Wag The Dog

The Illinois Hearing Board recommends the disbarment of an attorney, rejecting his contention that the Hearing Board improperly denied his requests for a hearing continuance

After hearing Counsel’s argument, the Chair orally denied Respondent’s Motion, and the hearing proceeded in absentia. ( R. 8.) On July 26, 2024, the Chair entered a written Order, in which the Chair stated:

Respondent’s Motion is denied. Respondent did not credibly demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would justify a continuance. He asserted he could not attend the hearing because he traveled to Albania on July 15, 2024, ‘in part’ to attend a family member’s funeral and was ‘unable to secure a return flight back to the United States’ due to a technological outage that disrupted many flights. Respondent attached photographs of a text message, dated July 5, 2024, informing him of the family member’s death, and a boarding pass for a flight from Munich, Germany to Tirana, Albania bearing Respondent’s name and the date ‘16 JUL.’ Although Respondent stated that he drafted his motion on his cell phone, he also stated that he would not be able to attend the hearing remotely due to ‘limited access to internet and phone usage.’

Respondent’s motion is problematic and unreliable for several reasons. Most significantly, while Respondent included information about the technological outage generally, he did not state that his return flight was cancelled nor did he include any information about his return flight reservation or any efforts to obtain a return flight, thus making it impossible to verify his claimed inability to return for his hearing. Further, Respondent’s statement that he went to Albania ‘in part’ to attend a funeral casts significant doubt on the veracity of his representations about the timing and reasons for his trip. It is also notable that Respondent made no mention of the funeral or his planned travels in his previous motion to continue the hearing, which he filed the same day he purportedly flew to Albania. For all these reasons, Respondent’s Motion lacks credibility and is denied.

(C. 450-51.)

We find that the Chair did not ab use her discretion in denying Respondent’s Motion, based on the reasons set forth in the July 26 Order. We agree with the Chair that Respondent did not credibly demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would justify a continuance. Respondent’s motion failed to include key facts and lacked supporting evidence showing that Respondent could not attend the disciplinary hearing in person or remotely.

Bias

Respondent also failed to provide support for his claim that Counsel was biased as a result of events that took place in law school, when they were classmates. In his July 15 Motion, Respondent stated, “Attorney-Respondent believes that ARDC Counsel … bears a personal animus against Attorney-Respondent dating back to events in law school.” (C.351 at Par. 13.) Respondent, however, failed to provide any information about the “events in law school” to support that accusation.

In his appellate brief, Respondent acknowledged that he did not provide information about the events in law school, stating, “Appellant did not include details of the events that would have led ARDC Counsel … to have a personal animus against Appellant out of courtesy to ARDC Counsel[.]” (Resp. Brief at 7.) Respondent’s failure to include details of the events in law school results in the inference that his claims were unsupported. As such, the Chair had no basis on which to evaluate those claims, and properly rejected the argument.

Misconduct

The Administrator filed an eight-count disciplinary Complaint against Respondent, alleging that he abandoned his law practice and clients’ files; failed to comply with court orders; made false statements to clients and the court; provided false documents to a client; misappropriated $14,910; and failed to respond to the ARDC’s demand for information, in violation of Rules, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

The Hearing Board found that Respondent committed almost all of the charged misconduct and recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

(Mike Frisch)