Disbarment Proposed For Misappropriation

A $25,000 misappropriation should result in disbarment, according to a recommendation of the Illinois Review Board

The property owner, Marshall Thompson, agreed to sell the property to Ybarra’s company, YRY Holdings, for $25,000. Respondent agreed to hold Ybarra’s funds for the purchase of the property, and to transfer those funds to Thompson at the time of the sale.

In October 2018, Ybarra wired a total of $25,000 to Respondent for the purchase of the Princeton property. Ybarra sent $10,000 on October 9, and $15,000 on October 15, 2018.

Respondent never transferred any money to Thompson to purchase the Princeton property as agreed. Instead, Respondent spent that $25,000, which he did not own, for his own personal purposes, without authority. Consequently, the sale of the Princeton property to Ybarra never took place, and Thompson sold the property to another buyer. Ybarra lost the opportunity to purchase the property, and Respondent’s client, Jonathan Moss, lost the potential opportunity to purchase the property from Ybarra in the future. 

The misconduct

As soon as Respondent received funds from Ybarra, Respondent began spending that money. Respondent took out cash, paid bills and expenses, and purchased personal items and services, which included payments relating to numerous restaurants, a salon, a hotel, a fitness club, Uber rides, Apple I-tunes, PlayStation, Amazon, a parking ticket, the Art Institute, tollway fees, self-storage, groceries, gas, pharmacy items, and pet supplies.

After the purchase of the Princeton property fell through, Ybarra asked Respondent to return the $25,000. Respondent repaid $10,000 to Ybarra but did not repay the full $25,000.

Shortly thereafter, Respondent gave Ybarra a check in the amount of $15,000, which was rejected by the bank due to insufficient funds. Respondent knew that the check would not clear the bank because he did not have sufficient funds in his account to cover that check. Respondent testified, “I knew I didn’t have the money at the time and … couldn’t cover it.” (Tr. 95.) Respondent’s account was overdrawn by $11,000 at the time he wrote that check.

Sanction

In sum, Respondent engaged in serious misconduct for which there are no meaningful mitigating factors. Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct beginning in 2015 and continuing through 2018, in which he converted a total of $95,000, issued bad checks to victims, made false representations concerning repayment, failed to make prompt restitution, and caused harm to the victims. Respondent was not deterred by the prior disciplinary proceeding and committed the instant misconduct while that proceeding was pending.

We believe that the recommended sanction serves the goals of attorney discipline by protecting the public and the profession, acting as a deterrent to other attorneys, and helping to preserve public confidence in the legal profession. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Hearing Board’s recommendation that Respondent be disbarred. 

The $70,000 was from a prior matter leading to a two-year suspension (Mike Frisch)