BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION


In the Matter of: 
EUGENE J. PETRUNGARO

Attorney-Respondent, 

No. 6198811. 

Commission No. 03 CH 53

FILED ---- July 7, 2003

COMPLAINT

Mary Robinson, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by her attorney, Tracy L. Kepler, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent Eugene J. Petrungaro, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 10, 1988, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

COUNT I
(Unauthorized settlement, forgery and conversion of funds belonging to the Hannouns)

1. On or about August 17, 1997, Maria Hannoun ("Maria") was involved in a rear-end collision at the intersection of Grand and Industrial in Elmhurst, Illinois, with a car driven by Harry W. Fries, III ("Fries"). Maria’s minor daughter, Jeanine Hannoun ("Jeanine"), was a passenger in Maria’s automobile. Maria suffered property damage and both Maria and Jeanine sustained physical injuries as a result of the accident.

2. On or about August 25, 1997, Maria requested and Respondent agreed to represent Maria, individually, and as mother and next friend of Jeanine, in a personal injury claim related to the incident described in paragraph one above. At that time, Respondent and Maria entered into a "Contract to Employ Attorney" whereby Respondent and Maria individually, and as mother and next friend of Jeanine, agreed that the "client shall pay for attorney’s services Thirty-Three percent (33%) of the amount recovered in the [personal injury action], if settled without suit, or Forty (40%) of the increase recovered after suit is instituted."

3. In April 1998, without the knowledge or authorization of Maria or Jeanine, Respondent agreed to settle Maria and Jeanine’s claims against Fries with Fries’ insurer, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), in the amount of $9,800 for Maria, and $1,000 for Jeanine.
4.  At no time prior to Respondent’s acceptance of the settlement did Respondent consult with Maria, seek Maria’s permission to settle Maria or Jeanine’s claims or advise Maria of the settlement offer. 

5.  On or about May 15, 1998, Allstate issued check numbers 61809486 and 61810508, respectively, payable to "Maria Hannoun, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Jeanine Hannoun, a minor, and Eugene Petrungaro, their attorney" in the amount of $1,000, and "Maria Hannoun and her attorney Eugene Petrungaro" in the amount of $9,800. 

6. On May 18, 1998, Respondent, or someone acting on his direction, caused Maria’s purported signature to be placed on a "Release of All Claims" and a "Parents’ Release and Indemnity Agreement" in relation to the settlement of Maria and Jeanine’s claims. At no time did Maria sign her name to the releases.

7. On or about May 28, 1998, Respondent, or someone acting on his direction, caused Maria’s purported endorsement, as well as his own, to be placed on the reverse side of check numbers 61809486 and 61810508. At no time did Maria sign her name to the settlement drafts.

8. At no time did Respondent have Maria’s permission to sign her name to the reverse side of the checks.

9. At no time did Respondent notify Maria that he had received the checks or that he had caused Maria’s purported endorsement to be placed on the reverse side of each check.

10. At all times relevant, 720 ILCS 5/17-3 was in effect. The statute provides:

A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he knowingly makes or alters any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such a manner that it purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority.
11. On or about May 28, 1998, Respondent deposited check numbers 61809486 and 61810508 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."

12. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Maria, Respondent had a claim to a fee that was no greater than thirty-three percent of any recovery made on Maria or Jeanine’s behalf, or $3,564, and Maria and Jeanine were entitled to $7,236.

13. On August 28, 1998, prior to any disbursement on behalf of Maria or Jeanine, the balance in Respondent’s account number 138938900 was $324.92.

14. As of August 28, 1998, Respondent had used at least $6,911.08 of funds belonging to Maria and Jeanine for his own business or personal purposes.

15. At no time did Maria or Jeanine authorize Respondent to use any portion of the funds he obtained in settling their matters for his own business or personal purposes.

16. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conversion;
  1. failing to consult with the client as to whether to accept an offer of settlement in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing the crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
  1. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
COUNT II
(Misrepresentation in relation to the Hannoun personal injury matter)

1-15. The Administrator realleges and reasserts the facts as set forth in Count I above.

17. Between about December 1998 and December 2000, Maria made numerous telephone calls to Respondent to inquire as to the status of her case. On several occasions, Respondent told Maria that he was still waiting for a settlement offer from Allstate and that a settlement would take a little more time.

18. At some point prior to December 27, 2000, Maria requested a meeting with Respondent to discuss the status of her case. On or about December 27, 2000, Maria met with Respondent in his office. At this meeting, Respondent informed Maria that he needed her authorization to enter into arbitration on behalf of Maria and Jeanine in relation to their personal injury matter. Respondent presented Maria with a document entitled "Authorization to Enter into Arbitration," which Maria signed. Respondent further stated that he planned to set an arbitration date of February 16, 2001, and he would contact Maria after the arbitration date.

19. The statements made by Respondent in paragraphs 17 and 18 above were false and misleading in that as of May 15, 1998, Respondent had already settled Maria and Jeanine’s claims with Allstate.

20. Respondent knew or should have known that the statements he made to Maria in paragraphs 17 and 18 above were false and were intended to mislead Maria.

21. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
  1. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
COUNT III
(Misrepresentation and conversion of funds belonging to Andrew Caccavari)
1.  At some point prior to November 23, 1993, Andrew Caccavari ("Andrew") requested and Respondent agreed to represent Andrew in his pending dissolution of marriage action in case no. 93 D 15643, entitled Camille Caccavari v. Andrew Caccavari, in the Domestic Relations Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. On November 23, 1993, Respondent filed his appearance on Andrew’s behalf in case no. 93 D 15643. 

2.  On April 29, 1998, Karen Conti ("Conti"), counsel for Petitioner, Camille Caccavari ("Camille"), caused to be filed her motion to withdraw in case no. 93 D 15643. 

3.  On May 26, 1998, the Court entered an order in case no. 93 D 15643 which, inter alia, entered and continued Conti’s motion to withdraw, and set forth Camille’s agreement to pay Andrew "the sum of $41,786.50 as and for the buyout of the marital home, such sum included set offs for attorney’s fees, back pension funds, and split of life insurance proceeds." 

4.  On December 15, 1998, Respondent caused to be filed his petition for rule to show cause as to why Camille had not complied with the order of May 26, 1998, in case no. 93 D 15643. The petition was scheduled to be heard on December 22, 1998. 

5.  On or about December 17, 1998, Camille tendered to Respondent LaSalle Bank cashier’s check number 208616935-5, made payable to Andrew in the amount of $41,786.50, pursuant to the May 26, 1998 court order. 

6.  On December 22, 1998, Respondent deposited LaSalle Bank cashier’s check number 208616935-5 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account." 

7. Andrew was entitled to his portion of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, less any set off for attorney’s fees, back pension funds, and split of life insurance proceeds.

8. On June 30, 1999, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Andrew, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$6,679.36.

9. As of June 30, 1999, Respondent had used the entire amount tendered to him as Andrew’s portion of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, or $41,786.50, for his own business or personal purposes.

10. At no time did Andrew authorize Respondent to use any portion of the funds tendered to him by Camille for his own business or personal purposes.

11. Between December 22, 1998, and October 2000, Andrew made numerous attempts to communicate with Respondent to request the funds Respondent was purportedly holding on Andrew’s behalf. On the few occasions Andrew was successful in communicating with Respondent, Respondent advised Andrew that there were ongoing issues related to the dissolution which prevented him from disbursing the funds.
12.  Respondent’s statements to Andrew as described in paragraph 11 above were false and misleading in that as of June 30, 1999, Respondent had used the entire $41,786.50 belonging to Andrew for his own business or personal purposes. 

13.  Respondent knew or should have known that the statements he made to Andrew in paragraph 11 above were false and were intended to mislead Andrew. 

14.  By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: 

a. conversion;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT IV
(Unauthorized settlement, forgery and conversion of funds belonging to Amanda Brown)

1. On July 1, 1999, Amanda Brown ("Brown") was involved in an automobile accident when she was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Jason M. Schuitt ("Schuitt’) on the I-90 expressway just east of River Road in Cook County, Illinois. Brown suffered personal injuries as well as property damage as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to December 2, 1999, Brown requested and Respondent agreed to represent Brown in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Brown orally agreed that Respondent’s fee would be twenty percent of any recovery obtained in the matter. At no time did Respondent reduce the contingent fee agreement to writing.
3.  On or about January 21, 2000, without the knowledge or authorization of Brown, Respondent agreed to settle Brown’s claim against Schutt with Schutt’s insurer, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") in the amount of $4,100. 

4.  On or about January 28, 2000, Respondent, or someone acting at his direction, signed Brown’s name to a "Release of All Claims" provided by Allstate. Respondent submitted the Release to Allstate on January 31, 2000. 

5.  At no time did Respondent advise Brown of the settlement offer, seek Brown’s permission to settle her claim or advise Brown that he had settled her claim. 

6. On or about February 3, 2000, Allstate mailed check number 61297300, payable to "Amanda Brown and her attorney Eugene Petrungaro" in the amount of $4,100, to Respondent.

7. On or about February 7, 2000, Respondent, or someone at his direction, caused Brown’s purported endorsement, as well as his own, to be placed on the reverse side of check number 61297300. At no time did Respondent have authority to cause Brown’s purported endorsement to be placed on the reverse side of the check. At no time did Respondent notify Brown that he had received the check or that he had caused Brown’s purported endorsement to be placed on the reverse side of the check.

8. At all times relevant, 720 ILCS 5/17-3 was in effect. The statute provides:

A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he knowingly makes or alters any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such a manner that it purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority.
9. On February 7, 2000, Respondent deposited Allstate check number 61297300 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138937900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Attorney at Law."

10. Respondent’s account number 138937900 was not a separate and identifiable client fund account.

11. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Brown, Respondent had a claim to a fee no greater than twenty percent of any recovery made on Brown’s behalf, or $820, and Brown was entitled to $3,280.

12. On February 23, 2000, prior to any disbursement on behalf of Brown, Respondent’s account number 138937900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$1,491.75.

13. As of February 23, 2000, Respondent had used at least $3,280 of funds belonging to Brown for his own business or personal purposes.

14. At no time did Brown authorize Respondent to use any portion of the funds he obtained in settling her matter for his own business or personal purposes.

15. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conversion;
  1. failure to consult with the client as to whether to accept an offer of settlement in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. failure to memorialize a contingency fee agreement in writing in violation of Rule 1.5(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. failure to deposit client funds in a separate and identifiable trust account in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing the crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
  1. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
COUNT V
(Direct contact with a represented party and improper effort to settle a civil suit
and disciplinary investigation related to Amanda Brown’s case)
1-14.  The Administrator realleges and reasserts the facts as set forth in Count IV above. 

16. On or about June 18, 2001, Brown filed a request with the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for an investigation of Respondent’s conduct as generally described above in Count IV. The request for investigation was docketed as Commission No. 01 CI 2649.

17. On or about June 21, 2001, counsel for the Administrator sent a letter to Respondent, enclosing Brown’s request for an investigation and requesting Respondent’s response to Brown’s allegations.

18. On September 13, 2002, attorney Thomas W. Gooch, III ("Gooch"), caused to be filed a complaint alleging legal malpractice against Respondent in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County on behalf of Brown. The clerk of the court assigned the matter case no. 02 L 11649, Amanda Brown v. Eugene Petrungaro.

19. On September 16, 2002, attorney Steven M. Pontikes of the law firm Pontikes & Associates caused to be filed his appearance on behalf of Respondent in case no. 02 L 11649.

20. On December 9, 2002, attorney Ceasar J. Melidis of the law firm Pontikes & Associates caused to be filed a complaint alleging slander and libel against Brown and another defendant in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, on behalf of Respondent. The clerk of the court assigned the matter case no. 02 L 15520, entitled Eugene Petrungaro v. Robert Krilich, Jr. and Amanda Brown.

21. The allegations of the complaint in case no. 02 L 15520 in relation to Brown were based on Brown’s remittance of correspondence dated December 11, 2001, to Charles Petrungaro, Respondent’s father, in which Brown stated that Respondent "settled an automobile accident case for me and forged my signature on the settlement case and I never saw a penny" and "wrote two bad checks out of his client fund account for monies that he had borrowed from me for gambling. Not to mention the check-writing scam he pulled on me with my check account at Harris Bank Chicago for in excess of $70,000."

22. At some point prior to April 24, 2003, Respondent telephoned Brown directly. During their telephone conversation, Respondent advised Brown that he would voluntarily dismiss his civil complaint, case no. 02 L 15520, if she would withdraw her charge at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and dismiss her civil suit, case no. 02 L 11649. Brown agreed to take both actions.

23. At no time did Respondent request or receive Gooch’s consent to contact Brown directly, nor was Respondent's direct contact with Brown otherwise authorized by law.

24. At no time did Respondent advise Brown to consult with Gooch prior to entering into any agreement with him regarding dismissal of case no. 02 L 11649 or Commission No. 01 CI 2649.

25. On or about April 24, 2003, Respondent prepared a draft of a letter for Brown to sign and forward to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in relation to Commission No. 01 CI 2649. The letter stated as follows:

"I filed a complaint with your office against Eugene Petrungaro in June of 2001. The complaint alleges some impropriety by Mr. Petrungaro in the handling of a personal injury matter. After careful investigation of the facts I have come to realize that I was mistaken in filing the complaint against Mr. Petrungaro. In addition, I have voluntarily dismissed a civil lawsuit which I filed against Mr. Petrungaro.

Through the discovery process of the civil matter I was able to conclude that the allegations of impropriety were false. I have apologized to Mr. Petrungaro and have informed him that I will no longer pursue the A.R.D.C. complaint against him. Please consider this letter a formal notice of my dismissal of complaint number 01 CI 2649."

26. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
  1. settling a claim against the lawyer made by a former client without first advising the person in writing that independent representation is appropriate in connection therewith in violation of Rule 1.8(g) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. entering into an agreement with a former client limiting or purporting to limit the right of the former client to file or pursue any complaint before the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in violation of Rule 1.8(h) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. communicating on the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer without obtaining the consent of the lawyer in violation of Rule 4.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
  1. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration justice or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771 and Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT VI
(Conversion of funds belonging to Minnie Tillman)

1. On October 21, 1997, Minnie Tillman ("Tillman") was involved in an automobile accident when another vehicle, operated by Leroy Derosier (" Derosier"), rear-ended Tillman at 1931 Mannheim Road in Leyden Township, Illinois. Tillman sustained injuries and property damage as a result of the incident.
2.  At some point prior to November 19, 1997, Tillman requested and Respondent agreed to represent Tillman in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Tillman agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three percent of any recovery obtained in the matter. 

3.  On or about February 22, 1999, Respondent and Tillman agreed to settle Tillman’s claim against Derosier with Derosier’s insurer, Gallant Insurance Company ("Gallant"), in the amount of $1, 352.20. 

4.  On or about March 22, 1999, Respondent received Gallant check number 679169, payable to "Minnie Tillman and her attorney, Eugene Petrungaro" in the amount of $1,352.20 in settlement of Tillman’s claim. 

5.  On March 22, 1999, Respondent deposited Gallant check number 679169 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account." 

6. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Tillman, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three percent of any recovery made on behalf of Tillman, or $446.23, and Tillman was entitled to $905.97.

7. On April 5, 1999, prior to any payment to or on behalf of Tillman, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$394.44.

8. As of April 5, 1999, Respondent had used at least $905.97 of Tillman’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

9. At no time did Tillman authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conversion of client funds;
  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
  1. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
COUNT VII
(Conversion of funds belonging to Anthony and Jennifer Galto)

1. On July 27, 1999, Anthony J. Galto ("Anthony") was involved in an automobile accident when the driver of another vehicle, Jovita M. Bradley ("Bradley"), struck Galto’s vehicle at the intersection of Warrenville and Winfield Roads in Warrenville, Illinois. Anthony suffered injuries and property damage as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to August 30, 1999, Anthony requested and Respondent agreed to represent Anthony in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Anthony agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. At some point prior to March 30, 2000, Respondent and Anthony agreed to settle Anthony’s claim against Bradley’s insurer, Geico General Insurance Company ("Geico"), in the amount of $6,300.

4. On or about April 10, 2000, Respondent received the following checks issued by Geico: check number 54987888, payable to "Eugene Petrungaro, Attorney at Law and Anthony and Jennifer Galto, as single individuals and as husband and wife, and or Timothy Faulkner" in the amount of $660; and check number 54987889, payable to "Eugene Petrungaro, Attorney at Law and Anthony and Jennifer Galto, as single individuals and as husband and wife" in the amount of $5,640, in settlement of Anthony’s claim.

5. On April 10, 2000, Respondent deposited Geico check numbers 54987888 and 54987889 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."
6.  Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Anthony, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three percent of any recovery made on behalf of Anthony as his fee, or $2,079, and Anthony was entitled to $4,221. 

7. On April 13, 2000, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Anthony, Jennifer, or Dr. Timothy Faulkner, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$800.

8. As of April 13, 2000, Respondent had used at least $4,221 of Anthony’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

9. At no time did Anthony or Jennifer Galto or Dr. Timothy Faulkner authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conversion of client funds;
  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
  1. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
COUNT VIII
(Conversion of funds belonging to Anthony Sasso)

1. On or about June 28, 1996, Anthony Sasso ("Sasso") was injured while working for his employer, R & M Trucking.

2. At some point prior to August 13, 1996, Sasso requested and Respondent agreed to represent Sasso in a worker’s compensation claim against R & M Trucking. Respondent and Sasso agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. At some point prior to October 30, 1997, Respondent and Sasso agreed to settle Sasso’s claim against his employer’s insurer, Fremont Compensation Insurance Group ("Fremont"), in the amount of $4,140.

4. On or about March 25, 1998, Respondent received Fremont check number 3381096, payable to "Anthony Sasso c/o Eugene Petrungaro, Esq." in the amount of $4,140, in settlement of Sasso’s claim.

5. On April 2, 1998, Respondent deposited Fremont check number 33811096 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138937900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Attorney at Law."

6. Respondent’s account number 138937900 was not a separate and identifiable client fund account.

7. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Sasso, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three percent of any recovery made on Sasso’s behalf as his fee, or $1,366.20, and Sasso was entitled to $2,773.80.

8. On May 7, 1998, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Sasso, Respondent’s account number 138937900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$1,350.55.

9. As of May 7, 1998, Respondent had used at least $2,773.80 of Sasso’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. At no time did Sasso authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

11. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of client funds;

b. failure to place client funds in a separate, identifiable client fund account in violation of Rule 1.5(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

d. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT IX
(Conversion of funds belonging to the Herzogs)

1. On or about December 22, 1997, the automobile operated by Cynthia Herzog ("Cynthia"), in which her minor children William Herzog ("William") and Alexandra Herzog ("Alexandra") were passengers, was struck by an automobile operated by Candace Cooper ("Cooper") at Route 22 and Rainbow Road in Barrington, Illinois. Cynthia, William and Alexandra Herzog were injured as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to January 7, 1998, Cynthia requested and Respondent agreed to represent Cynthia individually, and as next friend to her minor children William and Alexandra, in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Cynthia agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. On or about March 1, 1999, Respondent and Cynthia agreed to settle all claims against Cooper’s insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), in the following amounts: $6,500 for Cynthia; $950 for William; and $650 for Alexandra.

4. On or about March 2, 1999, Respondent received the following State Farm checks: (1) check number 101850992, payable to "Cynthia Herzog & William Herzog, individually and as husband and wife & Eugene Petrungaro, their attorney and W.R. Womer" in the amount of $6,500; (2) check number 101850993, made payable to "Cynthia Herzog & William Herzog, as parents and natural guardian of William Herzog & Eugene Petrungaro, their attorney and W.R. Womer" in the amount of $950; and (3) check number 101850994, made payable to "Cynthia Herzog & William Herzog, as parent and legal guardian of Alexandra Herzog & Eugene Petrungaro, their attorney and W.R. Womer" in the amount of $650.

5. On March 8, 1999, Respondent deposited State Farm check numbers 101850992, 101850993 and 101850994 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."

6. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Cynthia, Respondent was entitled to thirty percent of any recovery made on behalf of Cynthia, William and Alexandra, or $2,430, and Cynthia, William and Alexandra were entitled to $5,670.

7. On April 5, 1999, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Cynthia, William, or Alexandra, or chiropractor W.R. Womer ("Womer"), Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$394.44.

8. As of April 5, 1999, Respondent had used at least $5,670 of Cynthia, William and Alexandra and/or Dr. Womer’s funds for his own business or personal purposes.

9. At no time did Cynthia or Womer authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of client funds;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT X
(Conversion of funds belonging to Veronica Burmeister or Sandra Giglio)

1. On or about August 16, 2000, Veronica Burmeister ("Burmeister") tendered to Respondent her check number 1341, payable to Respondent in the amount of $5,000 as earnest money towards Burmeister’s purchase of property located at 1150 Schneider Avenue in Oak Park, Illinois, from Respondent’s client, Sandra Giglio ("Giglio").

2. On August 21, 2000, Respondent deposited Burmeister’s check number 1341 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."

3. On August 21, 2000, immediately prior to Respondent’s deposit of Burmeister’s check, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$3,453.88. 4. On August 23, 2000, prior to any disbursement to, or on behalf of Burmeister or Giglio, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$1,253.88.

5. As of August 23, 2000, Respondent had used $5,000 of Burmeister’s earnest funds for his own business or personal purposes.

6. At no time did Burmeister or Giglio authorize Respondent to use any portion of the earnest money for his own business or personal purposes.

7. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a.  conversion of Burmeister’s earnest money; 

b.  conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and 

c.  conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771. 

COUNT XI
(Conversion of funds belonging to Steven Dau)

1. On October 22, 1996, Steven Dau ("Dau") suffered personal injuries as a result of an automobile accident caused by another driver, Joyce Helander ("Helander").

2. At some point prior to September 25, 1998, Dau requested and Respondent agreed to represent Dau in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Dau agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. At some point prior to September 25, 1998, Respondent and Dau agreed to settle Dau’s claim against Helander’s insurer, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), in the amount of $11,000.

4. On or about September 25, 1998, Respondent received Allstate check number 62457130, made payable to "Steven Dau and Eugene Petrungaro his attorney and Humana Employers Health lienholder" in the amount of $11,000.

5. On October 1, 1998, Respondent deposited Allstate check number 62457130 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."

6. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Dau, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery made on Dau’s behalf, or $3,666.66, and Dau was entitled to $7,333.33.

7. On October 21, 1998, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Dau or Humana Employers Health, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$310.87.

8. As of October 21, 1998, Respondent had used at least $7,333.33 of Dau’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

9. At no time did Dau or Humana Employers Health authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of client funds;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT XII
(Unauthorized settlement, forgery and conversion of funds belonging to Jennifer Apelian)

1. On July 8, 1998, Jennifer Apelian ("Apelian") was involved in an automobile accident when another vehicle, operated by Willie D. Bowens ("Bowens"), struck her at the intersection of Meacham and Biesterfield Roads in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. Apelian suffered personal injuries and property damage as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to July 31, 1998, Apelian requested and Respondent agreed to represent Apelian in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Apelian agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.
3.  On or about April 19, 1999, without the knowledge or authorization of Apelian, Respondent agreed to settle Apelian’s claim against Bowens’ insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), in the amount of $8,500. 

4.  At no time prior to Respondent’s acceptance of the settlement did Respondent consult with Apelian or seek Apelian’s permission to settle her claim. 

5.  On or about April 19, 1999, Respondent received State Farm check number 101108672, made payable to "Jennifer A. Apelian, a single individual & Eugene J. Petrungaro, her attorney" in the amount of $8,500 and a "Release" to be signed by Apelian and returned to State Farm. 

6.  On or about April 20, 1999, Respondent, or someone acting on his direction, caused Apelian’s purported endorsement, as well as his own, to be placed on the reverse side of check number 101108672. At no time did Apelian sign her name to the settlement draft. 

7.  On or about April 20, 1999, Respondent or someone acting at his direction, signed Apelian’s name to the release provided by State Farm. State Farm received the signed release on or about April 21, 1999. 

8.  At no time did Respondent have Apelian’s permission to sign her name to the reverse side of the check or to the release. 

9.  At no time did Respondent notify Apelian that he had received the check or that he had caused Apelian’s purported endorsement to be placed on the reverse side of the check or the release. 

10.  At all times relevant, 720 ILCS 5/17-3 was in effect. The statute provides: 

A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he knowingly makes or alters any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such a manner that it purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority.
11.  On April 20, 1999, Respondent deposited State Farm check number 101108672 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account." 

12.  Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Apelian, Respondent had a claim to a fee no greater than thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery made on Apelian’s behalf, or $2,833.33, and Apelian was entitled to retain $5,666.66. 

13.  On April 27, 1999, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Apelian, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$1,064.44. 

14.  As of April 27, 1999, Respondent had used at least $5,666.66 of Apelian’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes. 

15.  At no time did Apelian authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes. 

16.  By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: 

a.  conversion of client funds; 

b.  failing to consult with the client as to whether to accept an offer of settlement in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; 

c.  committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing the crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; 

d.  conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and 

e.  conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771. 

COUNT XIII
(Conversion of funds belonging to Paula Cutri)

1. On or about December 3, 1997, Paula Cutri ("Cutri") was involved in an automobile accident when a vehicle operated by Richard Dushny ("Dushny") struck the side of her vehicle in the 9600 block of Franklin Avenue in Franklin Park, Illinois. Cutri suffered personal injuries and property damage as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to June 4, 1998, Cutri requested and Respondent agreed to represent her in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Cutri agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. On or about July 21, 1998, Respondent and Cutri agreed to settle Cutri’s claim against Dushny’s insurer, General Casualty Company of Illinois ("General Casualty"), in the amount of $6,500.

4. On or about July 22, 1998, Respondent received General Casualty check number 3782815, made payable to "Paula Cutri and Joseph Cutri, individually and as husband and wife and their attorney Eugene Petrungaro" in the amount of $6,500.

5. On July 31, 1998, Respondent deposited General Casualty check number 3782815 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."

6. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Cutri, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery made on Cutri’s behalf, or $2,166.66, and Cutri was entitled to $4,333.33.

7. On October 21, 1998, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Cutri, Respondent’s account number 138938900 was overdrawn in the amount of -$310.87.

8. As of October 21, 1998, Respondent had used at least $4,333.33 of Cutri’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

9. At no time did Paula or Joseph Cutri authorize Respondent to use any portion of their settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of client funds;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT XIV
(Conversion of funds belonging to Ramona Winningham)

1. On or about August 27, 2000, Ramona Winningham ("Winningham") tendered to Respondent her check number 1815, payable to Respondent in the amount of $2,000 as earnest money towards Winningham’s purchase of property located at 10758 S. Torrence in Chicago, Illinois, from Respondent’s client, Tom Moretti, Jr. ("Morretti").

2. On September 7, 2000, Respondent deposited Winningham’s check number 1815 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account."

3. On September 18, 2000, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Winningham or Morretti, the balance in Respondent’s account number 138938900 was -$1,263.27.

4. As of September 18, 2000, Respondent had used all of Winningham’s earnest funds, in the amount of $2,000, for his own business or personal purposes.

5. At no time did Winningham or Morretti authorize Respondent to use any portion of the earnest money for his own business or personal purposes.

6. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of Winningham’s earnest money;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT XV
(Conversion of funds belonging to Louise Marinaro)

1. On or about February 18, 2000, Louise Marinaro ("Marinaro") was involved in an automobile accident when another vehicle operated by Linda G. Bradbury ("Bradbury") struck her vehicle. Marinaro suffered personal injuries and property damage as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to October 9, 2000, Marinaro requested and Respondent agreed to represent Marinaro in a personal injury claim related to the accident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Marinaro agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. On or before March 7, 2001, Respondent and Marinaro agreed to settle Marinaro’s claim against Bradbury’s insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company of Illinois ("State Farm"), in the amount of $4,000.

4. On or about March 7, 2001, Respondent received State Farm check number 101572933, made payable to "Louise Marinaro, a single individual & Eugene Petrungaro, her attorney" in the amount of $4,000.

5. On March 12, 2001, Respondent deposited State Farm check number 101572933 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro Client Trust Fund Account."

6. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Marinaro, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery on Marinaro’s behalf, or $1,333.33, and Marinaro was entitled to $2,666.66.

7. On or about May 16, 2001, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Marinaro, the balance in Respondent’s account number 138938900 was -$2,982.81.

8. As of May 16, 2001, Respondent had used at least $2,666.66 of Marinaro’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

9. At no time did Marinaro authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of client funds;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

c. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT XVI
(Conversion of funds belonging to Mary Blackwell)

1. On August 13, 1998, Mary Blackwell ("Blackwell") was involved in an automobile accident where a vehicle operated by Nakkia Wallace ("Wallace") struck Blackwell’s vehicle at the intersection of 17th Avenue and Filmore in Broadview, Illinois. Blackwell suffered personal injuries and property damage as a result of the incident.

2. At some point prior to October 8, 1998, Blackwell requested and Respondent agreed to represent her in a personal injury claim related to the incident referred to in paragraph 1 above. Respondent and Blackwell agreed that Respondent’s fee would be thirty-three and 1/3 percent of any recovery obtained in the matter.

3. On or before February 25, 2000, Respondent and Blackwell agreed to settle Blackwell’s claim against Wallace’s insurer, Universal Casualty Company ("Universal"), in the amount of $3,500.

4. On or about March 9, 2000, Respondent received Universal check number 88654, payable to "Mary Blackwell & her Atty., Eugene Petrungaro & State Farm Ins." in the amount of $3,500, in settlement of Blackwell’s claim.

5. On April 3, 2000, Respondent deposited Universal check number 88654 into his Forest Park National Bank account number 138937900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Attorney at Law."

6. Respondent’s account number 138937900 was not a separate and identifiable client fund account.

7. Pursuant to Respondent’s fee agreement with Blackwell, Respondent was entitled to no more than thirty-three percent and 1/3 of any recovery made on Blackwell’s behalf, or $1,166.66, and Blackwell was entitled to $2,333.33.

8. On May 2, 2000, prior to any disbursement to or on behalf of Blackwell, the balance in Respondent’s account number 138937900 was -$1,420.86.

9. As of May 2, 2000, Respondent had used at least $2,333.33 of Blackwell’s settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

10. At no time did Blackwell authorize Respondent to use any portion of the settlement funds for his own business or personal purposes.

11. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. conversion of client funds;

b. failure to place client funds in a separate, identifiable client fund account in violation of Rule 1.5(c)of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

d. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal professional into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT XVII
(Commission of a criminal act)
1.  On and between May 10, 2000 and July 15, 2000, Respondent passed the following checks, which were later dishonored by his banks, totaling $43,000, in return for cash and/or gaming chips at the Rio Suite Hotel and Casino, Bellagio Hotel and Casino, MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, Golden Nugget-Las Vegas Hotel and Casino and the Tropicana Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada: 
     
    Date Check No. Account Payee Amount
    5/10/00 1461 138938900

    Forest Park National Bank

    Rio Suite Hotel & Casino $13,000

     

    5/17/00 276224 138646910

    Forest Park National Bank

    Bellagio Hotel & Casino $2,000
    5/17/00 R6082437 138646900 Midwest Bank & Trust Rio Suite Hotel & Casino $2,000
    5/17/00 R6082455 138646900 Midwest Bank & Trust Rio Suite Hotel & Casino $2,000
    5/17/00 276236 138646910

    Forest Park National Bank

    Bellagio Hotel & Casino $2,000
    5/29/00 1161338 Forest Park National Bank MGM Grand Hotel & Casino $2,000
    5/29/00 1161537 Forest Park National Bank MGM Grand Hotel & Casino $3,000
    5/29/00 1161554 Forest Park National Bank MGM Grand Hotel & Casino $1,000
    6/25/00 1475 138938900

    Forest Park National Bank

    Golden Nugget-Las Vegas Hotel & Casino $3,000
    6/26/00 10034719 138646910

    Forest Park National Bank

    Golden Nugget-Las Vegas Hotel & Casino $2,000
    6/26/00 10034732 138646910

    Forest Park National Bank

    Golden Nugget-Las Vegas Hotel & Casino $2,000
    6/26/00 10034738 138646910

    Forest Park National Bank

    Golden Nugget-Las Vegas Hotel & Casino $2,000
    6/26/00 10034747 138646910

    Forest Park National Bank

    Golden Nugget-Las Vegas Hotel & Casino $1,000
    7/14/00 1787151 Forest Park National Bank Tropicana Hotel & Casino $3,000
    7/15/00 1787240 Forest Park National Bank Tropicana Hotel & Casino $3,000
2.  Two of the dishonored checks as referred to in paragraph 1 above were issued as follows: (1) check no. 1461, dated May 10, 2000, in the amount of $13,000 and made payable to "Rio;" and (2) check no. 1475, dated June 25, 2000, in the amount of $3,000 and made payable to "Golden Nugget," both written on Respondent’s account number 138938900, entitled "Eugene J. Petrungaro, Client Trust Fund Account." The bank returned both checks due to insufficient funds in account number 138938900. 

3.  On October 16, 2000, Joanne M. Beckett, Vice President of Legal and Administrative Affairs for the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino ("Golden Nugget"), sent Respondent a letter, via certified mail, informing Respondent of his outstanding debt and notifying Respondent that further legal action would occur should Respondent fail to remit payment within ten days from receipt of the letter. Respondent received Beckett’s letter on October 20, 2000. As of November 20, 2000, Respondent had failed to make any payment to Golden Nugget. 

4.  On November 20, 2000, attorneys on behalf of Golden Nugget caused to be filed a civil complaint against Respondent as a result of his passing bad checks and his failure to make restitution on these same checks in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The clerk of the court docketed the matter Case No. A427131, Dept. No. XI, entitled GNLV, Corp., a Nevada Corporation, d/b/a Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino v. Eugene J. Petrungaro. Respondent was served with process on December 15, 2000. 

5.  Respondent failed to file an appearance, answer or otherwise plead in Case No. A427131. On March 5, 2001, the Court entered a default judgment against Respondent in Case No. A427131. 

6.  Between March 5, 2001 and June 26, 2001, Respondent failed to make any payment to Golden Nugget. As a result of Respondent’s failure to pay, at some point prior to June 26, 2001, Golden Nugget brought the matter to the attention of the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Bad Check Unit. 

7.  Between March 5, 2001 and June 26, 2001, the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Bad Check Unit, sent two letters to Respondent. The first letter served to notify Respondent of the outstanding debt and requested restitution. The second letter warned Respondent that criminal charges would be brought should Respondent fail to make restitution in a timely matter. Respondent did not respond to either letter. 

8.  On June 26, 2001, Respondent was charged with twelve felony counts of theft; presumptions of intent to defraud, fifteen felony counts of obtaining money under false pretenses, and fourteen felony counts of drawing and passing a check without sufficient funds in drawee bank with intent to defraud; presumptions of intent to defraud, for conduct which occurred on or between May 10, 2000 and July 15, 2000 at and within the County of Clark, State of Nevada in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") 205.0832, 205.0835, 205.132, 205.380, 205.130, and 205.132. State of Nevada v. Eugene J. Petrungaro, Justice Court, Las Vegas Township, Clark County, State of Nevada, Case No. 01F09437X, Dept. No. 4. 

9.  On or about June 29, 2001, Respondent failed to appear in court and the Court issued an arrest warrant in Case No. 01F09437X. 

10.  At some point prior to February 7, 2002, Respondent was stopped for a traffic violation in Illinois. At that time, the officer noticed Respondent’s outstanding warrant in Nevada and placed Respondent under arrest. 

11.  On February 7, 2002, Respondent made restitution for the original amount owed plus additional fees in the amount of $47,850.00 by wire transfer. As a result, the Clark County District Attorney caused to be filed his motion to dismiss the indictment in case no. 01F09437X. 

12.  On February 12, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing the charges against Respondent. 

13.  By the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: 

  1. committing criminal acts, violations of NRS 205.0832, 205.0835, 205.132 – theft, presumptions of intent to defraud; NRS 205.380 – obtaining money under false pretenses; and NRS 205.130, 205.132, drawing and passing a check without sufficient funds in drawee bank with intent to defraud, presumptions of intent to defraud, that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4);
  1. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5); and
  1. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
COUNT XVIII
(Failure to cooperate with ARDC)

1. As of December 4, 2002, the Administrator had pending investigation numbers 01 CI 1561, at the charge of Maria Hannoun-Ortiz, 01 CI 2649, at the charge of Amanda Brown, and 02 CI 1934, at the charge of James P. Ziegler. In the course of investigating those matters, the Administrator conducted an audit of Respondent’s Forest Park account numbers 138937900 and 138938900.

2. On December 4, 2002, following the audit of Respondent’s accounts referred to in paragraph 1 above, counsel for the Administrator caused to be personally served on Respondent a subpoena duces tecum compelling Respondent’s personal appearance at the Chicago office of the Commission on December 18, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., together with his files relating to investigation nos. 01 CI 1561, 01 CI 2649 and 02 CI 1934 and a number of Respondent’s other clients as identified by the audit.

3. By letter dated December 13, 2002, Respondent advised counsel for the Administrator that he had a deposition scheduled for December 18, 2002, required additional time to obtain those client files as requested by the Administrator, and retain an attorney to represent him in these matters. Respondent requested that his statement be rescheduled for the week of January 6, 2003.

4. By letter dated December 17, 2002, counsel for the Administrator agreed to reschedule Respondent’s sworn statement and suggested five possible dates in January 2003. Counsel for the Administrator requested that Respondent, or his counsel, contact her to reschedule the statement.

5. As of January 6, 2003, Respondent had failed to respond to counsel for the Administrator’s December 17, 2002, letter. On January 6, 2003, counsel for the Administrator mailed a letter to Respondent rescheduling the sworn statement to January 23, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., together with the documents specified in the subpoena.

6. By letter dated January 6, 2003, and sent via facsimile, Respondent stated that he "enclosed" copies of three of the client files set forth in the subpoena and requested ten additional days to provide the remainder of the files. No copies of the files were attached to the facsimile. At no time did Respondent forward a mailed copy of his January 6, 2003 letter or the "enclosed" files to counsel for the Administrator.

7. At no time subsequent to January 6, 2003, did Respondent provide any additional records or files responsive to counsel for the Administrator’s subpoena.

8.  On January 23, 2003, Respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement. 

9. As of June 30, 2003, the date that the Inquiry Panel voted that a complaint be filed in this matter, Respondent had not produced himself or his files relating to his representation of those matters set forth in the Administrator’s subpoena.

10. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(2); and

b. conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and,
c.  conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or which brings the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771. 

WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.
Respectfully submitted,

Mary Robinson, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:  Tracy L. Kepler

Tracy L. Kepler
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 E. Randolph Dr., Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 565-2600 


    email: clr@clr.org

     Return to HomePage


Posted August 1, 2003