UFO

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a suspension of six months and until further order

The allegations deemed admitted establish that Respondent failed to hold a $2,450 retainer fee in a separate, identifiable client trust account, instead cashing the client’s checks, comingling the client’s funds with hers, and using the client’s funds for her own purposes without the client’s authorization. In addition, Respondent failed to return the $2,450 unearned fee to the client and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by knowingly converting the client’s funds for her own use without authority. Based on these admitted allegations, the Administrator established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c).

Respondent, who was licensed in 1982, has no prior discipline. However, this mitigating factor is outweighed by the proven aggravating factors. The record demonstrates that Respondent repeatedly denied receipt of the Complaint and awareness of the subject matter of this proceeding, despite acknowledging service of the Complaint via email on December 13, 2024, receiving another copy of the Complaint via email on January 24, 2025, and discussing the conduct at issue during the pre-hearing conference on February 14, 2025. We find that Respondent’s assertions of ignorance lack credibility and demonstrate a continued pattern of dishonesty, which is an aggravating factor. Moreover, her failure to fully cooperate in this proceeding by not filing an answer and by repeatedly attempting to introduce evidence of the charged misconduct after being admonished by the Chair that such evidence was barred is another aggravating factor. Respondent’s behavior demonstrates that she is unwilling or unable to follow the Rules, which does not inspire confidence in her conforming her conduct to professional standards in the future. In re Murray, 2021PR00077, M.R. 31403 (Nov. 23, 2022); In re Houdek, 113 Ill. 2d 323, 326-27, 497 N.E.2d 1169 (1986). For this reason, we conclude that Respondent should be required to petition for reinstatement and successfully demonstrate her fitness to practice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 767, before resuming work as an attorney. Therefore, we recommend a suspension for six months and until further order of the Court.

(Mike Frisch)