Howlin Mad

The Illinois Review Board recommends a 15-month suspension of an attorney

Count I pertains to Respondent’s representation of two sisters, Barbra Marks and Bettye Kelly, in matters related to the estate of their mother, Lillie Burnett (Burnett). (Tr. 114-15).

Burnett was the widow of blues musician Chester Arthur Burnett, known as “Howlin Wolf.”

In 1987, Burnett entered into a contract with The Cameron Organization, Inc. (Cameron), in which Cameron agreed to locate and collect royalty income from Howlin Wolf compositions in exchange for commissions. After Burnett’s death in May 2001, Marks and Kelly began receiving the royalties that Burnett received during her lifetime. Marks and Kelly terminated the contract with Cameron in July 2001. (Jt. Stip. at par. 1).

In April 2002, Cameron filed a petition for probate of will in the Circuit Court of Cook County, as a purported creditor of Burnett’s estate. In September 2002, Cameron filed a claim against the estate for unpaid commissions, alleging it was entitled to a 20 percent commission on royalties the estate or heirs actually received and would receive in the future. (Jt. Stip. at par. 2).

In 2003, Respondent agreed to represent Marks and Kelly in the Cameron litigation. (Jt. Stip. at par. 3). In November 2003, Cameron filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Burnett’s estate, Kelly and Marks. Cameron claimed damages in excess of $500,000.00. (Tr. 48). The probate and chancery matters were litigated in the circuit court and the appellate court for approximately nine years. Respondent represented Marks and Kelly throughout the litigation. (Tr. 220-21). Marks and Kelly paid Respondent roughly $20,000.00 for his representation. (Tr. 225).

The review board

After the litigation concluded, the sisters remitted funds to Respondent in order to pay the judgment that was entered against them. Respondent was not entitled to any portion of these funds, but knowingly and dishonestly caused some of the funds to be disbursed from his client trust account to himself. Before Respondent paid the full amount of the judgment, the balance of his client trust account fell below the amount he should have been holding.

There was misconduct found in two other matters.

Sanction

 we determine that a fifteen-month suspension will appropriately address Respondent’s dishonest conversion and mishandling of his client trust account, his neglect of two client matters, and the serious aggravating circumstances. Protection of the public is an important part of our consideration because of Respondent’s misuse of client funds and his troubling lack of candor with his clients and this Hearing Panel. It is our hope that this sanction will impress upon Respondent the importance of practicing in an ethical and honest manner and deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)