Sanction Proposed For Accusations Against Judges

A suspension of two years and fitness has been recommended by the Illinois Review Board for an attorney’s attack on the integrity of three appellate judges

The Administrator charged Respondent in a six-count complaint with filing pleadings in which he attacked the integrity of three appellate court judges with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the accusations, and with engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) and 8.4(d) (2010), respectively. Following a hearing, the Hearing Board found that Respondent had engaged in most of the charged misconduct and violated Rules 8.2(a) and 8.4(d).  For this misconduct, it recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order of the court.

Respondent filed exceptions, challenging the Hearing Board’s findings of misconduct. During the briefing on Respondent’s appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why Respondent should not be suspended from the practice of law immediately and until further order of the court. On April 11, 2016, the court suspended Respondent effective immediately and until further order.

For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Hearing Board’s misconduct findings and affirm them. We also concur with its sanction recommendation, and therefore recommend that Respondent be suspended for two years and until further order of court.

The Review Board reviewed the events that followed a losing appeal

In October 2011, Respondent filed a complaint naming Justices McDade, Wright, and O’Brien as defendants, in addition to Gross, Air Cap, and C.A.P. In this complaint, Respondent accused the justices of altering the record on appeal by fabricating an order dismissing counts in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, with the intent to defraud plaintiff.

The complaint referred to the “corruption which pervades the Rule 23 order.” It accused the justices of committing the crime of official misconduct, engaging in fraud and deceit, and corrupting the legal process, among other things. The complaint asked the court to vacate the dismissal of the 2008 case and the denial of the petition for relief from judgment in the 2005 case. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In his response to the motion to dismiss, Respondent again accused the justices of official misconduct and knowingly tampering with court records. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Respondent then filed a motion to reconsider, stating that his complaint sought relief from judicial corruption. The motion was denied.

Respondent appealed from the dismissal order, stating that the appellate court’s Rule 23 order was due to fraud and corruption perpetrated by the Third District. The appeal was assigned to the Second District, which affirmed the dismissal. Respondent petitioned for rehearing, and again claimed the Rule 23 order was corrupt. He also accused the Second Circuit of lying and making misrepresentations about the 2011 complaint. His petition was denied. He then filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court, which was denied.

In September 2012, Respondent filed another complaint against Justices McDade, Wright, and O’Brien with the Circuit Court of Peoria County. This complaint was almost identical to the 2011 complaint that had been dismissed. It claimed that the justices tampered with public records, engaged in official misconduct, committed fraud and deceit on plaintiff and the public, and engaged in corruption of the legal process. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. Respondent’s motion to reconsider was pending at the time of hearing in this matter.

The attorney’s position

At hearing, counsel for the Administrator asked Respondent what specific facts or evidence he relied upon, at the time he made his accusations about the justices, to support the allegations. Respondent testified at great length about the basis of his accusations. His reason boils down to one thing: that the justices had numerous chances to correct their misstatements, but even after being told repeatedly that they were wrong, never did. Thus, Respondent believes that there could be no other reason for their failure to correct their misstatements than the improper purposes he attributed to them.

The outcome

Respondent may have genuinely believed that the justices acted improperly, but he did not actually know why they decided as they did, and therefore had no reasonable basis for the accusations he leveled at the justices. See Denison, 2013PR00001 (Review Bd.), at 3 (respondent’s subjective belief, even if genuine, is not sufficient to overcome Hearing Board’s finding that respondent made a knowingly false statement or acted with reckless disregard to the truth); Amu, 2011PR00106 (Review Bd.), at 9 (respondent disciplined for violating Rule 8.2(a) where he based his statements on his own subjective beliefs that the judges were corrupt rather than on any objective facts).

Accordingly, we affirm the Hearing Board’s finding that Respondent violated Rule 8.2(a) by making statements that disparaged the integrity of the appellate court justices with reckless disregard as to the statements’ truth or falsity. We also affirm the Hearing Board’s finding that Respondent’s conduct led to additional pleadings and proceedings and compromised the appearance of fairness and impartiality of the appellate court, and therefore was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).

(Mike Frisch)