Baffled

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a one-year suspension based on its findings of misconduct by an attorney with no record of prior discipline

The Administrator brought a three-count complaint against Respondent based upon Respondent’s conduct in litigation that he brought on behalf of his client against a condominium association board, its board members, and other individuals and entities, as well as in a separate bankruptcy proceeding involving the same client. Following a six-day hearing, the Hearing Board found that the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent filed and maintained frivolous litigation; made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal; used means in representing a client that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third party; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; made statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity concerning the integrity of a judge; failed to inform a tribunal of all material facts known to him that would enable the tribunal to make an informed decision in an ex parte proceeding; assisted a client in conduct that he knew to be
fraudulent; and engaged in dishonesty in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding. For this misconduct, and considering the aggravation and mitigation present in the matter, the Hearing Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for one year and until he successfully completes the ARDC Professionalism Seminar.

Sanction

Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spanned six years. Furthermore, much of his behavior during his disciplinary proceeding mirrored his conduct in the Spiegel litigation. Prior to hearing, he filed an unusually high volume of pleadings, motions, and subpoenas, and repeatedly sought to delay the proceedings. During his hearing, he persisted in questioning witnesses about inadmissible topics after objections were sustained, and refused to abandon baseless arguments that were ruled irrelevant or otherwise inappropriate by the hearing panel chair. Finally, while Respondent showed a modicum of recognition that he should have handled some things differently during the course of the Spiegel litigation, he did not seem to recognize or at least acknowledge that his conduct caused harm to the Spiegel defendants, or show any remorse for that harm.

In mitigation, we find that Respondent has practiced for 25 years without being disciplined and that, other than in the litigation underlying this disciplinary matter, he has a good reputation in the legal community. Had Respondent engaged in similar misconduct in other matters or been previously disciplined, we might have felt compelled to recommend a suspension until further order. But that is not the case here. Frankly, we are baffled why Respondent, an experienced and apparently well-regarded lawyer, would sacrifice his ethical obligations and risk his law license on behalf of a single client. Yet he did, and for that, we believe that a lengthy suspension from the practice of law is warranted.

However, we reject the sanction requested by the Administrator. Based on Respondent’s misconduct, and considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, we find that a two-year suspension that continues until further order of the Court is neither warranted nor supported by relevant precedent. We have examined all of the cases cited by the Administrator and conclude that they are largely inapposite to this matter, in that they involve significantly more egregious misconduct or aggravation.

(Mike Frisch)