Claims Of Accused Attorney Denied

The Illinois Review Board recommends a six-month suspension of an attorney who was found to have created three false emails

The Complaint alleged that Respondent dishonestly created three false emails at the insurance company where he worked, in order to make it falsely appear that his supervisor had approved Respondent’s denial of three insurance claims, when, in fact, Respondent’s supervisor had not created those emails, or approved the denial of those claims.

The hearing board had proposed the same sanction

Respondent filed an appeal, pro se, in which he raised approximately a dozen issues,  including that (1) his due process rights were violated; (2) the Hearing Board erred in admitting three exhibits; (3) the Hearing Board erred in finding that Respondent committed the charged misconduct; and (4) the case should be dismissed, or the sanction should be a reprimand or censure, or a suspension of 60 days or less.

Respondent

Respondent was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2013. From April 2017 through October 2018, Respondent worked as a claims counsel for Stewart Title Guaranty Company. He also worked for McDonald’s Corporation as a consultant attorney for six months in 2019, and for a year beginning in June 2022. Additionally, he worked on other matters that included real estate transactions, contract matters, and litigation. He has no prior discipline.

Company process

The company had procedures in place for the denial of claims for insurance coverage, which involved a two-step process to ensure that the denial was appropriate. When a claims counsel determined that a claim should be denied, the claims counsel was required to send the recommended denial to a supervisor for approval. The denial of the claim had to be approved in writing by a supervisor. The supervisor reviewed the analysis of the claims counsel to make sure that the denial was appropriate and the correct policy provisions were cited; the supervisor also reviewed the denial letter to ensure that it looked professional.

The company used a database called “Legal Files” to track and store information about claims that the company handled. Each time a claim was opened, a number was generated and saved in Legal Files for that particular claim. All denial of claims had to be saved in Legal Files. The only people who had access to the claims in Legal Files were the system administrator, the claims counsel who opened the file, and the supervisors.

The misconduct had been uncovered by his employer

[Respondent’s supervisor] Rickenbach told her supervisor, Scott McBee, what she had found. She also sent him an email and attached the three false emails at issue, as well as the metadata for the MW email, the denial letters for the three claims, and summaries concerning each of the three emails. (Adm. Ex. 7 at 1-19.) Around the same time, the company’s IT department looked at the email approving the denial of the MW claim and determined that the email had been falsified.

The company fired Respondent at the end of October 2018, based on the three false emails at issue.

Due process

Respondent argues that his due process rights were violated because: (1) the Hearing Board’s findings of misconduct were based on uncharged conduct concerning the lawsuit that Respondent filed against the company; (2) a letter sent to the ARDC by the company’s attorney, Daniel Feeney, was not produced until after the disciplinary Complaint was filed; and (3) the expert witness, Genady Vishnevetsky, committed perjury. Those arguments fail.

In a disciplinary proceeding, due process requires notice of the allegations of misconduct, and a fair opportunity to defend against those allegations. See In re Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, 470, 641 N.E.2d 473 (1994). The due process requirements were fully satisfied in this case.

The letter

Respondent, who is pro se, also argues that the Administrator’s Counsel engaged in unethical conduct by failing to produce Feeney’s letter earlier, thereby essentially concealing Feeney’s letter. That argument has no merit because the Administrator had no obligation to produce or disclose Feeney’s letter earlier. We find it egregious that Respondent has made a specious allegation against the Administrator’s Counsel, claiming that Counsel engaged in unethical conduct, when, in fact, Counsel did nothing wrong.

Findings of hearing board

We agree with the Hearing Board’s analysis. We conclude that the Hearing Board was correct in finding that Respondent committed the charged misconduct. The Hearing Board’s findings are fully supported by the record, and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Sanction

It seems obvious that Respondent’s attacks against the Administrator’s Counsel were part of his effort to avoid the consequences of his misconduct. Respondent is an experienced lawyer, who has practiced law for more than ten years, and as such, he knows better, or should know better, than to make unjustified, unsubstantiated, and untrue accusations against opposing counsel, as he did here. Thus, we conclude that the Hearing Board did not err in finding that Respondent’s unfounded accusations are an aggravating factor.

Additionally, the Hearing Board recommended that Respondent be required to complete the ARDC Professional Seminar before resuming practice, in light of Respondent’s antagonistic behavior towards the Administrator’s Counsel. (Hearing Bd. Report at 15.) We agree with that recommendation.

In sum, based on the serious nature of the misconduct, and the significant aggravating factors in this case, (balanced against the mitigating evidence, discussed below), we believe that a six-month suspension is needed to impress upon Respondent the seriousness of his wrongdoing.

Respondent’s civil suit was resolved in the company’s favor by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Court granted summary judgment in Stewart’s favor on Copot’s discrimination and retaliation claims after concluding (among other things) that the evidence established that Stewart terminated Copot based on its honest belief that he had forged e-mails to make it appear that a supervisor, Kelly Rickenbach, had signed off on title insurance claim denials when in fact she had not.

Reconsideration

Copot has failed to show any basis for the Court to vacate its summary judgment ruling, or for any of the other relief he seeks. The Court denies his motion [dkt. no. 154]. The Court also denies Stewart’s request to sanction Copot for filing the motion. Though Copot’s motion comes close to the line between zealous advocacy and vexatious or otherwise sanctionable conduct, the Court concludes that it does not cross that line.

(Mike Frisch)