The Real Madeline M. Dinmont

Illinois is a jurisdiction that provides easy access to not only disciplinary charges but also posts the accused attorney’s answer to the allegations.

An attorney’s answer to a recently-filed complaint sets up an  interesting hearing and identifies potential problems of proof for the Administrator. 

The attorney is accused of purchasing a GoDaddy domain name firethejudge.com and creating a web site for an anti-retention campaign against a judge

Respondent admits the domain name contained in Paragraph 1 of Count I of the Complaint was purchased for the Judge Gleeson anti-retention campaign group from GoDaddy during a meeting sometime in September 2018 and a separate business account was created for the group. Moreover, Respondent did not “pay for domain name or other account purchases” as a collection was taken from the group. Respondent was given the money in which to purchase the domain so that none of her personal funds were used. Respondent also did not put the account in her name or on her law firm Go Daddy account because Respondent was not claiming ownership of the account. Members of the group possessed the username and passwords for all the internet accounts. Further answering, the group chose the name for the website by informal vote based upon news accounts reported in the press. Respondent denies that she personally created the website for her own use as the anti-retention group purchased and created the website.

As to the allegation that a Facebook page linked to the campaign was opened under the fictitious name  Madeline M. Dinmont

Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 12 of Count II of the Complaint that she created a Facebook page in the name of her dog, which is not a fictitious name, but has no recollection when it was created. Further answering Respondent states that the Facebook page was donated to the anti-retention group because Respondent was not utilizing it. Interactions with others would have been in the name of the group. Further answering, Respondent states that the Facebook page was not created for any improper purpose nor was it created for an anti-retention campaign. It was created to post photos of Respondent’s dog on Instagram.

She denies making the postings that the Administrator alleges were false accusations against the judge

Respondent denies posting anything as alleged in Paragraph 15 of Count II of the Complaint. More importantly, within 24 hours of this post Respondent had quit the anti-retention group over it. Respondent told them to take everything down. Respondent was frankly shocked to read what had been posted.

And denies giving misleading testimony in the bar investigation

It was never Respondent’s intention to mislead anyone. It was apparent to Respondent that the Administrator’s counsel was utilizing different technical terminology than the Respondent which caused so much confusion in the transcript. As stated previously, Respondent does not know which individual made what post to the website because all she did was provide the place cards or fill. When this confusion was identified, the testimony was clarified…

Respondent denies the allegation contained in Paragraph 21 of Count III of the Complaint as she has no recollection of ever “posting” anything on this web site. Further answering, as stated previously, what Respondent did was to program the website. Respondent denies the allegation that she posted the commentary concerning Judge Gleeson set forth in Counts I and II.

Allegations of misconduct in dealings with GoDaddy

Respondent admits having a telephone conversation with a Go Daddy customer service representative as alleged in Paragraph 29 of Count IV of the Complaint, but neither admits nor denies the allegation of how she identified herself due to lack of recollection. Further answering, Respondent would have identified herself according to the log-in credentials.

All the allegations of rule violations are denied. (Mike Frisch)