The Lease Of His Sins

Dishonest conduct merits a 90-day suspension, according to a recommendation of the Illinois Review Board

In 2015 and early 2016, Respondent leased office space at 55 East Jackson Boulevard in Chicago. He, in turn, sublet office space to other attorneys, including Carla Buterman, Eric Rakoczy, Phillip Brigham, Jason Epstein, and a few others. In March 2015, Respondent fell behind in his rent payments, and in September 2015, he stopped paying rent entirely. During that time, however, he continued accepting rent payments from his subtenants, who did not know that he had fallen behind in his own rent payments, and was struggling to pay his other bills.

On November 5, 2015, attorney Allen B. Glass filed an eviction lawsuit on behalf of the landlord against Respondent personally, his law office, and the law offices of Brigham, Epstein, Rakoczy, and “unknown occupants.” Glass testified at Respondent’s hearing that the subtenants had to be named in the lawsuit for possession purposes.

On November 6, Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy Tony R. Lampkin went to Respondent’s office and served the summons on him. He asked Respondent if he was authorized to accept service for the others on the service list, and Respondent said that he was. Lampkin thus indicated on the affidavit of service that he had left copies of the summonses and complaint with authorized persons. The subtenants were not in the office at the time Respondent accepted service. Respondent thinks he put the complaint and summonses in his desk drawer.

Buterman (who was not named in the complaint), Epstein, Brigham, and Rakoczy all testified that they did not authorize Respondent to accept service of process for them, and that Respondent did not tell them about the lawsuit or that they were named as defendants.

Respondent acknowledged that he accepted service on behalf of his subtenants; that he did not seek their authority to accept service on their behalf; and that he did not tell any of them that he had accepted service on their behalf.

On at least three occasions, Glass and Respondent appeared in court on the eviction lawsuit. Respondent did not tell the judge that the subtenants were not properly served. Glass testified that Respondent represented to the court that he was appearing on behalf of himself and the other named defendants. Respondent denied making any such representation and testified that the issue of who represented the subtenants never came up. The Hearing Board credited Glass’s testimony, not Respondent’s.

Respondent told Glass that he would be able to pay his back rent when he received a settlement from the City of Chicago. Glass agreed to continue the matter a few times to give Respondent a chance to present a payment plan. But the settlement that Respondent expected did not come through, and Respondent did not present a payment plan or pay any of his back rent.

Respondent told Glass that he would be able to pay his back rent when he received a settlement from the City of Chicago. Glass agreed to continue the matter a few times to give Respondent a chance to present a payment plan. The settlement that Respondent expected did not materialize and Respondent never presented a payment plan or paid any of his back rent.

Consequently, on January 21, 2016, the court entered an order of eviction and a judgment of $43,468.48 against Respondent and his law office subtenants. Respondent’s subtenants learned of the order of eviction around the time it was entered, or shortly thereafter.

Buterman testified that she learned about the impending eviction around January 19, when another subtenant, who was not named in the complaint, told her he thought they were being evicted. Respondent told Buterman about the eviction about a day later. He showed her a copy of the eviction complaint, after she asked to see it, but did not give her a copy. According to Buterman, Respondent said he had accepted service of the complaint on behalf of everyone in the office and then put the complaint in his drawer because he did not want anyone to know he had been served with the complaint. He told her that he did not notify her about the eviction because he feared the subtenants would leave before he had a chance to work things out with the landlord.

Rakoczy testified that Respondent told him about the eviction at the end of January. Respondent did not tell him that an order of possession had been entered or show him the complaint or summons. Rakoczy did not learn about the lawsuit or that he had been named as a defendant until after he had moved out in February. He learned about the lawsuit from either Brigham or Buterman.

Brigham testified that he learned of the eviction from Rakoczy, and that Respondent came to talk with him later that day or the next day. Respondent told Brigham he made a business decision not to notify anyone and that he thought he would be able to resolve the eviction lawsuit because he had expected some cases to settle. Respondent did not show or give Brigham a copy of the complaint, or tell Brigham that he was named as a defendant.

Epstein testified that he learned of the eviction when Respondent and another male subtenant came into his office and told him they had to move in ten to fourteen days. He did not recall Respondent saying that a lawsuit had been filed and that he had been named as a defendant. Respondent did not give Epstein a copy of the complaint or summons, or tell Epstein that he had accepted service on Epstein’s behalf. Epstein learned about the judgment after his conversation with Respondent.

After all of the tenants had moved out of 55 East Jackson, Rakoczy, Brigham, and Epstein filed motions to vacate the judgment against them, on the ground that service was improper because Respondent was not authorized to accept service for them. Glass agreed to vacate the judgment against the subtenants, and the court issued an order vacating the judgment against them.

Sanction

the cases cited by Respondent have less egregious misconduct, more mitigation, less aggravation, or some combination thereof, and do not support reprimand or censure here. Rather, we conclude that the 90-day suspension recommended by the Hearing Board is commensurate with Respondent’s misconduct, consistent with discipline that has been imposed for comparable misconduct, and sufficient to serve the goals of attorney discipline and deter others from committing similar misconduct.

A 90-day sit down for this pattern of deception strikes me as a very light sanction. (Mike Frisch)