A complaint filed by the Illinois Administrator alleges that a attorney altered emails
From some time in 2017 to August 14, 2018, Respondent was employed by the McBreen, Kopko and Dayal, LLP, law firm in Chicago, where he provided legal services to the firm’s clients under the direction of the firm’s owner, Anjali Dayal (“Dayal”). Among the matters Respondent handled at the firm was the defense of a podiatrist in a 2015 wrongful death case that had been filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County by the estate of one of the podiatrist’s former patients (“the wrongful death case”).
By letter dated May 21, 2018, Timothy Rhatigan (“Rhatigan”), the attorney representing the plaintiff estate in the wrongful death case, notified Respondent that the plaintiff was demanding $1,000,000, which represented the full policy limits of the defendant’s malpractice insurance policy coverage, to settle the case. In that letter, Rhatigan also notified Respondent that the demand would remain open only until June 11, 2018, the date of a previously-scheduled case management conference.
Under Illinois law, a defendant’s refusal to accept a plaintiff’s demand for the limits of an insurance policy may, under certain circumstances, subject the insurance company to a claim that it acted in bad faith, allowing for an award in excess of the policy limits. Such a refusal may also expose the insured’s assets and income to a recovery in excess of the policy limits.
Based on her need for additional time to evaluate the case and to confer with the insurance company for the defendant, Dayal directed Respondent to contact Rhatigan and request an extension of the settlement demand deadline.
The extension was not agreed to and the complaint alleges
Respondent knew that his statement to the representative concerning the purported extension of the deadline was false, because he knew that Rhatigan had not, as of that time, agreed to extend the deadline.
Respondent and Rhatigan continued to exchange email messages about the wrongful death case between July 2, 2018 and July 16, 2018. On or before July 16, 2018, Respondent altered some of the previously-exchanged messages by adding language relating to purported discussions about the deadline, to create the false impression that Rhatigan had agreed to extend the deadline to August 31, 2018. Those statements, which had not been included in the original messages, included the following:
-
To a July 13, 2018 email Respondent sent to Rhatigan, Respondent added the words:
Also, I am still waiting on a response about our request for an extension of the policy demand, you had suggested the next case management but we never got a writing. We are on trial and really could use an answer.
- To a July 16, 2018 email from Rhatigan to Respondent, Respondent added the words:
Sorry I didn’t get back to you on the extension. I have been on trial as well. We will grant an extension on our policy demand to August 31, 2018. However, my client really would like to wrap up the case if possible.
On July 16, 2018, Respondent forwarded the email chain containing the altered messages to a representative of the insurance company that had issued the policy covering the defendant in the wrongful death case, along with the message: “Please see below. Plaintiff counsel has given us an extension on the policy demand until August 31, 2018.” On August 3, 2018, he forwarded the altered messages to Dayal.
14. Respondent’s alteration of the email messages, his forwarding of those altered messages to the representative and to Dayal, and his statement to the insurance company’s representative regarding the granting of the extension were false, because as of the time Respondent altered the messages, sent them to others and made the statement to the representative, Rhatigan had not agreed to extend the deadline.