Extensive Serious Misconduct Draws Proposed Suspension
An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a three-year suspension with fitness of an attorney
The Administrator filed a ten-count First Amended Complaint charging Respondent with misconduct that included neglecting nine immigration matters, failing to communicate with clients, making misrepresentations to some clients, mishandling funds, failing to return unearned fees and client files, failing to respond to the Administrator’s requests for information, and making a false statement in connection with a disciplinary matter. The Hearing Board found that the Administrator proved the charges of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Based on the extensive serious misconduct and the substantial amount of aggravation, which includes prior discipline for similar misconduct, the Hearing Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.
Respondent
Respondent was licensed in Illinois in 2015. She started a solo immigration practice on January 3, 2019. (Tr. 261). From 2021 through late 2022, she had a law clerk and a part-time assistant. (Tr. 262). She did not have any staff in 2023 and 2024. She does not have a client trust account. (Tr. 263). In addition to her law practice, between December 6, 2022, and May 23, 2024, she held a full-time job with Loyola University School of Law as an assistant director for student services. (Tr. 114-15). Respondent testified that she maintained a case load of 15-20 cases and responded to clients before she started her workday at Loyola, during her lunch breaks, or in the evenings. (Tr. 119).
Respondent’s license to practice law was suspended from June 9, 2022, through September 7, 2022. During her suspension, several colleagues monitored her mail and assisted her as needed. (Tr. 126). Respondent instructed the colleagues to reach out to Respondent’s clients if they had questions and to help with client legal work if necessary. Respondent testified that her retainer agreements stated that other staff and attorneys might assist with client matters. (Tr. 127-28
The proven misconduct in this matter was extensive and egregious, with multiple instances of dishonesty. Respondent neglected nine client matters, ignored clients’ efforts to communicate with her, made false statements to clients about their matters, mishandled funds belonging to clients or third parties, failed to return unearned fees and client files, ignored the Administrator’s requests for information, and made a false statement under oath in connection with a disciplinary matter. The Court has held that neglect of a legal matter is grounds for suspension. A greater number of instances of neglect warrants a longer period of suspension. In re Samuels, 126 Ill. 2d 509, 529, 531, 535 N.E.2d 808 (1989); In re Levin, 101 Ill. 2d 535, 542, 463 N.E.2d 715 (1984). Because Respondent not only neglected nine client matters but engaged in extensive additional misconduct, we determine that a lengthy suspension is warranted.
In addition, there is substantial aggravation. Respondent’s prior discipline is a significant aggravating factor because of its similarity to the misconduct before us and its proximity in time. See In re Longwell, 2013PR00055, M.R. 26933 (Nov. 13, 2014) (Hearing Bd. at 35). It is especially concerning that the misconduct in this matter occurred while Respondent’s prior disciplinary proceeding was pending and immediately after her term of suspension ended. Attorneys who have been disciplined are expected to have a heightened awareness of the necessity to conform their conduct to ethical rules. In re Storment, 203 Ill. 2d 378, 401, 786 N.E.2d 963 (2002). Respondent’s prior discipline did not have the desired effect.
Respondent’s misconduct is further aggravated by the fact that she exploited and caused harm to vulnerable clients with modest resources.
(Mike Frisch)