In Re Chandler

tory authority seeking a preliminary injunction. We also conclude that preliminary injunction did not "taking” amount to a of defendants’ property without just Therefore, compensation. we reverse the appellate court. As the appellate court did not reach the defen- remaining dants’ challenges injunction, to the we remand to the appellate court for consideration of those issues. reversed;

Appellate court cause remanded. (No. 76145.

In re CHANDLER, MICHELE Attorney, Respondent. Opinion August Rehearing denied October 1994. filed 1994.

McMORROW,J., J., joined FREEMAN, by dissenting. Verrando, Chicago, Robert J. of the Administra- Attorney tor of the Registration Disciplinary and Commission. Collins, George M. and B. of

Theresa Gronkiewicz respondent. Bargione, Chicago, of Collins & opinion JUSTICE MILLER delivered of court: Chandler, Elaine respondent,

The Michele 26, On March April to the Illinois bar 1988. admitted 8, 1991, Registration Attorney the Administrator of the and filed five-count com Disciplinary Commission I IV through plaint against respondent. Counts complaint charged respondent falsifying with informa income, history, and regarding employment tion her application, loan security social number on residential submitting and false documents preparing with application, with the loan violation connection 102(a)(4) the Illinois Code of Professional Rule 1— (107 102(a)(4)) (Code) 2d R. Responsibility Ill. 1— 771). (107 2d V Ill. R. Count Supreme Court Rule providing information charged respondent with false and name at concerning security her number social bar this for admission to the birth on her 102(a)(4) State, in violation of Rules 1— 101 and 1— 102(a)(4)) (107 and of 2d Rules the Code Ill. 1— 1— (107 771). Both the Supreme Court R. Rule re Board found that Hearing Board and the Review substantially committed all the miscon spondent had Administrator, and both Boards alleged duct from the suspended be recommended period. The Administra law for a six-month practice of pursuant exceptions with this court tor has filed 753(e) (134 753(e)), seeking 2d Ill. R. Supreme Court Rule severe sanction. imposition of more admitted complaint, answer to the allegations, Administrator’s essentially all of the parties pre- dispute. are not in in this case facts documentary exhibits before testimony sented did Respondent 1991. November Hearing Board on testify occasion, not on that but sworn statement she previously had made and her In- testimony before the quiry Board were both introduced into evidence at that addition, parties stipulated time. to certain other evidence. 1987,

The evidence in this in August case shows that mortgage submitted a loan application to Mortgage Mid-America Company purchase for the aof Chicago. house in Respondent seeking a loan of $84,550 and was prepared payment to make a down $5,000. application, On the stated that her gross $4,000 monthly income was and that she had been employed an attorney by as another lawyer, Nathaniel Howse, for more than five years. Sometime between August and October prepared and submitted to Mid-America withholding W-2 statements and Federal and State income tax returns representing $42,000 $46,000 that she had earned in 1985 and in 1986 and that the source of her income for each year was her employment with Howse. employment history by respondent described

her loan and the supporting documentation she submitted false, to the lender were however. Through a stipulation entered into the parties, Howse explained that withholding W-2 statements question had not prepared by been his office and were not accurate. Howse stated that he did not employ re- spondent at all in 1985 and that he employed her for only a 1986; short time in Howse said paid that he re- cash, spondent and he was unable to recall amount of compensation. Respondent, in her own testimony Board, before the Inquiry stated that she did some work for Howse from late in 1986 until October $1,000 and that she earned about for this work.

Respondent also submitted to Mid-America an employment verification form bearing purported respondent The form stated signature of Howse. Howse, she earned employed by currently was her $46,000 employment, and that in 1986 from that $48,000 Howse By stipulation, in 1987. pay base was and that signature was not authentic stated that respondent’s not reflect form did the verification for commitment history. application An employment Mid-America by respondent submitted title insurance regarding false information the same incorporated income. employment and respondent’s an also contained application loan Respondent’s attributed Respondent security social number. incorrect lender. Re- a error clerical discrepancy this on security number a social used different spondent in connection with prepared documents she other application. loan approved, subsequently was loan

Respondent’s 28, 1987. on October property possession took she respondent’s discovered day, Mid-America On the same told re- that, of Mid-America after an officer fraud. Soon option exercise its intention to the lender’s spondent of immediately due loan amount of the the full to declare willing to was also though the lender payable, larger down respondent provided if refinance the loan to tender sat- was unable respondent When payment. foreclosure sum, Mid-America instituted isfactory action was in the foreclosure Judgment proceedings. The 1988. September on respondent against entered loss, if the extent of no evidence record contains consequence as by Mid-America incurred any, actions. respondent’s charged respon- complaint also

The Administrator’s applica- her bar on making false statements with dent secu- and her social name at birth concerning her tion stated that application, On the rity number. Chandler. Michele Elaine name at birth actually appearing name birth certifi- cate, however, was Michele Elaine By stipu- Dickerson. lation, explained that she had never used name, Dickerson, her father’s and had instead used her name, Chandler, mother’s maiden from the time of her birth.

Respondent gave also an security incorrect social number on application. her bar After inquiry by Fitness, Committee on Character and she amended her provided a different number. Before the Board, Inquiry explained that she had lost track original of her social security number sometime 1970s, number, had reapplied for the and had then been issued another Respondent number. used the latter number on the loan original and her number on the bar application.

In mitigation, the offered evidence of her disadvantaged background. Respondent was born in grew 1955 and up on the Chicago. west side of She had her first child years when she was 14 Respondent old. 1971, married in at age began the and working to support family. her She had a second child soon after that. Respondent and her husband were in separated 1974 and divorced in 1981. Respondent enrolled at the University Chicago Illinois in in 1977 and received her degree, honors, bachelor’s with in 1980.

Respondent then entered law school at New York University, and she graduated was in 1983. She received practice her license to law in following New York the year. Upon graduation, respondent worked first as a law clerk for the United States Appeals Court of for the Circuit, Second attorney later as an a law firm in New York. She also did work for the National Council Lawyers. of Black There is some dispute the record concerning the circumstances under which respondent employment left her appeals with the In court. answer by an the Committee on Character inquiry to Fitness, there stated that was supervisor a maintained that she left the resign; asked to voluntarily.1 position Chicago in and she

Respondent returned respon referring under which the 1In to the circumstances Circuit, reads position the dissent dent left her with the Second entirely explanation provided selectively, ignoring the the record investigation supervisor. During by respondent’s its former a and Fitness sent respondent, the Committee on Character seeking supervisor, verification of the questionnaire to the making inquiry regarding employment history supervisor answered "no” to respondent’s qualifications. The worthy applicant your employ question, was "While concerning response questions and confidence?” trust respondent’s conduct, supervisor at honesty, integrity, explanation explanatory stated: tached an statement. my supervision clerk employed as law under "While Circuit, Ms. Appeals the Second for the Court resign she had become because Chandler was asked actively attorneys of defense involved with team custody. in federal representing certain defendants then conveyed to According prison records and information these by deputy Ms. Chandler visited warden me they were incarcerated times while defendants several gained access Metropolitan Center. She Correctional more by claiming an for one or prison to be to the working during These visits occurred of these defendants. knowledge permission. my hours and without United addition, an assistant I informed both magistrate that Ms.Chandler attorney and a federal States magistrate of one or on behalf appeared before the had my knowledge defendants, without also more of these Moreover, working Ms. during hours. also permission and officials, prison the AU- to disclose to Chandler failed magistrate that she was assigned the case or to SAs activities Ms. Chandler’s law clerk. a Second Circuit applicable law clerks conduct the code of violated her lack demonstrated by courts and employed the federal integrity. of candor and

passed the bar given February Illinois examination 1987. Respondent initially worked an attorney as for Union; the American Civil Liberties at the time of the hearing, she was employed as an assistant public de- fender in Cook County. Respondent was admitted to the April Illinois bar in 1988. Hearing Board,

Before the respondent presented favorable testimony from four character Wey- witnesses. Edwards, man assistant dean of students at the Univer- sity of Illinois in Chicago, stated that tutored minority students undergraduate while she was an and that her integrity beyond academic reproach. Ed- that, wards also prior testified hearing, to the he was not aware had submitted false tax documents in support mortgage of her application.

Respondent’s uncle, Chandler, Thomas a tactical sergeant with the Chicago police department, also testified in behalf hearing. at the He stated good has a reputation honesty for integrity, has been service, involved in community ais role model for members family of her persons the community, and has expressed remorse for her misconduct. judges

Two of the circuit court of Cook County, Singer Bowie, Shelvin and Preston also testified in respondent’s behalf hearing. at the Appearing pursuant to subpoenas by issued respondent, the witnesses stated respondent, practiced who had in their courtrooms as an public defender, assistant was an able enjoyed good reputation honesty integrity.

Finally, during this time Ms. Chandler was unable to result, devote her attention to her duties as a law clerk. As a assignments completed timely were not ain fashion or poorly performed. were sum, Ms. employ Chandler’s conduct while in the Court’s worthy demonstrated that she was not of the trust and placed confidence in her the Court.” Judge Singer described as best all respondent "the public my around defender who been in has courtroom.” hearing, Prior to the neither was aware that re- witness spondent submitted tax to the had false documents mortgage lender. mitigation,

As respondent further evidence in forms her prepared supervisor introduced evaluation concerning in March as September her work ranged public an assistant defender. The evaluations "Adequate” "Very Good,” from and her and in- to ethics tegrity "Outstanding” were rated as on both forms. Hearing report

The Board filed and recommenda- its Board February tion on 1992. The found false preparation and submission mortgage to respect documents with the to designed were intentional and were deceive Hearing mortgage making into the loan. The lender her bar respondent, applica- Board also found that tion, concerning her materially made false statements mitiga- at birth. security number name social tion, Hearing Board noted that had reputation honesty integrity the commu- good de- nity regarded public as an assistant was well Hearing respon- fender. The Board recommended period of law for a suspended practice be from dent six months. had refused to allow the Hearing The Board earlier original complaint either to amend the Administrator an additional one. against file charges sought bring further Administrator had involving failure to reveal against both the foreclo- Character and Fitness Committee on obtaining loan. misconduct action and her sure order, findings regarding Hearing Board made no its allegations against respondent. additional these Hearing exceptions filed The Administrator report, Board’s and the matter was submitted to the Review July Board on 1992. The parties specifically agreed Board, determining Review a recom- sanction, mended could consider the Administrator’s allegations additional of wrongdoing by respondent. The Review Board report filed its and recommenda- May tion on 1993. The Review Board affirmed the findings Board, factual Hearing though the Review Board did significant not find fail- respondent’s ure to disclose on her application bar her correct name at birth. Despite the parties’ agreement, the Review Board, in formulating sanction, a recommended declined to respondent’s consider the failure to apprise the Committee on Character and Fitness of the foreclosure action misconduct in obtaining the loan. Like the Board, Hearing the Review Board recommended a six- suspension. month The Review Board concluded alterna- tively that even if the additional violations had been considered, it would not have any greater recommended sanction, for the type same of misconduct had been proved under original the complaint. outset,

At the agree we with the Review Board that respondent’s failure on her application bar accurately to state the surname she received at birth signifi- was not cant under the presented evidence here. The evidence shows that respondent father, had never lived with her Dickerson, and had name, used her mother’s maiden Chandler, record, since birth. On this we conclude that respondent’s omission of her father’s surname from the bar not material. agree, however,

We do not with the Review Board’s conclusion that the present disciplinary proceeding may not take account of the additional misconduct committed by respondent failing update her bar application with information about the foreclosure action circumstances under which she obtained her loan. Al- though parties expressly agreed that the Review Board should further misconduct consider imposing when the Review Board declined discipline, so, believing charges the additional were not do that before it. The noted that properly Review Board charges, Hearing Board did take evidence those not allegations, formally did not admit successfully for dismissal of and that moved charged complaint, the Administrator’s second which with misconduct. The Review the additional present also record lacked Board concluded mind regarding respondent’s evidence state of sufficient failed committee when she to disclose misrepresen- pendency of the foreclosure action and the loan application. tations on her share, course, We the Review Board’s concern charges against receive them in attorneys notice of and have an disciplinary proceedings opportunity charges. an against Generally, defend those uncharged disciplined may not be instances misconduct; right the respondent’s to do so violate would candor process and our own notions of procedural due (In 470-71; 451, Doyle fairness. re 544, Ed. 2d In re 390 U.S. 20 L. see also Ruffalo 1222.) end, Rule 117, Court Supreme 88 S. Ct. To that 753(b) a matter that complaint disciplinary provides of the acts reasonably inform "shall (134 2d Ill. alleged he is to have committed.” misconduct 753(b).) case, however, has present respondent In the R. additional she notice of the had both admitted them, and against to defend charges opportunity and an agreed instances have these further parties may imposition be considered misconduct sanction. disciplinary to the charges directly are related

The additional concerning respon- complaint in the initial allegations mortgage application application. dent’s loan and bar Respondent application submitted her bar to the State 28, Board of Law Examiners on The November 1986. application pending was still before the Committee on when, during Character and Fitness from period August 1987, providing October mortgage lender regarding with false information income and employment history. One of Mid-America’s officers confronted with this fraud Novem- 1987, ber and respondent was served with summons in 27, the foreclosure action no later than March 1988. Not 11, April until inquiry did an panel of the certification, committee recommend she was admitted to the bar April Illinois 1988. application required bar to "immedi- ately disclose to the Character and Fitness Committee circumstances occurring events after the date of the submission application] which may any [the have bearing substantive on Applicant’s character Thus, fitness.” respondent was under a continuing duty to provide the committee with further relevant informa- tion as it Although became available. respondent was in contact with the committee in January again 1988 and early in April 1988 because of inquiries relating other fitness, to her at no time did she report to the committee either her misconduct in connection with the loan application or the ensuing foreclosure action.2 As we stated, parties agree have these additional acts duty imposed 2In addition to applicant of disclosure on an 101(b) itself, the bar Qode Rule 1— Responsibility provides Professional as follows: lawyer subject discipline "A is if he has made a in,

materially deliberately false statement or if he has requested failed to disclose material fact in connection (107 with, application his for admission to the bar.” Ill. 2d 101(b).) R. 1— 472 of a imposition considered in the may

of misconduct be sanction. sanction appropriate determine the

We now .must intended are Attorney disciplinary proceedings this case. integrity of the safeguard public, maintain legal protect the administration profession, (In 445, (1985), Ill. 2d re Lenz justice reproach. from 227.) 222, (1982), 450-51; Ill. 2d In re Lamberis consistency in the require Predictability and fairness (In of misconduct re imposed for similar acts sanctions 197; 178, Saladino (1993), 2d re 157 Ill. Timpone 263, 275), nec (1978), although each case must 71 Ill. 2d pe and circumstances on the facts essarily be resolved (In 31; re Joyce re culiar to it 57). The Administrator Ushijima disbar warrants argues respondent’s misconduct that, from the or, lengthy suspension failing ment contends that the six-month Respondent of law. practice Board and both the Review recommended suspension give we def- Although Hearing appropriate. Board is expressly requested respondent’s bar following information: (either (a) plaintiff or de- you party been a "11. Have ever

fendant) legal any or action otherwise involved to or criminal, quasi proceeding, or criminal either civil *** juvenile any proceedings in court? including foregoing subpara- any of the your is Yes as to If answer facts, answer must fully ***. Your graphs, all of the state facts, issues and of all relevant fully apprise the Committee to the in- respondent answered "no” application, bar On her 11(a). failure to subparagraph For the quiry in regarding the fore- application with information update bar she obtained in which and the manner closure action charged complaint loan, second mortgage the Administrator’s 102(a)(4), 101(b), violating Rules respondent with 1— 1— (107 102(a)(4), 101(b), 102(a)(5) 111.2d Rules Code 1— 1— 1— 771). (107 (a)(5)) R. 111.2d Supreme Rule 771 Court by the Review erence to the sanctions recommended Boards, Hearing only their recommendations are (In (1988), 45, 52-53; advisory D’Angelo re 126 Ill. 2d (1981), 318, 323), final re 85 Ill. 2d for the Hopper attorney an responsibility imposing discipline upon 115). (In (1986), 105, rests with us re 111 Ill. 2d Williams obtaining respect With to actions in loan, imposed we note that sanctions cases involving ranged, misrepresentations by attorneys have case, depending on the circumstances of the from (see (1988), censure (respon re Stern 124 Ill. 2d 310 dent responsible preparation falsely dated letter stopped using but short of advantage)), letter to own to (see suspension (respondent Williams on three convicted of mail counts fraud in connection with scheme to (see defraud insurance company)), to disbarment In re (1992), Bell (among 147 Ill. 2d 15 other acts of miscon duct, respondent applications filed five false loan with banks, falsely Administrator, testified before Supreme submitted false affidavit to Court of Tennes see)). Moreover, acts of intentional fraud are sufficient (In grounds (1987), for disbarment. re Vavrik 117 Ill. 2d 408, 413; (1987), 384, 394; In re Braner 115 Ill. 2d Sala 276.) dino, 71 Ill. 2d at That present fraud concerns attorney’s an personal professional life rather than affairs is of no moment here. fraudulent act of an attorney acting in his own behalf in which he seeks personal gain, directly indirectly, to the detriment of honesty, reprehensible is no less than when he acts on 117.) (Williams, behalf of his client. 111 Ill. 2d at It is duty supervise our to the professional lawyers conduct of Illinois, practicing in duty fulfillment of that necessarily requires inquiry private into the conduct of attorneys to the extent that such conduct relates professional competence dignity legal or the profession. Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2d at 227. time, applicant an for admission to

At the same fully and duty respond of this State has a bar application. all on the bar accurately questions asked (In In Mitan 499; re (1980), 485, re Ascher 81 Ill. 2d 127.) of candor or 75 Ill. 2d The absence for the truth completeness exemplifies a lack of concern (In De re only process. and can frustrate 6.) Bar tolo The failure of an 111 Ill. 2d to these in fully truthfully respond applicant court, upon has been held to be fraud quiries (Ascher, Ill. sanctions. warranting disciplinary severe 127.) 499; Mitan, an Accordingly, at 2d at (In (1985), 106 Ill. re Jordan may be disbarred (In 162) re Con law practice the of suspended 2d or from order)) (1993), false nor (unpublished for M.R. 8711 even application his her bar statements made on concerning any further though is adduced no evidence occurring since the or unethical conduct unprofessional course, duty Of admission to the bar. person’s submitted; is application candor does not end once noted, obligation to corresponding an has a applicant as the Committee information pertinent disclose pending. is while the Character and Fitness instances specific Turning now to lengthy period of misconduct, that a we conclude necessary law is both practice suspension from gain, personal in case at bar. For appropriate an elaborate and carried out developed respondent her Mid-America to lend to induce intended scheme financially qualified $85,000 when she was not nearly originally agreed on the terms a loan of that size receive end, grossly misrepre- Toward that upon. employment income and Mid-America sented to addition, to the lender submitted In history. and tax returns withholding statements false W-2 form. verification employment false attorneys participated who have note that other We substan in fraudulent schemes have received elaborate law for their practice from the suspensions tial (See (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 56 In re Sherre misconduct. in years participating three for (attorney suspended inflating value of real preparation of false documents company, in for client insurance estate held trust In re fraud); mail resulting attorney’s in conviction for Grossgold (attorney suspended three in and submission years participating preparation for subrogation and inflated claims fraudulent bills fees, resulting in in conviction gained which he $586.76 fraud); re Alschuler 388 Ill. 492 for mail (attorney suspended years participating three half of annual scheme in which he kicked back one and for later company, retainer to officer of client making investigators attempt false statements scheme).) present in the conceal Like the case, attorneys the preceding disciplinary each of defraud; participated matters in elaborate schemes to however, present respondent, attorneys unlike the in those cases were not the architects of the principal schemes.

During period, respondent’s application the same pending. admission to the Illinois bar was security application, respondent misstated her social number, conduct one of two numbers she has used. Such of and her respondent’s demonstrates lack candor investigation qualifica- intention to of her frustrate practice by tions to law the Committee on Character addition, respondent and Fitness. later failed to inform the committee of both the fraud she committed obtaining ensuing her loan and the lender’s foreclo- action, continuing obligation despite apprise sure her integ- bearing the committee of matters on her relevant rity. Respondent’s important failure to disclose these matters to the committee —matters that would have grounds denying been for admission to the bar —thwarted the committee’s assessment of her law. See In re Ascher practice character and fitness to (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 485.

In mitigation, respondent we note that has been co- operative throughout proceedings, expressed these has misconduct, remorse for her has been the not Further, of subject any previous disciplinary action. loss, if any, evidence fails to show the extent of the by respondent’s incurred the lender as result only purpose that her Respondent actions. insists safe, attempting provide to obtain the loan was must, however, family. housing affordable for her We reject morally respondent’s assumption as flawed misconduct, may of her motive excuse her purity housing empirically premise and as flawed her that such through could not be obtained honest means.

Finally, points to the evidence of her good honesty integrity at work and reputation large. Several of community at witnesses, however, aware the full character were not Moreover, as this court has extent of her misconduct. is proof good reputation previously, observed "While consideration, it is always an element to be taken into specific [Citation.]” no defense to acts of misconduct. (1945), 400, re McCallum 391 Ill. 415. sampling by

The cases offered the dissent as distinguishable, involv readily matters are disciplinary different present proceeding, to the ing, in contrast misconduct, mit substantially greater forms of e.g., Levy In re See, 115 Ill. 2d igation, both. intent did not have (concluding In re defraud); 260-61 McAuliffe (no court, board, or fraud made this review finding board; suffering significant from hearing

477 misconduct); at time of impairments physical mental and 179, (1983), (respondent’s 185 98 Ill. 2d In re Towles mistake); In re ignorance was result of misconduct after (1984), (respondent censured Eisenberg M.R. 3074 false information guilty providing pleading plea agreement pursuant Service Internal Revenue that did government acknowledged in which fraudu were false and actually not know documents lent); (1990), (neglect legal 141 Ill. 2d 128 Ring In re matter); (1983), (neglect); In re In Hall 95 Ill. 2d 371 re addiction); (1991), (drug In re Scar Sims 144 Ill. 2d 323 addiction); (1985), (drug In re Levin 108 Ill. 2d 456 navack 535, remarks (1984), (respondent’s concerning of cases attorneys clients and other status not to be fraudu were blatant misstatements but found (alcoholism). lent); (1983), In re 95 Ill. 2d 484 Chapman merit by Several other cases cited the dissent also Villadonga brief In In re & comment. Gabriele petition MR this court denied the administrator’s exceptions report to file to the and recommendation and, order, in an instead unpublished the review board confirming summarily approving entered an order cir- report and recommendation. view of those cumstances, precedential little value. possesses case addition, specifically we note that the review board by respon- observed that "the criminal acts committed they neither facilitating dents involved scheme that disguised purchasers” conceived nor from the mitigated the attor- believed that those circumstances attorneys Each of the two neys’ misconduct. years, had been law for about 20 proceeding practicing record, spotless part pro and had taken bono had activities.

In In another re Cetwinski dissent, noted, by among the court other case cited circumstances, mitigating in that case had discontinued his prior investiga misconduct to the authorities, tion law suggested enforcement had sentence, restitution to the client part as of his Federal an enjoyed otherwise unblemished reputation, had initi ated his own pro bono shortly program after his admis bar, cooperated fully sion to the and with law enforce obtaining against, ment authorities in evidence In re Armen against, testifying Finally, a codefendant. trout (1983), 242, dissent, 99 by may Ill. 2d also cited the determining be an uncertain lodestar in disciplinary It might suggested two-year sanctions. be the suspension on the in imposed that case for forging signatures petitions voters’ for a statewide lenient, advisory light referendum in especially was too attorney’s subsequent during period of the actions the (see Cetwinski, his suspension 143 Ill. 2d at 398-402 (describing in separate Armentrout’s role misconduct in involved)). which Cetwinski was

Considering both the seriousness mitigating various acts of misconduct and the evidence offered, suspended she has we order be years the law until fur- practice from for three ther order of this court.

Respondent suspended. McMORROW, dissenting: JUSTICE majority’s suspend I dissent from the decision to re- years and spondent practice from the of law for three my opinion, of court. such until further order is, case, unduly under the facts of this harsh sanction significantly punitive imposed more than sanctions egregious more than the other cases for conduct guilty in the case at misconduct of which is bar. determining "primary

This court’s consideration any imposed extent of to be discipline the nature public of the and the protection case is the particular

479 (In (1982), 92 Ill. re Kramer integrity profession” 311). protected "The which is to be 'public’ 2d pub comprised is through disciplinary measures who are of those large, primarily lic at but consists conduct.” attorney’s professional affected directly 185-86.) (In (1983), "In determin re Towles Ill. 2d *** not discipline this court should ing appropriate public which will benefit neither impose sanction (1976), legal profession.” nor the In re Leonard 398, 406. error, a serious I believe

Although respondent made grossly majority’s disproportionate sanction is other imposed upon this court has sanctions engaged in or acts lawyers who have similar worse before Respondent might misconduct. have fared better willfully dishonesty this court if her took form of (In failing years Towles to file tax returns for three re (censure); lying 98 Ill. 2d 179 clients about (In their re appeals Ring dismissed status of (six-month suspension); falsifying Ill. 2d 128 an insur monetary ance claim for violation of Federal profit (In (1986), mail fraud laws re 111 Ill. 2d 105 Williams (two-year suspension)). might have been Respondent accorded lenient if she were a former more treatment Attorney drugs years pros State’s who while abused (two- (In (1991), ecuting 144 crime re Ill. 2d 323 Sims suspension)); a who master year prosecutor former a signature forgery place minded of voter to scheme (In (1983), 99 referendum re Armentrout ballot (two-year suspension)); judge Ill. 2d 242 who solicited attorney loans on disclosing loans from an without (In re his declaration of economic interest statement (six-month (1991), suspension)); Witt 380 money judge even an who loaned (In 2d Ketchum 124 Ill. influence his decisions re (two-year suspension)). key The focus of this or any disciplinary action must be the imposition of an appropriate sanction. This court stated, has "While each case of attorney misconduct is unique and requires an independent evaluation of its [citation], relevant circumstances predictability require fairness consistency in the imposed sanctions (In re Cheronis for similar conduct.” 535.) Hearing Board, Both the Board and Review af ter considering evidence, all of the determined that a suspension six-month was the appropriate sanction impose this case. I see no reason depart from that determination. Accordingly, I dissent.

The undisputed respondent, facts reveal who grew up having father, little contact with her awas years child of 14 gave when she birth to her own child. age 15, began She married at working, and soon had a Respondent second child. separated and her husband af- ter years, three and from that time forward she provided support the sole for herself and her children. Notwith- standing her obligations tremendous she enrolled college graduated, honors, and was years, with in three from the University Chicago. of Illinois at She then Law, attended New York University School of with an academic scholarship. gave She birth to a third child while in law school. Despite balancing the difficulties of studies with the travails of single-parent child- rearing, successfully completed law school practice obtained her license to law in New York. Thereafter, year worked for one as a law clerk for the United States Appeals Court of for the Second Circuit. There she reviewed pro se filings prepared legal memoranda and made recommendations judge. majority to a opinion dispute refers to a over voluntarily whether left or was asked to any leave. This matter was not mentioned of the briefs as relevant to the appeal. issues involved this in- chairman of fact, record reveals explanation respondent’s reviewed both panel who

quiry the circumstances view of supervisor’s and her from the response leaving "fe[lt] respondent’s The overzealousness.” a matter employer [was] of the Committee panel inquiry members unanimously to recommend voted and Fitness Character bar. to the certification Illinois respondent’s re- highly positive Further, many other there were Fitness by the Character were received sponses that for regarding respondent’s Committee the affidavit example, For the Illinois bar. admission to York, re- for whom in New justice court supreme as a "Root-Tilden law clerk services performed spondent an respondent "ha[d] nr stated that scholar” *** highest degree of honesty[,] sense of impeccable disciplined and was never integrity[,]” morality justice ex- "only praised.” employ, in his while intellectual high regard pressed and idealism. maturity and her analytical gifts an affidavit submitted Attorney William Kunstler firm intern at his law was an stating May February 1982 to from supervision and under his honest,” with "scrupulously He found 1983. "eminently general and her conduct "highest” integrity, upon accepting employ- left his office satisfactory.” She states, he In his affidavit the Second Circuit. ment with hardworking extremely an applicant "The is unstintingly gives She person. socially conscious I believe most or excuse. herself, complaint without Illinois an asset to the wholeheartedly that she will be bar.” York Hinds of the New Lennox S.

An affidavit from White, respon- whom Steven, & firm Hinds law July January an from worked as dent completely "could be stated that assignments [and] trusted on all at all times exhibited highest integrity.” Further, "Ms. Chandler con- highest degree professional- ducted herself with the disciplined ism,” and was never in while the firm’s employ. She left the firm to relocate in Illinois. Hinds respondent stated his firm could entrust with the "most "highest degree sensitive matters” and relied on her professionalism” "enthusiastically” and recommended stated, her admission to the Illinois bar. As the members inquiry panel of the Character and Fitness Com- unanimously mittee voted to recommend certification to the Illinois bar. returning Chicago,respondent

Before a worked as lawyer defense in a Federal case in which a she earned approximately $30,000. fee of At the time falsely represented salary employment her relation- ship working Howse, with Nathaniel she in fact was for independent him on an contractor basis. She had worked penalty anticipated with Howse on a death case and she working with him on other matters. She worked for the approximately eight ACLU for months. Her next employment public office, was with the defender’s where employed hearing. she was at the time of the Respondent passed in Illinois bar examination February approved 1987. Her admission to the bar was August April respondent applied in mortgage 1988. for a Chicago, using loan on a in home falsified relating documents and false information to her income employment depo- at status that time. In her sworn record, sition of stated that she knew she payments good, could afford the because mar- she had judgment $30,000 ketable a skills and had received expressed misconduct, fees. She remorse for her realizing "terribly wrong” that what she did was but every also that she made effort not to cause loss to the good lender. She maintained the house condition for there, insurance, secured the short time she lender, with the plan out attempted payment work Re- payments at time. offering to make two three the house also that she believed spondent explained and herself was for her three children purchased she luxury deposition item. Her further necessity, not a up to rent paid she had $700 indicates heat, many inadequate with apartments rent her because of children. landlords would not obtaining difficulties Respondent’s professed misrepresenta- do excuse her financing for a house not However, it appears to the bank. tions and she adequate employment she find believed would legal New anticipated using the fee she had earned in Al- monthly mortgage payments. York to meet her loan though respondent mortgage obtained the under she not pretenses, worthy false it is of note that did fees, interest, the of its deprive intend to bank not in Respondent was loan amount. principal financial learning her default, upon the lender called the loan Indeed, had employment falsified record. mortgage payment, initial which the tendered the allegations lender refused. The lender did not include action, proceeded fraud the foreclosure which without designed to Respondent’s although contest. actions — through mortgage approve lender to her loan induce the fabrication of her record and income— employment mortgage not lender of its were calculated cheat and result to the lender. money did not in economic loss fact, willing if the lender was to refinance loan greatly increased down respondent met its demand for substantially She was not to make payment. able payment. increased down fa- hearing, respondent presented disciplinary

At the as- character witnesses. The testimony from four vorable University of Illinois dean of students at sistant Chicago testified that respondent’s integrity academic an undergraduate while beyond reproach student was and that she minority Respondent’s tutored students. uncle, a police sergeant, when testified that Chicago back moved 1986 she performed commu- nity services, particularly with the homeless senior citizens. He said she was a role model others in the including niece, community, her who enrolled in law respondent’s school as a guidance. judges result of Both appeared hearing who gave testimony at the favorable regarding respondent’s professional performance honesty. Respondent introduced work evaluation forms supervisor that her had completed. These evaluations integrity professional performance highly. rated The Hearing respondent’s Board characterized "elaborately designed actions as to deceive Mid-America Mortgage Company” making into loan. The Review recognized Board also gravity in making conduct intentional material misrepre lqan Nonetheless, sentations in her application. eight agreed members of the Review Board with the Hearing three-member panel Board suspension of six months was the appropriate sanction disagree all of the circumstances. I with the ma under decision, augments jority’s suspen which the six-month with an years citing any sion additional without 2½ the specific might justify facts or cases increased beyond newly the sanction for fail penalty, announced to update applications. ure bar

Although acknowledging cooperation, respondent’s remorse, record, previously clean and absence of loss to lender, denigrates respondent’s majority the motive loan, attempting majority in to obtain the which the safe, housing provide notes was "to affordable for her concludes, must, however, family.” The majority "We respondent’s assumption as reject morally flawed

485 misconduct, her may excuse her motive purity of housing flawed that such empirically premise as 161 Ill. through honest means.” could not be obtained 2d at 476. that either in the record indicates

Nothing found that her motive Hearing Board or Review Board evidence, excused her misconduct. Neither Board took otherwise, with the ease empirical or to determine housing. adequate could obtained which have purpose, deceiving mortgage or in Her stated reasons lender, are to initial into her inquiry irrelevant Rules of Professional undisputed violation of the explanation respondent’s The sole relevance of Conduct. purpose goes motive to the determination of or sanction imposed. to be appropriate be ei reveal that evidence motive can cases (1988), In re Walner (e.g., mitigating ther a factor 119 (censure lawyer given to who settled signing claim and for client’s without consent client’s name, authorization, prejudice without where no attorney a "misguided resulted and acted out of sense of aggravation (e.g., re Karzov efficiency”)) in or factor (18-month (1988), suspension 126 Ill. 2d 43-44 loaning imposed money because motives in Judge Holzer designed Holzer "were to influence in In re decisions”); Ketchum judicial (two-year repeated who suspension made LeFevour, Judge presiding judge then loans in had district which numerous cases (no Corboy In re 124 Ill. disci pending); 2d cf. imposed, part finding based on six pline giving respondents improper lacked motives LeFevour, Judge loaning money help pay mother)). expenses the judge’s medical overemphasize not Although this court should cases, attorney’s significance disciplinary an motive 486

it is appropriate ponder greater which causes harm public’s justice faith system: lawyers who give things decisions, judicial value influence thereby threatening the integrity legal system, of the or lawyer single-parent who a home mortgage obtains under pretenses, false family ensure that her has place decent to live.

The it majority finds "of no respon moment” dent’s misconduct involved her life personal opposed as (161 473.) to her professional duties. at agree Ill. 2d I lives, lawyers’ in their private conduct to the extent such conduct reflects on their professional integrity and competence, legitimate is a the disciplinary concern of (See In re Lamberis (1982), commission and this court. (censuring 93 Ill. 2d attorney 222 who plagiarized, verbatim, more half of for an than his thesis advanced law).) degree in though lawyer’s may Even conduct be Conduct, violative of the irrespec Rules Professional tive of lawyer’s whether the misconduct occurs private degree harm professional practice, life or public to the profession may significantly. and the differ Attorneys betray their who cheat clients relation is the sine ship of trust qua non attorney- e.g., (See, (1990), client re Rotman relationship. (attorney making disbarred after $15,000 calculated to convert from decision estate of In Rosin (1987), re incompetent); 2d 365 (attorney 118 Ill. years suspended inducing client of two limited intelligence in company to invest controlled attor In re Lewis friend, ney’s judge); close who was a (attorney lengthy pattern 138 Ill. 2d 310 disbarred for egregious years which over seven misconduct extended clients at least 18 acts of involved five different misconduct).) case, respondent instant did not advantage any take client. She did not cause economic loss to her creditor. In re Williams majority opinion, citing 105, 117, states, "The fraudulent act of an acting in his own behalf in which he seeks

personal gain, directly indirectly, to the detriment of honesty, is no reprehensible less than when he acts on (161 473.) Williams, behalf of his client.” Ill. 2d at In the attorney’s dishonesty in personal gained his life him thousands of unearned dollars that he collected from his own company through insurance a falsified claim that his car had been stolen. After his conviction for mail fraud, respondent the received a two-year suspension from practice of law that coincided with his service of conditional probation on the Federal conviction. case,

In the instant respondent obtained a mortgage loan under pretenses, false but obligated she remained willing repay contrast, the loan. In respon- Williams dent in participated in an insurance scam in company which the paid money out for a car that had not been Respondent’s stolen. personal gain ability —the to obtain financing for a family house for her in —differs kind in Williams. Nevertheless, from that majority of this imposes court respondent on a period suspen- sion in excess given of that to Williams.

The majority correctly *** clients, Further- criminal cases. three of which were more, were many respondent’s clients in the civil cases of neglect their cases by respondent’s [because prejudiced consequently time- and their claims were dismissed *** barred], Moreover, client-complainants in this case all concerning the by respondent repeatedly misled were *** their cases. status of response to gave a false written Finally, respondent complaint. Re regards [a client’s] the Administrator sworn response his repeated this false spondent Bell, 2d at 147 Ill. the Administrator.” before statement 39. insur- Vavrik, title respondent, president

In belonging to fees converted escrowed company, ance grand theft. and was convicted for his own use clients company, title the owner partner, He and his escrow company’s in the money deposited collected payees, checks to fictitious wrote and then account forged payees’ signatures, and endorsed and cashed manner, the checks. In $53,000 this more than misappropriated. Respondent gave testimony also false in the disciplinary hearings in which he was disbarred. Braner, an attorney defrauding was disbarred for his mentally wife, client’s incompetent to whom the attorney owed fiduciary duty as a former employee of the bank that was the conservator of her estate. The attorney also defrauded the Department of Public Aid and the courts in both probate proceedings in which the wife was declared mentally incompetent and the court in which respondent obtained the dissolution of the wife’s marriage, which left her without income or assets. describing

Without the factual context in which the decided, above three cases were the majority in the case at bar cites these cases for the principle that "acts of intentional fraud are grounds sufficient for disbarment.” (161 473.) Ill. 2d at case, the instant acts, though intentional, are not even remotely compa rable to the cited Therefore, disbarment cases. the ma jority’s general citation to such cases is of limited avail.

The number disciplinary precludes cases a comprehensive dissent, listing, in this severity of sanctions imposed on attorneys for deceitful conduct. However, a sampling of cases reveals many attor neys charged with dishonest conduct have received significantly lesser penalties than imposed in this Censure, case. rather than suspension, has imposed been in cases of intentional knowing deceit where the "actual harm” resulting slight. is considered For example, this court censured an attorney who knowingly negotiated a settlement check containing forged (In 395.) re Levy endorsement. Levy, 115 Ill. 2d this court stated that "no harm was done” because the client’s husband admittedly legal lacked a interest in company the and the insurance that proceeds settlement loss; the of harm issued check suffered no such absence "significant determining in the was a consideration” 400.) (Levy, sanction. Ill. 2d at In the case instant economically was suggestion there is no that the lender $5,000 Respondent payment harmed. forfeited her down not action. and did contest foreclosure In In re a former McAuliffe being charged with judge merely censured after fraud, deceit, involving misrepresentation, prej conduct turpitude, moral justice, udice to administration an in and false statements with the intent obstruct charges respondent’s from the quiry. stemmed attorney, dispute with settlement fee another settle, respon To respondent’s partner. business former against agreed prior testimony recant his sworn dent Hearing the ARDC. The Board lawyer the other before mitigat light of substantial reprimand recommended ing involving respondent’s extreme circumstances at impairment time physical mental a six-month incident. The Review Board recommended appropriate court chose censure as the suspension. This sanction, recanta noting although the intentional gain exchange for financial testimony sworn tion of not respondent’s misconduct did justified, not be could 262.) (McAuliffe, 2d at any harm.” Ill. result "real mitigating circum took note of the The court also stances, impairment including respondent’s record, rehabilitation, his unblemished subsequent character witnesses. testimony suffering case, was not In the instant mental breakdown physical type from the minimal sanction in the basis for provided McAuliffe. from disabilities Nevertheless, freedom distinguishes three- factor not should be Respondent censure. from McAuliffe’s year suspension

491 also had an unblemished record and character witnesses and it appear would that her misconduct resulted no more "real harm” than did McAuliffe’s.

Censure imposed has been involving cases willful failure to file Federal tax returns. re Towles (E.g., (court (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 179 censured an convicted of willful failure to file Federal income tax returns for years; three of pro history had a bono and community work and court noted that respon dent’s misconduct was caused either negligence or See also In re Eisenberg ignorance). (1984), M.R. 3074 (attorney censured after pleading guilty to providing Service).) false information to the Internal Revenue Is the criminal furnishing conviction for false information to the Internal Revenue Service less reprehensible than furnishing false information ato bank?

A suspension of five months was imposed on two who, attorneys like respondent case, in the instant provided false information to a bank to obtain a loan. (In 8236.) re Gabriele & Villadonga (1992), MR There is justification no evident for this court impose a three- year suspension and until further order of court on re- spondent, case, in the instant only a five-month suspension & lawyers on the two Gabriele Villadonga. cases,

In other brief suspensions have been ordered attorneys where compounded neglect their of criminal appeals with misrepresentations affirmative to clients or cover-ups of their misconduct in disciplinary hearings. (six-month Ring re (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 128 suspension for abandoning appeal, dismissed, criminal which was and then misrepresenting the status of the case to the In re Hall client); (three-month 95 Ill. 2d 371 suspension lawyer who failed to pursue criminal appeal, dismissed, which was and then lied about it ARDC). under oath to the

An Illinois attorney who general served as consul suspension a six-month Republic Iceland received receipt of a repeatedly deceiving his co-counsel about they in which were to settlement share. Iceland, the check into the consular account of

deposited respondent’s reach of the clients’ creditors and co- out of counsel, "stubborn[ly] "impeding insist[ed]” (In re brought by the ARDC. disciplinary” proceedings 536.) Johnson The court stated it imposing not more severe sanction because un years with "an otherwise practice Johnson, 133 Ill. at 537. blemished record.” 2d cases, longer suspen in of which category Another given, public involves an sions have been abuse attorneys enforcing with the criminal charged trust organized a County Attorney A Kane State’s who laws. on a referendum forgery signatures of voters’ massive practice law for two petition suspended was from the of (In 242.) (1983), re Armentrout Notably, 99 2d years. Ill. attorneys on the imposed court far lesser sanctions his chief forging signatures; him in voter who assisted six months and second as suspended was for assistant in attorneys private two Attorney State’s sistant Armentrout, Ill. 2d at 254-56. were 99 practice censured. suspended Perry County was Attorney of The State’s of and cocaine open for use cannabis years two his (In Sims (1991), re years prosecutor. during his five as 323.) exchange resigned He from his office 2d 144 Ill. In re agreement not to him. indict authorities’ Cf. (censure (1985), imposed on Ill. 2d 456 Scarnavack 108 cocaine; of possession a count of attorney convicted of remorse, finding that included mitigation incident, testimony an isolated the crime witnesses). character Sims, who prosecutors nor

Neither Armentrout as trust, as harsh a sanction received public abused case. the instant does majority suspensions cites three cases in which were years attorneys partici three on who imposed (In pated in elaborate re conspiracies defraud. Sherre 56; (1977), 9; Grossgold re 492.) According re Alschuler Ill. to the majority, attorneys conduct of the in these cases resembles that case instant because each participated in "elaborate schemes to defraud,” ***, but present "unlike attorneys in those cases were not the principal architects (161 475.) of the schemes.” Ill. at Notably, 2d Sherre Grossgold were convicted of mail fraud for their roles in extensive conspiracies involving insurance companies and partici conversion funds. Alschuler pated in a scheme years duration, of five in which he agreed to "kick back” half his annual paid retainer by public utilities so that officials of the utilities could fund, up set records, secret concealed books for their respondent, own use. Unlike all three of the disciplined attorneys profession used their il to advance legal schemes. Sherre and Alschuler express did not any remorse they anything indication had done wrong. cases, In all three respondents’ conduct was on a significantly scale more extensive than that of re spondent in the case at bar.

My relatively research has disciplinary revealed few suspensions of years three or more duration. One example in which a three-year suspension imposed was egregious illustrates conduct far more than that of re spondent (1991), in the In In instant case. re Cetwinski 143 Ill. the respondent participated 2d in an elabo rate conspiracy paid which a he kickbacks to nonat torney and "referral to a suspended attorney fees” exchange remaining payroll Village on the of began Streamwood. The respondent’s scheme when for mer an supervisor, attorney suspended who was 494 (see

organizing forgery a massive voter referendum re Armentrout 242), offered to assist re spondent employed as labor for the become Streamwood, Village provided respondent of the a pay legal Armentrout one-third of as referral his fees respondent Village fee. the agreed, and billed disclosing arrangement his with the fee-sharing without manager a few months of suspended lawyer. Within the he, too, suggested that Village the of Streamwood should receiving respondent began compensation, be the manager. Finally, af political make contributions the Armentrout, consulting began ter with the respondent monthly meetings with Village to bill the for fictitious payments manager, way making the a additional as manager. to the was by agent Federal who

Upon being contacted lied investigating Village manager, manager. He to the purpose payments about his containing statements. also release false press issued cooperated with the Federal Eventually, charges conspiracy agents pleaded guilty village to the official payments make unlawful as a business falsely claiming payment the unlawful Cetwinski, Ill. on income tax return. deduction his at 2d 402-03. recognized miscon

This court attorneys had in which other duct was similar to that 46) (see Rosenthal re been disbarred supported mitigating evidence but determined instead, retroactive to the date three-year suspension an had suspended been on which perfor his included Mitigating factors interim basis. pro bono services and the for senior citizens mance marriage of his distraught the failure fact he payments in the years engaging at time he was Village manager. to the Cetwinski, three-year

In a received abetting corruption inflating and suspension official months, giving his over a and billings period of then investigators up Federal false statements to cover his issuing scope conduct a release. The press false harm ex- unquestionably of Cetwinski’s misconduct ceeded found in case. the instant majority respon in the instant case reviews dent’s in with a imposes actions connection the loan and and until order this suspension years of three further of court. Under pro "until order court” further of this vision, respondent will be forced to take additional undergo measures and expense the time and further proceedings before she can reclaim her It law license. is difficult discern majority the manner in which the applies the basic principle, "[predictability and fairness require consistency in imposed the sanctions for similar acts of misconduct.” 161 2d at Ill. 472. imposed three-year

This a court in an suspension other involving long-term case scheme official (In corruption and improper re Leonard payments. 398.) Leonard, 64 Ill. 2d respondent and others subjects were the of a 21-count indictment which charges knowing included conspiracy willful use the mail to promote bribery and the assistance the preparation corporate fraudulent Federal income tax The respondent returns. was the attorney, corporate director, secretary, up and consultant to a set company Powell, to funnel Secretary bribes Paul then Illinois State, exchange plate for a license manufacturing contract. The court the respondent’s noted that "actions merely were not an a knowing isolated aberration but official, bribery and wilful participation of State (Leonard, which year.” continued over a of one period 404.) case, at respondent’s In the instant actions in scope connection with her loan lack the of the Leonard conspiracy severity also re bribery corruption. commit and official See Levin imposed this where court suspension disciplined on a three-year previously concealing attorney repeated fraudulently whose acts of injury” cases neglect "irreparable his of clients’ caused case, respondent’s to In the instant several clients. injury not clients and she not actions did cause to has disciplinary proceedings. in prior been involved Chapman In re attorney the lying the status of by repeatedly deceived client about a two- neglected appeal. imposed the client’s This court finding after year stayed pending probation, suspension, from his respondent that had been rehabilitated the recommenda rejected abuse alcohol. This court the previ the Hearing tion the and Review Boards that disbarred, ously attorney be conclud disciplined should formerly ing "drinking problem which existed the respondent and to be under control” [was] asserted to the client. making restitutionary payments was Chapman, 95 Ill. 2d at 494. to whether

Recently, court asked consider this Supreme Court Rule 772 probationary suspension under not an who did suffer be extended to should 266.) (In re Jordan disability. from a Jordan, release forged expedite a cli hospital payment lien order to attempted then ent of settlement funds. making false statements his misconduct to conceal Attorney Registration Discipline repeatedly 270.) (Jordan, This court 157 Ill. 2d at Commission. traditionally has imposition probation noted that is related misconduct lawyers whose been reserved illness. abuse or mental disability such as substance Jordan, acknowledged respon However, we disability, but nonetheless acting under a dent was not three-year that his should be suspension determined stayed during a period of conditional contemporaneous probation. This court observed forgery by personal gain had not been motivated in judgment that his errors were "an incident” isolated career, in an "exemplary” otherwise which included Jordan, pro bono community legal activities work. 157 Ill. 2d at 276-77. reveals, record in

As the the instant case respon- propelled dent’s drive hard work from a difficult early exemplary childhood and motherhood to an record distinguished performance educational and a profes- sional largely career to public devoted service rather than personal enrichment. Her appears misconduct be Although an isolated incident. had no mental or impairment, may substance abuse she be the victim of her own strength: ironically, might she have been to permitted practice continue the of law under Jordan, Chapman and only if she had a been weaker majority’s vessel. The imposition grossly of a dispropor- tionate sanction is unfair and serves no public interest. finding

In that "a lengthy period suspension of from the of practice law is necessary appropriate both and (161 474), the bar” case at Ill. at majority 2d the relies heavily fact on the to update failed her application to the State Board of Law Examiners to confess that she made false statements and submitted falsified documents mortgage to the in support lender her loan application. majority respon The holds that dent "a continuing duty” provide violated to the Character and Fitness Committee with relevant infor mation to her as fitness while her application was origin pending. duty The a provision this is found in of the bar form itself. agree

I While that candidates for admission to the State required bar are to disclose to the Character and anything honesty their Fitness that bears on Committee law, the majority’s I believe that practice fitness to my duty misplaced. a reliance on confession is view, bank, to the respondent’s the focus is deceit proper is in this case. wrongdoing which the essential the activating duty applications, major- a to bar update ity fashions two offenses out the same misconduct by both greatly enhances the sanction recommended Boards. Hearing the Review charges original After filed the the Administrator a filed against separate the Administrator respondent, concerning to complaint her failure disclose miscon- This of Bar Examiners. second duct to the State Board motion, respondent’s on complaint was dismissed filing responsive pleading. of a hearing without or the original charges, the the hearing on disciplinary At continuance, asking moved for Administrator allegations original complaint amend include failure to disclose her misconduct Hearing Bar The Board Board of Examiners. State motion for a continuance denied the Administrator’s and leave to amend. Hearing Board’s upheld Board Review there was never

ruling on motion and noted that Review Board allegations. The hearing formal on those motion for con- the Administrator’s also observed tardy because it amend was tinuance and for leave to respondents’ hearing, when day made testify. Finally, prepared to present were witnesses should the Administrator Review Board held in a against proceed permitted not be fashion, out carving disciplinary two actions piecemeal conduct. of the same that even Board concluded

Significantly, the Review been against had charges if the additional preserved properly Board and Hearing to presented review, the Review would not have recom- Board greater any mended sanction for the same conduct that original had proved complaint. been under the majority majority The that opinion discloses *** the attorneys Review concern” that "share[s] Board’s charges receive notice and an to be opportunity heard brought against them in disciplinary proceedings. However, majority states that "the have parties agreed may these instances of misconduct further be disciplinary considered of a imposition added.) (161 470.) (Emphasis sanction.” Ill. 2d at This remark majority indicates has any objection waived to the consideration of the addi charges tional in this court’s determination I proper sanction. majority respon believe the distorts position. argues dent’s her brief she the Review considered, resolved, Board correctly issue of whether by crafting her sanction should be increased charges two out of the same conduct. She does not she concede that should disciplined be twice for the same misconduct.

Notably, single the majority does not cite a case in which another this adjudi- State has been cated in continuing update violation of the duty to pending application. bar majority cites Rule 101(b), subjects attorneys they which if discipline 1— fail deliberately material disclose facts in their bar applications. However, in the instant case completed and application submitted her bar form in December many applied months before she the mortgage loan. Therefore she was on her truthful bar form application responded nega- when she in the party tive to whether she had litigation. been What she do update failed to is her bar contempo- with her raneously falsification of loan application any or at documents time thereafter. It is this violation "continuing duty update” application of the to her bar Al- upon majority reasoning. the rests much of its which though majority’s may technically be position the accurate, single I it to out respondent believe is unfair for a because of this court’s greatly enhanced sanction recognition of the heretofore unannounced violation duty update applications. on a to bar based a series involved disciplinary one of cases attorneys’ "gifts” court judges, "loans” or to this discharged finding, from after attorneys discipline six Maddux, Harte Corboy, cases of respondents "[A]s the Madler, sailing Banks were respondents Tuite and (In Corboy re in uncharted waters.” curiam).) respondents This held that had (per court prohibiting giving rule the or technically violated the However, lending judge. this court things of value to precedent also concluded that there was little settled in their there opinion guide to these men conduct and discipline it them. wrong fore would be to bar, update to her case at failure the prece- "uncharted” in our application appears bar as Corboy respondents’ as conduct. Care should dents the of a appearance double be taken not create even announcing new constructions ethical standard requirements. had bar examination

Respondent taken the long bar before her Illinois submitted mortgage led to the took unfortunate road that she In a she had moved back problem. period of months loan exam, employment, Chicago, sat for bar looked family, housing appar- for decent searched is a case which limited This not ently with success. information incomplete false or applicant bar furnishes at time application form the nature on her of material questioning. response or in additional she submits it not majority are Therefore, cited the cases directly supportive heightened of the sanction the ma jority imposes for violation duty of the to update. More over, the cases that majority in support cites duty to update the bar application information involve circumstances, bar, unlike those in the case at in which the court pattern found a or calculated effort to frustrate meaningful examination applicants’ fitness to (where practice law. See In re Mitan 75 Ill. 2d 118 applicant’s pattern "extensive of falsehoods and deception pervad[ed]” his statements to the Character Board; and Fitness respondent’s deceptions included concealment of his conviction of a felony arising out of game confidence arrests); and several see also In re (1985), Jordan 106 Ill. 2d (respondent, 162 po former officer, lice failed to disclose that he had been disciplined numerous officer, times while an had been discharged from police department pointing gun for at a man’s head beating him, and then had received 297 parking tickets, and was the subject of a bankruptcy foreclosure); (re re Ascher spondent failed to disclose pending lawsuit against him in which he was forgery, fraud, accused of and abuse of clients). fiduciary duties to

Unlike the attorneys cases, in the above history and accomplishments suggest that her lapse of judgment honesty in connection mortgage with her loan is limited to single incident, this which should not disqualify her from continuing practice as a compe- tent and lawyer committed in this State. conclusion, I note that the overriding purpose

our disciplinary system protect is to the public, protect the integrity of legal system, and to insure the justice. administration (E.g., In re Lewis 334-35.) Disparate and inconsistent sanctions cast doubt on efficiency and the basic fairness of the (See disciplinary system. ABA Model Standards Sanctions, Man Lawyer Lawyers’ Imposing ABA/BNA (1992).) Hearing Board ual on Professional Conduct weigh is and its position in the best evidence given substantially are to be factual determinations Lewis, (E.g., fact weight same as those of other finders. 334-35.) in the instant 138 Ill. 2d at The Review Board Hearing Board’s assessment case concurred case, agree I with reviewing precedent. after relevant suspended should be these Boards from the of law. court’s drastic practice six months This both findings reasoning from departure attorney disciplinary with process Boards infuses the arbitrariness. reasons, respectfully I dissent.

For all of these joins in this dissent. JUSTICE FREEMAN (No. 77405.

(No. 77566. al., Appel- et THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION OF ELEC- lees, STATE BOARD v. ILLINOIS al., TIONS et Appellants. 7, August Opinion September

Announced filed 1994. September 1994. Rehearing denied 1994. notes sanctions 102(a) violating Rule in (engaging conduct involving 1— fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation) range from censure to statement, disbarment. Such a while true, is little in determining assistance what appropriate sanction should be in a given case. In considering the issue of proper sanction to be imposed for her conduct in connection mortgage loan, with the the majority cites two cases (In which the sanction for deceit was censure re Stern (1988), 124 Ill. In re Lamb (falsely letter); 2d 310 dated eris (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 222 (plagiarism)), one case which (In suspension re Williams imposed (1986), 111 Ill. (mail conviction)), and three cases of 2d 105 fraud (In In re Vavrik (1992), 15; re Bell 147 Ill. 2d disbarment In re Braner 408; 115 Ill. 2d 384). disbarment, cases, resulting in These latter three a extraordinarily egregious type conduct of illustrate in the instant case. present not Bell, filing false was indicted for a period different banks over applications loan with five guilty to two counts year. pleaded of more than one He affidavit indictment. He also filed false Federal Tennessee, in which he Court of Supreme before the Illinois; practice that he was licensed to concealed the false affidavit to be fraud on this court found Supreme well as the Illinois high court of Tennessee as 38.) (Bell, addition, respon 147 Ill. 2d at Court. in fees for cases he never kept dent thousands of dollars appeal criminal be twice and let at least one pursued prosecution. want This court observed: dismissed for seriously neglected of seven the cases "[The]

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Chandler

Court Name: Illinois Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 4, 1994

Citation: 641 N.E.2d 473

Docket Number: 76145

Court Abbreviation: Ill.