Sanction Disagreement

The majority of an Illinois Hearing Board has recommended public censure of an attorney who committed misconduct in the federal court defense of a claim brought against Deere and Company.

The misconduct committed by the Respondent was serious and cannot be taken lightly. Not only did he violate the trust of a client by failing to sufficiently communicate with the client regarding two separate court orders, but he also intentionally deceived his client. The Supreme Court has stated that “honesty is an important factor in assessing a person’s moral character.” In re Glenville, 139 Ill. 2d 242, 255-56, 565 N.E.2d 623 (1990).

There is significant mitigation in this case. Respondent has been a licensed attorney for about 19 years, since 1997, and has no prior discipline. His misconduct occurred in one legal matter, during an otherwise lengthy and unblemished career. There was evidence that Respondent has provided considerable volunteer services to his community and to the legal profession for a number of years. The Respondent’s misconduct caused no major harm to his client. The case was delayed somewhat, but this is not a case in which an attorney’s misconduct adversely affected the outcome of a case, such as by causing a client’s case to be dismissed or defaulted, or in which a client’s lawsuit became barred by a statute of limitations. Respondent’s client initially paid the monetary sanctions, but was later reimbursed by the Lane & Waterman law firm. Then Respondent attempted to pay the amount of the monetary sanctions by sending a check to Lane & Waterman; however, the check was returned to him. Additionally, the Respondent presented three character witnesses, a judge and two attorneys, who testified as to his favorable reputation for truth and veracity and as to their own belief that Respondent is an honest and truthful person. Further, Respondent did report to both Illinois and Iowa disciplinary authorities that he engaged in misconduct in the Wei v. Deere case.

A dissent of the board chair would impose a 30-day suspension

This continuous pattern of disregard by Respondent of his Client’s interest, covering a period of approximately eight months, was the result of the multiple decisions of the Respondent to hide his pattern of failure, and then his concealment. But these acts of misconduct by Respondent were not all the deceptions he elected to commit.

The first sanction of $700 ordered by the Magistrate was paid by Respondent’s firm, and billed to the Client for reimbursement, fully disclosing that it was to pay the ordered sanctions to Plaintiff’s attorney. Respondent approved the wording on such billing, as was the practice of Law Firm for billing clients for services. When the second sanction of $1,750 was advanced by Respondent’s firm, the procedure to recoup from the Client was again submitted to the Respondent for approval, he deliberately crossed out the notation that it was for ordered sanctions paid to Plaintiff’s attorney. Respondent knew that by his action the Client would then be billed for the $1,750 under the nondescript title of “Misc costs”. Respondent’s deliberate action was to perpetuate this deceit.

But the deceit of the Respondent did not even end there. In his testimony before the Hearing Panel, he was not candid and the full Panel finds that he testified “falsely” when he declined to admit his deceitful act of striking the explanation of the billed $1,750 by claiming a lack of memory.

Purposeful deceit to a client, placing the client in jeopardy of the serious penalties of contempt of court or default in pleadings, is a cardinal violation of one’s professional obligations. Another cardinal violation of one’s professional duties is to testify falsely to the ARDC, the very arm of the Supreme Court that seeks to insure ethical compliance of attorneys and the administration of justice in this State.

While the Wei suit was eventually dismissed by the Court, and on the petition of Respondent’s Law Firm, the Federal District Court Judge imposed the sanctions on the Law Firm and removed them from the Client, all of these actions took place after the Firm had removed the Respondent from the litigation and took action to protect the Client from the damage it sustained. Respondent was not part of such actions to recover and protect the Client.

The attorney is located in Davenport, iowa and was reprimanded in that state for this misconduct. He had self-reported to both bars. (Mike Frisch)