CLE Suspension Unauthorized Practice Draws Proposed 60-Day Suspension

A 60-day suspension has been proposed by an Illinois Hearing Board for an attorney’s practice while suspended for failure to comply with post-admission CLE obligations for new lawyers. 

Illinois requires attorneys to obtain minimum continuing legal education (MCLE) credits and report completion of those credits to the MCLE Board of the Supreme Court. Attorneys must complete the credits and report compliance within certain time limits. The MCLE Board oversees and manages the MCLE program. S.Ct. Rs. 792, 793, 794, 796.

Specific requirements apply during the first year after an attorney’s admission to practice. Newly-admitted attorneys must complete fifteen hours of MCLE credit. For most newly-admitted attorneys, including Respondent, those credits must include a Basic Skills Course, which covers professional responsibility topics and provides at least six hours approved for professional responsibility credit. S.Ct. R. 793.

Respondent was licensed to practice law in Illinois in November 2015. (Tr. 157-58). Therefore, Respondent had to complete his MCLE credits by November 30, 2016 and report completion by December 31, 2016. (Adm. Ans. at pars. 3, 4).

Respondent did not do either.  Consequently, on January 6, 2017, the MCLE Board sent Respondent a notice of noncompliance. That notice informed Respondent that he had until March 2, 2017 to complete the required MCLE credits, report completion to the Board and pay a $250 late fee, or his name would be referred to the ARDC for removal from the master roll. (Tr. 103-106; Adm. Ex. 3). The master roll is a list maintained by the ARDC of all attorneys admitted and authorized to practice law in Illinois. (Tr. 141).

As of March 2, 2017, Respondent had not reported compliance. Therefore, on March 3, 2017, the MCLE Board notified the ARDC that Respondent had not complied with MCLE requirements. At that time also, although he had called the Board, Respondent had not paid the late fee or requested a waiver in writing, as is required. (Tr. 66-68, 108-109, 146, 153).

On March 16, 2017, the ARDC Registrar’s office sent Respondent a notice of impending removal, stating that Respondent would be removed from the master roll if he did not bring himself into compliance by April 14, 2017. (Tr. 146, 153).

As of April 19, 2017, Respondent had not reported compliance to the MCLE Board, and he was removed from the master roll. (Tr. 147-49; Adm. Ex. 11 at 2).

Respondent was employed as an Assistant McLean County State’s Attorney from July 5, 2016 through November 29, 2017. (Tr. 158). Between April 19, 2017 and November 21, 2017, Respondent routinely appeared in court on behalf of the State and was responsible for about 300 cases at a time. He practiced law during that time. (Tr. 169-71).

The hearing board describes the various notices and communications between respondent and the MCLE officials.

Respondent identified stress, resulting from two situations, as a factor contributing to his failure to meet the December 31, 2016 reporting deadline. Respondent’s wife was pregnant with twins who faced serious potential health problems. After the children were born, in June 2017, they remained in neonatal intensive care for six weeks. Respondent also described unwelcome sexual advances from a co-worker, extending through November 22, 2017, about which Respondent later initiated legal action against his former employer. (Tr. 178, 213-14, 216-18, 225, 268; Resp. Exs. 1 – 6).

McLean County Assistant Public Defender Jon McEldowney and Bishop Jason Heiner testified favorably about Respondent’s character and reputation. Assistant Peoria County State’s Attorney Shashi Vishwanath also testified, describing a brief acquaintance with Respondent.

Sanction

Respondent continued to practice for seven months after he was removed from the master roll. Over that time, Respondent appeared in court regularly and handled hundreds of cases. The time during which the conduct continued and the number of matters handled are relevant in determining the sanction. See In re Boudreau, 2018PR00089, M.R. 29780 (May 21, 2019).

In imposing discipline, the system seeks, in part, to maintain the integrity of the profession and safeguard the administration of justice from reproach. Edmonds, 2014 IL 117696 at par. 90. We are particularly mindful of these concerns here, given the nature of Respondent’s employment. The fact that an Assistant State’s Attorney would practice law while not authorized to do so, especially over time, carries a particular risk of diminishing the public’s perception of the integrity of the legal system.

The attorney’s state of mind is relevant to the sanction. In re Thomas, 2012 IL 113035, par. 77. According to Respondent, he believed he had complied with MCLE requirements, adequately reported compliance and did not know he had been removed. Respondent also suggested he was misled by an MCLE Board employee into believing he was in compliance.

These circumstances could have been mitigating, and might have diminished the significance of the extent of Respondent’s unauthorized practice, if we had found Respondent’s position credible. We did not. Our observations of Respondent’s demeanor, as well as other evidence which we did find credible, contributed to our assessment of Respondent’s credibility.

The Supreme Court Rules clearly specify the MCLE requirements for newly-admitted admitted attorneys, the proper method for reporting compliance and the consequences of failing to comply. S.Ct. Rs. 793, 796. Prior to the deadline, the MCLE Board sent Respondent notice of the requirements for newly-admitted attorneys, requirements with which Respondent was required to comply, regardless of whether or not he received that notice. S.Ct. R. 796(a) (2)…

We do not want to unduly penalize Respondent, particularly early in his career. On the other hand, we found it imperative to recommend a sanction which will impress upon

Respondent the seriousness of his misconduct and the importance of fully complying with his duties as an attorney.

For these reasons, we recommend that Respondent…be suspended for sixty days.

(Mike Frisch)