Administrator Alleges Ethics Violations

The illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging ethics violations in Respondent’s representation of a client in a federal court action and with respect to his words and deeds after his client retained new counsel in the underlying matter and sued him

Beginning in 2016, Respondent and an individual with the initials J.M. (“J.M.”) agreed that Respondent would represent J.M. in a civil rights matter alleging that DeKalb School District No. 428 (“District 428”) allowed non residents to enroll in school within the district and therefore violated the civil rights of the district’s taxpayers by requiring them to pay for the nonresidents’ education. On October 4, 2017, Respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of J.M. The case was docketed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, as John Doe, et al. v. Community Unit School District No. 428, et al., case number 2017- CV-50307 (“District Matter”). 

When the case foundered, the client retained new counsel

On February 25, 2020, Keith Foster (“Foster”) of the firm Foster, Buick, Conklin, Lundgren & Gottschalk, LLC (“Foster Buick”) sent a letter to Respondent. In the letter, Foster informed Respondent that Foster Buick had been retained by J.M. to facilitate J.M.’s exit from the District Matter. Foster also informed Respondent that, while J.M. intended to fight any claims by District 428 for fees, J.M. also planned to pursue recoupment of fees paid to Respondent for the District Matter and any amount of District 428’s fees ordered by the federal court. Foster asked Respondent to “please notify your insurance carrier immediately … as we assume they will want to be, at a minimum, advised, and potentially even involved with the ongoing fee dispute in federal court.

On May 29, 2020, Respondent sent an email to J.M. and Foster. Respondent attached pages of typed case notes to his email, and those notes, quoted from the August 16th prehearing, claimed that the delays in the case “makes it look like the judge knows the school is wrong, and that the school attorney tried to ‘cook the books.’”

Respondent’s statements that Judge Johnston “knows the school is wrong, and that the school attorney tried to ‘cook the books’” were false or made with reckless disregard of the truth, because Respondent had no objectively reasonable factual basis for the statements that Judge Johnston “knows the school is wrong, and that the school attorney tried to ‘cook the books.’”

Then

On February 28, 2020, District 428 filed a petition for fees alleging that Respondent had filed frivolous pleadings in the District Matter.

On March 29, 2021, the court granted District 428’s petition for fees finding:

[Respondent’s] attempt to litigate state taxation issue in federal court was frivolous and without grounds from the outset.

This long history of jurisprudence should have alerted the plaintiffs before they ever filed suit that the doctrine of comity barred their claims from proceeding in a federal forum.

A suit alleging legal malpractice

On May 12, 2021, attorney Thomas Gooch (“Gooch”) filed a complaint on behalf of J.M. against Respondent in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County alleging legal malpractice and excessive fees. The clerk of the circuit court docketed the case as J.M. v. Michael P. Coghlan, case number 21 L 45 (“The J.M. Matter”). The case was assigned to Judge Bradley Waller.

Allegations in Respondent’s defending the suit

On August 4, 2022, Respondent filed a reply to J.M.’s motion to strike and a response to J.M.’s motion to strike. Respondent also filed a “reply affidavit” and attached exhibits to his affidavit. Respondent’s attachments included, among other things, a police report of an incident involving J.M., a State Police Firearm Disposition Record for J.M., a copy of a Facebook post from Hinshaw and Culbertson with a photo of Judge Mary Rowland and Judge Pallmeyer at a reception at Hinshaw and Culbertson, transcripts, and a screenshot of a website entitled “corruptionpedia” discussing Hinshaw and Culbertson.

Respondent’s attachment of a police report involving J.M. and a State Police Firearm Disposition Record for J.M. served no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden J.M.

Respondent handwrote notes purporting to be quotes from J.M. in the margins of his attachments. Respondent’s notes included the following:

[J.M.]: Fixes for favors rather than cash in envelopes

[J.M.]: “I told the judge five times that this had to be done before Aug 15th cost of millions of dollars”

[J.M.]: The next day order looks like a fix.

[J.M.]: The judge blocked my injunction without a hearing. The fix was in

[J.M.]: It cost $6.6MM to delay 1 day after school starts this was no accident. The fix was in.

Respondent handwrote notes in the margins of the October 29, 2018, transcript of proceedings before Judge Johnston. Respondent’s notes included the following:

Judge acknowledges exparte (extrajudicial) allegation? appearance of exparte Hinshaw claims to know the judges extrajudicial reasons for 248 days of postponement?

Judge blocking 8.3 reporting?

Judge acting as prosecutor and blocking the correction of the judges misstated evidence?

Judge again misstates the exhibit – Judge “testifying” falsely, and asking a false premise in his prosecution rule violating 455?

False statement by the judge? (Inside Joke)

There are further alleged false statements in open court.

Respondent’s statements that the judiciary repeatedly defied rules and laws to retaliate against him, that there was a pattern of judicial misconduct consistent with US v. Murphy and that Judge Buick used “extrajudicial influence to require her associate judges to defend her husband’s law firm,” were false or made with reckless disregard of the truth, because Respondent had no objectively reasonable factual basis for the statements that the judiciary repeatedly defied rules and laws to retaliate against him, that there was a pattern of judicial misconduct consistent with US v. Murphy and that Judge Buick used “extrajudicial influence to require her associate judges to defend her husband’s law firm.”

Concerning opposing counsel

Respondent’s statements in his pleading…were intended to embarrass, delay, or burden Foster, attorneys at Foster Buick, and attorneys at Hinshaw.

Opposing counsel filed a bar complaint

On February 24, 2023, Respondent filed a pleading entitled “Claims/Complaint Against – J.M. Properties.” In the pleading, Respondent claimed that J.M., judges, and lawyers all worked in concert to pursue a $450,000 fraudulent insurance claim against Respondent’s malpractice insurer. As exhibits, Respondent attached the February 25th letter from Foster and a diagram. In the diagram, Respondent accused Lester, Hinshaw, Judge Johnston, the Federal Court clerks, Judge Pallmeyer, the Executive Committee of Judges, J.M., J.M. Properties, Foster, Lundgren, Gooch, Judge Voilland, Judge Klein, and [ARDC attorney] Guzman of conspiring to violate federal and state law.

Respondent’s diagram served no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Lester, Hinshaw, the Federal Court clerks, J.M., J.M. Properties, Foster, Lundgren, Gooch, and Guzman.

Motion to dismiss

On June 22, 2023, Respondent appeared before Judge Klein in relation to case 21 L 45 for a hearing on motions to dismiss.

Allegations flowing from that hearing

Respondent’s statement that Judge Klein was engaged in a criminal enterprise was false or made with reckless disregard of the truth, because Respondent had no objectively reasonable factual basis for the statements that Judge Klein was engaged in a criminal enterprise.

At the time Respondent made the statement in court that Judge Klein was engaged in a criminal enterprise, he knew his representation was false or made with reckless disregard of the truth. When Respondent made the statements, he had no objectively reasonable factual basis to support such statements.

(Mike Frisch)