Encore

The Illinois Administrator has charged an attorney with unauthorized access to a former employer’s computers

On January 30, 2015, QLK terminated Respondent’s employment and immediately discontinued Respondent’s access to its computer systems, including the Encore internal database.

At the time of Respondent’s termination, Respondent claimed that QLK owed him at least $55,000 in unpaid commissions for the work he had done while employed at QLK. QLK determined not compensate Respondent for the claimed commissions.

On February 9, 2015, Respondent sent an email to Roger Quick, QLK’s President and CEO, demanding that QLK pay him the $55,000 in commissions that he claimed he was owed. QLK again determined not to agree to Respondent’s request for payment of the commissions.

In February 2015, Respondent sought the advice of a staff attorney at the Law Offices at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Jaz Park (“Park”), who asked Respondent to provide her with specific details regarding the commissions he claimed to have earned, including dates and dollar amounts.

 In February 2015, in order to provide Park with the details she had requested regarding his claimed commissions, Respondent sought assistance from his friend and then-QLK associate, Cheryl Wilson. As a QLK employee, Wilson continued to have access to QLK’s computer system, including the Encore database. Respondent asked Wilson to search the database for information about the commissions QLK allegedly owed him, and she agreed to provide him with a spreadsheet listing information about the commissions Respondent claimed to have earned.

On February 18, 2015, via text message, Respondent asked Wilson if she had finished compiling information about the commissions Respondent claimed he was owed. Wilson responded that she had not completed her review of the QLK database, and had not yet made a spreadsheet. Respondent then instructed Wilson on which tabs she should click in the Encore system to access information QLK’s payments and dates, so that she could compile the list of claimed commissions that Respondent had requested. On that day, Wilson also offered to allow Respondent to log in to Encore after 5:00 pm, using her log-in information to access the information he was seeking. Respondent agreed to do so.

As of February 19, 2015, using Wilson’s log-in information, Respondent entered the Encore database and, without downloading data, tried to confirm the amount of money in commissions he thought he was owed by conducting approximately four searches. Using Wilson’s log-in information, Respondent accessed QLK’s clients’ names and the amounts and dates of any payments they had made to QLK. Respondent then provided his attorney, Park, with the information he had accessed through his searches in the database. Also on that day, Respondent texted Wilson to tell her to tell her that he had used her log-in information and that it “worked perfect.” [sic]

At the time that Respondent accessed Encore, he knew that QLK had eliminated his access to the Encore system and that it had not subsequently authorized him to have access to the database, to use or view information contained therein. By using Wilson’s log-in information, Respondent had misrepresented his identity in order to access the database.

At the time that Respondent accessed Encore, Respondent knew that the information he gained from his searches in the Encore database had potential evidentiary value in his dispute with QLK.

On February 24, 2015, Park, Acuna’s attorney, sent a demand letter to QLK’s outside counsel, Caesar Tabet, of the law firm of Tabet, DiVito and Rothstein, LLC. In that letter, Park advocated on Respondent’s behalf that QLK should resolve Respondent’s claim of owed commissions, and Park cited to the information that Respondent had gained from his searches in the Encore database using Wilson’s log-in information.

The conduct allegedly violated Rules 4.4(a) and 8.4(c). (Mike Frisch)