Village People
The Illinois Review Board recommends a five-month suspension (one month less than the hearing committee proposed) for frivolous and duplicative lawsuits brought against the Respondent’s former place of abode
Respondent was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1982. He is a former police officer, and he was an assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. In 1992, he started his own law practice, focused on criminal defense work. In 1993, he was appointed to the Federal Defender Panel for the Northern District of Illinois. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent testified that he was voluntarily leaving the practice of law; he was 85% retired; and he did not intend to renew his license. In January 2024, he changed his registration status from active to retired. Respondent has no prior discipline.
Respondent is a former resident of the Village of Tinley Park. He moved to Florida in November 2021. Respondent was involved in the politics of the Village beginning in approximately 2009. Respondent ran for mayor of the Village in 2013, but lost the election. Respondent participated in the activities of the Village’s Emergency Management Agency from 2012 through 2016, which included performing legal work relating to that agency. In 2017, Respondent was appointed to be the Coordinator for the Emergency Management Agency, but the appointment was rescinded, and he did not become the Coordinator.
Respondent violated Rules 3.1 and 4.4(a) in two suits he brought against the Village
The Hearing Board found that Respondent acted in bad faith by filing Eberhardt 1 and II, and he used that litigation to embarrass, burden, and harass the Village and the individual defendants, in violation of Rule 4.4(a).
Sanction reasoning
We are recommending that Respondent be suspended for five months, rather than six months, because a six-month period of suspension triggers the obligation to comply with Supreme Court Rule 764, which sets forth stringent conditions that must be met by attorneys who are suspended for six months or more. We believe that requiring Respondent to comply with Rule 764 is unnecessary here, because Respondent is retired, and is no longer practicing law at this time. In January 2024, he changed his registration status from active to retired. In our opinion, requiring compliance with Rule 764 would serve no purpose, and would be unduly harsh. We conclude that a five-month suspension in this case satisfies the disciplinary goals to the same extent a six-month suspension does, given the facts and circumstances of this case.
We note that Respondent could come out of retirement at any time and begin practicing law again. Thus, we believe that a five-month suspension is needed to impress on Respondent and other attorneys the seriousness of the misconduct, and to protect the public by preventing Respondent from practicing law while the suspension is in place.
A footnote
Between 2014 and 2022, Respondent filed at least 26 lawsuits in state and federal courts against the Village and others associated with the Village. Respondent was the only plaintiff in several of those cases. He also filed approximately 150 requests for the Village to produce records under the Freedom of Information Act. Additionally, he filed multiple requests that the ARDC investigate attorneys involved with the Village, all of which were closed following an investigation of Respondent’s allegations. (See Resp. Answer at ¶2, Common Law Record at 22.) Additionally, in May and August 2021, shortly before Eberhardt I was dismissed, Respondent filed two new lawsuits in state court against the Village, and certain individuals associated with the Village, asserting claims similar to the claims in Eberhardt I. Both cases were dismissed. (See Adm. Exs. 25-38; Adm. Motion to Take Judicial Notice, Ex. 1.) Those actions provide background and context for Eberhardt I and II. Our analysis and recommendation, however, focus on Respondent’s conduct relating to Eberhardt I and II.
(Mike Frisch)