“Probably Drug Money”
A recommendation for discipline from the Illinois Review Board
Respondent is a real estate broker and attorney who agreed to assist a client with the purchase of property. The client gave Respondent $45,000 in cash for the purchase. Respondent did not deposit the funds in a client trust account, but, instead, kept the cash in in her office, where it remained until someone took it. When the property purchase did not occur and the client asked for his money back, Respondent was unable to return his funds.
The ARDC filed a two-count complaint against Respondent, charging her with failing to keep her client reasonably informed of the status of a matter, failing to safeguard his funds, failing to promptly deliver his funds to him and provide an accounting upon his request, committing a criminal act by failing to report her receipt of the cash to the IRS, and engaging in dishonesty by taking actions that resulted in the violation of government regulations.
Following a hearing, the Hearing Board found that Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) by not properly depositing her client’s funds and Rule 1.15(d) for not promptly returning them or providing an accounting upon request. It also found that she violated Rule 8.4(c) by taking actions that prevented a bank from reporting a cash transaction of more than $10,000. It found that she did not commit the other charged misconduct. It recommended she be suspended for 18 months and until she completes the ARDC Professionalism seminar and makes restitution of $12,512.50 to her client for the legal fees he incurred in trying to recover his funds.
Respondent filed exceptions, arguing primarily that the Hearing Board erred in finding misconduct because it failed to recognize that the $45,000 was probably drug money and that, if she had deposited it, she could have been accused of assisting her client in criminal activity or of committing the crime of money laundering. She also argued that some of the Hearing Board’s factual findings, including that she engaged in dishonesty, were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Review Board affirmed the Hearing Board’s findings of misconduct, finding that Rule 1.15(a) was not discretionary and did not permit Respondent to keep her client’s funds in cash in her office; and that the Hearing Board’s remaining findings of fact and of misconduct were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The Review Board also agreed with the Hearing Board’s recommendation that, for her misconduct, Respondent be suspended for 18 months and until she completes the ARDC Professionalism seminar and reimburses her client for the legal fees he incurred in trying to recover his funds. It found, however, that the amount of restitution should be $5,803.75.
(Mike Frisch)