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 Juan R. Thomas, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 7, 1996, 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
(Forgery of petition to release bond and misrepresentation in relation to
Jarrett Williams' criminal matters)

1. On or about December 28, 2003, Jarrett Williams ("Williams") was arrested for and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to possess a valid driver's license, driving on the shoulder of the road, loud muffler, illegal transportation of alcohol, improper lane usage and resisting a peace officer in La Salle County, Illinois. The clerk of the court for the Circuit Court of the 13^th Judicial Circuit, La Salle County, docketed the matters as case nos. 2003-TR-24816-20, 2003-DT-759 and 2003-CM-2117, People v. Jarrett Williams.

2. At the time of his arrest, Williams was on probation for his October 17, 2002 conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in the Circuit Court of the 13^th Judicial Circuit, La Salle County, case no. 2002-CF-334.

3. On or about December 30, 2003, the La Salle County State's Attorney caused to be filed a petition to revoke Williams' probation in case no. 2002-CF-334.

4. On or about January 2, 2004, Salina Marsh ("Marsh"), a passenger in the car at the time of Williams' arrest, posted bond for Williams in the amount of $1,000.

5. On or about January 8, 2004, the Court entered an order consolidating case no. 2002-CF-334 with case nos. 2003-TR-24816-20, 2003-DT-759 and 2003-CM-2117.

6. At some point prior to March 25, 2004, members of Williams' family requested and Respondent agreed to represent Williams in his pending criminal matters. Respondent agreed to accept $1,500 as his fee for the representation. Members of Williams' family paid Respondent $1,000 towards his fee.

7. On or about March 25, 2004, Respondent caused to be filed his appearance on Williams' behalf in case nos. 2002-CF-334, 2003-TR-24816-20, 2003-DT-759 and 2003-CM-2117.

8. On or about July 16, 2004, following a hearing on the State's petition to revoke Williams' probation, the Court entered an order finding a violation of probation and ordering a pre-sentence investigation, revoking Williams' probation and bail, and setting the matter for sentencing hearing in case nos. 2002-CF-334, 2003-TR-24816-20, 2003-DT-759 and 2003-CM-2117.

9. On or about December 20, 2004, a hearing was held in case nos. 2002-CF-334, 2003-TR-24816-20, 2003-DT-759 and 2003-CM-2117 at which Williams pled guilty to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the remaining criminal charges were dismissed. The Court entered judgment against Williams and sentenced him to five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, with credit for ninety days served.

10. At the time of the hearing, Williams owed Respondent $500 of the $1,500 he agreed to accept as his fee.

11. Immediately following the December 20, 2004 hearing, Respondent requested a Defendant's Petition Requesting Refund of Bail to Attorney of Record (the "petition") form from the clerk of the court. On or about that same day, without the knowledge or authorization of Marsh, Respondent caused Marsh's purported signature to be placed on the petition which authorized the release of Williams' bond to Respondent. At no time did Marsh sign her name to the petition or agree to release the bond to Respondent.

12. At all times alleged in this count, 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.

13. On or about December 20, 2004, Respondent telephoned Reneé L. Robinson ("Robinson") to request her services as a notary. The signature on the petition had to be notarized prior to its filing with the court. On or about that same day, Respondent went to Robinson's office, presented her with the petition purportedly signed by Marsh, and Robinson notarized the signature.

14. On or about December 22, 2004, Respondent caused the petition to be filed with the clerk of the La Salle County Court.

15. In reliance on the petition purportedly signed by Marsh, on or about December 30, 2004, the La Salle County clerk's office mailed to Respondent its check no. 76528, in the amount of $900, representing the refund of the bail, less ten percent due to the circuit clerk.

16. On or about January 7, 2005, Respondent endorsed the reverse side of check no. 76528 and deposited it into his Citibank business operating account.

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

1. making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois rules of Professional Conduct;

2. 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;

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

4. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

5. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT II
(False statements to a La Salle County State's Attorney in relation to
the Williams matter)

1-16. The Administrator realleges and reasserts the facts as set forth in Count I above.

18. On or about January 13, 2005, Marsh contacted Matthew J. Kidder ("Kidder"), one of the La Salle County State's Attorneys assigned to case nos. 2002-CF-334, 2003-TR-24816-20, 03-CM-2117 and 03-DT-759, and requested information on the status of the bond she posted for Williams. Kidder told Marsh that the bond had previously been released to Respondent and forwarded a copy of the petition purportedly signed by Marsh to her. Upon receipt and review, Marsh denied signing the petition.

19. On that same date, Kidder contacted Respondent who informed him that following the plea, he filled out the petition and then called Marsh. Respondent told Kidder that he spoke with a woman who indicated she was Marsh, explained what was required to secure the return of the bond deposit, and then left the petition at Robinson's office, where it was signed and notarized, and later retrieved by Respondent. Respondent further told Kidder that he had no knowledge of any problem and did not know who actually signed the petition.

20. Respondent's statements made to Kidder in paragraph 19 above were false and misleading in that as of on or about December 20, 2004, Respondent had already caused Marsh's purported signature to be placed on the petition, and at no time did Respondent leave the petition at Robinson's office to be signed at a later time by Marsh. Respondent knew or should have known his statements made to Kidder in paragraph 19 above were false and misleading.

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;

2. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

3. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT III
(False statements to the Commission in relation to the Williams matter)

1-20. The Administrator realleges and reasserts the facts as set forth in Counts I and II above.

22. On or about January 21, 2005, the Administrator received a Request for Investigation of a Lawyer from Kidder regarding the matters set forth above in Counts I and II. On that same date, the Administrator initiated a disciplinary investigation which was docketed as "Juan R. Thomas in relation to Matthew J. Kidder et al.," Administrator's No. 05 CI 396.

23. On February 2, 2005, the Administrator requested that Respondent provide a response to Kidder's communication, and on or about February 22, 2005, Respondent replied. In his response, Respondent stated, inter alia, the following: "Once I discovered the conflict between Ms. Marsh and Mr. Williams' family, and that Ms. Salina Marsh, in fact, did not sign the bail bond sheet, I immediately wrote her a check for $900.00."

24. On June 8, 2005, pursuant to subpoena, Respondent appeared before the Administrator to give sworn testimony under oath. During the course of Respondent's sworn statement, the following questions were asked and Respondent gave the following answers regarding how the petition came to be signed on or about December 20, 2004:

Q: At any time did you identify the woman with whom you spoke following the hearing? Who was that person to whom you were speaking and having sign the document?

A: Well, see, that's where I'm now frustrated. When I went into court, I asked [Williams], "Is that your girlfriend?" He said yes. I made the assumption that was Salina Marsh. It never dawned on me, and my mind set was not at the moment where I would have been thinking there was another girlfriend or a different girlfriend. I had no - - it didn't even cross my mind until much later that that might not be the girlfriend I'm talking about.

Q: So when you spoke to this person after Mr. Williams was taken away?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Did she identify herself to you?

A: No. I mean, I can't - - no, because we weren't at that - - it was an awkward moment. It was she is crying, she is upset because her boyfriend has just gone to jail. I thought I knew who she was, so I never even asked her to tell me who she was.

Q: You never asked her name?

A: No. Not - - no, I don't think. No. Not for the purposes of identification, no. I never said, what's your name and who are you? I didn't do any of that. You know, it just wasn't that kind of moment. I regret that now, but - -

Q: You said that this person signed the document?

A: Yes.

Q: And by the document, you mean the petition to release the bond to you?

A: Right.

***

Q: Did you sign the name that purports to be Salina Marsh on the defendant's petition requesting the refund of bail?

A: No, I did not.

25. The statements made by Respondent during his sworn statement as described in paragraph 24 above were false and misleading in that on or about December 20, 2004, Respondent caused Marsh's purported signature to be placed on the petition. Respondent knew or should have known that the statements made during his sworn statement relating to who signed the petition as described in paragraph 24 above were false and misleading.

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

1. making a statement of material fact known by the lawyer to be false in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

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

3. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

4. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully 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.