Sorry Doesn’t Cut It
An attorney must demonstrate his present fitness for reinstatement if the recommendation of an Illinois Hearing Board is adopted
In this case, the Administrator requested a suspension for three months and until further order of the Court. (Tr. 21). Respondent suggested a three months suspension followed by a term of probation with conditions. (Tr. 33).
The misconduct committed by Respondent was serious. He neglected the legal matters of two clients, and failed to reasonably communicate with those clients. He also failed to return unearned fees, despite the fact that he knows the unearned fees should be refunded.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[u]nethical conduct, especially in attorneys’ relationships with clients, must not and will not be taken lightly by the profession of by this court.” In re Gerard, 132 Ill. 2d 507, 541, 548 N.E.2d 1051(1989). The Respondent’s neglect and failure to communicate caused lengthy and needless delay resulting in his clients making numerous and unsuccessful attempts to communicate with him about the matters in which he had the duty to act diligently and promptly. The Supreme Court has pointed out that “[p]erhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.” In re Smith, 168 Ill. 2d 269, 283, 659 N.E.2d 896 (1995).
The Supreme Court has stated that the “failure [of an attorney] to promptly attempt to make restitution of funds wrongfully retained generally does not enhance the confidence which the public and [the Court] place in the attorney.” In re Fox, 122 Ill. 2d 402, 410, 522 N.E. 1229 (1988).
Respondent’s misconduct also included the failure to comply with requests from the ARDC and knowingly lying to the ARDC in two separate disciplinary matters. The Supreme Court has emphasized the seriousness of an attorney failing to fully cooperate in a disciplinary matter and, particularly, by providing false information to the ARDC. See In re Samuels, 126 Ill. 2d 509, 531, 535 N.E.2d 808 (1989); In re Bell, 147 Ill. 2d 15, 39, 588 N.E.2d 1093 (1992); In re Nadenbush, 2011PR00077, M.R. 25622 (Jan. 18, 2013) (Hearing Bd. at 34). In Bell, the Court described an attorney’s giving of a “false written response to the Administrator” and then repeating the false response in a “sworn statement to the Administrator” as conduct demonstrating an “unfitness of an attorney to practice law.” Bell, 147 Ill. 2d at 39.
In mitigation, the Respondent has been a licensed attorney since 1979, and has not been previously disciplined. Also, Respondent acknowledged that he engaged in misconduct and said he is “sorry.”
In aggravation, Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Complaint, which he was required to do by Commission Rule 231. Also, because of his failure to cooperate with the ARDC, Respondent caused needless delay and additional work for Administrator’s counsel and investigator. The ARDC found it necessary to have an investigator travel to Henry County to personally serve Respondent in order to get him to comply.