What Happens In Vegas (And Elsewhere)

An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended a three-year suspension of a former prosecutor 

The Administrator’s Complaint charged Respondent with engaging in a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2) and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d) by having a sexual relationship with J.N., who was a victim in one matter and a defendant in another matter being prosecuted by the office in which Respondent was the First Assistant State’s Attorney (Count I). The Complaint also charged Respondent with committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(b) by taking nude photographs of J.N. without her consent (Count II) and by placing his penis on J.N.’s head while she was asleep (Count III).

Based on Respondent’s admissions and the evidence, the Hearing Board found that the Administrator proved Counts I and II, but not Count III, by clear and convincing evidence. The Hearing Board recommended a three-year suspension due to Respondent’s serious misconduct, minimal mitigation, and significant aggravation, including betraying the public trust, engaging in a selfish pattern of misconduct, and lacking remorse for the harm he caused.

Respondent was First Assistant Prosecutor for Kendall County; J.N. was an alleged victim in a domestic violence case and a DUI defendant subject to release conditions

A condition of J.N.’s bond prohibited her from traveling out of state. (Ans. at par. 10). Nonetheless, on or about December 4, 2022, Respondent purchased a plane ticket for J.N. so she could accompany him to California for a legal conference. (Ans. at par. 9). Respondent never informed the court or the State’s Attorney  he caused J.N. to leave Illinois in violation of her bond conditions. (Ans. at par. 11).

Uncovered

On April 21, 2023, [States Attorney] Weis put Respondent on administrative leave after learning that J.N. obtained an emergency order of protection against Respondent. She alleged that he took nude photographs of her without consent during their relationship and that she feared he would retaliate against her using “his position of authority” in the legal system. (Tr. 140-41; Res. Ex. 43). She also filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and the Kendall County State’s Attorney’s office. (Tr. 143-45, 167). On April 24, 2023, in lieu of being fired, Respondent resigned as First Assistant State’s Attorney. (Ans. at par. 15; Tr. 142). Respondent admitted that he did not tell Weis about his relationship with J.N. until the day of his resignation because he knew the relationship violated his ethical duties and office policy. (Tr. 159-62). Thereafter, the court appointed a special prosecutor to handle the matters involving J.A. and J.N. (Ans. at par. 15).

Unproven

We find that the Administrator did not meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed battery. Battery includes knowingly without legal justification making physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(2). The photograph at issue is ambiguous, as Respondent’s penis could be either above or directly touching J.N.’s forehead. As the Administrator presented no other evidence that physical contact – a necessary element of the statute – occurred, we are not clearly convinced that Respondent committed battery in violation of Rule 8.4(b).

Sanction

we determine that the appropriate sanction for Respondent is a three-year suspension, which is within the range of sanctions in similar cases. Respondent’s misconduct was particularly egregious because he betrayed the public trust given to him as the second-highest law enforcement officer in Kendall County. His knowing, selfish pattern of misconduct harmed a victim in a case he prosecuted and the Kendall County State’s Attorney’s Office. Moreover, he failed to show remorse or take responsibility for his actions. We believe that a lengthy suspension properly acknowledges the seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct, the significant aggravating factors, and the minimal mitigating factors. It also serves as a deterrent to future misconduct, in furtherance of the purposes of the disciplinary process. For these reasons, we recommend that Respondent, Mark A. Shlifka, be suspended for three years.

Patch.com had reported on the civil suit

According to plaintiff’s attorney Jeffrey Deutschman of Deutschman & Skafish in Chicago, Shlifka had a sexual relationship with [plaintiff] Noto from March 2022 until March 2023 “during the time in which she was a criminal defendant in a pending case and also a complaining witness and victim of domestic abuse matters … this sexual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff was brazenly open.

“The defendant took the plaintiff on vacations and speaking engagements with him, took her to a party where many Cook County judges and lawyers present, stayed over at the plaintiff’s residence on many occasions and met her at a hotel near the Kendall County Courthouse on many occasions where they had sexual relations.”

Noto “felt compelled to comply with the defendant’s amorous whims and sexual exploitation as he was the First Assistant State’s Attorney and might help her cases,” Deutschman’s lawsuit outlined. “The defendant knew or should have known that this sexual relationship was inappropriate, unethical and in violation of his offices’ policies, protocols and procedures.”

(Mike Frisch)