The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct in his dealings with and on behalf of a client.

The first count alleges an inappropriate sexual relationship 

 In 2017, the State’s Attorney of DuPage County charged Mariam Gembala (“Gembala”) with the misdemeanor offense of criminal damage to property. The matter was docketed by the clerk of the circuit court as, People v. Mariam Gembala, DuPage County case number 17 CM 2718.

In April 2018, Respondent met with Gembala and she and Respondent agreed that Respondent would represent Gembala in matters relating to the defense of the pending criminal case in DuPage County.

 On or about April 26, 2018, Respondent appeared in DuPage County Circuit Court and filed his appearance as counsel for Gembala. At the time Respondent agreed to represent Gembala, he did not have an ongoing sexual relationship with her.

In May 2018, Respondent began to have sexual relations with Gembala, while he was still representing her in case number 17 CM 2718.

Between April 26, 2018 and April 17, 2019, Respondent represented Gembala in case number 17 CM 2718 by appearing in court, filing pre-trial motions, and arguing motions which resulted in the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s office moving to dismiss the matter. Subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal charges, Respondent filed a petition to expunge the criminal matter from Gembala’s record, which was granted.

The fact that the representation apparently succeeded is likely no defense.

Count two involves allegations that the attorney made a false representation 

On or about January 2019, Gembala was unemployed and told Respondent she was looking to obtain a residential lease on a condominium in Lombard with a monthly rent of $1,400. Respondent knew that Gembala was unemployed at the time he wrote the letter and that her employment history included being a pizza delivery person.

On or about January 2019, Gembala requested that Respondent falsely claim to be her employer in a work verification letter addressed to her prospective landlord so that Gembala could obtain the residential lease.

Respondent agreed to assist Gembala, and on January 30, 2019, Respondent prepared what purported to be an employment verification letter that Respondent caused to be printed on the letterhead stationary of the DiBenedetto & Kendall firm and sent that letter via his law firm email address to the prospective landlord. Respondent knew that the prospective landlord would rely on the information contained in the letter in assessing Gembala’s eligibility to rent the condominium and that the information Respondent provided in the letter was material to the landlord’s decision.

(Mike Frisch)