The Evolving Views Of Doctor Jeckel

The Illinois Review Board saw fit to chide the Administrator in the course of affirming findings of neglect in two bankruptcy matters.

we find that, while the Administrator improperly failed to advise Respondent of a significant change in the opinion of the Administrator’s expert witness, the Hearing Panel Chair properly denied Respondent’s motion to bar that testimony because Respondent did not sufficiently show that he was substantially prejudiced by the admission of the testimony. Furthermore, even if the Hearing Panel Chair had erred in refusing to strike that testimony, the error was harmless and caused no prejudice to Respondent because, apart from the expert’s testimony, the manifest weight of the undisputed evidence supported the Hearing Board’s sanction recommendation. Therefore, we conclude that no remand is necessary. We concur with the Hearing Board’s sanction recommendation.

The issue related to mitigation evidence that had been addressed in an earlier discipline case.

In 2009, the Hearing Board found Respondent had engaged in misconduct by neglecting appeals in two matters where he had been appointed to help persons whose parental rights had been terminated by the circuit court. His conduct resulted in the appeals being dismissed and the clients losing their parental rights. Respondent admitted to his misconduct, and discipline was imposed by consent. The consent petition stated that recurrent depression and anxiety contributed to his misconduct, and that he had begun taking medication and seeing a psychiatrist prior to consenting to discipline. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the petition to impose discipline on consent and suspended Respondent for two years and until further order of court, with the suspension stayed in its entirety by a two-year term of probation with conditions relating to improving the management of Respondent’s law firm and monitoring his continued psychiatric care. In re Dees, 08 SH 33, petition to impose discipline on consent allowed, M.R. 21347 (Sept. 22, 2009). Respondent successfully completed his two-year probation. However, a few years after the probation period ended, he engaged in the current misconduct.

The Administrator had a forensic expert – Dr. Jeckel – evaluate the attorney. He opined in a written report

I believe Mr. Dees was correct when he confided to me that the weight of his debt has worsened his anxiety, depression and obsessiveness. He probably does need to file for bankruptcy, if he can bring himself to do it, to lift this burden. He is currently looking for a salaried position, perhaps in state government that may or may not require a law degree; that also appears to be a good idea. I would like to see he and his wife pursue marital therapy. He needs his wife very much and separation and/or divorce would likely worsen his mental state. A better functioning marriage might also reduce his depression, anxiety and obsessiveness. He becomes so isolated – and he is much more isolated now than at the time of the previous ARDC investigation. He becomes so isolated – and he is much more isolated now than at the time of the previous ARDC investigation. I would not call him totally incapacitated or unfit to practice at this juncture, but he needs to make some changes relatively soon. Perhaps a ‘psychiatric probation’ period might be in order here so he can make the necessary changes and find the right equilibrium. If he continues to withdraw, and/or his marriage is endangered, or if he cannot function in a new salaried position, then I likely would find that he was not capable of practicing law. He is at risk to regress further into self-destructive isolation unless he makes some changes.

The attorney testified at the hearing that he had taken these views to heart but Dr. Jeckel testified thus

Well, I think his fitness to practice law, given everything that you’ve told me, is that he — he would be unable to function as an attorney at this time.

The Hearing Board accepted the doctor’s testimony and recommended a suspension of six-months and until further court order. 

The Review Board

The Administrator acknowledges that Rule 253 requires a party to “seasonably supplement or amend any prior answer or response whenever new or additional information becomes known to that party,” but contends that no violation of Rule 253 occurred in this case. He argues that Dr. Jeckel’s opinion in his February 2015 report was guarded, at best, and that he was clear in his report that his opinion would change if Respondent did not make progress in addressing his debt, marriage, and job circumstances. Thus, he argues, Respondent and his counsel were on notice that Dr. Jeckel’s opinion would likely change if Respondent failed to correct the external problems in his life that tended to worsen his paralysis. After Respondent testified about his lack of progress on the issues that Dr. Jeckel had identified, it was obvious that the Administrator’s counsel would inform Dr. Jeckel about Respondent’s current circumstances and ask if his opinion on Respondent’s fitness to practice law remained the same.

The Review Board found no prejudice and agreed with the sanction recommendation. (Mike Frisch)