Suspension With Automatic Reinstatement Proposed
The Illinois Review Board has recommended a two-year suspension and a professionalism seminar for two counts of misconduct.
The matter involved Respondent’s involvement in the sale of his client’s home, which was in foreclosure
The Hearing Board found that Respondent failed to safeguard [client] Glod’s interests by failing to prepare a written agreement concerning Respondent’s purchase of her house, and failing to obtain written consent from her, in violation of Rule 1.8(a).
The Hearing Board also found that Respondent falsely represented to PNC bank that [another attorney] Papoutsis was the potential buyer of Glod’s house, and Respondent dishonestly signed Papoutsis’s name on the contract that Respondent submitted to the bank, in violation of Rules 4.1(a) and 8.4(c).
A majority of the Hearing Board found that Respondent intentionally assisted Glod in committing fraudulent conduct by filing a lien against Glod’s house in order to help Glod dishonestly manipulate the court-ordered sale of her house, and that Respondent dishonestly and falsely represented in the lien that Glod owed him $65,000 of attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract, in violation of Rules 1.2(d), 4.1(a), and 8.4(c). One panel member dissented, finding that Respondent did not intentionally assist in fraudulent conduct and did not knowingly make a false statement, but concurred that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c), finding that Respondent engaged in conduct involving a misrepresentation.
Mitigation and Aggravation Findings
In mitigation, the Hearing Board considered the following: Respondent provided pro bono services and he was active in his church, which included donating money to the church. He did charitable work with a Greek non-profit organization, the Pan Arcadians, which included raising money to support a hospital in Greece. He cooperated with the disciplinary proceeding, and two judges testified that Respondent has an excellent reputation for honesty. Respondent’s misconduct involved only one client and he was trying to help Glod keep her home. Additionally, he helped Glod financially because she was not working, and she was grateful for his help. In aggravation, the Hearing Board found that Respondent does not appear to fully understand or appreciate why his actions were unethical; his misconduct was not an isolated instance; and he has two prior disciplinary cases.
The Review Board rejected an “until further order” requirement
we decline to recommend a UFO sanction, as suggested by the Administrator. After hearing testimony from Respondent and the character witnesses, the Hearing Board found that “Respondent does not pose a risk to the public that would necessitate a suspension UFO.” (Hearing Bd. Report at 23.) We agree with that conclusion. Although the Administrator makes some good arguments, we believe that imposing a UFO sanction would be an unreasonably harsh result, which would only serve to punish Respondent.
(Mike Frisch)