Recovery Progress Draws Favorable Reinstatement Recommendation
An Illinois Hearing Board proposes reinstatement of a suspended attorney.
The attorney has been since 2006 after an incident at an airport
Petitioner was licensed to practice law in 1986. In October 2002, while intoxicated at a Chicago airport, she became involved in an altercation with her traveling companion. When confronted by police officers, she struck and kicked them. Thereafter, the Administrator filed a complaint alleging Petitioner engaged in battery and disorderly conduct with respect to the police officers. At Petitioner’s disciplinary hearing in early 2005, two psychiatrists were of the opinion that she suffered from adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, alcohol abuse in remission, and personality disorder. (Adm. Ex. 4).
On September 21, 2006 the Supreme Court suspended Petitioner for 30 months and until further order of the Court, with the suspension stayed as long as she complied with conditions including treatment by a psychiatrist, abstaining from alcohol use, submitting to random substance testing, providing reports to the Administrator, and adhering to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Petitioner violated her probation conditions and as a consequence, on May 31, 2007 the Court revoked Petitioner’s probation and suspended her from the practice of law for 30 months and until further order of the Court. Petitioner had previously been censured for making false statements and filing a frivolous motion. (Adm. Exs. 1-4, 6-11, 15, 21, 22).
On July 20, 2012 Petitioner filed her first petition for reinstatement. The Hearing Board recommended denial of the petition, and the Court approved that recommendation. In re Hayes, 2012PR00083, M.R. 25460 (Sept. 21, 2015). (Adm. Exs. 39, 40).
The record led to a favorable recommendation with conditions
In order to ensure the protection of the public, assist Petitioner in maintaining her sobriety, and provide her with guidance to practice law responsibly, we recommend that her return to practice be subject to stringent conditions, chief of which will be her continued participation in AA programs, submission to random testing, and regular treatment with a therapist. We recognize that Petitioner’s financial situation has been an impediment to seeking psychotherapy, but with her stable employment and expressed willingness to comply with any condition placed upon her, we anticipate she will be able to meet that requirement. We also recommend that she work with a supervising attorney who will monitor her practice and review her court filings, especially any she brings on her own behalf. Further, she will have to comply with the MCLE requirements for reinstated attorneys, as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 791(f).
In light of Petitioner’s long history of difficulties and her relapse in 2015, we recommend that the conditions remain in effect for a lengthy period of time. A five-year period has been imposed in other reinstatement cases and we believe it is appropriate here. See In re Lange, 2012PR00063, M.R. 25388 (Sept. 25, 2013); In re Hildebrand, 2015PR00015, M.R. 27265 (Sept. 22, 2016). Most important, Petitioner must understand that any failure to abide by the conditions will be immediate grounds for revoking the reinstatement.
(Mike Frisch)