A Significant Risk Of Harm

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a one-year suspension and until further court order for repeated misconduct 

The allegations and charges deemed admitted establish that Respondent failed to act with diligence and failed to communicate with her clients in two immigration matters; failed to return an unearned fee in one of the matters; and failed to respond to the Administrator’s lawful demand for information during the investigation of Respondent’s conduct in connection with the two immigration matters. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent violated Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.16(d), and 8.1(b).

In aggravation, Respondent’s conduct posed a significant risk of harm to her clients, in that they could have been deported because of her neglect and failure to communicate. She has yet to refund $4,000 in unearned fees to one of her clients. Of great concern to this panel is that this is the third disciplinary proceeding in which Respondent has been found to have engaged in misconduct. See In re Susman, 2009PR00126, M.R. 26102 (Sept. 25, 2013); In re Susman, 2018PR00080, M.R. 31343 (Nov. 23, 2022). Even more disturbing is the fact that the misconduct at issue in this matter is almost identical to the misconduct at issue in her prior proceeding and occurred during the pendency of the prior proceeding, at a time when Respondent should have had a heightened awareness of her ethical obligations. Finally, Respondent did not fully participate in or cooperate with the disciplinary process, in that she participated in some but not all of the scheduled prehearing conferences; failed to file her answer to the complaint and her Rule 253 disclosures even after being given multiple opportunities and extensions of time to do so; and, most significantly, failed to appear at her disciplinary hearing, which deprived us of the chance to observe Respondent and determine her fitness to practice law. Respondent’s failure to appear at her hearing and her prior discipline leave us with no confidence that Respondent is willing or able to abide by the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and therefore convince us that a suspension that continues until further order of the Court is necessary to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

(Mike Frisch)