Illinois Court Bar Sanctions Announced

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered discipline in several bar matters yesterday.

Highlights from the announced orders

Mr. Baldwin, who was licensed in 1994, was suspended for two years and until further order of the Court. While acting as a court-appointed guardian, he misappropriated approximately $26,000 from a disabled person’s estate and filed a false accounting in the guardianship proceeding because he purposely omitted mention of the funds he had taken.

Mr. Carroll, who was licensed in 1976, was suspended for six months. He intentionally communicated with a represented criminal defendant without the knowledge and consent of that defendant’s appointed attorney. Mr. Carroll has been previously disciplined by the Supreme Court. The suspension is effective on June 14, 2018.

Mr. Fiandaca, who was licensed in 1991, was suspended for one year. He engaged in a conflict of interest when he represented two clients, both the borrower and lender, in a loan transaction, without making the required disclosures to the lender. Later, he engaged in a separate conflict of interest when he borrowed $75,000 from a client, again without making the required disclosures.  The suspension is effective on June 14, 2018.

Ms. Johnson, who was licensed in 2010, was suspended for one year and until further order of the Court. She committed the criminal act of knowingly possessing cocaine, a controlled substance. In addition, she agreed to represent a client in his defense of felony traffic matters, accepted a $1,000 fee, appeared several hours late for two court dates, failed to appear for two other court dates and failed to respond to multiple phone calls from the client. She also did not appear at her disciplinary hearing.

Mr. Johnson, who was licensed in 1980, was suspended for six months and until further order of the Court, with such suspension fully stayed by a two-year period of conditional probation.  During the course of representing the father of a child in an allocation of parental responsibilities proceeding, he targeted his opposing counsel with numerous e-mails and at least two pleadings in which he made inappropriate and intemperate remarks about her, her client, and the child that was the subject of the proceedings.

Mr. Meyer, who was licensed in 2011, was disbarred on consent. He pleaded guilty to three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child in Ogle County and was sentenced to serve ten years in the Illinois Department of Corrections for each count, 30 years in total, to be served consecutively, with 85 days credit based on his actual time in custody. The sentencing judge also ordered him to provide a DNA sample, submit to sexually transmitted disease and HIV testing, pay fees and costs and, once released, register as a sex offender for the duration of his natural life.

Mr. Miner, who was licensed in 1981, was suspended for two years. He dishonestly diverted to his own use a significant amount of funds belonging to a family friend. The suspension is effective on June 14, 2018.

Mr. Ripplinger, who was licensed in 1970, was censured. During the course of representing a client in a legal malpractice action, he concealed evidence from opposing counsel regarding his client’s injuries in a separate matter, as well as the existence of a lawsuit his client had filed related to those injuries. He also violated court orders during the ensuing jury trials by attempting to elicit testimony that the trial judge had determined was inadmissible.

Details as to these matters can be found at the user-friendly web page of the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.

From the complaint in the Arnim Johnson matter that led to a stayed six-month suspension with fitness and probation

On September 22, 2016, Respondent filed and served [opposing counsel] Ms. Renwick with a document entitled “Motion for Judgment on the Record, Extant, at the Time the September 7^th Hearing was Conducted, or in the Alternative, Judgment on the Supplemental Record, or in the Final Alternative, for Rehearing” in connection with case number 2016 D 8018. Respondent also filed and served Ms. Renwick with a 30-page memorandum of law in support of his motion (the “Memorandum”). A copy of the Memorandum is attached to this complaint as Exhibit One.

In the Memorandum, Respondent referred to Ms. Renwick as “Ms. Loudmouth,” and stated the following regarding her presence at the September 7, 2016 hearing:

Counsel for HINES, Ms. Renwick, hogged the stage, the spotlight, her client’s lines, tried to direct all the actors, hadn’t read the script, at least not with legal intelligence, and had no script of her own. She was a “performing” attorney, and even looked the part! ? But in the final analysis, in the words of one great African American poet, Ms. Renwick was “Like a dull knife, just ain’t cutting’; You just talkin’ loud and sayin’ nothing!”

Respondent attached a picture of the child who was the subject of the proceeding to the Memorandum. Respondent stated in the Memorandum that he “read” the child as “tacky,” a “HOT GHETTO MESS,” and “PEDOPHILE BAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.” (emphasis in original) Citing to a “[b]lack [j]oke,” Respondent wrote that the child “lookted [sic] like a weevehead, midget stripper, bout to jump on the pole and twirl.” In the Memorandum, Respondent stated that the child’s mother, Ms. Hines, perpetrated the obscenity because she was “creating a mini-me to accompany her as an accessory, like a big Louis Vuitton bag.” Respondent accused Ms. Hines of having low self-esteem, and stated that if anyone suffered from a learning deficiency, it was Ms. Hines and not her child.

Respondent also stated in the Memorandum that the child’s mother suffered from psychoses, and referred to Ms. Renwick’s argument in court as “bumbling incompetence.” He accused Ms. Renwick of “tootsie rolling” (which Respondent defines as “[l]ollygagging”), over Labor Day weekend, rather than working on the case.

Respondent included several acknowledgements at the end of the Memorandum including one to the “wratched, Antonin Scalia” for teaching Respondent to be “mean, vicious, and viperous, with sarcasm and wit.” Respondent also stated that while he could “try to do Richard A. Posner,” (referring to the Judge of the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit), Justice Posner “can’t even begin to try to possibly do me.”

On September 22, 2016, Ms. Renwick sent Respondent an email at 9:14 a.m. which, among other things, asked whether Respondent would be interested in participating in a settlement conference.

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent the following reply to Ms. Renwick’s 9:14 a.m. email at 9:29 p.m.: “Read the memo. You need to read instead of talk so damn much.”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent another reply to Ms. Renwick’s 9:14 a.m. email at 10:22 p.m. that stated “No!”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent forwarded to Ms. Renwick an email invitation to a Halloween party that he had received from Val and Frank Motley. Mr. Motley was a college professor of Ms. Renwick and the dean of admissions at her alma mater, Indiana University. In the email that he sent to Ms. Renwick at 10:22 p.m. that evening, Respondent included the message “You’re NOT invited.”

On September 22, 2016, at 10:30 p.m., Ms. Renwick replied to Respondent’s email regarding the Halloween party and advised him that she had a standing invitation to the Motleys’ party.

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent another reply to Ms. Renwick’s 9:14 a.m. email at 10:43 p.m. in which he stated the following: “Frank [Motley] told me to treat you like a real lawyer. So I decapitated you. ? Just who the hell do you think you were patronizing. Certainment non moi! Big mistake.”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent replied to his own 10:43 p.m. email at 10:50 p.m. in which he told Ms. Renwick to “get to work, or be quiet.”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent a reply to Ms. Renwick’s 10:30 p.m. email at 10:54 p.m. in which he stated that he could have Ms. Renwick disinvited from the Halloween party, and that Ms. Renwick may find herself disbarred. In that email, Respondent also inquired as to whether Ms. Renwick would be “wearing [her] weave” to the next court date.

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent another reply to Ms. Renwick’s 10:30 p.m. email at 10:58 p.m. in which he told Ms. Renwick that she may have met him in law school, but that Respondent was in disguise. In that email, Respondent also told Ms. Renwick that “[y]ou don’t seem to know too much.”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent another reply to Ms. Renwick’s 10:30 p.m. email at 11:05 p.m. His reply copied Frank Motley, and Respondent stated the following about Ms. Renwick: “She could be disbarred and doesn’t even realize it.”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent another reply to Ms. Renwick’s 10:30 p.m. email at 11:10 p.m. His reply copied Mr. Motley, and Respondent stated that Ms. Renwick was “out there seriously perpetratin’.”

On September 22, 2016, Respondent sent another reply to Ms. Renwick’s 10:30 p.m. email at 11:16 p.m. His reply copied Mr. Motley, and Respondent stated that Ms. Renwick was a “trip” and that she should attend the Motleys’ Halloween party as “herself, a real witch.”

On October 4, 2016, Respondent filed a “Motion to Continue Hearing for Temporary Relief, for Leave to File a Rule 137 Motion for Fees and Costs, and for Referral of Attorney Masah Samforay Renwick to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission” in case number 2016 D 8018 (the “Motion”). A copy of the Motion is attached to this complaint as Exhibit Two. In the Motion, Respondent asked the court to refer Ms. Renwick to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”) for violating Rules 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer’s services) and 7.2 (advertising) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

In his Motion, Respondent stated that Ms. Renwick “dresses for court like she’s going to a cocktail party, tottering about in five inch, open toed stilettos at 9:30 a.m., not p.m., obviously dazed and confused, too much leg, too much d?colletage, far too much mouth, and, in general just too much.” Respondent criticized Ms. Renwick’s attire and compared her to a bad imitation of Alexis Carrington Colby, a character from the 1980s television show “Dallas.” Respondent called Ms. Renwick a “walking joke performing as a lawyer,” a “total nightmare,” and an “affront to working women everywhere.”

On October 5, 2016, Respondent sent Ms. Renwick an email at 10:19 p.m., and he copied Frank Motley on that email. In that email, Respondent told Ms. Renwick that she had “let loose” her “big mouth” one time too many, and that she needed to “keep [her] big trap shut.” Respondent told Ms. Renwick that she had “f[*]cked with the wrong person,” and that he would “drag [her] through the mud and slam [her] against a brick wall, before handing [her] over to the ARDC for intense questioning.” He advised Ms. Renwick that she would need a lawyer to defend her license to practice law.

In his October 5, 2016 email, Respondent referred to Ms. Hines as “a whore – an educated whore – but a whore none the less,” and stated that going to church at this late date would not help her. He referred to Ms. Hines as a “looser” [sic] and a “trollop” and assured Ms. Renwick that she would “go down” with Ms. Hines.

Also in his October 5, 2016 email to Ms. Renwick, Respondent told her that she was in “deep doo doo” and didn’t even know it. Respondent referred to Ms. Renwick as “Uma Brincadeira Grande – A Big Joke in Portuguese,” and promised her that he would continue to write “exceptionally nasty things about [her] conduct as a lawyer” that would become part of the public record. Respondent warned Ms. Renwick to come to her senses before it was too late, and he threatened that if she continued to “play with” him, it would not end well.

On October 4, 2016 at 6:02 p.m., Respondent sent Ms. Renwick an email, copying Frank Motley, in which he invited her to “Temptation Walk down to the ARDC.”

On October 5, 2016, Respondent sent Ms. Renwick another email at 11:36 p.m. in which he, among other things, told her not to come “tootsie rolling up in court when the hearing date is set” and called her a “paragon of verbosity.”

On October 5, 2016, Ms. Renwick submitted a request for investigation into Respondent’s conduct to the ARDC. The ARDC sent a copy of the request to Respondent on October 6, 2016, asking him to respond to Ms. Renwick’s allegations. Respondent received a copy of the ARDC letter shortly thereafter.

On October 9, 2016, Respondent sent Ms. Renwick an email at 1:20 p.m. regarding the request for investigation that she had sent to the ARDC. In his email, Respondent stated that he “simply howled” when he read Ms. Renwick’s request for investigation. He called Ms. Renwick a “silly woman” and referred to her request for investigation as “mindless and baseless.” Respondent told Ms. Renwick that she didn’t know how to lawyer and that she was a “poseur of high pretence” [sic].

Ethics lesson: hit delete, not send. (Mike Frisch)