No Monitoring Dishonesty
The Illinois Review Board recommends a two-year suspension of an attorney for dishonest conversion
Probation is not appropriate when an attorney engages in intentional misconduct and dishonesty, because those behaviors cannot be monitored for compliance and improvement. See, e.g., In re Odom, 01 CH 69 (Review Bd., Sept. 10, 2004), at 18, petition for leave to file exceptions denied, M.R. 19772 (May 19, 2005) (noting that “[i]ntentional deceit for an attorney’s own purposes is not a condition which can be easily monitored,” and declining to impose probation where attorney’s misconduct was intentional and where his mishandling of client funds was not a result of failure to understand how to manage a law practice); In re Tyler, 98 CH 74 (Review Bd., May 17, 2000), at 14-15, petition for leave to file exceptions denied, M.R. 16873 (Sept. 22, 2000) (declining to recommend probation for intentional dishonesty, stating: “[W]e do not believe that intentional misconduct ? can be successfully monitored by probation”).
It is clear from the Hearing Board’s findings that the bulk of Respondent’s misconduct, which occurred in the Lowe and Munz matters, was intentional and dishonest. With respect to those two matters, the Hearing Board found that “[t]he totality of Respondent’s conduct, including his ongoing and repeated reckless behavior with regard to managing and maintaining his client trust account,” supported a dishonesty finding. (Hearing Bd. Report at 15-16.) It found incredible his claim that he thought he was using his own funds, based upon the fact that he repeatedly drew the balance in the client trust account down to amounts significantly less than what he was required to maintain. It also found that Respondent’s failure to investigate BCBS’s repeated inquiries about its lien showed “deliberate indifference to his ethical obligations in handling client and third-party funds.”Id. at 17.) It thus concluded that the evidence established that Respondent was using client and third-party funds in his trust account to cover business and personal financial obligations, and that his acts were intentional and established a pattern of recklessness in violation of Rule 8.4(c)
And not sloppy bookkeeping
In fact, the evidence showed that Respondent had specific office procedures in place to handle settlements and disbursements of funds to client and lienholders, but chose not to follow them. Instead, he chose to leave large amounts of his attorney fees in his client trust account, to withdraw funds from his client trust account to meet personal obligations, and not to follow up on BCBS’s inquiries about its lien.
Or mitigated by depression
Respondent presented no evidence at hearing to show that his depression had significantly improved or that he was actively engaged in treatment for his depression. To the contrary, the Hearing Board noted Respondent’s testimony that he believed he was impaired by depression to the extent that he should not have been practicing law from 2010 to 2012, and found that, although his condition had improved since then, he still suffered from depression and was still taking medication. (Hearing Bd. Report at 29.) It is also apparent from Respondent’s testimony that, as of the time of his hearing, Respondent had not undertaken any of Dr. Henry’s treatment recommendations and was not yet receiving treatment for his depression or alcohol use. (See Report of Proceedings at 363-365.) The Hearing Board’s recommended conditions of probation also reflect that Respondent had not yet begun treatment by the time of his hearing. (See Hearing Bd. Report at 46 (stating that Respondent “shall begin a course of treatment and medication management with a psychiatrist or other qualified mental health professional?”) (emphasis added).)