False Statements Draw Lengthy Proposed Suspension

An Illinois Hearing Board proposes a three-year suspension of an attorney for misconduct in his law school application and after his admission to practice

In 2005, Respondent took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and applied, unsuccessfully, to the University of Chicago Law School. In 2006, Respondent retook the LSAT and obtained a higher score. He also reapplied to the University of Chicago Law School and was admitted. (Answer to First Amended Complaint (Ans.) at pars. 2, 3, 4; Tr. 63-64).

Respondent submitted an addendum with his 2006 law school application, in which he stated that, in 1999, he was diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma, a form of stomach cancer. He described extensive treatment he purportedly received, including multiple surgeries and radiation therapy. According to Respondent’s statements, that illness and treatment delayed him in completing master’s degree and caused him to withdraw from a Ph.D. program. Respondent also stated that, when he first took the LSAT, he had undergone surgery and was receiving radiation treatment, which affected his health. Respondent reported that, by 2006, he was in good health and scored well when he retook the LSAT. (Ans. at pars. 5, 6).

Those statements were not true. As Respondent knew, he had not been diagnosed with or treated for leiomyosarcoma. (Ans. at pars. 7, 8, 9; Tr. 65).

In fact, mental health symptoms had interfered with Respondent’s education. Respondent testified that he misrepresented his medical condition in order to explain the gap in his academic record. While that gap occurred because of illness, Respondent was embarrassed to have a mental health problem. Respondent used cancer to explain the gap, as he considered cancer less shameful. (Tr. 68, 98, 102-108, 111, 121-24).

And on his bar application

When he applied for admission to the Illinois bar, Respondent did not disclose the false statements he had made on his law school application. By that conduct, Respondent violated Rule 8.1, which applies to bar applicants. The Administrator did not prove Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c), as that Rule applies only to lawyers and Respondent was not a lawyer at the time.

After admission

In communicating with opposing counsel and in a motion for extension of time, Respondent represented that medical problems prevented him from meeting discovery deadlines. No such problems existed. The Administrator proved Respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d)…

Shortly before two scheduled depositions, Respondent informed opposing counsel that he had a family emergency and later elaborated that his son needed surgery. Those statements were false. Respondent used those statements, in communicating with opposing counsel and court personnel and in his motion to extend discovery, as his basis for seeking additional time. Respondent thereby violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).

In the bar investigation

During his sworn statement to the ARDC, Respondent stated that Harris was the only case in which he misrepresented the reasons he needed an extension. As Respondent knew, he also made false statements in seeking extensions in other cases. Respondent violated Rules 8.1(a) and 8.4(c).

Also

In emails to opposing counsel and pleadings filed in court, Respondent represented that health problems, medical treatment and a funeral prevented him from meeting deadlines and appearing at a deposition. These statements were false. Respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d)…

Respondent sent emails to co-counsel regarding a person Respondent had purportedly retained as an expert. Respondent had not retained an expert, and the statements were false. Respondent thereby violated Rule 8.4(c).

Mitigation

Respondent’s academic background was very impressive, with prestigious scholarships and extremely favorable recommendations from professors. Before and during law school, Respondent engaged in volunteer activities, working with a horse shelter, a program serving homeless mothers and their children, high school students, an animal shelter and groups advancing human and animal rights. (Tr. 112-15, 129-31; Resp. Ex. 1).

As to the why

Stafford C. Henry, M.D. evaluated Respondent for purposes of these proceedings. In 2017, when they first met, Respondent told Dr. Henry that he had not experienced recurring depression since he began practicing law. Dr. Henry met with Respondent again in 2019, and his diagnosis was dysthymia, recurrent major depressive disorder and a personality disorder. (Tr. 258-60, 272-76; Resp. Exs. 5, 6).

Dr. Henry concluded that Respondent presented a very complex case. Based on Dr. Henry’s testimony, Respondent was capable of “goal directed, organized, self-serving behavior,” but was also “thoughtful, smart, kind, compassionate and likeable.” (Tr. 279). Dr. Henry noted that, given his personality disorder, Respondent might not accurately perceive his circumstances. However, Dr. Henry also testified that Respondent’s personality disorder was not a malignant one and that Respondent was not a person without regard for the truth. (Tr. 277-78, 296).

Dr. Henry did not see a causal connection between Respondent’s mental health issues and his misconduct. However, he still considered Respondent’s mental condition relevant to the case. Dr. Henry recommended that Respondent obtain proper psychiatric care, including psychotherapy and medication changes. In Dr. Henry’s opinion, if he followed those treatment recommendations, Respondent should, from a mental health standpoint, be able to adhere to ethical norms. (Tr. 278-79, 288-91).

Respondent has not pursued the care Dr. Henry suggested or sought psychotherapy. Respondent was reluctant to pursue psychotherapy, at least partly because he feared that information he revealed in therapy might be disclosed. (Tr. 87-88, 173, 176-78, 181-82, 290-91)

Sanction

We recommend that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court. The nature and repetition of Respondent’s misconduct warrants a significant sanction, and the circumstances as a whole require that Respondent prove fitness before he resumes practice. The mitigating factors present, particularly Respondent’s dedication to a disadvantaged clientele, persuaded the panel not to recommend disbarment.

The ABA Journal reported on the charges and linked to our earlier post. (Mike Frisch)