A Particularly Vulnerable Person

An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended disbarment of an attorney who had defaulted on the Administrator’s complaint

In 2014, Respondent was appointed guardian of an individual who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident. In 2018, Respondent took $282,673.90 from the disabled individual’s account and used the funds to pay off a delinquent mortgage on a property she owned. In 2019, she was convicted in the state of Washington of Theft in the First Degree and Theft in the Second Degree and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment.

In aggravation, the Panel has considered Respondent’s exploitation of a particularly vulnerable person, her dishonest and selfish motives and her failure to participate in this proceeding, all of which significantly aggravate the misconduct. We considered in mitigation that Respondent has no prior discipline, but the reprehensible misconduct and substantial aggravating factors far outweigh the minimal amount of mitigation.

The complaint is appended to the report.

The conviction was affirmed by the Washington State Court of Appeals

although a court order authorized Kahr to make investments on Barrett’s behalf, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Kahr using the funds for a legitimate investment. Rather, the jury found that Kahr criminally deprived Barrett of his property. Prior to using Barrett’s funds, Kahr did not get her house appraised for fair market value, nor did she investigate potential consequences for Barrett’s taxes or government benefits. Kahr also never established the trust that she claimed was part of the investment. There is no evidence on record that Kahr spoke to anyone about placing Barrett’s funds into her home; she simply did it. And moreover, despite characterizing the transfer of Barrett’s funds as an investment in her home, Kahr never conveyed a property interest to Barrett.

Kahr used Barrett’s money in secret. She did not file the quarterly report required for using more than 10 percent of Barrett’s funds until prompted by Deacon. Kahr falsely responded to Deacon’s inquiries, omitting her use of Barrett’s funds to pay off her home, and insisting that there was documentation regarding an REIT on file. Kahr refused to respond to GAL Gill’s request, and openly opposed his investigations. In investigation responses, Kahr was silent regarding the use of Barrett’s funds to satisfy her mortgage. Meador was the first to discover this use of funds, and not until after she gained access to Barrett’s accounts.

The letters explaining the REIT are also suspect. Kahr did not produce the letters until after police began investigating criminal charges. Kahr did not fulfill promises in the letters such as establishing a trust, recording Barrett’s interest in her property, covering rent, or providing homeowners insurance. Viewing these facts in a light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Kahr did not use Barrett’s funds as an investment.

Finally, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Kahr did not act in good faith when transferring Barrett’s funds. Due to Barrett’s brain injury, he was cognitively incapable of managing his finances. Following Barrett’s father’s passing, his mother’s advancing Alzheimer’s disease, and his brother John Jr.’s increasing work obligations, few people could provide oversight to Barrett’s finances. Kahr further discouraged Barrett’s family from being involved in his affairs. These factors combined provided Kahr the opportunity to use Barrett’s funds unchecked. Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Kahr did not act in good faith.

(Mike Frisch)