An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended reinstatement of a petitioner despite the objection of the Administrator.

The misconduct involved crimes related to his drug addiction

During the 1990s, Stanley Heller was a lawyer at Petitioner’s law firm, Thomas R. Cirignani & Associates. Heller, who was also a physician, kept blank prescription slips in his office. Between October 1995 and December 1999, Petitioner removed prescription slips from Heller’s office, without Heller’s authority, and wrote at least twenty-five false prescriptions for himself, primarily for Vicodin. He signed Heller’s name to the prescriptions, tendered the prescriptions to a pharmacy, and received controlled substances for his personal use. Between October 1995 and December 1999, Petitioner had the false prescriptions refilled at least thirty-seven times. On at least thirty-three occasions, he allowed the pharmacy to submit an insurance claim for at least part of the cost of the controlled substances. Petitioner’s conduct was causally related to his addiction to Vicodin. (Tr. 174, 235-36, Adm. Ex. 2).

As a result of the foregoing conduct, the Administrator filed a complaint against Petitioner alleging he committed a criminal act and engaged in dishonest conduct. On January 29, 2002 the Supreme Court suspended Petitioner, on consent, for twenty-four months, with the suspension stayed after the first six months by probation. As part of the probation conditions, Petitioner was to abstain from using controlled substances unless directed and prescribed by a physician and comply with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. (Adm. Ex. 2).

On June 4, 2002 Petitioner was arrested after he accepted and opened an international mail parcel containing Ecstasy and Xanax. As a result of that conduct, on August 14, 2002 the Court stayed Petitioner’s disciplinary probation and his two-year suspension was continued until further order of the Court. Petitioner ultimately pled guilty to possession of Ecstasy, a Class 1 felony, and was sentenced to forty-eight months of probation and fined $5,000. On July 10, 2003, the Administrator filed a one-count complaint against Petitioner based on the conduct that gave rise to his guilty plea. On March 18, 2005, the Court suspended Petitioner, who was still on suspension for his earlier misconduct, for one year until further order of the Court. The “until further order of Court” provision was added because Petitioner had not experienced an extended period of meaningful recovery from his addictive disorder,