The Story Of Ruth

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a three-year suspension for a directly adverse conflict of interest

Respondent represented two clients, Ruth Clark and Richard Doyle, where Ruth’s interests were directly adverse to those of Richard, in that Respondent drafted a will, quitclaim deed, and power of attorney for Ruth that benefitted Richard to the detriment of Ruth. Respondent directed Ruth to sign those documents, but did not explain to her the impact of her actions or advise her to get independent advice. By transferring Ruth’s assets to Richard and his minor son, Ethan, Respondent rendered Ruth unable to pay for her medical care and rendered her ineligible for Medicaid benefits, and caused title in real estate to transfer to a minor who was unable to own real estate in his own name. Respondent also collected $6,000 in legal fees from Ruth and attempted to collect an additional $7,340.25, while acting in a manner that benefitted Richard to the detriment of Ruth. Moreover, he failed to refund the $6,000 to Ruth after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court of Rock Island County. By this conduct, Respondent violated Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4(a)(2), 1.5(a), 1.7(a)(1), 1.16(d), and 3.4(a).

In mitigation, Respondent has no prior misconduct. In aggravation, Respondent was an experienced practitioner in the area of estate law at the time of his misconduct. His misconduct caused substantial harm to a vulnerable client, in that he deprived Ruth, who was nearly 100 years old and mentally and physically infirm, of her assets, which left her unable to pay for medical care that she needed and rendered her ineligible for Medicaid. His conduct required others to intervene and expend resources to protect Ruth and undue the harm that Respondent caused. Finally, despite being personally served with the Complaint, Respondent failed to participate at all in his disciplinary proceedings, which demonstrates an utter lack of regard for the privilege of practicing law and convinces us that Respondent is currently unwilling or unable to adhere to professional standards of conduct.

According to the complaint, Ruth was Richard’s aunt. Richard died in 2021, leaving her real estate to his minor son.

At the time of the complaint, Ruth was 101 and living in a nursing home. (Mike Frisch)