Michigan Man
An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended a suspension of one year and until further order of an attorney who had defaulted on the allegations
The allegations deemed admitted establish that Respondent made false statements to his employer, a Michigan law firm, about the status of his admission to the Michigan bar, by stating he had applied for admission when he had not and that his application had been delayed when he had not actually submitted an application. In addition, Respondent held him himself out to Michigan clients as authorized to practice law when he had not been admitted to practice in
Michigan and had been removed from the master roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois due to his failure to complete his Illinois registration. By this conduct, Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010) (Counts I and II), and practiced law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010) (Count II).
Respondent’s failure to fully participate in this proceeding and his failure to appear for his disciplinary hearing are significant factors in aggravation. In addition, we note that the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board suspended Respondent for one year and until further order of the Michigan Supreme Court. (Adm. Ex. 1). Because of Respondent’s failure to participate, we too determine that he should be suspended for one year and until further order of the Court and required to establish his fitness to practice law should he wish to be reinstated. We have considered that Respondent has no prior misconduct in Illinois, but that does not alter our recommendation.
The misconduct involves Respondent’s work for a personal injury law firm in Saginaw.
From the appended complaint
From the beginning of his employment with LeFevre in July 2020, and throughout the course of his employment with the firm until July 2021, Respondent repeatedly told the firm’s managing partners that he applied for admission to practice law in Michigan. At various times throughout his employment, when asked about the status of his application, Respondent indicated that his application was somehow being delayed. Respondent did not apply for admission to practice law in Michigan until late July 2021.
Respondent’s statements to the managing partners at LeFevre beginning in July 2020 and continuing through July 2021, that he had applied for admission to practice law in Michigan were false in that he had not applied for admission to practice law in Michigan. Respondent knew those statements were false at the time he made them.
Respondent’s statements to the managing partners at LeFevre beginning in July 2020 and continuing through July 2021 that his application to practice law in Michigan was somehow delayed were false because Respondent had not applied to practice law in Michigan and thus there was no application to be delayed. Respondent knew those statements were false at the time he made them.
(Mike Frisch)