Less Than Disbarment For Multiple Misappropriations
In a case involving misappropriation, the Illinois Review Board rejected the Administrator’s call for disbarment
We agree with the Hearing Board that the sanction should be a three-year suspension, UFO, stayed in part by probation, with conditions. However, we recommend that the three-year suspension, UFO, be stayed after two years (instead of after one year), followed by a one-year period of probation, subject to conditions. Given the severity of Respondent’s actions, we believe that an actual suspension of two years better achieves the disciplinary goals of safeguarding the public, preserving the legal profession’s integrity, and deterring future misconduct.
The attorney was admitted in 2014 and opened his own practice in 2016
Between 2017 and 2019, Respondent dishonestly converted approximately $281,152 of client funds, for his own use, without authority, which he was holding in connection with the settlement of thirteen personal injury cases. (Hearing Bd. Report at 10-12.) Respondent admitted that he used those funds without authority, knowing that it was wrong to do so. (Tr. 75-105, 240-41, 292.) The details concerning the conversion of funds as to each of the thirteen client matters is set out in the Hearing Board’s Report. (See Hearing Bd. Report at 9-29.)
Respondent used client funds, including funds owed to third parties and lienholders, (hereinafter “client funds”) to pay for business expenses to keep his law firm running, including to pay for office rent. Respondent also used client funds to repay funds that he had taken from other clients, and to pay for personal expenses, including to purchase drugs. (Tr. 251, 276.) Respondent delayed distributing settlement funds to clients and third parties for significant periods of time. (Tr. 251-52, 291.)
Between 2016 and 2018, Respondent abused prescription drugs. (Tr. 90.) He stopped using drugs in July 2018 (Tr. 253), but he continued misappropriating client funds for a full year after he stopped. Between July 2018 and July 2019, Respondent misappropriated $127,007 from settlement funds in seven separate client matters – half of the thirteen client matters charged in the complaint – even though he was no longer using drugs.
Respondent eventually repaid all of the money he took, with the last payment being made in May 2021 (Tr. 291.) He frequently repaid clients by using other clients’ funds to make those payments, and some clients were not repaid until after the ARDC began investigating in July 2019.
Sanction analysis
We note that both sides make persuasive arguments and the briefs on both sides are well written. We recognize the Administrator’s valid concerns about the serious nature of Respondent’s actions, and we also recognize Respondent’s valid arguments about the mitigation in this case. We believe that the sanction we are recommending properly balances the serious nature of Respondent’s actions with the mitigating factors here.
We believe that disbarment is not warranted in this case given the combination of the following: (1) after observing Respondent’s testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses, the Hearing Board concluded that disbarment was not warranted; (2) the mitigating factors here show that Respondent has made significant changes and he has the ability to act in accordance with ethical standards in the future; (3) the recommended sanction prohibiting Respondent from practicing law for two years (and being on probation for one year) will help to deter Respondent from engaging in future misconduct; (4) Respondent’s successful compliance for three years with the stringent conditions being recommended will help Respondent make additional changes to his life and his law practice, and will provide strong evidence that Respondent is willing and able to act ethically; and (5) alternatively, Respondent’s failure to comply with the recommended conditions will result in his being suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court, which means he will not be allowed to practice law until he is able to prove that he has been rehabilitated.
(Mike Frisch)