Three Acts Of Dishonesty, Six Month Suspension Proposed

An Illinois Hearing Board proposes a six-month suspension of an attorney

We find that Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct on three separate occasions. First in response to an inquiry from Villwock’s representative in April 2009 regarding the status of Villwock’s case, Respondent falsely replied in an email that a default order had been entered by the court. In fact, the defendant had not yet been served, and no such order had been entered.

Second, as shown in the previous section, in May 2009 Respondent sent an invoice to Villwock that contained false entries regarding Respondent’s preparation of a motion for default, his attendance at a court hearing, and the court’s entry of a default order. None of those actions occurred. As Respondent admitted, his misrepresentations were intended to mislead Villwock into believing the case was progressing in Villwock’s favor.

Finally, in April 2010 Respondent prepared and sent to Parsons and Villwock a falsified court order, dated July 9, 2009, purporting to grant a motion for default judgment, and represented to them that the order had been entered by the court. Again, no such motion had been filed, nor had the court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Villwock. We find Respondent’s creation of the false order to be particularly reprehensible as it required deliberate and calculated plotting, as well as the duplication of a judge’s stamp and initials. It was not a spur-of-the-moment lapse in judgment, nor did Respondent claim that it was – indeed, he admitted that his actions were conscious and deliberate.

Based on the evidence presented and Respondent’s admissions, we find that Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct in 2009 and 2010 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) and 8.4(c).

Client impact

Dann Villwock testified he has been financially impacted by the loss of the money loaned to Bowen. He has five children, has not been on a vacation in nine years, and his plans for retirement have changed. On the advice of his attorney Steven Silvey, he brought a malpractice action against Respondent and, as a result, has been receiving payments of $1,000 per month from Respondent. To date, the payments have totaled less than $25,000. Villwock testified he does not want Respondent’s livelihood taken away as he believes Respondent’s actions were lazy rather than purposeful. (Tr. 47-48).

Villwock was shocked at Respondent’s actions, but the conduct of Silvey, who Villwock described as fantastic, has helped restore his opinion of the legal profession. (Tr. 42, 46, 48).

Sanction

Having considered the misconduct that occurred, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and relevant case law, we conclude that a censure would not be sufficient to address the purposes of the disciplinary process, nor would it have the desired effect of deterring other attorneys who are tempted to engage in highly deceptive conduct. For misconduct that continued for two years and included the deliberate creation of a phony court order, complete with judge’s stamp and initials, we believe a suspension of six months is warranted.

(Mike Frisch)