An Infamous Scourge

Illinois is a particularly agressive jurisdiction when it comes to enforcement of R ule 8.2.

A recent Review Board report affirmed facts found below and recommends a suspension of one year and until further court order

The Hearing Board’s Report and Recommendation sets forth all of the relevant facts underlying the findings of misconduct. In short, in nine separate motions – seven in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois and two in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois – Respondent made disparaging accusations about a U.S. Bankruptcy judge, including the following:

 that the judge “manufacture[d] a story from false statements she created;”
 that she “knew the statements were false when she published them but concocted the story” in retaliation against Respondent;
 that there is “no limit” to the judge’s “willingness to misuse the powers of her office including the criminal use of false statements;”
 that “[t]he unhinged, and thus dangerous, Judge recklessly brings infamy to her office and becomes a scourge to her profession with her Order’s false story;”
 that the judge was “dishonorable” and engaged in “abuse of office;” and
 that the judge engaged in “illegal abuses and misconduct … .” (See Hearing Bd. Report at 4-5.)

Based on his statements about the bankruptcy judge, each of the nine counts of the disciplinary complaint charge Respondent with making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rules 8.2(a) and 8.2(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

From the Review Board summary

The Review Board found no error in the hearing panel chair’s rulings or Hearing Board’s misconduct findings, and therefore affirmed them. It also agreed with the Hearing Board that Respondent should be suspended for one year and until further order of the Court, finding that Respondent showed no recognition of the wrongfulness of his conduct nor any remorse for it, which raised a serious concern that he would lapse in his ethical responsibilities in the future. It thus found that he should be required to prove rehabilitation before resuming law practice.

(Mike Frisch)