Reinstatement Not Favored After Murder For Hire Scheme Conviction

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends that a petition for reinstatement be denied.

Petitioner was struck from the rolls in the wake of a 2012 federal conviction involving a murder for hire scheme.

He practiced family and matrimonial law in a small firm

Between 2008 and 2011, Petitioner and his firm represented Brian Hegg in a parentage matter and a subsequent custody matter involving Hegg’s child with his former girlfriend, Megan Wangall. Petitioner and Wangall became romantically involved while the custody matter was pending. On February 10, 2011, Petitioner informed his colleague, Terry Mohr, of his involvement with Wangall. Mohr advised him to immediately withdraw from representing Hegg. Petitioner then informed Hegg he would withdraw as his counsel because of his involvement with Wangall. Petitioner filed a motion for leave to withdraw, which the Court granted in March 2011.

He had “irrational” thoughts about Hegg

Petitioner made multiple attempts in 2011 to hire someone to murder Hegg. Some of the facts related to his efforts are not entirely clear. Initially, he asked a high school acquaintance to confront and “intimidate” Hegg. According to Petitioner, the acquaintance and another person then made vague threats against Petitioner and demanded $10,000 to leave Petitioner alone. Petitioner obtained $10,000 from his mother and made the payment. He denies that the payment was in exchange for hurting Hegg. (Tr. 86-90). Petitioner testified that his contact with the high school acquaintance occurred in mid-July 2011. However, Petitioner made statements to at least two individuals, some of which were recorded, indicating that he paid two people in February 2011 to kill Hegg, but they took his money and did not complete the murder. (Adm. Ex. 15). Petitioner testified here that these statements were not true, and he made them because he was trying not to look scared. (Tr. 94-95).1

Jan Dahlberg testified that, during the spring or summer of 2011, Petitioner asked to borrow $10,000 because he had asked some acquaintances to beat up Hegg and they threatened to report Petitioner to the ARDC. Dahlberg’s understanding was that the acquaintances would not report Petitioner if he paid them. (Tr. 307-309). Petitioner denied telling his mother that he was paying off someone to prevent a report to the ARDC. According to Petitioner, he told his mother he had “gotten in trouble by speaking to this guy” who had turned on him and threatened to hurt him. (Tr.
515-16).

Hegg filed a bar complaint and 

In late July 2011, Petitioner asked a neighbor if he could help him “get rid of” Hegg in exchange for $25,000. Petitioner told the neighbor he wanted to prevent Hegg from giving damaging testimony in an upcoming proceeding. He also told the neighbor he had hired people in February of 2011 to hurt Hegg. Petitioner testified he made up these stories to try to move things along and not appear scared. Petitioner gave the neighbor Hegg’s name, address, and place of employment. (Tr. 91-93).

Unbeknownst to Petitioner, the neighbor contacted law enforcement. The neighbor then gave Petitioner the name and phone number of an individual who would, purportedly, do the murder but who was, in fact, an undercover agent, “Chris.” Petitioner arranged to meet Chris on August 1, 2011. Whenever he called Chris, he used a prepaid or “burner” phone that was not traceable to Petitioner. (Tr. 498-99).

At their first meeting, Petitioner agreed to pay Chris $20,000 to kill Hegg. Petitioner was recorded telling Chris that Hegg was bothering him and his family and had “dirt” on him that could ruin his career. Petitioner stated he had gone to someone else six months ago to do the job but had been “ripped off.” He agreed to pay Chris $1,500 up front and provided a description of Hegg.

On August 2, 2011, Petitioner met with Chris again and paid him $1,500. They discussed how and when the remaining payments would be made. At this meeting, which was audio and video recorded, Chris told Petitioner he had put things in motion and would make the murder look like a robbery. Petitioner told Chris he would be at a fair to give himself an alibi. (Tr. 499-505).

On August 4, 2011, Petitioner met Chris again and paid him $7,000 in cash, which he had obtained from his grandmother. (Tr. 105). Petitioner was arrested immediately thereafter. (Tr. 103).

He pled guilty to a count of the ensuing indictment.

As to present fitness

Our main concerns are the reprehensible nature of the misconduct and Petitioner’s lack of candor. Petitioner has made commendable progress toward returning to a constructive role in society, but those strides are not yet sufficient to overcome the very high burden posed by his criminal acts. Moreover, because the misconduct was intertwined with his law practice, it is particularly important that Petitioner be forthcoming in order to satisfy us that he would be able to practice in an ethical manner if reinstated. He fell short in this regard. Petitioner also failed to present a realistic plan for returning to practice in a manner that will safeguard the public and the profession.

(Mike Frisch)