A Trip To The Bank
The Illinois Review Board has recommended a suspension of one year and until further court order for misconduct in two matters.
One involved the representation of a client seeking to end a 45-year marriage.
The client was admitted to a psychiatric facility after threatening to kill her spouse
In November 2017, Respondent appeared at the nursing home on three occasions to take Anna out of the nursing home. During the first two visits, he met with Melissa Samonte, the psychiatric rehab director. Respondent said that Anna needed to pay his attorney’s fees. Samonte told Respondent that medical records showed Anna’s decision-making was lacking due to delusional thinking and dementia, and Anna was not capable of making financial decisions. Despite that, during Respondent’s third visit, Respondent took Anna out of the nursing home. He took her to various places including her bank. While they were out, Respondent obtained a check from Anna for $3,500. According to Respondent’s testimony, he was owed $3,100 in attorney’s fees, and the additional $400 was for future services.
He was discharged as counsel at the direction of Anna’s daughter as attorney-in-fact.
Nevertheless he persisted
After Respondent was fired, he filed a series of pleadings in the divorce case, asserting that he represented Anna, contesting Rebecca’s authority to act under the Power of Attorney, challenging Dr. Didenko’s conclusions, and accusing opposing counsel in the divorce case of misconduct. The judge in the divorce case ruled that Rebecca had authority to act under the Power of Attorney, dismissed Respondent from the case, and imposed a monetary sanction of $3,000 against Respondent. At the time of the disciplinary hearing, Respondent had not paid that $3,000. Respondent acknowledged that Anna did not authorize him to perform any work on her behalf after November 7, 2017.
He was disqualified and sanctioned in an unrelated matter.
The Hearing Board found that Respondent engaged in a conflict of interest, in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2), by drafting a will for Broomfield that nominated Respondent as the executor, and a Power of Attorney that named him as the attorney-in-fact; and Respondent engaged in a conflict of interest, in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2), when he drafted the promissory note/letter in which Broomfield promised to purchase a house for Shin, because Respondent had previously represented each of those individuals.
The Review Board affirmed findings of misconduct in both matters.
Sanction
In mitigation, we recognize that Respondent has engaged in no other misconduct during his 30 years of practice. However, there are substantial aggravating factors in this case. In particular, Respondent took advantage of Anna, who had been diagnosed with dementia, by removing her from the nursing home without her family’s knowledge or permission, and keeping her out for an entire day, in order to obtain money from her, despite the nursing home staff’s
admonishments that Anna had dementia and could not make decisions.
Respondent’s misconduct caused extreme emotional distress for Anna’s family, at a time when they were already trying to cope with Anna’s dementia, and for Broomfield’s family at a time when they were grieving. Respondent’s misconduct delayed the eventual dismissal of Anna’s divorce case and resulted in approximately $20,000 in needless attorney’s fees for Anna’s family. Similarly, in the Broomfield matter, Respondent’s misconduct caused protracted proceedings and resulted in approximately $28,000 in needless attorney’s fees and expenses for Broomfield’s family. Moreover, unnecessary time and energy were expended by Anna’s family, Broomfield’s family, and the judges and attorneys involved in those cases.
His failure to acknowledge misconduct also impacted on the proposed sanction. (Mike Frisch)