The Illinois Hearing Board recommends reinstatement with conditions of a suspended attorney

In 2016, Petitioner became the president of the Puerto Rican Bar Association. (Tr. 37). As president, he had access to the bar association’s bank account and credit and debit cards linked to that account. Between November 2016 and July 2017, he withdrew more than $16,000 from the bar association’s bank account and used the funds for personal purposes, without authorization. (Adm. Ex. 3). He admitted to his misconduct when members of the bar association confronted him. (Tr. 39-41, 45).

After the misappropriation came to light, the Administrator filed a disciplinary complaint against Petitioner on August 23, 2018. In connection with that proceeding, Stafford C. Henry, M.D. evaluated Petitioner and diagnosed him with multiple substance abuse disorders and a history of major depressive disorder. Dr. Henry concluded that Petitioner had not made an active effort to enter recovery and was at a significant risk for relapse. Petitioner and the Administrator entered into an agreement for discipline on consent, in which Petitioner admitted to the misconduct. (Adm. Ex. 3 at 5). The Court allowed the petition to impose discipline on consent and suspended Petitioner for one year and until further order of the Court. In re Gonzalez, 2018PR00066, M.R. 030659 (March 16, 2021).

Restitution

Before discipline was imposed, Petitioner repaid the Puerto Rican Bar Association with a loan he obtained from the Chicago Patrolmen’s Credit Union (credit union). (Adm. Ex. 3 at 1; Tr. 72). Petitioner had financial difficulties after he was suspended and could not pay his debts, but he wanted to avoid filing for bankruptcy. (Tr. 73, 103-104). In 2025, the credit union obtained a judgment against him due to nonpayment of the loan and began garnishing his wages. Petitioner testified he did not receive notice of the credit union’s lawsuit. However, he acknowledges that he owes the amount of the judgment, does not object to the garnishment, and expects the judgment will be paid in 18 months

Mitigation

In 2004, Petitioner suffered a spinal cord injury that caused him to be paralyzed from the neck down for over two months. Over the course of a three-year recovery, he was able to regain his ability to use his limbs. He still has some limitations on his right side. (Tr. 22-24).

In 2016, Petitioner’s cousin and uncle committed suicide. Petitioner had been close to both of them. Their deaths sent Petitioner into a downward spiral. (Tr. 31, 33).

At the time of his disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner was still using unprescribed drugs and alcohol. (Tr. 45-46). After he was suspended, he hit rock bottom and checked himself into an inpatient detoxification program in October 2021. He completed that program, followed by intensive outpatient treatment. (Pet. Ex. 7; Tr. 47-52). He has participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) since he was discharged from inpatient treatment, and it has been integral to his recovery. He attended 120 meetings in 120 days. (Tr. 61-62). He has not used alcohol or unprescribed drugs since October 2021. (Tr. 135).

In 2022, Petitioner began receiving behavioral therapy focused on substance abuse, addiction, PTSD, anxiety, and other cognitive behavioral issues. He maintained this treatment until he lost his healthcare insurance in 2024. He now has healthcare insurance and was scheduled to meet with a new therapist the week following this hearing. (Tr. 61). Before Petitioner was in recovery, he did not think individual therapy was valuable. He now understands its benefits and views it as part of his life going forward. (Tr. 100, 172, 176).

Petitioner also regularly sees his primary care physician, who oversees his prescription medication. He takes medication for attention deficit disorder, which is under control. He follows his physician’s recommendations and intends to continue to do so.

Reinstatement

Having considered all of the relevant factors, we find that Petitioner established his rehabilitation and good character by clear and convincing evidence. Most importantly, he has been sober for over three years, is in sustained remission, and is committed to maintaining the practices, including participating in AA and individual therapy, that have benefited him. He appreciates the severity of his misconduct and expressed remorse for it. He has no mental health impairment that would prevent him from practicing law ethically and competently. We observed his honesty, trustworthiness, and changed attitudes through his testimony, and his character witnesses testified to these qualities as well. Although he has debts, he is gainfully employed and working toward reducing those debts. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he should be reinstated to the practice of law.

We agree with the Administrator that reinstatement should be conditioned upon Petitioner’s compliance with conditions focused his health and oversight of his law practice. In the interest of protecting the public, it is appropriate to recommend conditional reinstatement when certain circumstances are present, such as a history of substance abuse. See In re Hildebrand, 2015PR00015, M.R. 27265 (Sept. 22, 2016). We accept Dr. Henry’s recommendations that Petitioner remain abstinent, continue with AA and individual therapy, maintain contact with his AA sponsor, and continue regular visits with his primary care physician and follow all treatment recommendations. In addition, we recommend that Petitioner submit to random substance testing to assure he remains sober. We decline to adopt the recommendation that Petitioner be required to engage in community service, as that is not a condition typically placed upon reinstated attorneys.

We also decline to recommend the Administrator’s requested conditions that Petitioner be required to submit proof he has filed tax returns from prior years and proof of loan payment plans, as we find those conditions unrelated to the misconduct or Petitioner’s rehabilitation.

(Mike Frisch)