Respondent’s false statements in the declaration, discharged the rule to show cause.

The complaint further alleges that the attorney prepared false documents to explain the situation  to the firm and made false statements to the ARDC.

In a letter to counsel for the Administrator dated December 23, 2014, Respondent denied creating the [false] documents…During a sworn statement taken on October 20, 2015, Respondent testified that she had not prepared those documents. Both statements related to an issue that was material to the Administrator’s inquiry, which was Respondent’s role in creating the false documents.

(Mike Frisch)