On May 23, 2001, Randall Baker (“Baker”) pled guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Peoria County case number 00-CF-1051-1. He was sentenced to intensive probation for six months, followed by probation with conditions for 48 months. Baker did not move to withdraw the guilty plea nor did he appeal the sentence. Baker completed his probation on or about May 23, 2005.

On June 21, 2001, Baker signed the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act Registration Form which identified Baker as a sexual predator. Baker initialed each paragraph on the form including the Duty to Register paragraph which indicated that “any person identified as a sexual predator must register every year for the period of their natural life.”

On or about August 10, 2017, Baker consulted Respondent about challenging the requirement that he register as a sex offender for life. Respondent represented to Baker that the registration requirement could be challenged by filing a post-conviction petition in state court.

On August 10, 2017, Respondent and Baker agreed that Respondent would represent Baker in filing a post-conviction petition in case 00-CF-1051-1. Baker and Respondent agreed that Baker would pay a flat fee of $10,000 for the representation. On or about August 10, 2017, Baker paid Respondent $10,000. The written fee agreement stated Respondent would “keep client informed as to progress and developments; and respond promptly to inquiries and communications.” At no time did Respondent negotiate Baker’s check in the amount of $10,000

Unfortunately, it is alleged, that a governing statute precluded any relief

At no time did Respondent explain to Baker that post-conviction relief was not available because: (1) his sentence was complete and he was not “imprisoned in the penitentiary,” (2) the three-year time limit for filing a post-conviction petition had long passed, and (3) an appeal was barred because Baker never moved to withdraw his guilty plea.

 Between October 12, 2017 and November 10, 2017, Baker sent several text messages to Respondent regarding the status of his case. Respondent agreed to discuss the case with Baker on October 26, 2017 by teleconference.

8. On October 26, 2017, Respondent sent a text message to Baker stating that her son was extremely ill and in the hospital, and that she needed to reschedule the teleconference.

9. Respondent’s statement to Baker that her son was sick and in the hospital was false because Respondent’s son was neither sick nor in the hospital.

10. At the time Respondent sent the text message to Baker stating that her son was sick and in the hospital, she knew that statement was false.

11. Between October 26, 2017 and November 3, 2017, Baker sent Respondent several text messages asking about the status of his case.

12. At no time between October 26, 2017 and November 2, 2017, did Respondent reply to Baker’s requests for information about the status of his case.

13. On November 3, 2017, Respondent sent Baker a text message stating “my phone was lost at the hospital and I’ve had to regroup and recover all of its info the last few days. Your petition is complete and I’m very pleased with it.”

14. Respondent’s statement to Baker that she lost her phone at the hospital was false because she had not been at the hospital, and she did not lose her phone.

15. At the time Respondent sent the text message to Baker stating that she lost her phone at the hospital, she knew that the statement was false.

16. Respondent’s statement to Baker that his petition was complete was false and misleading because as of November 3, 2017, Respondent had not completed Baker’s petition, nor had she explained to Baker that post-conviction relief was not possible.

17. At the time Respondent sent the text message to Baker stating she had completed his petition, Respondent knew that her statement was false.

18. Between November 4, 2017 and November 10, 2017, Baker sent Respondent multiple text messages asking about the status of his case.

19. At no time did Respondent reply to Baker’s text messages about the status of his case.

20. On December 11, 2017, Baker sent Respondent a letter, in which he asked Respondent to notify him by December 21, 2017, if she would continue as his attorney.

21. At no time did Respondent reply to Baker’s December 11, 2017 letter.

22. In February 2018, Baker stopped payment on the $10,000 check he had given to Respondent for attorney fees.