Shattered Glass

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends that an attorney be suspended for one year and until further order

The allegations deemed admitted establish that, between January and December 2021, Respondent shattered the glass of her sister’s front door with a clothing iron and sent over 100 threatening and harassing communications to her sister, her ex-husband, her ex-husband’s divorce attorneys, and a police officer, including repeated threats of death and harm, which resulted in Respondent pleading guilty to two counts of violation of an order of protection. Based on these admitted allegations, the Administrator established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in criminal activity that reflects adversely on her fitness as a lawyer and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(d).

In mitigation, Respondent has no prior discipline in over 18 years of practice. She testified that her misconduct resulted from her abuse of alcohol and that she now maintains her sobriety after undergoing substance use and mental health treatment. However, in the absence of corroborating evidence from a medical provider, there is insufficient evidence that Respondent’s conditions were causally connected to her misconduct or that she has received adequate treatment, so we cannot find this to be a mitigating factor.

In aggravation, Respondent knowingly violated the law and engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving over 100 threatening messages and multiple violations of an order of protection over the course of a year. This conduct was intended to harass and harm the victims. Although Respondent expressed regret for her manner of communicating and abuse of alcohol in 2021, she blamed her ex-husband and sister for provoking her and insisted that she will do what she believes is necessary to protect her family members. These facts demonstrate that Respondent fails to fully take responsibility for and understand the wrongfulness and seriousness of her misconduct. In addition, Respondent did not file an answer or meaningfully participate in the disciplinary process until just weeks before the hearing.

Overall, we find that Respondent’s behavior does not inspire confidence that she will conform her conduct to professional standards in the future. In re Houdek, 113 Ill. 2d 323, 326-27, 497 N.E.2d 1169 (1986); see also In re Franz, 2014PR00161, M.R. 028933 (Sept. 22, 2017) (Hearing Bd. at 16-18) (suspension for two years and until further order of the Court for similar misconduct and failure to fully participate in the disciplinary proceeding, despite lack of prior discipline). 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 one year and until further order of the Court.

(Mike Frisch)