In re: Thomas, 2012 IL 113035

Respondent Robert C. Thomas, Illinois attorney admitted in 1969, had prior suspension in 2005 for 18 months.
In 2004-2005 the Administrator alleged misrepresentation and three counts of unauthorized practice of law.
Count I involved pre-suspension discovery misconduct in U.S. Bankruptcy Court proceedings related to Thomas Consolidated Industries.
Count II involved unauthorized practice before the Seventh Circuit during suspension; respondent filed motions and an appellate brief for TCI.
Count III involved unauthorized practice in Du Page County after suspension, including a deposition and representing Phillipses.
Hearing Board found all counts proven; Review Board dismissed Counts I and II, and partially reopened Count III; this court granted leave to file exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether misrepresentation to a tribunal supported discipline under 3.3(a)(1).	Administrator argues false certificate of mailing was material.	Thomas contends misrepresentation was immaterial.	Rule 3.3(a)(1) violation not shown to be material; not dispositive.
Whether filing in the Seventh Circuit during suspension violated 5.5(a).	Thomas violated 5.5(a) by practicing while suspended.	Thomas claims no admission before Seventh Circuit; pro se status; lack of intent.	Thomas violated Rule 5.5(a) through unauthorized practice before the Seventh Circuit.
Whether respondent’s post-suspension conduct in Phillipses matter violated 5.5(a), 8.4(a)(4), 8.4(a)(5) and Rule 770 after October 17, 2005.	Continuing to practice after suspension undermines administration of justice.	Petition for rehearing stayed suspension; misunderstanding of status.	Respondent violated Rule 5.5(a), 8.4(a)(4), 8.4(a)(5); Rule 770 applies; sanction warranted.

In re Winthrop, 219 Ill.2d 526 (2006) (clear-and-convincing standard in disciplinary actions)
In re Storment, 203 Ill.2d 378 (2002) (de novo review of legal questions; deferential to Hearing Board on facts)
In re Mitan, 75 Ill.2d 118 (1979) (procedural rules are procedural; not a rigid time-bar to discipline)
In re Howard, 188 Ill.2d 423 (1999) (suspension during which conduct constitutes practice of law; intent not required for violation)
Scandia Down, 772 F.2d 1423 (1985) (corporation must appear by counsel; unauthorized representation prejudices creditors)
In re Cheronis, 114 Ill.2d 527 (1986) (ignorance of law not a defense to misconduct; duty to educate self)
In re Rinella, 175 Ill.2d 504 (1997) (Rule 8.4(a)(4) violation can follow intentional dishonesty; context matters)
In re Cutright, 233 Ill.2d 474 (2009) (Rule 8.4(a)(4) violations may be found where conduct was purposeful)
In re Gerard, 132 Ill.2d 507 (1990) (constructive fraud; intent not always required for Rule 8.4(a)(4))
Thomas Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. Koster Group, Inc., 93 F.App’x 926 (2004) ( Seventh Circuit case cited for sanctions context)
Thomas Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. Herbsts, 456 F.3d 719 (2006) ( Seventh Circuit discussion of discovery and bad faith)