A Pattern Of Neglect And Dishonesty

An Illinois Hearing Board has recommended a two-year suspension and fitness in a default proceeding

The allegations deemed admitted establish that Respondent made numerous false statements to his client Robert Reetz, claiming that he had filed a complaint in court, hired a process server, issued alias summonses, filed a motion, obtained a court order, issued subpoenas for bank records, and was domesticating the “case” in Indiana – none of which he had done. Meanwhile, he waited nearly two years to actually file the complaint and shortly thereafter abandoned the client by moving out of state and failing to refund any of the $25,000 fee paid by the client. He also failed to obtain leave of court to withdraw from the case. Based on these admitted allegations, the Administrator established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.16(c), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c).

Respondent, who was licensed in 2014, has no prior discipline. However, this mitigating factor is outweighed by the proven aggravation. Respondent caused actual harm or risk of harm to his client by delaying the filing of the client’s complaint for nearly two years. He turned a pattern of neglect into a pattern of dishonesty when he attempted to cover up his inaction by lying to the client multiple times about the progress and status of the case. He has not made restitution to the client, instead telling the client that the money was “long gone.” Additionally, after acknowledging his awareness of the investigation in this matter, Respondent chose not to participate, demonstrating his disrespect for the disciplinary process. His failure to appear at the hearing deprived the Panel of the opportunity to hear any evidence in mitigation and to assess his fitness to practice law. For this reason, we conclude that Respondent should be required to petition for reinstatement and successfully demonstrate his fitness to practice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 767, before resuming work as an attorney. Therefore, we recommend that Respondent be suspended for two years and until further order of the Court and until he makes restitution of unearned fees to Robert Reetz.

(Mike Frisch)