EUGENE ALPERN P.O. Box 672 Morton Grove, IL 60053
Vasiliki Verveniotis
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
130 E. Randolph Dr. - #1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
Dear Ms. Verveniotis:
Re: In re Caryl Jacobs Gabe 97-CH-02901
Thank you for providing me a copy of attorney Caryl Jacobs Gabe's response to my complaint.
Neither Caryl Jacobs Gabe nor her attorneys, Theresa M. Gronkiewicz and the law firm of Collins & Bargione, denied any of the statements of ethical misconduct filed by me against Ms. Gabe, thus admitting that all of the statements of misconduct were, and are, true.
In addition to other admissions, Caryl Gabe admitted that she was a member of Gabe, Gabe & Associates.
In her response, Caryl Gabe admitted that there existed a partnership called Gabe, Gabe & Associates. However, if it was a partnership, as she states, then she and the partnership misrepresented itself as a Professional Corporation, in violation of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct ("IRPC") Rule 7.5, and engaged in actions in violation of Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 721(c). As a principal and an attorney, Caryl Gabe knew, or reasonably should have known, whether she operated as a partnership or a professional corporation. Caryl Gabe made deliberate, intentional, and knowing misrepresentations to this Commission in an attempt to mislead this Commission. Gabe knew, or reasonably should have known, that she had consciously, deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally engaged in conduct in violation of IRPC Rules 7.5, 8.4(1), 8.4(4) and 8.4(5) and Supreme Court Rule 721(c).
In her response, Caryl Gabe admitted that her purported "partnership" represented Phyllis Alpern over 5 years ago. Caryl Gabe further admitted that she did not terminate her association with the "partnership" until some time in July 1993. This was subsequent to the time that the "partnership" represented Phyllis Alpern. Caryl Gabe admitted that she was associated with the "partnership" at the time that the "partnership" represented Phyllis Alpern. Based on her response, Rule 5.1 relative to Responsibilities of a Partner apply to her, and she has deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in actions in violation of Rule 5.1.
Caryl Gabe deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly misrepresented to this Commission that she did not represent Phyllis Alpern. Phyllis Alpern was represented by the purported "partnership" of Gabe, Gabe & Associates. As an attorney, Caryl Gabe knew, or reasonably should have known, that, unless restricted by contract to only a specific attorney, all attorneys in a law firm represent a client. She was as responsible for a client of the law firm as was any other attorney in the law firm. She represented Phyllis Alpern, as well as Allen S. Gabe represented Phyllis Alpern. I suggest that this is another attempt to deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly mislead this Commission to impede its investigation.
Gabe's response alleged that the purported "partnership" terminated in July 1993. Yet the purported "partnership" filed with the Illinois Supreme Court as a professional corporation from the years 1988 through 1994. Was the purported "partnership" terminated in 1993, as alleged by Caryl Gabe in her response, or did it continue through 1984, as they alleged to the Illinois Supreme Court? I suggest that Gabe is making another deliberate, intentional, and knowing attempt to mislead this Commission, a violation of Rule 3.3.
Caryl Jacobs Gabe and her attorneys, Theresa M. Gronkiewicz and the law firm of Collins & Bargione, made deliberate, intentional, and knowing misrepresentations to this Commission in an attempt to mislead and to impede this Commission's investigation, in violation of Rule 3.3.
As only one example, as attorneys, Gabe and Gronkiewicz knew, or reasonably should have known, that a complaint of ethical misconduct against an attorney is not required to be presented to the ARDC only by a client of the attorney. Attorney misconduct is against the public policy of the State of Illinois and may be presented by any member of the public, as all members of the public are harmed by an attorney's misconduct. Attorneys Gabe and Gronkiewicz raised a non-issue to consciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly mislead this Commission.
As attorneys, Caryl Jacob Gabe and Theresa Gronkiewicz knew, or reasonably should have known, that I was required by the court to pay money to the Gabes, Gabe, Gabe & Associates, and/or Gabe, Gabe & Associates, P.C. for their unethical and unlawful activities. As attorneys, Caryl Jacob Gabe and Theresa Gronkiewicz knew, or reasonably should have known, that they were deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally engaging in making misrepresentations of omission, silence, and concealment to this Commission.
Caryl Jacobs Gabe had a financial interest in, and benefitted financially, from the unlawful and unethical conduct of Gabe, Gabe & Associates, P.C., Gabe, Gabe & Associates, and Allen S. Gabe. She has not, nor can she lawfully or truthfully, deny that she obtained a financial benefit from the unethical conduct stated in my charges against her.
Caryl Jacobs Gabe is currently, and was at all pertinent times, responsible for all actions of her firm and her partner(s) during the time the misconduct occurred.
Gabe claimed that she had no recollection nor any records, however, she had a legal and fiduciary duty, and was required, under Supreme Court Rule 769, to keep all records of the law firm for at least 7 years, and to produce all such records. Based on her admission that she has no records, it is obvious that she can not produce the records, and is in violation of SCR 769. She has admitted that she was in violation of Supreme Court Rules that pertain to all attorneys. Gabe claims that she is not required to comply with Supreme Court Rules, including Supreme Court Rules relating to unethical conduct.
Gabe was involved in violation of Rule 3.3 and SCR 769 in her response. These violations were in addition to the violations stated in my original complaint.
In conclusion, none of the charges of misconduct filed by me against Caryl Jacobs Gabe have been controverted. Caryl Jacobs Gabe made repeated conscious, deliberate, knowing, and intentional misrepresentations of omission, silence, and concealment to this Commission. The ARDC complaint against Caryl Jacobs Gabe dated March 13, 1997 should be amended to include all of the charges made by me on June 5, 1997 and not controverted by Gabe, and to include the new instances of ethical misconduct made in her response to the Commission dated July 1, 1997 and brought to the attention of this Commission in this reply.
I submit that Caryl Jacobs Gabe is not fit to practice law in Illinois. By her actions she brings all Illinois lawyers into disrepute. Supreme Court Rule 771.
Yours truly, Eugene AlpernAugust 19, 1997
email: clr@clr.org Return to Gabe Page Return to Attorney Disciplinary Page Return to Home Page