Under The Influence In Court And On The Road

The Illinois Review Board proposes a two-year suspension of an attorney

In May 2013, Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; he later was charged with and pled guilty to Aggravated DUI, as it was his third DUI conviction. In August 2014, Respondent was held in direct criminal contempt of court, after he appeared before a judge while intoxicated.

Based on these two incidents, the Administrator filed a two-count complaint against Respondent, alleging that he had engaged in criminal conduct that reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer, and, as to the second incident, had engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Following a hearing at which Respondent represented himself, the Hearing Board found that Respondent had engaged in the charged misconduct and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order of the Court. Respondent appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the charges against him.

Oral argument before this Board was scheduled for August 9, 2019. Counsel for the Administrator was present, but Respondent, who represented himself on appeal, did not appear.

The Review Board affirmed the Hearing Board’s misconduct findings, finding that the two convictions constituted conclusive proof of the charges that he had engaged in criminal conduct that reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. It further found that sufficient evidence supported the finding that he had engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Review Board agreed with the Hearing Board’s recommendation that Respondent be suspended for two years and until further order.

As to appearing in court under the influence

The judge whom Respondent appeared before while intoxicated testified about the effects of Respondent’s conduct, including that it created more work for him. Based on the judge’s testimony, the Hearing Board found that, “as a result of Respondent’s conduct, the court was diverted in dealing with its heavy court call, to address the situation created by Respondent’s appearance in an intoxicated state. That conduct led to contempt proceedings against Respondent and required the court to spend time dealing with Respondent’s misconduct.” (Hearing Bd. Report at 11-12.)

Respondent has failed to show that the Hearing Board’s finding was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. To the contrary, it is fully supported by the judge’s testimony, which the Hearing Board found to be credible. Because Respondent has failed to show that the Hearing Board’s finding that he engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice was against the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm it.

(Mike Frisch)