Less Than Disbarment For Attorney Who Took Funds To “Satisfy Personal Desires”

The Illinois Review Board has proposed a one-year suspension of an attorney  who failed to safeguard funds.

A sanction less less than disbarment was appropriate because

We agree with the Hearing Board that Respondent’s conduct is mitigated by certain factors. Respondent has not been previously disciplined. He has performed pro bono services and volunteer work, particularly in the Ukrainian and Latin American communities. He called one character witness who testified as to his good reputation. He expressed remorse and acknowledged his misconduct. He made full restitution of the funds he took. Given these factors, Respondent’s misconduct warrants a suspension rather than disbarment.

Respondent also testified that he was experiencing stress when he took the funds. His cousin owned a building in Chicago that housed a bakery, Ann’s Bakery. The building had a fire in June 2012, and Respondent helped his cousin and spent a significant amount of time seeing to the repairs and insurance claims. Respondent expected to be paid for his work but he testified that the payments to him were late. He also testified that his grandmother, who lived in California, died in 2013. Respondent’s mother, who also lives in California with his father, experienced declining health in 2012.

However, Respondent offered no medical testimony tying his stress to the conversion of client funds. Respondent did not spend any of the converted funds on his family members or renovation of his cousin’s building. We see no evidence that Respondent’s stress contributed to his decision to take client funds totaling $23,000 and use them for frivolous purchases. Accordingly, we give this evidence little weight as mitigation.

In aggravation, the Hearing Board found that Respondent’s former position as an Assistant States Attorney should have heightened his awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct. See, e.g., In re Crisel, 101 Ill.2d 332, 343, 461 N.E.2d 994 (1984). In addition, Respondent’s conduct was aggravated by his poor financial condition at the time of his misconduct, which makes his decisions to take the funds to maintain his lifestyle even more troubling. See, e.g., In re Uhler, 126 Ill.2d 532, 540, 535 N.E.2d 825 (1989).

…we believe that a one year suspension is also appropriate in this case. While Respondent has not been previously disciplined, his misconduct in deliberately taking settlement proceeds and using the proceeds for arguably frivolous personal expenses warrants a significant sanction. We also believe that a one year suspension meets the purposes of the disciplinary proceeding, will serve to protect the public and will hopefully deter other attorneys from deliberately taking client funds to satisfy their personal desires.

Disbarment is a more effective deterrent. (Mike Frisch)