Recurring Pain

The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging that an attorney and his non-lawyer spouse made a series of false statements concerning his health in order to secure continuances in a criminal matter.

The spouse served as his legal assistant.

The Respondent had allegedly filed a series of unopposed requests for a continuance before his client had entered a guilty plea.

A sentencing hearing was then scheduled

On September 23, 2021, [legal assiistant] Patti emailed Judge Williams’s staff to advise that “Mr. Steinback is on his way to the emergency room due to violent back spasms and nerve pain.” Respondent did not go to an emergency room on September 23, 2021.

On the morning of September 24, 2021, Patti emailed Judge Williams’s staff to advise that Respondent “was given pain medication and anti-inflammatories/muscle relaxers last night and was instructed to limit any travel or physical activity for the next 4-7 days.” This statement by Patti was false as Respondent was not given pain medication or muscle relaxers the previous evening, was not treated by any medical professional, and was not instructed to limit travel or physical activity for the next four to seven days. Patti knew that the statements in her email were false at the time she made them.

On the morning of September 24, 2021, Patti, on Respondent’s behalf, filed an unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing. The motion, which contained Respondent’s electronic signature, stated, in part:

Defendant’s attorney, the undersigned, experienced debilitating back spasms and nerve pain last night, and needed to seek medical attention.

Mr. Steinback taken [sic] to the emergency room and was treated there. He was advised not to travel or participate in any strenuous physical activity for the next 4-7 days and was given medication for the spasms.

Cedar Rapids is approximately 3 ½ hours drive from Mr. Steinback’s home. It would require him to drive or to fly, both activities being against doctor’s instructions at this time.

The statements in the September 24, 2021 motion that Respondent had gone to and received treatment at an emergency room, including medication, in the preceding day and that he was advised not to travel for the next four to seven days, were false because he had not gone to an emergency room, received any treatment, or been advised not to travel on September 23, 2021.

The motion was granted and then

On the afternoon of October 5, 2021, Patti called the District Court and spoke with a member of Judge Williams’s staff, informing her that Respondent met with a client who “seems to be positive” for COVID-19, that Respondent spoke with a doctor who advised him to self-quarantine, and asked for a continuance of the sentencing hearing. At Judge Williams’s direction, the judicial assistant emailed Patti and advised that the sentencing hearing would not be continued, absent Respondent testing positive for COVID-19.

On October 5, 2021, at 5:01 p.m., Respondent, or someone at his direction, filed an emergency motion to continue the sentencing hearing with a letter from Respondent’s doctor that stated he “had a possible exposure to COVID.”

The judge denied the motion to further continue sentencing; Respondent did not appear and was ordered to show cause and directed to submit medical documentation.

During the hearing, Judge Williams noted the documents Respondent provided in response to the show cause order were insufficient. As to Respondent’s failure to produce medical records supporting his claimed visit to and treatment at an emergency room for back spasms,

Mr. Steinback, what that tells me regarding the September 24th is that—I’m highly skeptical that you went to the emergency room and had any instructions from any doctor not to appear—or not to travel. I find it absolutely unbelievable that you could not produce documents to demonstrate those medical treatments that you allege
and that you told me in a court filing happened on those dates. I don’t have any idea how you could not produce those documents when I gave you plenty of time to do so, if, in fact, they occurred. So I’m very troubled by that, and it makes me highly suspicious that you misrepresented a fact to this Court.
. . .
What I want, and what you have represented to this Court in a pleading that you filed with this Court, is that you went to the emergency room on September 24th and got instructions from your doctor that you weren’t to travel. That’s what I want. It may be the case that that happened, and if so, you can produce those records to
me.

Allegedly false response

It was an urgent care facility rather than an ER. We went to the ER. It was backed up to the point where anybody who wasn’t bleeding out of an artery wasn’t going to be seen for about five hours, so we went to the urgent care center that was open, and I will be able to get whatever it is that is necessary. The problem is, they are backed up for all sorts of reasons, and nobody there owes me anything. I owe you, but they don’t owe me. I – I pleaded with them. My wife went over there and begged them and ultimately reached out to Dr. Hansen because his office is in the same complex as that urgent care center to see if he could get those records.

The judge held further show cause hearings and gave Respondent time to produce records but eventually

On June 10, 2022, Judge Williams entered an order finding Respondent in contempt of court. Among other things, Judge Williams found that Respondent repeatedly disobeyed court orders, misled the court, and was not candid with the court. In particular, Judge Williams found that Respondent disobeyed the District Court’s order by failing to appear for Murphy’s sentencing hearing on October 6, 2021, and that Respondent repeatedly failed to produce documents as ordered by the District Court that could have substantiated his need for continuances.

Then

On June 10, 2022, Judge Williams ordered that Respondent be publicly reprimanded, that Respondent be barred from practicing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and that Respondent be fined $5,000.

The charges allege lack of diligence as well as false statements. (Mike Frisch)