ISBA New Admittee Virtual Coffeehouse - Online CLE

Transcription

Spring ISBA New Admittee Virtual Coffeehouse
Espresso of the Week – Week 3
PLANTING THE SEED OF INTEGRITY:
COMMON MISTAKES & ETHICAL
DILEMMAS TO AVOID
Illinois State Bar Association
424 S. 2nd Street
Springfield, IL 62701-1779
(217) 525-1760
(800) 252-8908
20 S. Clark, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60603-1802
(312) 726-8775
(800) 678-4009
11
ISBA New Admittee Virtual Coffeehouse –
Basic Skills and More
Espresso of the Week – 1.5 Hour Webinars*
Practical tips from experienced attorneys offered each Tuesday, 4:00 – 5:30 p.m.
Required for all Basic Skills Registrants
Tuesday, May 17 – Planting the Seed of Integrity: Common Mistakes &
Ethical Dilemmas to Avoid
Someone once said that mistakes can be as good a teacher as success - which is only true
if you turn your mistakes into a learning experience (or learn from the mistakes of
others!). This program examines some of the common mistakes made by new attorneys
and explores some of the best ways to deal with them once they've occurred. Using the
framework of the new Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, our panelist discusses
common issues you may encounter with clients, supervisory attorneys, and opposing
counsel. The importance of being prepared and conducting your practice with honesty
and integrity (as well as the potential consequences when you don't) are also examined.
Moderator: Karen Conti, Adamski & Conti, Chicago
Panelist:
Mary Andreoni, ARDC, Chicago
Thomas P. Sukowicz, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
5/17/11
ISBA New Admittee Virtual Coffeehouse
Espresso of the Week – 1.5 Hour Webinars
Week 3 – Planting the Seeds of Integrity:
Common Mistakes & Ethical Dilemmas to Avoid
Someone once said that mistakes can be as good a teacher as success – which is only true if
you turn your mistakes into a learning experience (or learn from the mistakes of others!). This
program examines some of the common mistakes made by new attorneys and explores some
of the best ways to deal with them once they’ve occurred. Using the framework of the new
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, our panelist discusses common issues you may
encounter with clients, supervisory attorneys, and opposing counsel. The importance of being
prepared and conducting your practice with honesty and integrity (as well as the potential
consequences when you don’t) are also examined.
Webinar Faculty:
Mary Andreoni, Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, Chicago
Thomas P. Sukowicz, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Webinar Moderator:
Karen Conti, Adamski & Conti, Chicago
This Basic Skills course is designed to comply with Illinois
Supreme Court Basic Skills Rule 793.
The Supreme Court requires that the 15 hour “course shall
cover such topics as the jurisdiction of local courts, local
court rules, filing requirements for various government
agencies, how to draft pleadings and other documents,
practice techniques and procedures under the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct, client communications, use of trust
accounts, required record keeping, and other rudimentary
elements of practice.”
Introducing our ISBA Virtual Coffeehouse
Webinar Moderator
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Has been actively practicing law for 24 years in
civil and criminal litigation
Featured as a contributing legal expert for Foxowned WFLD-Channel 32 TV where she appears
twice weekly on the 9 p.m. late news, providing
legal perspective on news stories
Defended John Wayne Gacy in final death row
appeal
Has been an adjunct professor at the University of
Illinois College of Law for over 13 years
Recipient of the 2000 “Distinguished Graduate
Award” from the University of Illinois College of
Law
Received the “Outstanding Recent Alumni” award
in 1998 from the University of Illinois College of
Law Alumni Board
Voted one of the 100 Women Making a Difference
by Today’s Chicago Woman Magazine
Voted one of the 40 Under 40 Lawyers to Watch
by the Chicago Lawyer
1
5/17/11
Webinar Faculty
• 
Ethics Education Counsel for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission (ARDC) where she develops and implements the ARDC’s ethics
education initiatives, including the ARDC Ethics Inquiry Program and the Illinois
Professional Responsibility Institute, where she is also an instructor
• 
Has authored several articles including the ARDC publication, Client Trust
Account Handbook and spoken at hundreds of programs on legal ethics
• 
Was a law Clerk to the Illinois Appellate Court Justice Mel R. Jiganti prior to
joining ARDC in 1994
• 
Practiced commercial litigation with the law firm of Peterson & Ross in Chicago,
Illinois
Webinar Faculty
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP in
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida where his practice
emphasizes professional liability, legal
ethics, risk management, loss prevention,
and the defense of lawyers in disciplinary
proceedings
Has an extensive background as an author,
instructor, and speaker on attorney
professional responsibility
Currently co-authors a monthly ethics
column for Chicago Lawyer
Member of the Leading Lawyers Network
Served as a faculty member of the Illinois
Institute of Professional Responsibility at
the request of the Illinois Attorney
Registration and Disciplinary Commission
Former adjunct professor at DePaul
University College of Law in Chicago
where he taught a professional
responsibility course
Planting the Seed of Integrity:
Common Mistakes & Ethical Dilemmas
to Avoid
Mary F. Andreoni
ARDC Ethics Education Counsel
Chicago, Illinois
Thomas P. Sukowicz
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
2
5/17/11
How to Avoid Trouble: The Five
Essentials
1.
Develop good client communication skills
2.
Document important communications
3.
Bill fairly, regularly and accurately
4.
Establish office systems for conflicts,
communication, trust account, billing and file
retention
5.
Ask for help
Review of a Lawyer’s Conduct
Different Contexts where a lawyer’s
conduct can be scrutinized:
  Civil
  Contempt
  Criminal
  Regulatory (ARDC)
ARDC: Registration and
Investigations
Registration
  Over 85,000 licensed Illinois lawyers
  Lawyers with active and inactive licenses
must register before January 1 each year
  Master Roll of Attorneys – contains the
names of lawyers entitled to practice law
or hold themselves out as authorized to
practice law in Illinois
3
5/17/11
Investigations and Discipline
  5,800 – 6,000 investigations every year
  5-6% of the bar
  Nearly 80% of grievances are brought by clients and
involve client-lawyer communications
  Top areas of practice:
  Criminal Law
  Domestic Relations
  Tort and
  Real Estate
  Process - confidential
Discipline
  Between 120 and 140 lawyers disciplined
each year
  Most frequent areas of misconduct
 
 
 
 
Improper trust fund management
Fraudulent or deceptive conduct
Neglect
Criminal conduct
Where to Go for Help
  Talk to other lawyers
  ARDC Ethics Inquiry Program
  ISBA Ethics Infoline at 217-747-1452
  IL Rules of Professional Conduct
4
5/17/11
Financial Issues
Questions can be sent to ISBA at:
[email protected]
Or directly to the Webinar Moderator or
Faculty at the following e-mail addresses:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Join us again next Tuesday for another Espresso of the
Week – 1.5 Hour Webinar!
Final Webinar
Sticky Situations and How to Respond
TUESDAY, May 24th
4:00 – 5:30 p.m. (central)
Dealing with other legal professionals is not always what you expect. Join us for a discussion on
how to handle unpleasant or challenging situations and what to do when you’re treated with
incivility or disrespect by opposing counsel, clients, and judges.
Webinar Moderator:
Karen Conti, Adamski & Conti, Chicago
Faculty Speaker:
Jayne Reardon, Executive Director, IL Supreme Court Commission on
Professionalism, Chicago
5
ISBA Virtual Coffeehouse Series
Planting the Seed of Integrity:
Common Mistakes & Ethical
Dilemmas to Avoid
March 22, 2011
R ECENT D EVELOPMENTS I N P ROFESSIONAL
R EGULATION
I.
Disciplinary Statistics and the Grievance Process
(excerpts from the 2009 Annual Report of the ARDC
can be found at www.iardc.org)
Illinois has the fourth largest attorney population in the United States. Only California
(165,474), New York (153,918), and Florida (87,010), have larger lawyer numbers than Illinois.1
Although the lawyer population in Illinois is substantial, its combination of urban,
suburban and rural practice environments makes it an archetype for the study of the disciplinary
process as it relates to the sanctioned lawyer.
A.
Types and Numbers of Grievances Filed against Lawyers
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) is the lawyer
regulatory authority in Illinois. During 2009, the ARDC docketed 5,834 investigations, a
decrease of 1% from the year before. Those 5,834 investigations involved charges against 3,976
different attorneys, representing about 5% of all registered lawyers. About 21% of these 3,976
attorneys were the subject of more than one investigation docketed in 2009.
The classification of charges docketed in 2009, based on an initial assessment of the type
of legal context in which the facts apparently arose, appears on page two. Consistent with prior
years, the top areas of practice most likely to lead to a grievance of attorney misconduct include:
criminal law (24% of all grievances), domestic relations (16% of all grievances), tort (9.3% of all
grievances), and real estate (7.6% of all grievances). As a general rule, a little more than five
percent of disciplinary investigations result in the filing of formal disciplinary charges annually.
The chart that appears on page three, below, reports the classification of investigations
docketed in 2009 based on an initial assessment of the nature of the misconduct alleged, if any. If
1
Source: ABA, Survey on Lawyer Discipline (2008), Chart One.
an investigation fails to reveal sufficiently serious, provable misconduct, the ARDC Staff will
close the investigation.
2
Classification of Grievances Docketed in 2009 by Area of Law
Area of Law
Number
Criminal/Quasi-Criminal ................................ 1,404
Domestic Relations ............................................ 936
Tort (Personal Injury/Property Damage) ........... 545
Real Estate/Landlord-Tenant ............................. 444
Probate ............................................................... 319
Labor Relations/Workers’ Comp ....................... 236
Bankruptcy ......................................................... 234
Contract.............................................................. 213
Debt Collection .................................................. 152
Civil Rights ........................................................ 112
Immigration.......................................................... 84
Corporate Matters ................................................ 49
Local Government Problems ............................... 36
Tax ....................................................................... 33
Patent and Trademark .......................................... 20
Social Security ..................................................... 14
Adoption................................................................. 8
Mental Health......................................................... 1
No Area of Law Identified:
Criminal Conduct/Conviction of Attorney ..... 21
Personal misconduct ....................................... 25
Other ............................................................... 67
No misconduct alleged ................................. 206
Undeterminable............................................. 279
There were a total of 5,551 investigations concluded in 2009, either after an initial review
or where formal charges were filed. In keeping with the Commission’s policy for disciplinary
matters to be handled expeditiously, 1,322, or almost 24%, of the 5,551 investigations concluded
in 2009, were closed after an initial review. The overwhelming majority, 96% of those 1,322
investigations, were concluded within 60 days of the docketing of the grievance. The
Commission employs 35 lawyers who have caseload responsibilities. Six lawyers are assigned to
the Intake division. Intake lawyers review most grievances and perform the initial inquiry into
the facts in most situations in order to determine whether the written submissions from
complainants, read liberally, describe some misconduct by a lawyer. How long it takes before an
investigation is resolved is influenced by the complexity of the file, the amount of information
and documents that the ARDC counsel must review, whether the lawyer or other sources are
cooperating with the requests for information, and whether all concerns raised during the
investigation have been addressed.
If an investigation produces evidence of serious misconduct, the case is referred to the
Inquiry Board, unless the matter is filed directly with the Supreme Court under certain specific
situations. The Inquiry Board operates in panels of three, composed of two attorneys and one
non-lawyer, all appointed by the Commission. An Inquiry Board panel has authority to vote a
formal complaint if it finds sufficient evidence to support a charge, to close an investigation if it
does not so find, or to place an attorney on supervision. The Administrator cannot pursue formal
3
charges without authorization by an Inquiry Board panel. Information concerning the type of
misconduct alleged in formal proceedings filed before the Hearing Board, as well information
regarding the practice area of the attorneys charged in a formal complaint during 2009, are found
in the charts appearing on page four.
Classification of Charges Docketed in 2009 by Violation Alleged
Type of Misconduct
Number*
Neglect...................................................................................... 2,158
Failing to communicate with client, including failing to
communicate the basis of a fee ............................................... 993
Fraudulent or deceptive activity, including lying to clients,
knowing use of false evidence or making a
misrepresentation to a tribunal or non-client .......................... 857
Excessive or improper fees, including failing to refund
unearned fees........................................................................... 844
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,
including conduct that is the subject of a contempt
finding or court sanction......................................................... 354
Type of Misconduct
Number*
Improper communications with a party known to be
represented by counsel or with unrepresented party ................ 36
Failing to preserve client confidences or secrets........................... 36
Failing to supervise subordinates .................................................. 29
Improper division of legal fees/partnership with
nonlawyer ................................................................................. 28
Threatening criminal prosecution or disciplinary
proceedings to gain advantage in a civil matter ....................... 22
Aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law .............. 15
Bad faith avoidance of a student loan ........................................... 11
Improper management of client or third party funds,
including commingling, conversion, failing to
promptly pay litigation costs or client creditors or
issuing NSF checks ................................................................. 294
Practicing after failing to register.................................................. 10
Improper trial conduct, including using means to
embarrass, delay or burden another or suppressing
evidence where there is a duty to reveal ................................. 238
Failing to report misconduct of another lawyer or judge................ 6
Conflict of Interest: ..................................................................... 208
Incapacity due to chemical addiction or mental
condition ..................................................................................... 4
Rule 1.7: Concurrent conflicts .......................................................152
Rule 1.8(a) Improper business transaction with client.......................9
Rule 1.8(c) Improper preparation of instrument benefiting lawyer ...2
Rule 1.8(d) Financial assistance to client ..........................................8
Rule 1.8(e) Improper aggregate settlement for multiple clients ........1
Rule 1.8(h): Improper agreement to limit/avoid
disciplinary action ..........................................................................4
Rule 1.9: Successive conflicts..........................................................31
Rule 1.11 Former government lawyer ...............................................1
Filing frivolous or non-meritorious claims or pleadings............. 198
Sexual harassment/abuse or violation of law
prohibiting discrimination .......................................................... 7
Inducing/assisting another to violate the Rules............................... 5
Failing to maintain an appropriate attorney-client relationship
with disabled client..................................................................... 4
Improper ex parte communication with judge ................................ 4
Improper employment where lawyer may become a witness ......... 3
False statements about a judge, jud. candidate or public official.... 3
Improper extrajudicial statement .................................................... 2
Failure to pay taxes ......................................................................... 2
Failing to properly withdraw from representation,
including failing to return client files or documents............... 191
Investigation of bar applicant.......................................................... 2
Criminal activity, including criminal convictions,
counseling illegal conduct or public corruption...................... 135
False statements in a bar admission or disciplinary matter............. 2
Failing to provide competent representation .............................. 121
Failing to comply with Rule 764..................................................... 1
Not abiding by a client’s decision concerning the
representation or taking unauthorized action on the
client’s behalf............................................................................ 95
Failing to pay child support ............................................................ 1
Improper commercial speech, including inappropriate
written or oral solicitation ........................................................ 50
Practicing in a jurisdiction where not authorized.......................... 85
Prosecutorial misconduct ............................................................. 75
Failure to maintain records under Rule 769.................................... 2
Abuse of public office to obtain advantage for client ..................... 1
Assisting a judge in conduct that violates the judicial code ........... 1
Furthering application of unqualified bar applicant........................ 1
No misconduct alleged................................................................ 303
*Totals exceed the number of requests for investigations docketed
in 2009 because in many requests more than one type of
misconduct is alleged.
4
Types of Misconduct Alleged in Complaints Filed Before Hearing Board in 2009
Type of Misconduct
Number % of
of
Cases
Cases* Filed*
Fraudulent or deceptive activity ................... 47............36%
Failure to communicate with client............... 42............32%
Neglect/lack of diligence ............................... 40............31%
In many cases where neglect was
charged, the neglect was accompanied by
one or both of the following:
Misrepresentation to client.......... 23
Failure to return unearned fees .. 14
Improper handling of trust funds .................. 32............24%
Criminal conduct/conviction of lawyer ......... 23............18%
Conflict of interest......................................... 21............16%
Rule 1.7: concurrent conflicts ..... 10
Rule 1.8(a): improper business
transaction with client................. 1
Rule 1.8(c): improper instrument
benefiting the lawyer ................. 5
Rule 1.8(d): improper financial
assistance to client ...................... 2
Rule 1.8(h): improper limitation on
client’s ARDC complaint............ 1
Rule 1.9: successive conflicts........ 2
False statement or failure to respond
in bar admission or disciplinary matter...... 21............16%
Excessive or unauthorized fees ..................... 17............13%
Offering false evidence or
making false statements to tribunal............. 15 ............11%
Pursuing/filing frivolous or
non-meritorious claims or pleadings .......... 11..............8%
Failure to provide competent representation
10
Type of Misconduct
Number
of
Cases*
% of
Cases
Filed*
Misrepresentation to third persons ................. 6................5%
Not abiding by client’s decision or taking
unauthorized action on client’s behalf ...... 6................5%
Aiding unauthorized practice by nonlawyer ... 4................3%
Unauthorized practice after failure to register4................3%
Improper commercial speech, including
improper direct solicitation....................... 3................2%
Improper communication with
a represented person ................................. 3................2%
Assisting client in criminal/fraudulent
conduct ...................................................... 2................2%
Breach of client confidences ........................... 2................2%
False statement about judge............................ 2................2%
Improper threat of prosecution ....................... 2................2%
Improper withdrawal from employment
without court approval or avoiding
prejudice to client........................................ 2................2%
Inducing/assisting another to violate rules ..... 2................2%
Unauthorized practice after MCLE removal .. 2................2%
Bad faith avoidance of student loan ................ 1................1%
Failure to report another lawyer’s misconduct1 ...............1%
Failure to maintain records under Rule 769... 1................1%
Failure to supervise employees ....................... 1................1%
Practicing in a jurisdiction without authority. 1................1%
Unauthorized practice after suspension.......... 1................1%
* Totals exceed 131 disciplinary cases and 100% because
most complaints allege more than one type of
misconduct
8%
* Totals exceed 124 disciplinary cases and 100% because most complaints allege more than one type of misconduct.
Area of Law Involved in Complaints Filed Before Hearing Board in 2009
Subject Area
Number
of
Cases*
% of
Cases
Filed*
Subject Area
Number
of
Cases*
% of
Cases
Filed*
Deceptive, threatening or offensive conduct
not arising out of a legal representation.... 5................ 4%
Immigration................................................... 5................ 4%
Bankruptcy .................................................... 5................ 4%
Corporate Matters......................................... 3................ 2%
Civil Rights.................................................... 2................ 2%
Adoption ........................................................ 1................ 1%
Patent/Trademark ......................................... 1................ 1%
Debt Collection ............................................. 1................ 1%
*Totals exceed 131 disciplinary complaints and 100% because many complaints allege several counts of misconduct
arising in different areas of practice.
Tort .............................................................. 25..................19%
Real Estate................................................... 23..................18%
Criminal Conduct/Conviction ..................... 20..................15%
Domestic Relations...................................... 18..................14%
Probate ........................................................ 16..................12%
Criminal ...................................................... 10....................8%
Workers’ Comp/Labor Relations .................. 8....................6%
Contract......................................................... 8....................6%
5
Practice Setting for Lawyers Sanctioned 1998 – 2002
II.
Lawyer Disciplinary Orders Entered by the Illinois Supreme Court
in 2010 by Subject Matter Grouping
1.
Conflict of Interest
In re Donald Ray Brewer, M.R. 23827, 2009 PR 00069 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Brewer,
who was licensed in 1974, was censured and ordered to complete a program offered by the
Illinois Institute of Professional Responsibility. He engaged in a conflict of interest when he
represented a charitable foundation on a pro bono basis in a transaction in which the foundation
loaned money to another of his clients.
In re Susan Grace Castagnoli, M.R. 23721, 2007 PR 00057 (Ill. April 27, 2010). Ms.
Castagnoli, who was admitted in 1979, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order
of the Court. The Hearing Board earlier found that she overreached an attorney-client
relationship, exerted undue influence on clients, charged in excessive fees without authorization
from the bankruptcy court, and, in some cases, without her clients’ knowledge or consent, and
engaged in dishonest conduct.
In re George Richard Flynn, M.R. 24047, 2007PR00112 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Flynn, who was licensed in 1970, was suspended for three years and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed after eighteen months by a two-year period of probation with
conditions. While serving as co-trustee of a trust that he created to benefit his client’s
developmentally disabled adult son, he borrowed $127,682 over a four-year period without
making proper disclosures to the co-trustee about his conflict of interest, about his financial
status, and without advising the co-trustee to consult independent counsel. He subsequently filed
personal bankruptcy, listing the trust as a creditor, and his loan from the trust was discharged.
The suspension was effective on October 13, 2010.
5
In re Frank Eugene Jeffers, III, M.R. 23537, 2008 PR 00103 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr.
Jeffers, who was licensed in 1977, was censured and was directed to attend the professionalism
seminar of the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute. He represented both the buyer and
the seller at a house closing, without advising either party that the representation created a
conflict of interest.
In re Theresa Lea Jones, M.R. 23856, 2007PR00018 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Ms.
Jones, who licensed in Illinois in 1989, was suspended for one year. She breached a fiduciary
duty and engaged in a conflict of interests when she assisted a close friend in the purchase of
farm property from elderly clients at significantly undervalued prices. She also failed to comply
with her client’s directive to offer a tenant farmer the first opportunity to purchase the farm. The
suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re James Russell Fennerty, M.R. 23666, 2009 PR 00026 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Fennerty, who was licensed in 1972, was censured. He prepared a will on behalf of a client
giving himself and his wife a substantial gift. The client later revoked the will.
In re Andrew Joseph Rukavina, M.R. 23585, 2007 PR 00096 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr.
Rukavina, who was licensed in 1983, was suspended for five months and ordered to attend the
Illinois Institute of Professional Responsibility. He failed to disclose his financial interests in a
title insurance and in a survey company to his residential real estate clients. In addition, he
employed deceptive advertising practices to procure clients. The suspension was effective on
June 7, 2010.
2.
Neglect and Competency
In re Richard Ivan Bass, M.R. 23884, 2009PR00010 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Bass, who was licensed in 1961, was suspended for ninety days. He failed to appear for a status
date in connection with his client’s consolidated workers’ compensation claims, resulting in the
dismissal of the claims for want of prosecution. He also failed to initially cooperate with the
ARDC investigation of the matter. The suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re Robert Eugene Bennett, M.R. 23590, 2009 PR 00012 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Bennett, who was licensed in 1976, was suspended for six months and until further order of the
Court. He neglected a client's immigration case and made misrepresentations to the client about
the status of the matter. He failed to appear and participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
In re Derrick Daniel, M.R. 23731, 2009 PR 00011 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Daniel, who
was licensed in 2000, was suspended for six months and until further order of the Court. He
neglected two client matters and misrepresented the status of a case to one of the clients. He
failed to participate in the disciplinary process.
In re James Richard Carey, M.R. 23891, 2009PR00094 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Carey, who was licensed in 1989, was suspended for thirty days. He failed to appear in
connection with a chancery suit, resulting in the dismissal of his client’s case for want of
6
prosecution. He also misrepresented the status of the matter to his client for several years after
the suit was dismissed. The suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re Herb N. Elesh, M.R. 23399, 2008 PR 00009 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Elesh, who
was licensed in 1996, was suspended for three months and until he successfully completes a
course offered by the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute. He neglected a divorce case
and an immigration matter. The suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Michael D. Ferreira, M.R. 23677, 2009 PR 00051 (Ill. March 16, 2010).
Mr. Ferreira, who was licensed in 1991, was suspended for six months and until further order of
the Court. He failed to communicate with two clients about their breach of contract claims and
did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. He failed to appear and participate in the
disciplinary proceedings.
In re Donald Wayne Garlinger, M.R. 23466, 2009 PR 00029 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr.
Garlinger, who was licensed in 1962, was suspended for six months. He neglected litigation
involving a contract dispute and made misrepresentations to the client about the status of the
matter for over twenty-seven years. The suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Gregory James German, M.R. 23520, 2009 PR 00006 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
German, who was licensed in 1997, was suspended for two years and until further order of the
Court and was ordered to make certain restitution to a former client. He neglected two different
client matters, misrepresented the status of one of those matters to his client, failed to carry out
his duties in two cases where he had been appointed to serve as a guardian ad litem, and did not
cooperate with the ARDC.
In re Daniel Steven Gradows, M.R. 24033, 2009PR00097 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Gradows, who was licensed in 2004, was suspended for one year and until further order of the
Court and until he makes certain restitution. He neglected two client matters, misrepresented the
status of a matter to a client, converted funds, and failed to refund unearned fees. He did not
appear at his disciplinary hearing.
In re James H. Himmel, M.R. 23733, 2008 PR 00017 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Himmel,
who was licensed in 1975, was suspended for thirty days. He agreed to represent a client in a
claim against the builder of the client’s home and then failed to file a complaint against the
builder. Further, he made misrepresentations to the client regarding the status of the matter. The
suspension was effective on June 8, 2010.
In re James E. Hinterlong, M.R. 23811, 2009 PR 00046 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Hinterlong, who was licensed in 1972, was disbarred. He neglected a client’s civil case, resulting
in a $582,000 default judgment being entered against the client’s business. He also made
misrepresentations to the client about the status of the case and did not tell the client about courtordered monetary sanctions and other orders. He failed to appear at his own disciplinary
proceeding.
7
In re Clara L. Larry, M.R. 23380, 2007 PR 00019 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Ms. Larry, who
was licensed in 1987, was suspended for sixty days and ordered to pay certain restitution. She
neglected two clients’ employment discrimination claims and failed to refund unearned fees. The
suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Brainerd William Latourette, III, M.R. 23955, 2010PR00078 (Ill. September 20,
2010). Mr. LaTourette was licensed in Missouri in 1982 and in Illinois in 1983. He was disbarred
in Missouri for failing to perform his duties as trustee for a family trust, disobeying a court order,
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and failing to participate in disciplinary
proceedings against him. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred
him.
In re Chad Michael Manuel, M.R. 23959, 2009PR00085 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Manuel, who was licensed in 2004, was suspended one year and until further order of the Court.
He neglected two different client matters, failed to communicate with a client, and did not refund
unearned legal fees.
In re Baltazar Mendoza, M.R. 24062, 2009PR00067 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Mendoza, who was licensed in Illinois in 2001, was suspended for thirty days and is required to
attend and successfully complete the Professionalism Seminar of the Illinois Professional
Responsibility Institute. He neglected two civil matters and made false statements to one of his
clients regarding the status of settlement negotiations in the client’s case. The suspension was
effective on October 13, 2010.
In re James T. Murray, M.R. 23680, 2007 PR 00063 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Murray,
who was licensed in 1966, was suspended for thirty days. He neglected a client’s property
damage suit against a municipality. He then failed to inform his client that the client had been
barred from presenting evidence at an arbitration hearing, that an arbitrator had ruled in favor of
the municipality, and that the client had the option of filing a rejection of the arbitrator’s decision
by a certain date. The suspension was effective on June 7, 2010.
In re Steven Bruce Nagler, M.R. 23644, 2007 PR 00012 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Nagler,
who was licensed in 1969, was censured. Between 2000 and 2002, he failed to timely file estate
tax returns and pay taxes due on his late father’s estate. Further, he failed to properly account to a
trust beneficiary about his activities as trustee of his father’s testamentary trust.
In re Patrick Joseph O’Malley, Jr., M.R. 23981, 2009PR00106 (Ill. September 22,
2010). Mr. O’Malley, who was licensed in 2003, was suspended for six months and until further
order of the Court, with the suspension stayed in its entirety by a two-year period of probation
with conditions. He neglected a breach of contract matter and then misrepresented the status of
the case to his client.
In re Rex Lindsey Reu, M.R. 23657, 2009 PR 00044 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr. Reu,
who was licensed in 1978, was censured and required to complete the Professionalism Seminar
of the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute. He neglected discovery obligations in a
8
client’s dissolution of marriage proceeding, resulting in the imposition of monetary sanctions
against the client, and he failed to inform the client of the entry of the sanctions.
In re Edward Eugene Robinson, M.R. 23845, 2009PR00049 (Ill. September 20, 2010).
Mr. Robinson, who was licensed in 1977, was suspended for six months and until further order
of the Court. He neglected a client’s civil rights matter and did not cooperate with the ARDC
investigation into that matter.
In re David Jack Rosenfeld, M.R. 23748, 2009 PR 00008 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Rosenfeld, who was licensed in 1990, was suspended for sixty days. While awaiting the Court’s
approval of a petition for discipline on consent against him in a prior disciplinary matter, he
neglected a personal injury claim by failing to appear for several court hearings, causing the case
to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The suspension is effective on June 8, 2010.
In re Kelly A. Saindon, M.R. 23702, 2008 PR 00015 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Ms. Saindon,
who was licensed in 1998, was suspended for thirty days. Over a three year period, she neglected
two civil cases and made false statements to her employer and a court regarding actions that she
claimed to have taken on the matters. In one of the cases, she billed a client for work where there
was no verifiable evidence that the work had been performed. The suspension was effective on
June 7, 2010.
In re Gary Eugene Stark, M.R. 23732, 2009 PR 00019 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Stark,
who was licensed in 1994, was suspended for one-hundred twenty days and until he makes
certain restitution. He failed to file a lawsuit on behalf of clients and then made false
representations to the clients regarding the status of the matter. The suspension was effective on
June 8, 2010.
3.
Criminal Charges, Conduct or Convictions
In re Nathan Andrew Billmaier, M.R. 23587, 2009 PR 00125 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Billmaier, who was licensed in 2006, was disbarred on consent. He was convicted of bringing
contraband into a penal institution, possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and
possessing cannabis with intent to deliver. In the criminal case, he was sentenced to three years
of probation, with the first 180 days to be spent in incarceration.
In re David Everette Bowden, M.R. 23676, 2007 PR 00072 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr.
Bowden, who was licensed in 1998, was suspended for one year and until further order of the
Court. He possessed illegal drugs on three separate occasions and provided insufficient evidence
to suggest that he was receiving appropriate treatment for his substance abuse.
In re Beth Ann Broyles, M.R. 23826, 2010 PR 00035 (Ill., May 26, 2010). Ms. Broyles,
who was licensed in 1998, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order of the
Court. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit visa fraud after she assisted a client in a
scheme to place temporary foreign workers in employment positions in the United States in
contravention of immigration law.
9
In re Joseph Patrick Collins, M.R. 24032, 2010PR00097 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Collins, who was licensed in 1975, was disbarred on consent. He was convicted in federal court
of conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. The conviction was based on his conduct while
serving as outside counsel for Refco Inc., a commodities brokerage firm. Mr. Collins participated
with others in an eight-year scheme to hide the company’s financial situation by making false
and fraudulent statements to various parties, including banks, auditors, investors and the
Securities Exchange Commission.
In re Dave Ellis Compton, M.R. 23883, 2010 PR 00052 (Illinois July 9, 2010). Mr.
Compton, who was licensed in 1991, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order
of the Court. He pled guilty to bringing contraband, cannabis, into Cook County Criminal Court
House Courtroom 308 detention area, a penal institution.
In re Ann Maureen Day, M.R. 23573, 2005 PR 00050 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Ms. Day, who
was licensed in 1989, was disbarred on consent. She was convicted in state court on charges of
forgery and theft. The conviction was based on her having defrauded her former law partner by
intercepting checks due to the law partnership and using the checks' proceeds for herself, or by
drawing checks on the firm's accounts without her partner's knowledge. The total amount she
took from the firm exceeded $137,000.
In re Deron Baker Elliott, M.R. 23722, 2009 PR 00068 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Elliott
was licensed in Illinois in 1996. He was disbarred on consent after he was convicted of
assaulting a police officer in Morris County, New Jersey. He also made profane and derogatory
statements to ARDC and Illinois bar admission personnel.
In re John Frank Harris, M.R. 23810, 2010 PR 00030 (Ill. April 6, 2010). Mr. Harris,
Court. He is the subject of a pending federal indictment alleging that he knowingly and
intentionally participated in a scheme to commit wire fraud while employed by the State of
Illinois as the Chief of Staff to then Governor Rod R. Blagojevich.
In re Don Paul Koeneman Jr., M.R. 23801, 2009 PR 00112 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Koeneman, who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for two years and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed after sixty days by a three-year period of probation with
conditions. He pled guilty to two counts of disorderly conduct. The suspension was effective on
June 8, 2010.
In re Tom George Kontos, M.R. 23837, 2010 PR 00037 (Ill. June 2, 2010). Mr. Kontos,
Court. He pled guilty in federal court to conspiring to obstruct a federal investigation into money
laundering and drug trafficking. He provided false information concerning the ownership of real
property in response to a federal Grand Jury subpoena, counseled another individual to provide
false testimony to the Grand Jury, and instructed a witness concerning the specific false
information the witness was to provide.
10
In re Douglas W. Lohmar, Jr., M.R. 23675, 2009 PR 00086 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Lohmar, who was licensed in 1987, was suspended for two years and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed in its entirety by a two-year period of probation with
conditions. He was convicted on two occasions of driving under the influence of alcohol.
In re Robert S. Luce, M.R. 24074, 2009PR00031 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr. Luce,
who was licensed in 1972, was suspended for five months. He pled guilty to one count of
obstruction of justice in federal court for falsely advising the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission that an individual would not voluntarily appear for an interview. He was
sentenced to a three-year term of probation and was ordered to pay a $30,000 fine. The
In re Michael Edward Marsh, M.R. 23609, 2008 PR 00026 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Marsh, who was licensed in 1980, was suspended for four years and until further order of the
Court and until he satisfies a restitution order. He was convicted in state court on five
misdemeanor counts of theft of client retainer monies.
In re James Edward Musial, M.R. 23712, 2008 PR 00051 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Musial, who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for one year and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed after ninety days by a two-year period of probation subject to
conditions. He drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol on two occasions and also
neglected four client matters. The suspension is effective on June 8, 2010.
In re Dennis F. Nalick, M.R. 23934, 2010PR00053 (Ill. July 21, 2010). Mr. Nalick, who
was licensed in 1978, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order of the Court. On
April 12, 2010, he was charged by information in Madison County with the offense of financial
exploitation of an elderly person, a class two felony. On May 5, 2010, the ARDC charged him
with misconduct based on the same events that are at issue in the criminal case. Mr. Nalick has
been disciplined on two prior occasions for unrelated misconduct.
In re Robert Joseph Repel, M.R. 23642, 2009 PR 00096 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Repel, who was licensed in 1977, was suspended for two years and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed in its entirety by a two-year period of probation with
conditions. He was convicted of two separate instances of driving under the influence of alcohol.
In re James A. Reskin, M.R. 23982, 2010PR00083 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Reskin, who was licensed in Illinois in 1982, was disbarred on consent. He was convicted in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on charges of obstructing a
criminal investigation by making false and misleading statements to the Internal Revenue
Service and the United States Department of Justice.
In re Steven R. Robertson, M.R. 23933, 2009PR00061 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Robertson, who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for two years and until further order of the
Court. He pled guilty to domestic battery after striking his wife in a restaurant and also engaged
in a second act of domestic battery involving his daughter at their home. Mr. Robertson also
neglected a probate matter. He failed to participate in his disciplinary proceeding.
11
In re Chad William Sabora, M.R. 23951, 2009PR00063 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Sabora, who was licensed in 2005, was suspended for eighteen months and until further order of
the Court. He was arrested in Chicago and charged with possession of heroin. The charges were
later dropped after he successfully completed drug school as part of an agreement with
prosecutors. In addition, he pled guilty to driving under the influence.
In re Howard Eugene Towles, M.R. 23860, 2004PR00083, 2006PR00055 (Ill.
September 20, 2010). Mr. Towles, who was licensed in 1984, was suspended for one year and
until further order of the Court. He was convicted for driving under the influence, driving with
open alcohol in his car, speeding, and driving with a suspended license. He also neglected a
client’s criminal case and withdrew from the case without providing the client with important
papers that the client needed. He has been disciplined before.
In re Allen Barry Witz, M.R. 23510, 2008 PR 00059 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Witz, who
was licensed in 1966, was disbarred. He conspired to commit securities fraud and engaged in
conduct contrary to rules or regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the
criminal case, he was sentenced to five years of probation, six months of electronic home
monitoring, and was ordered to perform community service. Mr. Witz, who did not participate in
his disciplinary hearing, was suspended on an interim basis on October 14, 2008.
In re John P. Wolgamot, M.R. 23694, 2009 PR 00035 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Wolgamot, who was licensed in 1974, was disbarred on consent. He pled guilty to a charge of
willfully assisting a client in filing a fraudulent United States income tax return that understated
the client’s income by $478,098. He was sentenced to term of imprisonment of one year and one
day. Mr. Wolgamot was suspended on an interim basis on August 5, 2009.
4.
Conduct Involving Fraud, Deceit, Dishonesty, Misrepresentation
or Lack of Candor
In re Michael Peter Butler, M.R. 23783, 2009 PR 00093 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Butler,
who was licensed in 1994, was suspended for two years. While he was a partner in the Chicago
office of a New York-based law firm, he billed his firm’s corporate client approximately
$100,000 for work he falsely claimed to have done defending a federal employment
discrimination claim. He had repaid the firm and was no longer practicing law at the time of his
disciplinary hearing. The suspension was effective on June 8, 2010.
In re Anthony A. Demasi, M.R. 23482, 2008 PR 00110 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Demasi,
who was licensed in 2001, was disbarred. For several years, he operated a commodity trading
pool. At some point, he began telling potential investors that the pool was profitable when, in
fact, it had lost money and was closed. He induced at least 108 investors to give him more than
$16,000,000 for the purpose of trading financial futures. Instead of using the funds he received
for legitimate investments, he used the proceeds for personal purposes.
12
In re Daniel Joseph Fumagalli, M.R. 24052, 2010PR00018 (Ill. September 22, 2010).
Mr. Fumagalli, who was licensed in 1982, was censured. He twice acted as a witness to the
execution of documents that had been signed outside of his presence.
In re Kelly Christine Garland, M.R. 23897, 2010PR00060 (Ill. September 21, 2010).
Ms. Garland, who was licensed in 2002, was disbarred on consent. She falsified court orders and
an affidavit in five different domestic relations matters in order to conceal from her clients the
true status of their cases.
In re Philip Andrew Igoe, M.R. 23446, 2008 PR 00068 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Igoe,
who was licensed in 1977, was suspended for six months. He failed to diligently pursue a
proceeding for disbursement of surplus funds arising from a foreclosure sale. He also was not
candid to a judge and to his client regarding the proceeding, and he notarized, and filed with the
court, an affidavit with a false date in connection with the matter. The suspension was effective
on February 11, 2010.
In re Brian Edward King, M.R. 24009, 2007PR00118 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
King, who was licensed in 2000, was suspended for nine months and until he makes certain
restitution and attends and successfully completes the Professionalism Seminar of the Illinois
Professional Responsibility Institute. He converted $15,010 from his law firm and attempted to
hide the conduct from his firm. The suspension was effective on October 13, 2010.
In re Christian Lawrence Kline, M.R. 24036, 2007PR00107 (Ill. September 22, 2010).
Mr. Kline, who was licensed in Illinois in 1996, was suspended for three months and until he
attends and successfully completes the Professionalism Seminar of the Illinois Professional
Responsibility Institute. While working on a temporary assignment for a large law firm, he billed
a client for work that he did not perform. The suspension was effective on October 13, 2010.
In re David Mark Laz, M.R. 23831, 2007PR00121 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr. Laz,
who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for one year and until further order of the Court. He
engaged in an ex parte communication with a judge and misled the court during the course of
that conversation.
In re Mark Maciasz, M.R. 23960, 2006PR00080 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr. Maciasz,
who was licensed in 1992, was suspended for one year. While employed as a full-time attorney
at successive law firms, he secretly operated his own separate law practice. He submitted an
employment application to the second law firm that contained false information, including
falsified tax records, in order to hide his outside income and clients from the firm. The
In re Paul John Maganzini, M.R. 23561, 2009 PR 00036 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr.
Maganzini, who was licensed in 1973, was censured. At the request of a former client, he
improperly notarized the signature of the former client’s wife on two Illinois Statutory Short
Forms Power of Attorney for Property and a mortgage. He was unaware at the time that the
documents were to be used by his former client to obtain loans without the wife’s knowledge.
13
In re David Andrew Pollock, M.R. 23808, 2009 PR 00060 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Pollock, who was licensed in 1978, was suspended for sixty days. He violated an order of
protection that his ex-wife had obtained against him. In addition, he used his ex-wife’s personal
identity information for the purpose of obtaining a loan via the internet by applying for a cash
advance in the amount of $750. Those funds were deposited in his ex-wife’s bank account,
causing her to be liable for repayment of the loan with interest. The suspension was effective on
June 8, 2010.
In re Richard C. Sklare, M.R. 23995, 2009PR00004 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Sklare, who was licensed in 1989, was suspended for one year and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed after ninety days by a two-year period of probation subject to
conditions. On six occasions, he wrote checks on his law firm account that were payable to
doctors and falsely made it appear as though the payments were costs for treating firm clients.
He then cashed the checks and used the proceeds for his own purposes. In addition, he advanced
living expenses to a client. The suspension was effective on October 13, 2010.
In re Brent Alexander Smith, M.R. 24046, 2009PR00070 (Ill. September 21, 2010). Mr.
Smith, who was licensed in Illinois in 1998, was censured and was required to attend and
successfully complete the Professionalism Seminar of the Illinois Professional Responsibility
Institute. He signed another attorney’s endorsement to a $2,000 client personal injury settlement
draft without authority and delayed the resolution of that attorney’s fee claim.
In re Scott David Spooner, MR. 23852, 2009 PR 00114 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Spooner, who was licensed in 1981, was censured. He made misrepresentations to an employer
relating to an expense he incurred in relation to a client matter. He later attempted to charge his
client’s insurance carrier for both his time and the expense in question. In addition, he pled guilty
to a DUI charge.
In re Robert A. Suding Jr., M.R. 23813, 2009 PR 00014 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Suding, who was licensed in 1999, was suspended for one year and until further order of the
Court. In order to gain a financial advantage in his own divorce proceeding, he withheld from his
wife the fact that he had assigned to his cousin the right to collect on a pre-marital debt owed to
him by his wife.
In re Roger Albert Weiler, M.R. 23527, 2008 PR 00007 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Weiler,
who was licensed in 1952, was suspended for one year. He purposefully failed to disclose assets
in his own personal bankruptcy petitions. The suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Lawrence Scott Wick, M.R. 23942, 2005PR00066 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Wick, who was licensed in Illinois in 1971, was disbarred. He billed more than $1 million to two
corporate clients for work that he had never performed.
In re Ted Maurice Word, M.R. 24013, 2009PR00084 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Word, who was licensed in 1998, was censured, ordered to attend and successfully complete the
Professionalism Seminar of the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute, and required to
deposit certain funds with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County pending the resolution
14
of a civil matter. He participated in the purported sale of two Chicago properties at the request of
someone whom he believed to be the property owner’s daughter, but who, in fact, was a fraud
artist who had stolen the owner’s identity. Rather than verify the fraud artist’s claims, Mr. Word
held himself out as having the owner’s authority to act on her behalf, when, in fact, he did not,
and he completed the closing relating to the purported sales.
In re Fadi Zanayed, M.R. 23509, 2008 PR 00124 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Zanayed, who
was licensed in 1985, was suspended for two years. While representing a client in a dissolution
of marriage matter, he forged and notarized the signatures of a third party on pleadings, made
false statements to the court and to the ARDC, and attempted to obstruct an ARDC investigation
by providing funds to a complaining witness. The suspension was effective on February 11,
2010.
5.
Fees
In re Michael Scott Crosby, M.R. 23610, 2008 PR 00080 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Crosby, who was licensed in Illinois in 1980, was censured and required to complete the
Professionalism Seminar of the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute. He failed to
promptly refund the unearned portion of fee advances he had received from several clients who
had discharged him.
In re Jeffery Luckett, M.R. 23558, 2008 PR 00043 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Luckett, who
was licensed in 1994, was suspended for two years with the suspension stayed after ninety days
by a 24-month period of probation subject to conditions. While participating in the Juvenile
Court Bar Attorney Program representing indigent respondents in juvenile justice and child
protection matters in Cook County, he submitted inaccurate fee petitions and affidavits to courts
in connection with that program. The suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
6.
Commingling, Conversion, Trust Account and Property Issues
In re Gilda Vahdani Amini, M.R. 23916, 2009PR00054 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Ms.
Amini, who was licensed in 1995, was suspended for six months. She converted approximately
$8,400 of escrowed funds that she was supposed to hold in relation to a real estate transaction.
She also provided false testimony to the ARDC about her conduct. The suspension was effective
on October 11, 2010.
In re Robert Edward Burrows, M.R. 23798, 2009PR00075 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Burrows, who was licensed in 1991, was suspended for ninety days. He mishandled $2,069.96 in
funds that was due to another law firm from a mutual client’s settlement proceeds. He also made
an unauthorized endorsement on a check. The suspension was effective on June 8, 2010.
In re William Charles Chesbrough, M.R. 23991, 2009PR00133 (Ill. September 22,
2010). Mr. Chesbrough, who was licensed in 1980, was disbarred. He misappropriated more than
$113,000 that he was holding for a client in connection with the client’s deceased mother’s
estate. In addition, in two separate real estate matters, he converted more than $28,000 that he
was holding either as earnest money or to pay real estate taxes.
15
In re Wes Cowell, M.R. 24063, 2009PR00066 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr. Cowell,
who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1991, was suspended for three years and until
further order of Court, with the suspension stayed after eighteen months by a period of probation
with conditions. He mismanaged $45,256.59 in funds belonging to a client in a domestic
relations matter. The suspension was effective on October 13, 2010.
In re Jess Evan Forrest, M.R. 23796, 2009PR00064 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Forrest,
who was licensed in 1964, was suspended for one year, with the suspension stayed after two
months by a one-year period of probation with conditions. Through bad bookkeeping practices,
he failed to preserve the identity of $7,500 that he had been holding in escrow for six years in
connection with a real estate transaction. The suspension was effective on June 8, 2010.
In re Jeffery William Green, M.R. 23617, 2007PR00109 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Green, who was licensed in 2003, was disbarred. He misappropriated client funds, failed to
diligently represent a client, made false statements to clients, and made misrepresentations to the
ARDC. He was suspended on an interim basis on September 15, 2009.
In re Steven David Gustafson, M.R. 23784, 2007 PR 00127 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Gustafson, who was licensed in 1991, was disbarred. While a member of a Naperville law firm,
he misappropriated more than $675,000 in client funds and created false financial records in
order to hide his use of a client account to pay his personal expenses. He did not appear for his
disciplinary hearing. He was suspended on an interim basis on September 1, 2009.
In re Thaddeus James Hunt, M.R. 23937, 2009PR00080 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Hunt, who was licensed in 2002, was disbarred. He misappropriated $10,274.67 in client funds,
neglected seven client matters, failed to communicate with clients and abandoned his law
practice.
In re John Robert Klytta and In re Anthony Michael Klytta, M.R. 23674, 2006 PR
00060, 2006 PR 00061 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Anthony Michael Klytta and John Robert Klytta,
who are brothers, were licensed in 1989. They were both suspended for one year, with the
suspension stayed after ninety days by probation for two years, subject to conditions. They
mismanaged over $10,000 entrusted to them for clients or third parties because they failed to
balance their client trust account or timely review their bank statements. The suspensions were
effective on June 8, 2010.
In re Donald P. Lasica, M.R. 23734, 2007 PR 00125 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Lasica,
who was licensed in 1975, was disbarred. He misappropriated approximately $78,000 from a
decedent’s estate.
In re Henry Moss Meersman, M.R. 23643, 2009 PR 00017 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Meersman, who was licensed in 1951, was disbarred. While acting as the trustee of a
testamentary trust that a decedent had established to benefit the decedent’s minor grandson, Mr.
Meersman converted all of the trust assets, $30,656.73, to his own purposes.
16
In re Robert Sheldon Monitz, M.R. 23713, 2009 PR 00055 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Monitz, who was licensed in 1981, was disbarred. He neglected a decedent’s estate,
misappropriated over $100,000 in estate and trust funds, collected an unreasonable fee, made
misrepresentations to a court and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary matter.
In re Kenneth Alan Runes, M.R. 23950, 2009PR00107 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Runes, who was licensed in 1991, was disbarred. He misappropriated over $13,000 in client
funds, neglected numerous client matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund
unearned fees, and did not cooperate with the ARDC investigation. He failed to participate in his
disciplinary proceeding.
In re Wendell Benjamin Sims, M.R. 23434, 2007 PR 00004 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr.
Sims, who was licensed in 1988, was suspended for six months. He mismanaged funds of a
decedent’s estate. Further, he was not candid with a client about the status of those funds. The
In re Harold Louis Turner, Jr., M.R. 23588, 2009 PR 00016 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Turner, who was licensed in 1967, was suspended for three months and until he completes a
course offered by the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute. He mishandled settlement
funds during a dispute with his former law firm partners over money that was due to each partner
after the firm’s dissolution. The suspension is effective on April 6, 2010.
In re Alfred S. Vano, M.R. 23410, 2004 PR 00142 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Vano, who
was licensed in 1977, was suspended for one year with the last six months stayed by a six-month
period of probation with conditions. He converted monies owed to two law firms at which he
was employed. The suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Timothy John Walsh, M.R. 23953, 2008PR00077 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Walsh, who was licensed in 1990, was suspended for two years and until further order of the
Court, with the suspension stayed after five months by a three-year period of probation with
conditions. While acting as a trustee for various life insurance trusts, he mismanaged
approximately $87,000 of funds he held on behalf of the trusts. The suspension was effective on
October 11, 2010.
7.
Reciprocal Disciplinary Action
In re Michael Robert Allen, M.R. 23792, 2010 PR 00026 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Allen
was licensed in Missouri in 1985 and in Illinois in 1987. He was disbarred in Missouri for failing
to prepare an order as directed by a court in a family law case and for not participating in the
Missouri disciplinary process. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and
disbarred him.
In re Norvel E. Brown, Jr., M.R. 23781, 2010 PR 00020 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Brown
was licensed in Missouri in 1977 and in Illinois in 1989. He was disbarred in Missouri after he
was convicted in federal court of wire fraud and theft. He defrauded the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development and commercial banks of approximately
17
$3,000,000 through his ownership and operation of Mississippi Valley Title, Inc., a Missouri
corporation. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Alan Samuel Cohen, M.R. 24053, 2010PR00104 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Cohen was licensed in Missouri in 1992 and in Illinois in 1993. He was disbarred in Missouri for
failing to maintain a client trust account and for using client and third party funds to pay office
and personal expenses. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred
him.
In re Swaray Edward Conteh, M.R. 23812, 2010 PR 00033 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr.
Conteh was licensed in Indiana in 1995 and in Illinois the following year. He was publicly
reprimanded in Indiana for failing to promptly notify a third party of his receipt of funds awarded
to a client. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and reprimanded him.
In re C. Wayne K. Davis, M.R. 23873, 2010PR00049 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Davis was licensed in Missouri in 1996 and in Illinois in 1999. He was disbarred in Missouri
after a felony conviction. He misappropriated at least $25,000.00 from his employer, the Edward
Jones Company. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Karl W. Dickhaus, M.R. 23789, 2010 PR 00023 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Dickhaus
was licensed in Missouri in 1996 and in Illinois in 1999. He was disbarred in Missouri for
neglecting four client matters and for failing to participate in the Missouri disciplinary process.
The Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Martin Edward Doyle, M.R. 23779, 2010 PR 00019 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Doyle
was licensed in Illinois in 1979 and in Florida in 1984. He was permanently disbarred in Florida
for fraud, misusing monies entrusted to his law firm trust account, and soliciting individuals to
invest in non-existent investments. He was charged with misappropriating approximately $1.5
million from several victims whom he lured into making investments. The Supreme Court of
Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Richard Isaac Fine, M.R. 23641, 2010 PR 00002 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr. Fine
was licensed in Illinois in 1964 and in California in 1973. The Supreme Court of California
disbarred him for repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits, pleadings and appeals. The Illinois
Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Dennis Dowe Fisher, M.R. 23754, 2010 PR 00013 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Fisher
was licensed in Illinois in 1978 and in North Dakota in 1984. He was suspended in North Dakota
for two years after he was convicted of two instances of theft. He shoplifted knives. The
Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for two years. The
suspension was effective on June 7, 2010.
In re Nicholas L’Ouverture Gerren, Jr., M.R. 23875, 2010PR00051 (Ill. September 20,
2010). Mr. Gerren was licensed in Ohio in 1973 and in Illinois in 1980. He was suspended in
Ohio for eighteen months for converting $12,000 in client funds, neglecting two different client
matters, and failing to include a $7,500 fee paid to him by a client in the client’s bankruptcy
18
petition. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for
eighteen months. The suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re Celeste Ann Hanlin, M.R. 23575, 2009 PR 00124 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Ms.
Hanlin was licensed in Illinois in 2004 and in Idaho the following year. She was informally
admonished in Idaho for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while she was a legal
intern employed at a public defender’s office. At the time of the misconduct, she had not yet
taken the Idaho bar examination. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and
reprimanded her.
In re Scott E. Hansen, M.R. 23795, 2010 PR 00025 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Hansen was
licensed in Wisconsin in 1983 and in Illinois the following year. He was suspended in Wisconsin
for nine months and until he makes certain restitution for neglecting four separate criminal
matters, making false statements to a court and to a client, failing to refund unearned fees,
improperly depositing an advance fee into his business account, and not cooperating with the
Wisconsin disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline
and suspended him for nine months and until he is reinstated in Wisconsin. The suspension was
In re Jeffrey Bart Hollander, M.R. 23589, 2009 PR 00130 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Hollander was licensed in Illinois in 1992 and in Michigan in 1993. He was disbarred in
Michigan for settling a personal injury matter without his client’s knowledge or consent. The
Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Robert Raymond Jung, M.R. 23944, 2010PR00074 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Jung was licensed in Illinois in 1991 and in Arizona in 1992. He was twice suspended in
Arizona, the first time for six months followed by six months probation with conditions, the
second time for sixty days followed by two years probation with conditions. He failed to refund
unearned fees, did not communicate with clients, failed to promptly withdraw upon discharge in
three criminal matters, and misused his client trust account, causing it to become overdrawn. The
Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for eight months and
until he is reinstated in Arizona. He was also placed on probation until his current period of
probation in Arizona is successfully completed. The suspension was effective on October 11,
2010.
In re Stephen George Kaludis, M.R. 23793; 2010 PR 00022 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr.
Kaludis was licensed in Missouri in 1988 and in Illinois in 1994. He was disbarred in Missouri
after he pled guilty to stealing over $25,000 from clients after forging the clients’ signatures on a
settlement check. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Ravi Kanwal, M.R. 23912, 2010PR00062 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr. Kanwal
was licensed in Colorado in 1992 and in Illinois in 1994. He was suspended in Colorado for one
year and one day for filing over 4,700 applications seeking immigration benefits for clients
before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and its predecessor agency at a
time when he himself did not have lawful immigration status in the United States. The Illinois
19
Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for one year and one day and
until he is reinstated in Colorado. The suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re Thomas Joel Manning, M.R. 23526, 2009 PR 01516 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr.
Manning was admitted in Ohio in 1992 and in Illinois the following year. He is currently
suspended in Illinois based upon on unrelated order of reciprocal discipline. The Supreme Court
of Ohio suspended him for six months for commingling and converting client funds and for not
being candid with a client. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and
suspended him for six months. The new suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Jaipal Singh Patheja, M.R. 23750, 2010 PR 00012 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr.
Patheja was licensed in Illinois in 1994 and in Indiana in 1997. He was suspended in Indiana for
at least six months after he pled guilty to fleeing law enforcement and driving while intoxicated
in a manner that endangers a person. Subsequently, he was twice convicted of public
intoxication. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for
six months and until he is reinstated in Indiana. The suspension was effective on June 7, 2010.
In re Elliot James Peskind, M.R. 23936, 2010PR00072 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Peskind was licensed in Illinois in 1968 and in Arizona in 1972. The Supreme Court of Arizona
twice ordered him censured and, each time, placed him on probation for one year subject to
conditions. He used letterhead which indicated he was a real estate law specialist after he had
lost his specialty certification, misused his client trust account, and commingled personal funds
with client funds. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and censured him.
He was also placed on probation until he successfully completes the terms of the probation
conditions imposed in Arizona.
In re Sue E. Radulovich, M.R. 23885, 2010PR00054 (Ill. September 23, 2010). Ms.
Radulovich was licensed in Michigan in 1981 and in Illinois in 1985. She was suspended on in
Michigan for 120 days after she was found in contempt of court for violating a trial court
injunction, filing a frivolous action, and disobeying a court order. The Illinois Supreme Court
imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended her for 120 days. The suspension was effective on
October 14, 2010.
In re Michael Paul Reynolds, M.R. 23821, 2010 PR 00034 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr.
Reynolds was admitted in Illinois in 1987 and in South Dakota in 1994. He was disbarred in
South Dakota after he failed to disclose a prior suspension from the practice of law in South
Dakota to a Chicago law firm in connection with an application for employment. He also falsely
represented that he had never been suspended from practice in an application for professional
liability insurance, and declared under penalty of perjury that he had never been suspended in
any state in an application for pro hac vice admission in the Superior Court of California. The
Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re Linda Diane Schlanger, M.R. 23598, 2009 PR 00135 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Ms.
Schlanger was licensed in Tennessee in 1972 and in Illinois in 1974. She was suspended for five
years in Tennessee after she pled guilty in federal court to conspiracy to defraud mortgage loan
companies and financial institutions in several real estate transactions. The Illinois Supreme
20
Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended her for five years. The suspension was
effective on April 6, 2010.
In re Laura Ann Sipes, M.R. 23841, 2010 PR 00038 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Ms. Sipes was
licensed in Missouri in 1993 and in Illinois the following year. She was disbarred in Missouri for
neglecting adoption matters and for filing a false affidavit in an adoption proceeding. The Illinois
Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred her.
In re Michael Jay Smith, M.R. 23874, 2010PR00050 (Ill. September 23, 2010). Mr.
Smith was licensed in Illinois in 1991 and in Indiana in 1993. Indiana suspended him for one
year and until further order of the Court for misappropriating client funds and for failing to
cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal
discipline and suspended him for one year and until he is reinstated in Indiana. The suspension
was effective on October 14, 2010.
In re Terry L. Stranke, M.R. 23872, 2010PR00048 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Stranke was licensed in Illinois in 1976 and in Ohio in 1978. He was suspended in Ohio for six
months for sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, neglecting two bankruptcy matters, permitting
bankruptcy petitions to be filed without meeting with or speaking to his clients, and engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law. The Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline
and suspended him for six months. The suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re Laura Larson Sullivan, M.R. 23756, 2010 PR 00015 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Ms.
Sullivan was licensed in Indiana in 1984 and in Illinois in 1987. She was suspended in Indiana
for ninety days without automatic reinstatement after she neglected several bankruptcy cases and
failed to communicate with clients. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline
and suspended her for ninety days and until she is reinstated in Indiana. The suspension was
In re James Christopher Toth, M.R. 23806, 2010 PR 00029 (Ill. May 1, 2010). Mr. Toth
was licensed in Michigan in 1994 and in Illinois the following year. He was reprimanded in
Michigan for not listing a potential legal malpractice claim against another attorney in a client’s
bankruptcy filing. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and reprimanded
him.
In re George V. Warren, M.R. 23574, 2009 PR 00123 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr. Warren
was licensed to the practice of law in Michigan in 1968 and in Illinois in 1979. He was disbarred
in Michigan for neglecting a client’s immigration case, refusing to refund unearned fees, and
failing to be candid with the disciplinary authority. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed
reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.
In re David Michael Wise, M.R. 23869, 2010PR00045 (Ill. September 20 , 2010). Mr.
Wise was licensed in both Ohio and in Illinois in 1987. He was suspended in Ohio for one year
for threatening to bring criminal charges to gain an advantage for a client in a custody matter,
misusing his client trust account, commingling funds, and writing checks on an account with
insufficient funds. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him
21
for one year and until he is reinstated in Ohio. The suspension was effective on October 11,
2010.
In re Bradford Thomas Yaker, M.R. 23980, 2010PR00082 (Ill. September 20, 2010).
Mr. Yaker was licensed in Illinois in 1988 and in Michigan in 1995. He was disbarred in
Michigan for repeatedly representing to a client that he had filed a securities claim for the client
when he had not done so. In addition, he falsely informed the client that he had reached a
settlement in the matter and provided the client with a fictitious settlement agreement providing
for a $30,000 payment. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred
him.
8.
Failure to Comply with Terms of Registration, Discipline or Probation
In re Frank Angarone, M.R. 23528, 2009 PR 00024 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Angarone,
who was licensed in 1977, was censured. He engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when
he handled a number of different legal matters on behalf of clients, primarily residential real
estate closings, after his name had been removed from the Master Roll for failing to register.
In re Peter Reynolds Coladarci, M.R. 23909, 07 CH 79 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Mr.
Coladarci, who was licensed in Illinois in 1982, was suspended for three months. He engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law when, during a suspension from the practice of law for unrelated
misconduct, he wrote an appellate brief on behalf of a client and filed the brief using the name of
an attorney who was authorized to practice. The suspension was effective on October 11, 2010.
In re Dean Alan DeJong, M.R. 23536, 2009 PR 00044 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. DeJong,
who was licensed in 1986, was suspended for thirty days. He engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law when he handled a number of different legal matters on behalf of clients,
including multiple court appearances, after his name had been removed from the Master Roll for
failing to register. The suspension was effective on February 11, 2010.
In re Robert Vincent Gildo, M.R. 23799, 2009 PR 00059 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Gildo,
who was licensed in 1969, was censured and ordered to complete a program offered by the
Illinois Institute of Professional Responsibility. He engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
by handling at least five civil litigation matters and one criminal case while his name was
removed from the Master Roll of Attorneys for not complying with Minimum Continuing Legal
Education requirements.
In re Craig Justin Katz, M.R. 23401, 2005 PR 00028 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Katz, who
was licensed in 1981, was suspended for fifteen months and until he pays certain restitution.
During a previous period of suspension from the practice of law for misconduct, he accepted a
fee to represent a client. He also neglected a client matter, failed to keep his client informed of
the status of the client’s legal case and failed to promptly return unearned fees to his client. The
In re Raymond L. Prusak, M.R. 22666, 2006 PR 00066 (Illinois July 9, 2010). Mr.
Prusak, who was licensed in 1980, was suspended for three years and until further order of the
22
Court, with the suspension stayed after the first six months by probation with conditions,
provided that he makes certain restitution. Because he violated the terms of his probation, the
stay of his suspension was vacated, and he was suspended for the remaining two and one-half
years of his suspension and until further order of the Court.
In re James Jerome Romberg, M.R. 23898, 2007PR00130 (Ill. September 20, 2010).
Mr. Romberg, who was licensed in 1970, was suspended for three months and until further order
of the Court, with the suspension stayed in its entirety by a one-year period of probation with
conditions. He engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he continued to represent
clients and appear in court despite having been removed from the Master Roll of Attorneys for
failing to register. He also did not communicate with two clients and initially failed to cooperate
with the ARDC investigation.
9.
Reinstatements
In re Patrick Clark McClurkin, M.R. 21325, 2006 PR 03006 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
McClurkin was disbarred on consent in 1988 after he pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud
and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud for his involvement in a scheme to defraud
insurance companies by filing false personal injury claims arising from staged automobile
accidents. He filed a petition for reinstatement in 2006. On March 16, 2009, the Court, on its
own motion, ordered that the proceedings be remanded to the Hearing Board for the limited
purpose of determining whether $40,000 in restitution to insurance companies identified in his
voluntary disbarment matter had been made. After the Hearing Board concluded that restitution
had been made, he was reinstated subject to certain conditions which were effective for two
years and until further order of the Court.
In re Bruce Roth, M.R. 21650, 2007 PR 03002 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Roth was
disbarred on in 1987 after he was convicted in federal court of bribing state court judges and
soliciting money to bribe judges. His wrongdoing was discovered during the course of the
federal corruption probe known as Operation Greylord. He filed a petition for reinstatement in
2007. The ARDC Hearing Board recommended that the petition be denied and the Review Board
affirmed the earlier decision. The Court has now denied his petition for leave to file exceptions
to the report and recommendation of the Review Board.
In re Duncan T. Smith, M.R. 20359, 2005 PR 03008 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Smith was
disbarred in 2000 after he was convicted in Missouri of possessing cocaine, operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, possessing drug paraphernalia with the intent to
smoke crack cocaine, and failing to operate a motor vehicle on the right side of a public road or
highway. He also misappropriated $4,000 of a client’s earnest money deposit. In 2005, he filed a
petition for reinstatement. The ARDC Hearing Board recommended that he be reinstated with
conditions. Later, the Review Board recommended that the petition for reinstatement be denied.
The Court has now denied his petition for leave to file exceptions to the report and
recommendation of the Review Board.
In re Cynthia Sutherin, M.R. 21969, 2007 PR 03009 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Ms. Sutherin
was suspended for one year and until further order of the Court in 2006. While working for the
23
Kane County Public Defender’s Office, she induced five attorneys to resign from their public
service jobs to form a law firm. Her inducements consisted of numerous false statements
regarding her assets and the clients that would retain the firm. In 2007, she filed a petition for
reinstatement. The ARDC Hearing Board recommended that he be reinstated with conditions.
The Court has now granted a motion to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of
the Hearing Board with modified conditions.
In re James F. Doyle, M.R. 22124, 2007 PR 03011 (Ill. Jan. 21, 2010). Mr. Doyle was
disbarred in 1997 for settling a personal injury matter for $18,000 without his client’s knowledge
or consent, forging a client’s signature, forging another lawyer’s endorsement to a settlement
check, and misappropriating settlement proceeds. In 2007, he filed a petition for reinstatement.
The ARDC Hearing Board recommended that the petition be granted, with conditions. The Court
has now granted a motion to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing
Board with modified conditions.
10.
Engaging or Aiding in the Unauthorized Practice of Law
In re Michael Howard Lavin, M.R. 23693, 2009 PR 00087 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Lavin, who was licensed in 1961, was censured and ordered to complete the Professionalism
Seminar of the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute. He aided a disbarred attorney in the
practice of law. He also failed to properly maintain client and third party funds in a client trust
account.
11.
Sexual Misconduct or Behavioral Issues
In re Nick F. Burgrabe, M.R. 23703, 2007 PR 00009 (Ill. May 17, 2010). Mr. Burgrabe,
who was licensed in 1981, was suspended for two years and until further order of the Court. He
videotaped sexual encounters that he had with five different women without their knowledge or
consent. In addition, he was twice convicted for driving while under the influence of alcohol.
In re Melvin H. Hoffman, M.R. 24030, 2008PR00065 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Hoffman, who was licensed in 1973, was suspended for six months and until further order of the
Court. He made false and offensive statements about a circuit court judge, an administrative law
judge, and an opposing attorney during the course of three separate proceedings.
In re Beverly B. Mann, M.R. 23935, 2006PR00038 (Ill. September 20, 2010). Ms.
Mann, who was licensed in Illinois in 1979, was suspended for two years and until further order
of the Court. She made false and defamatory statements about federal judges, failed to pay
sanctions imposed against her by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and
represented a client before that court after being stricken from its roll of attorneys authorized to
practice.
In re Dennis R. Schumacher, M.R. 23634, 2007 PR 00020 (Ill. March 16, 2010). Mr.
Schumacher, who was licensed in Illinois in 1979, was suspended for one year. He engaged in
conduct involving battery when he made unsolicited and improper sexual advances toward both
a female client and the wife of a second client. He then breached a fiduciary duty to both women
24
clients and to a third client to whom he also made an unsolicited sexual advance over the
telephone. The suspension was effective on April 6, 2010.
12.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
In re Kevin Carroll Kakac, M.R. 23785, 2007 PR 00086 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr. Kakac,
who was licensed in 1992, was suspended for thirty days. While serving as a state prosecutor, he
failed to disclose exculpatory information to a defendant during the course of a criminal
proceeding. The suspension was effective on June 8, 2010.
13.
Bar Admission Issues
In re Loren Elliotte Friedman, M.R 23720, 2008 PR 00032 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Mr.
Friedman, who was licensed in Illinois in 2006, was suspended for three years and until further
order of the Court. He made a material misrepresentation on his application for admission to the
Illinois bar by failing to disclose that he submitted altered law school transcripts to prospective
law firm employers. His actual grades would not have qualified him to earn a job interview with
those employers.
14.
Revealing Protected Information
In re Kristine Ann Peshek, M.R. 23794, 2009 PR 00089 (Ill. May 18, 2010). Ms.
Peshek, who was licensed in 1989, was suspended for sixty days. While serving as an Assistant
Public Defender, she revealed protected client information in an internet blog. Further, she failed
to disclose to a tribunal that one of her clients had made false statements about the client’s drug
usage during the course of a guilty plea. The suspension was effective on June 8, 2010.
15.
Attorney-Client Relations
In re Theodore Ross Diaz, M.R. 24041, 2010PR00055 (Ill. September 22, 2010). Mr.
Diaz, who was licensed in 1982, was suspended for one year and until further order of the Court.
He agreed to settle the client’s civil case without the client’s authority, advanced living expenses
to the client, and failed to file a medical malpractice case on the client’s behalf. He was
previously disciplined.
III.
Other Cases and Developments of Interest
A.
Ethics Rules
On July 1, 2009, the Supreme Court of Illinois announced the adoption of new Rules of
Professional Conduct for Illinois lawyers. As noted in the Supreme Court’s information release,
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct were approved by the Court during its May 2009 term
after an extensive process begun in 2002, that included thousands of hours of work by judges,
lawyers and legal ethics scholars, including Supreme Court committees and a joint committee of
the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association. The new rules become
25
effective January 1, 2010. The rules govern a broad range of conduct from defining a lawyer’s
allowable relationship with a client to selling a law firm and advertising by e-mail. They require
heightened responsibilities for a lawyer upon learning of wrongful corporate conduct–a change
recommended in the wake of the Enron scandal–and allow disclosure of otherwise confidential
information to prevent client fraud and other criminal acts. The rules with their preamble and
commentary cover more than 120 printed pages and are the first complete revision of the
professional rules of conduct since 1990. The new rules are generally based on Model Rules
adopted by the American Bar Association in 2002 and 2003 and followed in some form in 42
other jurisdictions. Upon the adoption of the rules, Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas
R. Fitzgerald stated that, “These new rules reflect the effort of the bar associations, the Supreme
Court Committee on Professional Responsibility and the Supreme Court Rules Committee as
well as many other lawyers who gave their input along the way…With their adoption, the rules
governing the legal profession in Illinois come into phase with how the practice of law has
changed over time, with once local law firms growing globally and with issues arising from the
growing complexity of the practice, our culture and our world. The Court, Illinois lawyers and
the public that they serve are grateful for the efforts of those who worked long and hard to bring
the ethical rules for Illinois attorneys up to date with 21st century practice.” The old rules trace
their history to the late 1970s and early 1980s. That was a time when there were no home
computers; hence, no e-mail, web pages, cell phones, video-conference or real-time messaging.
Then, large law firms had 100 or so lawyers and few lawyers were admitted to practice in
multiple jurisdictions. Communications now are instantaneous. It is not unusual for large law
firms to number many hundreds of lawyers in offices around the world. Further, about 30 percent
of the Illinois bar are licensed in multiple jurisdictions. While the new rules are based on the
recently updated ABA Model Rules, they retain ethical concepts that are very specific to Illinois.
The Supreme Court information release dealing with the new rules can be found at:
http://www.state.il.us/court/media/PressRel/2009/070109.pdf st
B.
Illinois Decisions
1.
Disciplinary Case
In re John O. Cutright, 2009 WL 1578531 (Ill. June 4, 2009). This is a rare written
opinion issued by the Illinois Supreme Court in a lawyer disciplinary case. Mr. Cutright, of
Cumberland County, engaged in three separate acts of misconduct. In the first act, he agreed to
represent Ruth Cochonour as executor of the estate of her late husband, Clark. Clark’s estate
included his interest in a company named Triple C Thorostock. Later, an 86-year-old widow
named Martha came to Cutright’s office and told him that she wanted to forgive a $312,900 debt
owed to her by Triple C Thorostock. Cutright prepared a will and a document entitled
“Cancellation of Note” [sic]. The will and the document each forgave the debt. Martha signed
them. Cutright never asked Martha about her financial situation before drafting the documents.
At the time of the drafting, Martha had Alzheimer’s disease. Cutright claimed that she was of
sound mind. A probate court later determined that she lacked testamentary capacity. For his
second act, Cutright reviewed and signed, as paid preparer, certain income tax returns for
companies in which now-disbarred Cumberland County Judge Robert Cochonour had an interest.
Cutright, or persons in his office, also reviewed several tax returns for a probate estate in which
the now disgraced judge was acting as executor, and the wayward jurist’s individual tax returns
26
for certain years. Cutright never billed the judge for tax services. During this time period, he
routinely appeared before Cochonour, not disclosing to opposing counsel that he was, without
remuneration, reviewing tax returns in which the judge had an interest. Finally, Cutright
represented the executor of an estate. Litigation of a partition issue was necessary. The litigation
resulted in the estate receiving $14,095.50. A dispute later arose between the heirs. It was never
resolved. Cutright took no action on the estate between 1994 and 2005. He had no reasonable
justification or explanation for failing to close the estate in a timely manner. The Hearing Board
recommended that he be suspended for 120 days. The Administrator believed that the sanction
was insufficient and appealed. The Review Board later recommended a six-month suspension.
The Court, however, increased the recommended period of discipline. Cutright, who was
licensed to practice in 1967, was suspended for two years. The opinion essentially provides that
estate planners have an affirmative duty to inquire into a client’s financial circumstances when
creating documents that dispose of client assets.
2.
Admissions Case
In re Bruce Livingston, M.R. 23023 (Ill. May 12, 2009). Mr. Livingston was convicted
in federal court on sixty-five counts of Medicare and insurance fraud in 1990. A medical doctor,
he misdiagnosed and falsely billed insurance companies for unnecessary tests and medical
services performed at weight loss clinics that he operated in the Chicago metropolitan area. His
ill-gotten gain was about $100,000. The court sentenced him to one year of work release, four
years probation, 600 hours of community service, and ordered him to make restitution and pay a
fine. His medical license was suspended for two years with a probationary period that lasted
several years thereafter. During the course of the federal investigation, Livingston attended, and
eventually graduated from, the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. He first applied for
admission to practice law in 1989 and passed the bar examination. The application was
withdrawn before any action was taken on it. He reapplied in 1997 but was denied certification
after a full hearing for two reasons: an insufficient amount of time had passed to show he had
achieved meaningful rehabilitation, and, due to his conviction, he remained disqualified from
participating as a doctor in any Medicare or Medicaid program. His Medicare/ Medicaid
suspension ended in 1998. Thereafter, he reapplied for admission in 1999, 2001, and 2005. In
each instance, he was denied a law license because he was unable to show that he had overcome
the reasons for the denial of the 1997 application. In 2007, he again sought admission. The
Character and Fitness Committee eventually decided that he had not established the requisite
character, notwithstanding the fact that he held an active physician’s license. Several character
witnesses, including a federal judge, said positive things about him. The Applicant, however,
failed to inform the judge about several lawsuits that he had been involved in since the
conviction. He also neglected to tell the judge that sanctions had been imposed against him in
one of those cases. The Committee concluded that the Applicant’s testimony throughout the
hearing was, “exaggerated, inconsistent, disingenuous, and deflective,” and voted to deny his
application. Livingston filed a petition for leave to appeal that decision in the Illinois Supreme
Court. He asserted to the Court that the “Committee is denying certification based on reasons
that indicate not so much a lack of character as a lack of perfection…those seeking [admission]
shouldn’t qualify for sainthood.” Along with his petition, Livingston attached a poem that he had
written. The poem provides includes the following stanzas:
27
The committee on fitness declined bar admission
Improperly rejecting almost every submission.
Petitioner believes that when this court reads that verse
It will see this as arbitrary and agree to reverse.
…
Petitioner believes that if given a chance
This court will see the merit that exists in his stance.
That under every category he has proven his fitness
As consistently sworn to by each character witness.
IV. Duty to Report Lawyer Misconduct: Lawyer Reports: 2003-2009
Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires Illinois lawyers to report certain
instances of lawyer or judicial misconduct. The Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in In re
Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 533 N.E.2d 790 (1988), established that an attorney's failure to report his
unprivileged knowledge of another attorney’s serious wrongdoing warranted a suspension from
the practice of law. The attorney was prosecuted under Rule 1-103 of the Illinois Code of
Professional Responsibility, superseded in 1990 by Rule 8.3, a substantively identical ethics
standard. The adoption of the 2010 Rules did not substantially change the duties of Rule 8.3.
Since the Himmel decision, the Illinois ARDC has received more than 11,000 reports filed by
lawyers and judges against members of the Illinois bar. (See 2007 Annual Report of the ARDC,
pages 25-27, for a twenty-year history of Himmel reporting statistics.) An average of 500 reports
has been made each year. Although investigations opened as a result of attorney reporting are
usually concluded without the filing of formal disciplinary charges, an average of 20.3% of the
formal disciplinary caseload between 2003 and 2009 included a charge generated as a result of a
lawyer or judge filing an attorney report. Since 2007, more than a quarter of formal complaints
included at least one investigation initiated from a report made by an attorney.
The chart below tracks attorney report filings from 2003 through 2009.
Attorney Reports: 2003-2009
Year
Number of
Grievances
Numbers of
Attorney
Reports
Percent of
Attorney
Reports to
Grievances
Number of
Complaints
Voted
Number of
Complaints
Voted
Involving
Attorney
Reports
Percent of
Attorney
Reports to
Formal
Complaints
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
6,325
6,070
6,082
5,800
5,988
5,897
5,837
510
503
505
435
525
542
489
8.1%
8.3%
8.3%
7.5%
8.8%
9.1%
7.7%
353
320
317
217
284
228
226
44
42
47
35
82
69
60
12.5%
13.1%
14.8%
16.1%
28.9%
30.2%
26.5%
41,999
3,509
1,945
379
Totals
for 20032009
28
Average
For 20032009
6,000
495
8.3%
278
54
20.3%
Two subsequent decisions have reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s Himmel ruling. First, the
law firm of Altheimer & Gray filed a grievance with the ARDC alleging that the firm had
inadvertently filed a forged document in the Circuit Court of Cook County and revealing that an
unknown person in the firm, possibly a lawyer, had created the bogus document. After an
investigation, the disciplinary authority publicly charged Kenneth A. Skolnick, an equity partner,
with causing the false document to be filed. A Hearing Board determined that a forged document
had been filed, but concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Skolnick was
the responsible actor. Thereafter, Skolnick filed suit in state court against the firm and a young
firm associate alleging that they had defamed him in front of clients and others. An agreed
protective order was entered and applied to all information learned during the course of
discovery. The defendants later asked the trial court to modify the protective order because,
during the course of discovery, they received records generated by non-party entities indicating
that Skolnick had engaged in purported misconduct unrelated to the initial disciplinary
proceeding. The defendants wanted to report this further information to the ARDC but the trial
court declined to modify the protective order. The Illinois Supreme Court eventually ruled on
the matter and unambiguously and unanimously affirmed the Himmel doctrine, holding that the
reporting obligation is absolute. The Court defined the necessary degree of knowledge that
triggers a Rule 8.3 obligation, namely that a lawyer must have “more than a mere suspicion” of
another lawyer’s misconduct, but that it need not amount to “absolute certainty.” Further, the
Court ruled that the tribunal to report misconduct is the ARDC in Illinois, not a trial court.
Finally, the Court noted:
We have examined the documents filed under seal…We will not divulge the
contents of the documents, but we are satisfied that the information contained in
the documents raises more than a mere suspicion of misconduct by Kenneth
Skolnick…We emphasize, however, that while we conclude that [the young
associate] had a duty to report the suspected misconduct to the ARDC, we do not
render an opinion as to the merits of any charges that may or may not be filed
against Kenneth Skolnick as a result of the information the ARDC receives in
relation to this matter.
Kenneth Skolnick et al. v. Altheimer & Gray, et al., 191 Ill.2d 214, 730 N.E.2d 4 (March 23,
2000), reh’g denied (May 30, 2000). Subsequently, formal disciplinary charges were lodged
against Skolnick charging that he had, during 1993 and 1994, submitted a series of applications
to commercial lenders that misstated his financial condition. Skolnick, who was licensed in 1972,
was suspended for three years. In re Kenneth A. Skolnick, M.R. 17529, 00 CH 92 (Ill. June 29,
2001).
In another case, a downstate lawyer was suspended for nine months for failing to report
the misconduct of another lawyer and for conflicts of interest. Thomas Daley represented seven
criminal defendants, all bartenders whose businesses had been raided for allowing illegal
29
gambling on the premises. He never consulted these clients about his representation or secured
their knowing consent to a potential conflicts of interest. Daley undertook six of these cases at
the behest of his employer, lawyer Amiel Stephen Cueto, and the owner of the gambling devices,
Thomas Venezia, a Cueto client. The seventh case came to him directly from Venezia. Out of the
seven clients, Daley only spoke with one of them, and only because that bartender telephoned
him, but even then he signed a jury waiver in that client’s case without discussing the issue with
the client. While Daley was representing one of the bartenders, Cueto arranged for a hearing on
an alleged motion to dismiss in that case, although Daley, who was representing the bartender,
had never filed a motion to dismiss the charge. In fact, Cueto obtained a court order in the
bartender’s case requiring an Illinois Liquor Control Commission agent who had been raiding
the bars to appear in court for a hearing on a motion to dismiss. Daley learned of this phantom
order when, as they walked to the courthouse together, Cueto told him that the order was a
pretext to lure the agent to the courthouse. At the courthouse, the agent appeared in compliance
with the false court order and was immediately served with a subpoena in another case, filed by
Cueto. The subpoena required the agent to appear at a hearing for injunction at 9:30 a.m. before a
judge. Cueto was seeking to enjoin the agent from harassing Venezia and arresting bartenders.
Although he had not been served with a summons or petition for a preliminary injunction, the
agent appeared and, despite his requests for an attorney, was forced to testify and disclose the
existence of an ongoing undercover FBI investigation concerning the illegal gambling operations
of Venezia. Daley never reported Cueto’s use of the false court order to the ARDC or to any
tribunal. In re Thomas Michael Daley, M.R. 17023, 98 SH 2 (Ill. Nov. 27, 2000).
On a related issue, the Illinois Supreme Court recently imposed discipline against a
lawyer who attempted to use the threat to report an ethics violation to secure an advantage in a
civil matter. See In re Peter Michael Soble, M.R. 21558, 07 RC 1502 (Ill. May 18, 2007).
Finally, any report filed with the ARDC must be truthful. An Illinois attorney was
suspended for six months for filing a false disciplinary grievance against another attorney and
then lying about his conduct, under oath, to the disciplinary authority. In re David Warren
Olivero, M.R. 17228, 98 SH 54 (Ill. March 22, 2001). Olivero used the name of one of his
former clients without the former client’s knowledge and used a false address. There was
absolutely no legitimate basis for the information recited in the complaint. The hand-written
complaint form purported to be from a person named Louis of Spring Valley, Illinois. The
grievance stated that Louis had been approached at a local hospital by his physical therapist who
suggested that he employ a local attorney named Scott to file a claim on his behalf. The
grievance further alleged that Louis was told by the therapist that Scott "takes care of me when I
send him patients" and that Scott was using "the physical therapy department to get business."
Based upon the grievance, the ARDC initiated an investigation of Scott, who was required to
respond to the matter. It was not until much later that Olivero admitted his misconduct on the eve
of his appearance, under subpoena, to provide a handwriting exemplar to the disciplinary
authority. In reviewing Olivero’s misconduct, the ARDC Review Board noted:
We have carefully reviewed the cases cited by the parties and carefully considered
all the evidence presented. We have also considered the duty of attorneys to report
unprivileged knowledge of misconduct by other attorneys...In essence, Olivero
was attempting to bring to the attention of the ARDC suspected professional
30
misconduct by another attorney. This is a legitimate purpose. However, Olivero
engaged in misconduct, and is subject to discipline, because of the manner in
which he did so. Instead of truthfully indicating, in a document submitted in his
own name, that he had heard information which caused him to suspect that [Scott]
was engaged in improper solicitation, Olivero submitted a false report, using
someone else's name, and thereby deceived the ARDC. Additionally, Olivero
acted based upon very little information, and without any personal knowledge of
the matters alleged or any prior investigation. While an attorney's obligation to
report misconduct under Himmel is absolute…we believe attorneys making
Himmel reports must give information accurately and in context. The disciplinary
system cannot countenance the intentional making of false reports, nor the making
of reports based solely on unfounded suspicion. (ARDC Review Board Report in
98 SH 54 (October 30, 2000).
31
June 2009 • Volume 97 • Number 6 • Page 316
Loss Prevention
A Spy in the House of Law
By Karen Erger
Don your trenchcoats, young lawyers - it turns sout the tenets of spycraft ("never go against your
gut") make pretty good rules for recent admitees.
I'm a spy in the house of love
I know the dream that you're dreamin' of
- The Doors, "The Spy"
During the Cold War, the CIA is supposed to have promulgated rules for its spies and other
operatives. These have come to be known as the Moscow Rules, and there are many different
"definitive" versions.1 Obviously, writing the rules down where they could fall into enemy hands
would violate the most basic tenets of spycraft, so, for lack of a more definitive version, here are
the 10 rules displayed in the National Spy Museum in Washington, D.C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Assume nothing.
Never go against your gut.
Everyone is potentially under opposition control.
Don't look back; you are never completely alone.
Go with the flow, blend in.
Vary your pattern and stay within your cover.
Lull them into a sense of complacency.
Don't harass the opposition.
Pick the time and place for action.
Keep your options open.
As I read these rules on a recent trip to the Spy Museum with one of my former colleagues, I
reflected upon how useful these basic precepts would have been to us as new lawyers - outsiders
looking in on the alien culture of law firm life, trying desperately to pass as one of the "locals."
Let's take a look at how young lawyers can apply these rules of espionage to pass, relatively
unscathed, through their dangerous first years of practice.
1. Assume nothing. No one expects you to know everything - you will, in fact, meet people who
assume you know nothing at all. You cannot do your job or learn your trade without asking
questions. As you probably know by now, no lawyer knows all the law, but she knows the right
questions to ask and where to find the answers.
2. Never go against your gut. This bit of advice is actually the finest piece of risk management
advice that can be given to any lawyer, new or otherwise. Many, many claims reports to lawyers'
malpractice insurers start with the phrase, "I had a bad feeling about this (client, matter, etc.) from
the very beginning." Trust the bad feeling. It is usually correct, and it will become ever more
accurate the longer you practice law. If things don't feel right, check it out with a trusted mentor.
3. Everyone is potentially under opposition control. So don't talk about client confidences and
secrets in the lobby of your firm, in the elevator, or in a dive bar a zillion blocks from your law
firm. There are many apocryphal and fun stories about how loose lips have sunk various legal
ships. These stories are only fun if you are not the starring character.
4. You are never completely alone. If you need help, get it. If you think you have committed
malpractice, get help now - before you lose an opportunity to fix the problem and your firm loses
professional liability insurance coverage by giving late notice. If you think you have a substance
abuse or mental health problem, don't wait - get help. The Illinois Legal Assistance Program
(www.illinoislap. org) is an excellent resource.
5. Go with the flow. Try to maintain a sense of perspective about your life and your career. The
first years of legal practice - just like the first year of law school - are hard and time consuming.
Use this time to learn as much as you can, knowing that competence will open many doors for
you later. See #10, below.
6. Vary your pattern; stay within your cover. Do use these early years to explore interesting
new areas of legal practice with experienced mentors. But don't, at any time during your career,
take on matters that you are not competent to handle. "Dabbling" is not only a fertile source of
claims, but also a violation of your ethical duty of competence (see IRPC 1.1).
7. Lull them into a sense of complacency. That sounds a bit sinister, so perhaps we can rephrase
this rule: Be reliable. Communicate regularly with the lawyers (or clients) for whom you are
working, so that they know you are staying on top of things. If there is bad news to deliver, do so
promptly, with your suggestions about potential solutions to the problem.
8. Don't harass the opposition. Be fair and cordial to opposing counsel, both because it is the
right thing to do and because it serves no useful purpose to be a jerk. Being a "zealous advocate"
does not require nastiness. Most clients do not want to pay for their lawyer to bicker with other
lawyers, and the clients who want the proverbial "junkyard dog" for a lawyer are, well, barking
up the wrong tree.
9. Pick the time and the place for action. During these early years, your time will be at a
premium. As Lincoln noted, it is your "stock in trade," and you will also need to devote some
time to staying healthy, happy, and in touch with the people you love. Learn to pick your bat tles,
and say, "no thanks" to some activities and commitments - however worthy - that don't allow you
time to rest and repair.
10. Keep your options open. Learn your craft and good practice management during these early
years. Participate in the bar association and other professional organizations to strengthen your
skills and develop a professional network. With competence and connections comes opportunity.
There is also great satisfaction in taking part in a community of lawyers who are on the same notso-secret mission for mastery of their areas of practice.
This article (but not your career) will self destruct in 10...9...8...
Attorney Karen Erger, former vice president and director of loss prevention with ISBA Mutual in
Chicago, now works with Holmes, Murphy & Associates in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
1. Wikipedia has gathered many of the supposed rules at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moscow_Rules.
“A Spy in the House of Law” by Karen Erger original appeared in the Illinois Bar Journal (June 2009, Vol. 97, No. 6,
pp. 316). It is reprinted here with permission from the Illinois State Bar Association.
September 2009 • Volume 97 • Number 9 • Page 438
Lawpulse
Social media and legal ethics
By Helen W. Gunnarsson
May an Illinois lawyer list his or her "Specialties" on LinkedIn without running afoul of Illinois
RPC 7.4?
Intrigued by this new phenomenon of social networking that you've been reading about, both in
the mainstream media and the IBJ? Perhaps you're tempted to try Twitter, or Facebook, or
LinkedIn, as other lawyers are doing in droves, but haven't yet done so in part out of a fear that
you may unwittingly commit an ethical blunder using unfamiliar social networking media. What's
the conscientious 21st century lawyer to do?
Go forth and tweet, says ARDC Chief Legal Counsel James Grogan, and don't let any fear of
running afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct stop you from doing so. But, Grogan quickly
adds, read the rules - especially the new edition that takes effect January 1, 2010 - and be sure to
comply with them in your social networking forays.
The LinkedIn template
One of the most popular professional social networking Internet sites is LinkedIn. Found at
www.linkedin.com, the site enables its members to post information about themselves in a format
that closely resembles a resume. Register with the site for free and it will prompt you to create
your own profile using its template.
In addition to the usual categories of education, professional experience, and membership in other
groups and organizations, the LinkedIn template includes a space for users to fill in their
"Specialties." But, as lawyers familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct know, RPC 7.4
governs lawyers' communication of their fields of practice and specialization and, though
permitting lawyers to communicate that they do or do not practice in certain fields of law, further
provides that "[t]he Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in
the practice of law, nor does it recognize certifications of expertise in any phase of the practice of
law by any agency, governmental or private, or by any group, organization or association,"
though lawyers admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office may use the designation "Patent Attorney."
The rule goes on to say that lawyers may not use terms such as "specialist" to describe their
qualifications, either as lawyers or in any legal subspecialty, except when identifying professional
certificates, awards, or recognitions. If used in that limited context, the rule says, "the reference
must state that the Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the
practice of law and that the certificate, award or recognition is not a requirement to practice law
in Illinois."
No LinkedIn user is required to fill in any of the site's template's fields. But it is professionally
appropriate and desirable, as RPC 7.4 recognizes, to communicate in what areas of law a lawyer
practices or does not practice. Browsing the profiles of lawyers who have joined LinkedIn reveals
that some have filled in this template field, while others have listed their areas of practice in, for
example, the field headed "Summary." Can it be that those who have filled in this box are running
afoul of RPC 7.4?
Common sense and integrity
Grogan is loath to suggest that those lawyers may have violated the rule, suggesting that it's not
entirely clear the rule was designed to cover this factual scenario. But he believes there's an easy
way for careful lawyers to use this field to display their fields of practice while still dotting the "i"
of compliance with the rule.
If lawyers preface their listing of practice areas with a statement drawing lan guage from the rule,
along the lines of "The Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties
in the practice of law, and I do not hold myself out as a specialist. However, I concentrate my
practice in the following areas...," Grogan says, any question of a violation of RPC 7.4 would
vanish, in his opinion.
As in other contexts, common sense and integrity will help lawyers and others to avoid ethical
pitfalls in social networking, whether using LinkedIn or any other media. Certainly, social
networking can make it easier for untruths to return to haunt the teller, as Texas state court Judge
Susan Criss, a savvy Face-book user and panelist at an ABA Annual Meeting program on social
networking, highlighted.
The ABA, which posted about the program, reported that Criss had caught a lawyer who had
requested a continuance, allegedly because of the death of her father, posting Facebook status
updates detailing a week of drinking and partying. According to the post, Criss has also come
across lawyers complaining about her courtroom, their clients, and their opposing counsel online,
and a party litigant bragging about how much money she anticipated receiving as the result of her
lawsuit.
Criss herself, the post said, follows common sense in social networking: "She follows her ethical
canons and is careful about what she says and who she befriends."
Helen W. Gunnarsson is an attorney and writer in Highland Park. She can be reached at
[email protected].
“Social Media & Legal Ethics” by Helen W. Gunnarsson original appeared in the Illinois Bar Journal (Sept. 2009, Vol.
97, No. 9, pp. 438). It is reprinted here with permission from the Illinois State Bar Association.
April 2009 • Volume 97 • Number 4 • Page 208
Loss Prevention
Lawyers, Guns and Money: Pop Songs and Legal Ethics
By Karen Erger
A musical lesson in malpractice-and-ethical-misstep prevention, inspired by the likes of Warren Zevon
and Fountains of Wayne.
Jokes about lawyers are ubiquitous, but have you ever noticed that there are actually very few songs about
lawyers? Many tunes cele brate or decry tussles with the law - "I Fought the Law" (as performed first by
the Bobby Fuller Four, and then by the Grateful Dead, the Clash, Green Day, the Dead Kennedys, and
any drummer capable of mastering those "six-gun" drumbeats), "Hurricane" (Bob Dylan's epic about
fighter Rubin "Hurricane" Carter's "pig-circus" of a trial), and of course all the songs about life in the
slammer, with "Folsom Prison Blues" by Johnny Cash topping the list. (It turns out that shooting a man
"just to watch him die" is not a good defense to a murder rap).
But lawyers themselves are rarely the subjects of pop songs. And the handful I found made no mention of
the ethical predicaments faced by the subject lawyers, though some of them were not only glaringly
apparent, but interesting to consider, especially if you happen to be an ethics geek with a column to
produce. Let's look past the "star maker machinery"1of popular songs about lawyers, and delve into the
ethical and professional quandaries hidden therein.
Lawyers, guns, and money
I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this...
I'm hiding in Honduras
I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The [expletive deleted] has hit the fan
"Lawyers, Guns and Money," Warren Zevon
In Mr. Zevon's classic paean to foreign intrigue, the protagonist finds himself in dire straits and begs his
dad to forward legal counsel, weapons, and cash to extricate him from some south-of-the-border snafu.
The lawyer retained by the presumably long-suffering parent would do well to prepare an engagement
letter setting forth the exact nature of his responsibility, the fee to be charged (more about that in a
minute), and the identity of the client.
Is the client the narrator (call him "Junior") - or "Dad"? It is quite foreseeable that their interests may be
divergent, and the lawyer must be sure he knows whom he represents.
It is not clear from the context if the "money" referenced is intended for legal fees, other purposes, or
both. If some or all of the cash is intended as a retainer for legal services, the question will be whether the
retainer is
•
•
•
a "classic" retainer - paid by the client to the lawyer to secure the lawyer's availability during a
specified period of time or for a specified matter and thus earned when paid, or
a "security" retainer - paid to secure payment of fees for future services that the lawyer is
expected to perform, which remains the client's property until the lawyer applies it to charges for
services, or
an "advance payment" retainer" - which is a payment to the lawyer in exchange for the
commitment to provide legal services in the future, ownership of which passes to the lawyer
immediately upon payment. This would be useful if, for example, the client's funds might be
subject to the claims of creditors, or subject to forfeiture, say, in a criminal case.
To avoid confusion, it is always a good idea to have a written agreement that indicates what kind of
retainer is intended, when the funds will become the lawyer's property, and whether they will be held in
the lawyer's trust fund account. But in the case of an "advance retainer," the Illinois Supreme Court has
ruled that a written agreement is required, and laid out some additional requirements:
A written agreement providing for an advance payment retainer must contain language advising the client
of the option to place his or her money into a security retainer. The agreement must clearly advise the
client that the choice of the type of retainer to be used is the client's alone; provided, however, that if the
attorney is unwilling to represent the client without receiving an advance payment retainer, the agreement
must so state, including the attorney's reasons therefor. In addition, an advance payment retainer
agreement must set forth the special purpose behind the retainer and explain why an advance payment
retainer is advantageous to the client.2
If the parties' intent cannot be determined from their agreement, the court ruled, the agreement will be
construed as providing for a security retainer.
Speaking of the fee, the lawyer involved in these subtropical shenanigans, when confronted with bags of
Daddy's money, would be well advised to remember Rule 1.5(a), which states that a "lawyer's fee shall be
reasonable." However, in determining whether the fee is reasonable, the counselor in question is entitled
to consider "the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill
requisite to perform the legal service properly." Rule 1. 5(a)(1). Depending on the nature of the jam into
which Junior has gotten himself, a substantial fee might well be justified.
And, of course, if the sacks of cash are meant for some illegal object, or if the nature of the representation
calls for the lawyer to engage in illegal conduct before a tribunal, or to counsel Junior in conduct which
the lawyer knows to be illegal, then the Rules of Professional Conduct require the lawyer to refuse to
engage in this activity,3 and permit the lawyer to withdraw from the matter.4
The lyrics don't make clear whether the lawyers to be sent are qualified to practice law in Honduras, but
this is a good opportunity to remind counsel of Rule 5.5(a), which states that a "lawyer shall not practice
law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction."
The end of the innocence
Remember when the days were long
And rolled beneath a deep blue sky Didn't have a care in the world
With mommy and daddy standin' by But "happily ever after" fails
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales
The lawyers dwell on small details Since Daddy had to fly
"End of the Innocence," Don Henley
It is reasonable to assume that Daddy's "flight" referenced in Mr. Henley's mournful ode to the cessation
of naivety has some logical nexus with legal difficulties, as such flights often do. So in addition to all the
cautions about illegal conduct expressed above, we have a potentially "missing" client with all the
difficulties that entails.
If Daddy is indeed incommunicado, his legal team may be seriously hampered in their ability to comply
with Rule 1.4, which requires lawyers to keep their client "reasonably informed about the status of a
matter" and to "explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation."
Lawyers in love
Among the human beings in their designer jeans
Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries
of lawyers in love?
"Lawyers in Love," Jackson Browne
Our lawyer lovers may well be crying. Fiona Travis, Ph.D, author of Should You Marry a Lawyer? A
Couple's Guide to Balancing Work, Love & Ambition
notes that when one lawyer marries another, certain difficulties are likely to present themselves:
The biggest obstacle is the so-called lawyer personality. Individual lawyers may not have all the
characteristics, but - when they're honest - they will recognize that they possess such marriage-straining
attributes as ambition, narcissism, skepticism, defensiveness, perfectionism and the need to be in control.5
Personal problems aside, our amorous attorneys will have to be mindful of Rule 1.7(b), which states that a
lawyer:
shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's
responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless (1) the
lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents
after disclosure.
If the soulmate solicitors find themselves representing adversaries, like Katherine Hepburn and Spencer
Tracy in Adam's Rib,6 they may find themselves in a messy conflict situation - one that plays better on the
silver screen than it does before the ARDC or in a malpractice action.
California...lawyer
I've got the looks that kill
I've got a license to love
I've got a German shepherd And his name is Doug
I'm heading for the sun
I'm going to become
A California sex lawyer, oh yeah A California sex lawyer, oh yeah A California sex lawyer, oh yeah
"California Sex Lawyer," Fountains of Wayne
One of the difficulties of providing ethical guidance regarding this lyric is understanding exactly what a
"California Sex Lawyer" or, in fact, a "Sex Lawyer" of any jurisdiction, actually is and does. Adam
Schlesinger, a founding member of Fountains of Wayne, has commented on the origin of the phrase, but
in a manner that sheds little light on the role and responsibilities of a Sex Lawyer:
Our attorney Josh Grier works at a big fancy law firm with a big fancy waiting room. One day we were
sitting there waiting and there was a magazine called California Lawyer on the coffee table facing us.
Chris (Collingwood) said, apropos7 of nothing, "California sex lawyer." Perhaps it was only because we
were sitting in a quiet office, but at the time it seemed like the funniest thing in the world. Why it needed
to be turned into a song, I'm still not sure.8
Assuming for the sake of argument, that the Sex Lawyer engages in sexual relations with clients, said
counselor would be well advised to heed the warning of ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and
Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 92-364, in which the Committee concluded that "the
existence of a sexual relationship between lawyer and client may make it impossible for the attorney to
provide the competent representation of the client that is ethically required." The Committee cited
potential impairment of the independent judgment of the lawyer, the potential for conflict of interest, and
confusion regarding the preservation of client confidences.9
The "license to love" described in "California Sex Lawyer" is not coterminous with a license to practice
law. As discussed above with respect to "Lawyers in Love," the former license has its ethical limitations.
Maybe it's OK for them to be cowboys
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
They'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love
"Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys," Ed and Patsy Bruce
As in real life, the lawyer in popular song faces ethical traps and dilemmas on a regular basis. Perhaps
"cowboy" would be a less vexing career choice, despite the difficulties enumerated in the above lyric, and
there are certainly more songs about cowboys. See www.cowboylyrics.com.
But perhaps if songs about lawyers delved more deeply into the ethical and professional problems that
law practice creates, it could lead to heightened respect for - or at least better understanding of - the legal
profession. And the songs might be more interesting, too. ■
1. C'mon, do I really need to footnote this - "Free Man in Paris" by Joni Mitchell. But did you know that it was about music agent/ promoter
David Geffen, a close friend of Ms. Mitchell in the early 1970s, and a trip they made to Paris with Robbie and Dominique Robertson? So says
Wikipedia, that unassailable source of all knowledge. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_man_in_paris.
2. See Dowling v Chicago Options Associates, Inc, 226 Ill 2d 277, 875 NE2d 1012 (2007), or just have a gander at the ARDC Web site, which
provides a nice summary at https://www.iardc.org/DowlingOp.html.
3. Rule 3.3(a)(6) and (7) state that "In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not...counsel or assist the client in
conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent" or "engage in other illegal conduct."
4. Rule 1.16 (b)(1)(B) and (C) say that "a lawyer shall not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and shall not
withdraw in other matters, unless such request or such withdrawal is because the client seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct" or "insists
that the lawyer pursue a course of conduct that is illegal."
5. Marry a Lawyer? Proceed With Caution, Dr. Fiona Travis, 2/12/2009, http://www.lawyeravenue. com/2009/02/12/the-lawyer-spousebalancing-love-work-ambition/.
6. If you haven't seen Adam's Rib, put it at the top of your Netflix queue now, before your firm blocks the site. Netflix sums up the 1949 classic:
"Husband-and-wife attorneys Adam and Amanda Bonner (Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) sit at opposing sides of the courtroom in this
comedy directed by George Cukor. Amanda decides to defend Doris (Judy Holliday), who stands accused of the attempted murder of her husband
(Tom Ewell) and his mistress (Jean Hagen), while Adam signs on as the prosecuting attorney. The sensational trial rules the headlines and strains
the Bonners' marriage." The movie is an excellent illustration of Dr. Travis' observation that the lawyer personality "makes for great courtroom
drama...but is also counter-productive in an intimate interaction with one's spouse." Id.
7. See? Non-lawyers use words like "apropos," too.
8. This quote (apparently from the Out of State Plates liner notes) comes from one of my favorite time-wasting sites on earth, Songfacts.com.
Miraculously, Songfacts does not seem to be blocked by my employer's Web police, although publication of this article will probably change this
happy state of affairs. Anyway, see http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=4994.
9. The Committee properly stated that "[E]xcept for that of husband and wife, there is no privilege for lovers. ABA Formal Op 92-364, at 8.
“Lawyers, Guns And Money: Pop Songs and Legal Ethics” by Karen Erger originally appeared in the Illinois Bar Journal (April
2009, Vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 208). It is reprinted here with permission from the Illinois State Bar Association.
Lawpulse
Social networking 1.0
Despite the newfangled options, blogs and e-mail discussion groups are still excellent ways to
connect with other lawyers.
As this month's lead article underscores, Facebook and Twitter are the current social networking
darlings of the media. Yet many question the staying power of these applications as well as
whether they can function effectively for business. Two older social networking methods, e-mail
discussion groups and blogging, have established both.
Listservers: "[M]ore refined than Facebook"
Huntley lawyer T.J. Thurston, who concentrates his practice in real estate, wills, and civil
litigation, is a frequent and enthusiastic participant in ISBA's online discussion groups. He says
that not only has he received many helpful comments and answers to questions or problems he's
presented, but the groups have also been a fruitful source of business.
"The listserv is very much like a social network, but more refined than Facebook." He observes
that most participants are either solo practitioners like himself or in small law firms and,
therefore, view the practice of law from the same perspective. "You're dealing with colleagues
across the state who understand your business needs," he says.
Through discussions of legal issues on ISBA's groups, Thurston says he's developed some
excellent relationships with other lawyers on both personal and professional levels. "I'm sharing
clients and work with my colleagues across the listserv. It's been phenomenal. Some I've met in
person, some I have not, but we've gotten to trust each other so that we can feel confident
referring clients back and forth."
Speaking glowingly but sadly of Princeton sole practitioner Greg Bowman, who, until his
untimely death in a motorcycle accident in 2007, was also an active discussion group participant,
Thurston says, "We'd never met each other in person, but we'd shared a lot of e-mails on legal
issues as well as social matters."
Then, he says, he organized an in-person social event for the discussion group at a restaurant in
Oakbrook. Bowman was the first to arrive. "We were sitting and having a beer, and he said 'I
really like your contributions to the listserv.'" Thurston thanked him, and the discussion segued
into a description of a group of farmer clients of Bowman's with several cases in federal and state
court.
Their shop talk was fruitful, resulting in Bowman's bringing Thurston into those and other
matters. "When he passed, the clients had gotten to know me, so they turned to me to handle their
cases." (For more on that litigation, see the ISBA Bar News at
http://webarchives.isba.org/pubs/barnews/2008/07/farmers.html.)
Blogging: "creating a community"
Fellow solo practitioner Peter Olson, who worked as a journalist before becoming a lawyer, has
achieved a reputation for incisive blogging about issues of concern to solo practitioners. Like
Thurston, Olson has met many other lawyers as a result of his online presence and has found
those contacts gratifying, if not necessarily always sources of business.
Olson currently maintains two separate blogs, both of which he started in 2005: Solo In Chicago
(http://soloinchicago.com), on which he posts essays on issues of concern to solo practitioners,
and Closing Chicago Real Estate (http:// closingchicagorealestate.com), which is directed toward
the community of real estate professionals.
Olson says, "When I started Solo In Chicago, I wanted to share my experience with people going
through the same thing. Resources for the business of practicing law aren't as readily available as
they should be."
And, he continues, opening a solo practice can be lonely. "I hope that I can help others and also
benefit myself by meeting some people and creating a community of small firms and solo
practitioners. It hasn't been all rosy for the last three years, and I hope to help others avoid some
of the mistakes I've made.
"For me, the benefit from blogging has been the people I've met as a result." Olson says he
regularly meets with other startup attorneys who have called him for advice on starting a solo
practice.
He's also developed friendships with other lawyers who read and comment on his blog. "When
they're local, we get together and develop a friendship." And, though Olson hasn't viewed Solo In
Chicago as a marketing tool, it has brought him some referrals.
Like other lawyer bloggers, Olson cautions, "You don't know who's reading your blog if they're
not posting comments or sending you e-mails." Saying he tries to make most of his posts from
personal experience, he notes being surprised on one occasion at an offhanded remark from
opposing counsel to the effect that counsel made a practice of reading what Olson has written.
Toward enlarging his community of solo colleagues, Olson notes he's created Solo In Chicago
groups on Facebook and LinkedIn, easily findable through the search engines on both sites. And,
though he can't foresee where his online networking might take him, he hopes the groups will
serve as additional resources for their members.
For his part, Thurston believes, "Attorneys should use social networks for what they really are connecting socially with people. Treat them as social tools that might end up ultimately turning
around and becoming business tools once people feel comfortable with you socially and know
who you are as a person."
Helen W. Gunnarsson is an attorney and writer in Highland Park. She can be reached at
[email protected].
“Social Networking 1.0” by Helen W. Gunnarsson original appeared in the Illinois Bar Journal (June 2009, Vol. 97,
No. 6, pp. 278). It is reprinted here with permission from the Illinois State Bar Association.
Law and Technology
Twitter and Linkedin and Facebook. Oh My!
Are you LinkedIn? Facebooking? Tweeting? Or still figuring out what it's all about and why you should
care? Here's a lawyer's guide to social media.
You log on to the Internet every morning as soon as you get to work, if not as soon as you get out of bed
at home. Though you carry a cell phone and return voicemails promptly, e-mail, which you check
throughout the day, is your preferred and frequent means of communication with your colleagues, your
clients, your friends, and your family.
Your law firm or employer has its own Web site. You routinely research matters not only using Fastcase
through ISBA, but also by Googling names and other search terms. Sometimes you even post questions or
comments on ISBA's Internet discussion groups. All in all, you're satisfied that you're using technology
effectively as part of your 21st Century law practice.
Guess what? Somebody moved your cheese.
Voicemail is becoming passé, and Google searches and e-mail, fast and efficient though they are, are no
longer the latest and hottest developments on the Internet. Social networking media such as Facebook,
LinkedIn, and Twitter - also known as Web 2.0 - are now what everybody's talking about. And all are free
to use.
Though both Facebook and Twitter have been the butts of Internet humor (see, for example, a March
2009 story line involving reporter Roland Burton Hedley in Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury comic), those
sites, along with LinkedIn, Weblogs, and online discussion groups, can be supremely useful to lawyers
and others looking to enhance their practices, businesses, careers, job searches, or public profiles.
This isn't news to law students and newly admitted lawyers, and early tech adopters have been
Facebooking for years. But social networking is part of the broad mainstream now, encompassing nearly
every demographic group. If you've been waiting for the critical mass to build before learning more about
it, wait no longer.
“Twitter and Linked In and Facebook. Oh My!” by Helen W. Gunnarsson originally appeared in the Illinois Bar Journal (June
Networking is nothing new
Networking is nothing new. The Internet simply presents us with more opportunities to interact with more
people more efficiently than in person or over the phone. "In cyberspace, you're attending the world's
largest cocktail party. Everyone is there," comments Chicago lawyer Sonya Olds Som. And even though
the connecting may occur through electronic media, at its heart are the same human-to-human interactions
that occur at in-person social functions.
New Zealand writer, storyteller, and social media con sultant Simon Young explains social networking in
a December 23, 2008, entry on Denver career coach Carol Ross's Weblog "A Bigger Voice"
(http://www.abiggervoiceblog.com/2008/12/virtual-vs-real-world.html), "There's a myth around that the
'virtual world' is somehow a different place from the real world we all live in.
"Interestingly, it's a myth found only among those who haven't tried out social media and social networks.
Once you dip your toe in the online conversation, you find that blogs, Facebook, Twitter - and on and on are all elaborations on (not replacements of) the art of one human relating to another."
Som, Ross, Young, and others have embraced social networking applications and are using them to make
connections that benefit their law practices, their businesses, and their careers. Fastcase, which provides
ISBA members with free online legal research, joins Starbucks, Borders, and other companies who have
Facebook pages and tweet away to their followers through their Twitter accounts.
Nonprofits and educational institutions, as well as those espousing political and other causes, use
Facebook and LinkedIn for providing news and facilitating discussions and networking among their
alumni and fans. Indeed, ISBA itself has a group on LinkedIn, moderated by Board of Governors member
and John Marshall Law School Professor Mark Wojcik, that all members may join.
How do these media work? LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter are three social networking sites particularly
popular with lawyers. All three prominently invite users to write notes for public consumption, but each
has its own distinctive personality and features. Together they provide good illustrations of how lawyers,
among others, can use them to benefit professionally as well as personally.
LinkedIn - the "professional" option
The most purely professional of the three applications, LinkedIn provides users with the ability to post a
resume-like profile and invite others to become "connections." Register for free at LinkedIn.com, and
LinkedIn prompts you to post a virtual CV using its template. It's easy to use; assuming that you already
have a resume in electronic format, you can simply copy and paste portions of it into the template.
In addition to the usual background information any CV contains, the LinkedIn template asks you to
categorize your position by industry and geographical area. At the bottom of the template, you may list
your goals by checking boxes. Career opportunities, getting back in touch, consulting offers, expertise
requests, and new ventures are some of the goal options offered. There's also a spot to add a
professionally taken photo to your profile.
LinkedIn offers various free applications to add some pizzazz to your profile. You can upload a slide
show from PowerPoint, Google Presentation, or SlideShare Presentations to showcase an example of your
work.
Other applications will enable you to synchronize your blog, if you have one, with your LinkedIn profile.
Com pany Buzz will provide you with any Twitter activity related to your firm or business. My Travel
allows you to share your current whereabouts and travel plans with LinkedIn colleagues, facilitating inperson meetings for coffee or a meal.
Having created your profile, you'll probably want to find out who else you know is on LinkedIn, let them
know you've joined, and invite them to be contacts. The site makes it easy to find people en masse by
allowing it to access your e-mail address book. (The site promises not to retain your password or your
address book information and won't send you or your contacts spam.) It also enables quick searches for
former colleagues and classmates, based on the information in your profile. You can then send contact
invitations to the people you know who already have LinkedIn profiles.
Like other social networking sites, LinkedIn offers users various levels of privacy. You can decide
whether you want your profile to be visible to everyone or only to your contacts. You can also decide
whether you want your contacts to be able to view your contacts. Chicago lawyer Susan Glatter Kamman
chooses to keep hers private, since they include clients and, she says, "I don't want other lawyers to poach
them."
Another privacy setting permits you to decide whether you want your connections to be notified when
you update your profile or change your status by, for example, changing jobs. And before you start
browsing other people's profiles, you may appreciate knowing that they'll be able to find out that you did and that you can find information about who has viewed your profile - unless you adjust that privacy
setting.
Concerns such as client poaching notwithstanding, most LinkedIn users allow their connections to view
the identities of their other connections. That's part of the site's attraction and power: when you can see
whom the people you know know, you understand whom you can ask for an introduction to someone
with whom you're not yet connected.
You can also ask your connections to write recommendations for you, which become part of your profile and you can offer to write recommendations for those you know. The site also allows you to find groups
you might like to join, including bar and alumni associations. You can post public messages to those
groups concerning projects you're working on, job opportunities or availability, or anything else of a
career-related nature that's on your mind. LinkedIn also enables you to send private messages to others.
Facebook for fun and profit
Used by more than 200 million members, Facebook provides many of the same capabilities and services
as Linked-In, but with a distinctly more informal interface. Sign up, and you'll be prompted to create your
own profile with the identifying information you choose. (The site requires users to submit their names,
birthdays, and e-mail addresses, and restricts users to one page.)
The Facebook template inquires as to distinctly personal information, including relationship status,
political and religious affiliations, interests, activities, favorite books, music, movies, TV shows, and
quotations; you may provide all, some, or none of that information, as you prefer. It also permits you to
write a short paragraph "About Me" and to include an identifying photo.
Your site within Facebook includes not only your profile page but also your own "Wall" on which you
and your Facebook friends can post messages, links, or photos. You'll see a box at the top of your own
page encouraging you to do so with the question "What's on your mind?" Navigate to someone else's
page, and you'll see the same box, but with the instruction "Write something."
Facebook also gives you a separate page with any photos you may post. You can add applications to
configure your page to include such matters as listings of books you've read or want to read, favorite
links, and other media or information.
Like LinkedIn, Facebook offers you the option of allowing the site to search your address book so you
can find people you know who already have Facebook pages more easily. If you choose, you can have the
site send e-mails to friends who have not yet joined Facebook to do so.
If you've included your educational information in your profile, Facebook will make it easy for you to
find high school and college alumni groups with their own Facebook pages that you may join, if you
wish. You can do your own searches to find other interest groups that you may like to join. Some
businesses, institutions, political candidates, elected officials, and others have pages inviting Facebook
members to become fans. Click on the button to become a fan, and that information will show up on your
own Facebook page.
Facebook also offers different levels of privacy settings. Only members may view other members' pages.
You may adjust your account settings so that your profile is visible to all members or only to your friends.
You can also limit yourfriends' access to portions of your information, such as being able to see who's
written on your wall. And Facebook also allows you to create different groups of friends, with each group
able to access your profile differently.
For example, you might group your closest personal friends or family members together and allow them
access to all portions of your profile. If you're not comfortable allowing your colleagues and clients to
view all of the information about yourself that you've posted, or all public posts from your friends, or, for
that matter, the identities of your friends, you might group them separately, restricting their access to
portions of your profile.
Twitter - not for twits only
Media stories referring to Facebook and LinkedIn are now common. But the social media application that
may be getting the most buzz these days is Twitter. Registered users may submit a picture, a short
biography, and a website if they have one. Upon doing so, you'll have your own page with an empty box
at the top, captioned "What are you doing?"
You can write anything you please in that box, from noting that you're en joying a cup of coffee, to
musing upon a knotty question of civil procedure, to posting an interesting link, to asking a question, to
sending a message directly to another Twitter user. Whatever you write, though, has to be limited to 140
characters. Any more, and Twitter will truncate your tweet.
Finish your 140-character tweet and click the button, and your message will appear in Twitter's real time
stream of all tweets as well as on your page. It will also show up on the pages of your followers.
Followers? That's Twitter's term, analogous to "friends" on Facebook or "connections" on LinkedIn. Each
Twitter user's page has a "Follow" button at the top. When you've created an account with Twitter, you
may choose to follow other Twitter users by clicking the buttons under their pictures. They, in turn, may
choose to follow you. Once you're following another Twitter user, that person's tweets will show up on
your page.
If you don't "get" Twitter on reading about it, or even upon registering, you're in good company. An
active and avid Twitter user now, Carol Ross says her reaction to the application after registering for and
using it briefly in 2007 was "140 characters, why bother?"
Earlier this year, she gave Twitter another try and stuck with it. Now, she says Twitter has expanded her
social and professional network and has given her insights she otherwise might not have gotten. "If you're
on Twitter and you start to talk a lot about some insightful things about some hot topic in your field,
people who need your help will naturally start to pay attention."
Spending all day tweeting and watching your Twitter stream to see who else has tweeted about what, is
neither feasible nor enticing, of course. Madison County lawyer and blogger Evan Schaeffer explains one
way that he makes effective use of Twitter. "You can use it to find people who are interested in the same
things as you are. Then, when you start following those people, you have created a group of editors who
are constantly searching the Internet for information that you'll be likely to find of interest. Twitter
becomes like an RSS feeder on steroids, where other people are doing the work for you of looking
through the Internet for interesting information."
Noting that Twitter is searchable, Schaeffer says that when a recent su preme court case of interest to him
came down, he used Twitter's search function to find up-to-the-minute tweets about it. Many of those
tweets, he says, contained links to the latest news and analysis.
And, since the search engine yields the identities of the tweeters along with the tweets, you may end up
deciding to follow some additional people and thereby obtaining even more interesting or useful
information. "For searching certain kinds of information, Twitter is more useful than Google," Schaeffer
said.
Hundreds of free downloadable applications exist to enable users to use Twitter more effectively. The
popular TweetDeck, for example, facilitates Twitter searches and enables you to create subgroups of the
persons you're following to make it easier to keep track of tweets you're likely to find of particular
interest, among other things. Twitter itself offers integration with its users' Facebook pages and blogs, so
you can configure your Twitter settings to update both automatically.
Other Twitter applications include Twubble, which aids users in finding others with similar interests,
Twellow, a Twitter directory sorted by occupation, and TweetBeep, enabling you to find out who's
tweeting about you, your products, your company, or your website.
Part of a multi-pronged communication approach
Certainly, social media applications enable the user to both find out and disseminate an enormous amount
of information. Can businesses really use them effectively?
Fastcase CEO Ed Walters says his company does. One of his aims is to let other lawyers know what his
company has to offer them. To do so, Walters says, he has to find the best way of getting his message to
them. "We're dealing with lawyers who are very busy. If you want to tell people about something, it's
really hard to get through. People are in court, they don't have any time, they're working really hard,
they're on the phone. For some lawyers, social networks are by far the best way of reaching them."
Walters cites Fastcase's launches of its partnerships with state bar associations as a prime example. "In the
past, we did just an article in a bar journal. That can be very effective. But it turns out that not everybody
has time to read their bar journals. They're busy. We began to realize that the bar journal is a good way to
get to some people, but other people might need different channels."
E-mail, Walters continues, is an alternative form of communication that also works well for some
lawyers. "But we have the same problem: because lawyers are busy, they can't read everything in their
inboxes." To reach as many potential customers as effectively as possible, then, Walters says, his
company has adopted a multi-pronged communication approach.
"We have a page on Facebook. When we launch new features, we announce them on our Facebook page"
as well as on Walters' and other Fastcase colleagues' individual Facebook pages. "We also have a blog
and a weekly newsletter where we make those announcements." And both Fastcase and Walters tweet
about the company on Twitter.
Time sinkhole or timesaver?
Might they not be more of a drain on already-busy lawyers' schedules than they're worth? Sonya Olds
Som agrees that all users should impose some discipline on the amount of time they spend using these
media. But, like Walters, Som believes that using at least one social networking application can save a
busy lawyer's time.
"If you're looking to expand your professional or personal network, and you have a far-reaching range of
people from law school, college, high school, grade school, and former employers that you might be able
to get back into contact with, it's a timesaver to use at least one of these methods. Otherwise you're going
to have to go person-to-person, by phone or e-mail, to get back into touch."
Observes Ross, "We network in a lot of different ways. You go to a networking event, you have to spend
time getting dressed up, you have to spend time going in the car, and so on." Ross recommends deciding
how much total time you want to spend networking, whether in person or on line, and reallocating some
of that time to online media.
"If you aren't spending any time networking, you're doing something wrong. You're missing out. If you're
only focused on doing your job, you're really shooting yourself in the foot." And Ross agrees that online
social networking can make it far easier for lawyers in smaller communities, or lawyers who are
temporarily inactive, perhaps staying home with small children, or lawyers who are introverted, to keep
up with professional life.
Som adds that social networks can also be highly effective for expanding anyone's set of contacts. "You
can never be entirely certain who might be a good person to be in contact with. The wider you cast your
net, the more potential good fish you can catch, so to speak."
Furthermore, she says, "As someone who's trying to generate business, I think it's a very valuable way to
stay out in front of your clients and customers without looking like you're constantly trying to call them
and ask them for something."
Be careful what you share
Som, Walters, and Ross also urge users to impose some discipline on the quality of their usage. "Be
yourself, but be the best public representation of yourself," counsels Som.
Likening social networks on the Internet to a never-ending cocktail party, she asks, "What is the version
of yourself that you'd like to present at that cocktail party?" The answer: "A careful mingling of personal
and professional information, which is no different than what you would do if you were talking to
someone at a high school reunion or a cocktail party. You don't want to overshare in this public forum
which can craft the opinion of people who you want to have a business relationship with."
Mark Wojcik says he maintains a Facebook page in part to remind his students that employers will check
out their pages. "Pages are not 'private,' and what you post the entire world can see....You might think this
is unfair, but Web pages are not private."
Walters tells a tale that illustrates Wojcik's warning. A young person applied with his company a few
years ago, and a fairly routine online due diligence check revealed that the applicant had made
disparaging comments about his interview process with Fastcase on his Facebook page. "I ended up
having a conversation with him and telling him he needed to be careful about this stuff," Walters said.
Comments Ross, "Online is no different than offline in how would you conduct yourself with friends,
with colleagues, with clients. The difference is there's a public record when you're online. How do you
conduct yourself in every day life? If you conduct yourself with poor judgment in everyday life and you
go online, it will be magnified, and it will be there forever."
But, Ross and Som continue, that's not to say lawyers should shy away from online social networking. To
the contrary, both advocate embracing social networking and taking ownership of your public profile.
Believes Som, "That's the reality of how we live today. Google anyone and it doesn't take long to find a
trace of what they're doing. Nothing is a secret for very long anymore."
The virtual handshake
Ross believes you'll get out of social media what you put into it. "Whatever you put out there is going to
naturally attract what it should. If you put drivel out there, people who like drivel will be attracted to it. If
you put really good stuff out there, people who like really good stuff will be attracted to that. With all
these tools, you get the whole mix of humanity out there. You get everything from infantile conversations
to some pretty heady stuff, and everything in between. How you choose to use it is up to you."
Along with Som and Walters, Ross emphasizes her view of proper social networking etiquette. "The first
rule is always, 'Give first.' That's something that people in professional services fields should already
know, that it's about forming a relationship and not about a transaction first, but it's a good reminder for
everybody."
Comments Som, "You shouldn't just be the recipient of recommendations on LinkedIn, and you shouldn't
post only when you're looking for a job or to provide a service. There needs to be give and take and back
and forth. To the extent that you can, stop and think of ways you can comment on what other people are
doing. Interact with them. Provide advice, feedback, assistance, and positive reinforcement to others. Live
by the Golden Rule."
Adds Walters, "When people extend the virtual hand to you, you shake that hand. When people issue a
friend request to you, it's a very good idea to accept it."
As moderator of ISBA's LinkedIn group, Wojcik adds his own plug. "If you are a member of the Illinois
State Bar Association, you should be in the ISBA group on LinkedIn. It is another way for clients and
colleagues to find you. When economic times are difficult, no one can afford to write off an important
free resource. Social networking over the Internet will never replace the face-to-face meetings in Chicago,
Springfield, or Lake Geneva, but they are a fantastic way to stay in touch."
Helen W. Gunnarsson, a lawyer in Highland Park, is an Illinois Bar Journal contributing writer.
More on social networking for lawyers
Generally
"Social Networking for Lawyers: The How, What, Why and Importance of NOW!" by lawyer blogger Carolyn Elefant, a 36-page e-book
available for free download: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=4523296c-275e-49e4-8e31-15bd6231b1c2
"Lawyer 2.0," the Closed Stacks blog, run by several librarians, posted on social networking for lawyers on March 30, 2009 at
http://closedstacks. wordpress.com/2009/03/30/lawyer-20/
"Ins and Outs of Social Networking for Lawyers: How Tough Is It to Cast Your Profile into Infinity?" American Bar Association, Law Practice,
January 2008 issue, article by Denise Howell and Ernest Svenson on social networking for lawyers:
http://www.abanet.org/lpm/magazine/articles/v34/is1/pg47.shtml
"Networking Naturally or How to Make Your Own Luck," Ordinary Life, Extraordinary Living (Carol Ross on social networking):
http://carolross.typepad.com/ordinary_life_extraordina/2009/03/networking-naturally-program.html
Twitter
"Twitter 101 for Lawyers," Practicing Law in the 21st Century http://21stcenturylaw.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/twitter-101-for-lawyers/
"Lawyer marketing with Twitter," Stem, Law Firm Web Strategy blog http://www.stemlegal.com/strategyblog/2008/lawyer-marketing-withtwitter/
"Twitter for lawyers," HealthBlawg http://healthblawg.typepad.com/healthblawg/2009/01/twitter-for-lawyers.html
"Twitter for lawyers 101," LawyerCasting http://www.lawyercasting.com/2008/05/lawyers-twitter.html
"How to Effectively Use Twitter to Build Business Relationships (and make friends at the same time)," The Invent Blog, Stephen Nipper (patent
attorney) http://inventblog.com/2009/03/how-to-effectively-use-twitter-to-build-business-relationships.html
Facebook
"How to Friend Mom, Dad, and the Boss on Facebook...Safely" from the New York Times, January 30, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/ 2009/01/30/30readwriteweb-how_to_friend_mom_dad_and_the.html?em
"Being There," New York Times article on the subtle art of the Facebook update, by Virginia Heffernan, February 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15wwln-medium-t.html
"Friends Until I Delete You," New York Times article on Unfriending someone on Facebook, by Douglas Quenqua, September 7, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/fashion/29facebook.html
LinkedIn
"LinkedIn for Job Seekers DVD," I'm on LinkedIn - Now What? LinkedIn for Job Seekers DVD: http://www.linkedinlawyer.blogspot.com/
"I'm a Lion - Hear Me Roar!" I'm on LinkedIn - Now What? Jason Alba, July 31, 2008: http://imonlinkedinnowwhat.com/2008/07/31/im-a-lionhear-me-roar/
"Should You Be An Open Connector," I'm on LinkedIn - Now What? Jason Alba, March 9, 2009:
http://imonlinkedinnowwhat.com/2009/03/02/should-you-bean-open-connector/
August 2009 • Volume 97 • Number 8 • Page 424
Loss Prevention
Malpractice Top 40
By Karen Erger
What are the top claim-causing errors? Stay tuned - the countdown doesn't stop until we reach Number
One.
Keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars.
- Kasey Kasem's traditional signoff on American Top 401
Readers of a certain age (read: old) will remember American Top 40, the syndicated weekly radio
program hosted by Kasey Kasem. The show counted down that week's Top 40 hits, from #40 to #1,
interspersed with Mr. Kasem's stories about the musicians and the music, jingles announcing each song
("...NUM-ber THIR-ty-ONE!..."), and "Long Distance Dedications" ("...this one goes out from Tom to
Katie in Lubbock, Texas..."). The show lasted three hours, and, as Mr. Kasem noted, "The countdown
doesn't stop until we reach Number One."2
A much gloomier countdown is undertaken every four years by the American Bar Association in its
publication Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims.3
By analyzing claims data from lawyers' malpractice insurance companies, this ABA publication shows us
which areas of practice and alleged errors were top-ping the lawyers' malpractice claim charts during the
three previous years. The ABA has compiled 21 different types of errors alleged in lawyers' malpractice
claims - let's tune in to the top five, in the hope that we won't have to touch that malpractice dial anytime
soon.
#5: Failure to calendar properly (7 percent)
With all the electronic calendar wizardry available to us, you'd think that our #5 hit would have fallen off
the charts a long time ago. Actually, though, it has risen in the countdown - from 5.19 percent of claims in
the previous ABA study4 to its current spot at 7.44 percent of claims.
Good procedures can help; for example, it is good practice to have each piece of mail that reaches your
office reviewed for dates that need to be calendared. But the surest way to bust this cause of claims down
the chart is for you to recognize the importance of keeping an accurate calendar, and scrupulously doing
so.
#4: Inadequate discovery of facts or inadequate investigation (8 percent)
Our #4 hit on the malpractice charts is a sad song, dedicated to any of our lawyer listeners who...
•
•
•
Take on matters when they know, or should know, that they don't have sufficient time or
resources to handle them;
Agree to represent clients who insist, in a misguided effort to save on legal fees, on restricting the
scope of services so that the lawyer cannot do a competent job; and
Cut corners for any other reason, no matter how reasonable it seems at the time.
#3: Planning or strategy error (9 percent)
Number 3 is a monster hit - at least in the sense that it is scary. We all know that not every matter can be a
winner, and being second-guessed, with the bene fit of hindsight, on legal judgment and strategy
employed in a matter is the stuff of nightmares for most lawyers.
When this does happen, it is critical that your file demonstrate that you provided competent representation
to the client. One key to avoid this bad dream in the first place is client selection - if your client will
accept nothing less than total victory, wake up, smell the coffee, and decline the representation.
#2: Failure to file document - no deadline (11 percent)
Our #2 hit is a classic. A document has to be filed, say, to protect a client against the claim of another
party - but somehow, the lawyer never files the document, and the client is injured. The ABA Study gives
the example of the requirement for filing of a mortgage on real estate to protect the priority interest of the
mortgagee against those acquiring a subsequent interest.
Using calendaring and "tickler" systems effectively is an obvious cure. As a fail-safe measure, review
your files every 30-60 days to make sure that key tasks (like filing critical documents) do not fall through
the cracks.
#1: Failure to know or properly apply the law (12 percent)
The surprising Number One malpractice hit - "Failure to Know or Properly Apply the Law" - has been
topping the charts for many years. These are the cases in which the lawyer is unaware of the legal
principles that govern a matter or fails to see the legal implications of the known facts. The ABA Study
gives the example of a situation where the lawyer knows that the client has children who are to receive
nothing under the client's will but fails to recognize the requirement that the children be mentioned in the
will.
It is blindingly obvious to say that lawyers must know the law. Actually, perhaps it isn't; the very first
Rule of Professional Conduct states "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client."
But our chart-topping cause of claims is a blaring, high-decibel warning to any reader tempted to dabble
in unfamiliar areas of law, no matter how tempted by curiosity, clients who love your work in other areas
of law, hubris, or, most likely, the desire to make a living by taking on a matter in an unfamiliar area of
law because opportunities in a more familiar area of practice are, at present, thin on the ground.
Losing your fee, your client, your deductible, your reputation, and a great deal of your time and sanity are
just the first few lines of the "debit" side of the ledger when dabbling results in a malpractice claim.
(Unless you count "learning from your mistakes," there is nothing on the "credit" side, and I've always
thought that this is an overvalued asset, anyway.) This is also a shout-out to those who make a more
literal journey away from their home turf by practicing in unfamiliar jurisdictions, where they may be
unaware of differences in that locality's substantive law or procedural practices.
Want to stay off the malpractice hit parade? Choose a few areas in which you will concentrate your
practice, and then devote yourself to keeping current on updates and developments in those areas. While
continuing your legal education may never seem to be an urgent task - the other demands of life and
practice will keep crowding in - the importance of mastering your area of practice comes in loud and clear
when you tune in to the lessons of the ABA Study.
To paraphrase Mr. Kasem: Keep your firm out of a malpractice claim, and keep reaching for mastery of
your legal skills.
1. Kemal Amin "Casey" Kasem, a man of many talents, also achieved success as a voice-over actor. For example, he was the
original voice of Shaggy Rogers, Scooby-Doo's boon companion in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You! cartoon series. Thus we also
have Mr. Kasem to thank for quotes such as "Zoinks!" and "Gangway!" Kasem, a strict vegetarian, left the role in 1995 when
asked to voice Shaggy in a Burger King commercial and returned to the role in 2002, when the show's producers agreed that
Shaggy would be a strict vegetarian. One wonders whether Scooby, too, adopted a plants-only diet - what was in those Scooby
Snacks, anyway?
2. When I was about 10, the show was especially compelling because it aired on WCFL in the early morning hours on Sunday,
during the sepulchral gloom of Lights Out And No Radio Time in our household. Thus, the show had all the thrill of the
forbidden, as Mr. Kasem spun his discs and his tales through the big waxy earplug (yes, iPod generation - just one) wired to my
tiny, tinny transistor radio, while I huddled under the covers in a clandestine cave of pop music and preteen defiance.
3. American Bar Association Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims 20042007, 2008 ("ABA Study").
4. American Bar Association Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims 20002003, 2005.
“Malpractice Top 40” by Karen Erger originally appeared in the Illinois Bar Journal (Aug. 2009, Vol. 97, No. 8, pp. 424). It is
reprinted here with permission from the Illinois State Bar Association.
Biographies
MARY F. ANDREONI is Ethics Education Counsel for the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) where she develops and implements the ARDC’s ethics
education initiatives, including the ARDC Ethics Inquiry Program and the Illinois Professional
Responsibility Institute, where she is also an instructor. She has authored several articles
including the ARDC publication, Client Trust Account Handbook and spoken at hundreds of
programs on legal ethics. Prior to joining the Commission in 1994, Ms. Andreoni was law clerk
to Illinois Appellate Court Justice Mel R. Jiganti and later practiced commercial litigation with
the law firm of Peterson & Ross in Chicago. While in practice, she also served on the ARDC
Inquiry and Hearing Boards.
KAREN CONTI
ATTORNEY/PARTNER
ADAMSKI & CONTI LLC
For 23 years, Karen Conti has actively practiced law full-time with memberships to the Illinois,
California and United States Supreme Court bars. Her litigation experience includes commercial
litigation, insurance disputes, employment matters, defamation, trade secrets, domestic relations,
adoption and criminal cases from the death penalty murder to white collar embezzlement, campaign
fraud and securities. She has tried many cases throughout the country.
HIGH PROFILE CASES
--Defense of serial killer John Wayne Gacy in final death row appeal
--Pamela Smart, convicted of murdering her high school boyfriend, which inspired the film,
“To Die For”
--First-chaired a 6-week jury trial, obtaining a $1.2 million fraud verdict against one of the
country’s largest construction companies
--Obtained an important reversal in the Illinois Supreme Court in favor of women’s rights in
sexual harassment
--Represented two children in a domestic relations case who were imprisoned for refusing to
visit their abusive father
--Handled campaign fraud criminal charges for Marisol Reynolds (wife of former Congressman
Mel Reynolds)
--Obtained sizeable settlement in a wrongful arrest and personal injury actions against the
Chicago Cubs and the Los Angeles Dodgers arising from the infamous 2000 brawl at Wrigley Field.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ACADEMIC
--For over 10 years, Karen has been an adjunct professor of law at the University of Illinois
College of Law, where she has taught a course on the death penalty and a well-known litigation skills
class called “Bootcamp.”
--Lectures on legal topics of interest at schools, universities and community groups
--2000 Recipient of “Distinguished Graduate Award” University of Illinois College of Law
--2000 Speaker with Rubin “Hurricane” Carter at University of Illinois death penalty
symposium
--1998 Recipient University of Illinois Law School “Outstanding Recent Alumni” Award
--1995-1997 Served on the University of Illinois College of Law Alumni Board
--Former Professor at the National Student Leadership Conference at Stanford University and
American University in Washington teaching trial advocacy skills
--Voted one of the 40 under 40 Lawyers to Watch by the Chicago Lawyer
--Voted one of the 100 Women Making a Difference by Today’s Chicago Woman Magazine
IN THE MEDIA
Karen’s extensive legal expertise has been featured on many radio and television programs
including: Good Morning America, Today Show, CNN, MSNBC, truTV, Fox New Channel, The
O’Reilly Factor, The Maury Show, Montel and more. In Chicago, she has appeared on every local
station as a legal commentator and as an attorney in newsworthy cases. For 6 years, she has been the
WFLD Fox legal analyst, where she gives weekly legal commentary on criminal, family law, and
business law issues.
For four years, Karen co-hosted and produced an award winning legal radio show on WJJD in
Chicago called “Chicago Law” for which she won several “Achievement in Radio” awards. She
currently co-hosts “Legally Speaking,” a highly-acclaimed legal talk show on Chicago mega-station
WGN-News/Talk 720 AM. The show covers national and local news, features lawyers and litigants
and fields calls from listeners. In 2009, the show won a prestigious Kogan Award for excellence in
radio broadcast.
She publishes articles in various publications and magazines, such as the Chicago Sun-Times
and the Chicago Tribune.
EDUCATION
1986 University of Illinois College of Law
1983 magna cum laude and with University Honors from Northern Illinois University
Thomas P. Sukowicz, partner
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Chicago and Ft. Lauderdale
Practice Focus
Thomas Sukowicz has devoted his entire career to issues involving lawyers’ professional liability and
responsibility. His practice emphasizes professional liability, legal ethics, risk management, loss
prevention and the defense of lawyers in disciplinary proceedings.
Professional Background
Mr. Sukowicz serves the firm’s attorney and law firm clients primarily as risk management counsel.
Before he joined Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in September 2000, he was Senior Counsel for the Illinois
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. In his role as an investigating and prosecuting
attorney, he handled numerous cases before the Commission’s Inquiry, Hearing and Review Boards, and
argued disciplinary cases before the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Mr. Sukowicz is a member of the Leading Lawyers Network.
His professional memberships include The Florida Bar, American Bar Association and the Association of
Professional Responsibility Lawyers.
Publications and Presentations
Mr. Sukowicz has an extensive background as an author, instructor and speaker on attorney professional
responsibility.
In the area of publications, Mr. Sukowicz has written dozens of articles on professional responsibility and
professional liability issues. He is a co-author of a monthly ethics column in Chicago Lawyer magazine
that covers many professional responsibility and professional liability topics, including:
• “Closure of an Investigation,” September 2010
• “Rules Don't Prohibit All Gifts to Judges,” August 2010
• “Candor to the Court,” July 2010
• “Limits on Zealous Advocacy,” June 2010
Mr. Sukowicz is co-author of "Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings: Illinois Practice and Procedure," Law
Bulletin Publishing Company (2002), as well as the chapter on “Attorney Liability Risk Management” in
"Attorney Legal Liability,' Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (2002 and 2007). He also
currently co-authors a monthly ethics column for Chicago Lawyer. Additionally, Mr. Sukowicz was coauthor of "Illinois Code of Paralegal Ethics" for the Paralegal Association (1997).
Mr. Sukowicz is a frequent speaker at seminars on topics of attorney ethics and risk management. His
presentations include:
• “Suits for Fees / Mandatory Fee Arbitration,” Hinshaw’s annual Legal Malpractice & Risk
Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, March 2010.
• “Risk Management Issues in Hard Economic Times: Temptation to Take on Risky Clients;
Temptation to Dabble in Matters Outside Your Practice Area,” and Risk Management in a
Transactional Law Practice: Innocently Aiding in the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Fraud;
Know Who You Represent and the Limits of Your Representation; Avoid Making Errors and
Mission; Cover Your Tracks; The Joy of Acting as Escrowee,” and “Causes of Any Disciplinary
Problem – Impairment,” St. Petersburg Bar Association Business Law, Bankruptcy Law and
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solo, Small Firm and Practice Management Sections seminar “Legal Malpractice in Hard
Economic Times: Risk Management Tools to Avoid Dangerous Pitfalls, St. Petersburg, Florida,
May 2009.
“Fee Disputes: New Solutions to an Old Problem,” Hinshaw’s annual Legal Malpractice & Risk
Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February 2008.
“Sexual Relations with Clients – Civil and Disciplinary Exposures,” WestLegalEdcenter live
webcast, November 2007.
“Disaster Preparation and Recovery,” WestLegalEdcenter live webcast, July 2007.
“When the Client’s Representation Involves Defending the Firm’s Work Product – Identifying
and Managing the Risks,” Hinshaw’s annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference,
Chicago, Illinois, March 2007.
“Risk Management,” Palm Beach County Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Practitioner’s
Committee program, “Legal Malpractice, Ethics and Risk Management Update,” West Palm
Beach, Florida, February 2007; and again in Miami, Florida, March 2007.
“Screening Out Risky Clients and Declining Representation,” WestLegalEdcenter live webcast,
September 2006.
“Office Sharing and Apparent Partnership,” WestLegalEdcenter live webcast, August 2006.
“Legal Malpractice, Ethics & Risk Management,” Hillsborough Bar Association’s seminar,
Tampa, Florida, May 2006.
“Using Advanced Technology to Control Risk and Improve Practice Management,” Hinshaw’s
annual Legal Malpractice and Risk Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, March 2006.
“Equity Interests in Clients and Serving on Client Boards,” WestLegalEdcenter live webcast,
June 2005.
“Legal Malpractice & Risk Management,” The Florida Bar’s 2005 Annual Meeting, Orlando,
Florida, June 2005.
“Risk Management – Declining and Accepting Engagements,” and “Risk Management –
Screening Clients and Cases,” Hillsborough County Bar Association’s Legal Malpractice
seminar, Tampa, Florida, May 2005.
"Ethics Issues and Law Office Risk Management – Avoiding Claims," Lorman Education
Services Seminar: Legal Ethics in Florida, West Palm Beach, Florida, February 2005.
“Advanced Technology for Risk Management,” Hinshaw’s annual Legal Malpractice and Risk
Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February 2005.
“Legal Malpractice, Ethics and Risk Management,” Dade County and Broward County Bar
Associations, Miami and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, May 2004.
“Duties to the Courts and the Profession,” Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission, Chicago, Illinois, March 2004.
“Solo and Small Firm Practice: From Cradle to Grave,” Nebraska State Bar Association, Lincoln,
Nebraska, October 2003.
“Being an Effective and Ethical Advocate,” Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute,
Chicago, Illinois, September 2003.
“Fees/Billing/Collection Issues,” Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute, Chicago, Illinois,
March 2003.
“Client Communications and Collecting Fees,” Bar Association of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California, March 2003.
Mr. Sukowicz served as a faculty member of the Illinois Institute of Professional Responsibility at the
request of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and also is a former adjunct
professor at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, where he taught a professional responsibility
course.

ISBA New Admittee Virtual Coffeehouse - Online CLE

Transcription

Similar documents

Ejercicios

Austree

ScanGate document

WHAT MARTlN LUTHER KlNG SAlD ABOUT UNlONS - AFL-CIO

eibach Wins CarDomain.com`s People`s Choice Award for the 5th

Winter 2005

Making Choices 18.6 - Precious Blood Ministry of Reconciliation

An AC Operated Resistance-Coupled Amplifier

Greyhound Bus Accident Cases

Fall 2011 Disclosure - College of Business