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

In the Matter of:

DAVID EVERETTE BOWDEN,

Attorney-Respondent, 

No. 6257276.

 

Commission No. 07 CH 72

FILED - August 7, 2007

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Marita C. Sullivan, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 761 and 753, complains of Respondent, David Everette Bowden, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on December 8, 1998, 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
(Convictions for cannabis possession and resisting a peace officer and
failure to notify the Administrator
)

1. On May 17, 2004, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Cook County Sheriff Deputies T. Houlihan and A. Kozlar went to Respondent's residence at 6132 S. Ada, first floor apartment, in Chicago, to execute a court-ordered eviction of Respondent from the residence.

2. The deputies knocked on Respondent's door and advised Respondent of the eviction process. Respondent denied them entry.

3. The deputies forced entry into Respondent's residence, at which point Respondent attempted to flee from the rear door of the apartment.

4. The deputies attempted to arrest Respondent before he was able to leave the apartment.

5. While the deputies were attempting to place handcuffs on Respondent, Respondent resisted arrest by swinging his arms and pushing the deputies.

6. The deputies restrained Respondent and conducted a search of Respondent, finding one clear bag containing cannabis.

7. Respondent was placed under arrest.

8. On May 27, 2004, a complaint arising from Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs 1-7 was filed against Respondent in the Circuit Court of Cook County entitled The People of the State of Illinois v. David E. Bowden, and was assigned case number 04 MC1 1240739-01. The complaint charged Respondent with unlawful possession of cannabis in violation of 720 ILCS 550-4-C, resisting a peace officer in violation of 720 ILCS 5/31-1, and obstruction of service of process in violation of 720 ILCS 5/31-3.

9. On July 9, 2004, Respondent failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing in case number 04 MC1 1240739-01. The Honorable Willie B. Wright issued a warrant for Respondent's arrest.

10. On July 21, 2004, Respondent pled guilty in case number 04 MC1 1240739-01 to a reduced charge of possession of cannabis, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of 720 ILCS 550-4-C. Respondent also pled guilty to resisting a peace officer, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/31-1. On that date, the Honorable James R. Brown quashed the arrest warrant previously issued against Respondent, entered a judgment of conviction, and sentenced Respondent to a six month period of court supervision.

11. Supreme Court Rule 761(a) provides that it is the duty of an attorney admitted in this state who is convicted in any court of a felony or misdemeanor to notify the Administrator of the conviction in writing within thirty days of the entry of the judgment of conviction.

12. A conviction for possession of cannabis, in violation of 720 ILCS 550-C, is a Class A misdemeanor. A conviction for resisting a peace officer, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/31-1, is a Class A misdemeanor.

13. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 761(a), Respondent was required to notify the Administrator of his convictions in case number 04 MC1 1240739-01 on or before August 21, 2004.

14. At no time did Respondent notify the Administrator of his misdemeanor convictions in case no. 04 MC1 1240739-01 as required by Supreme Court Rule 761(a).

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

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects by violating 720 ILCS 550-4(c) and 720 ILCS 5/31-1, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

  2. failing to notify the Administrator of his conviction in writing within 30 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction in violation of Supreme Court Rule 761(a); and

  3. 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 770.

COUNT II
(Criminal Conduct)

1. On May 12, 2002, while on patrol at approximately 10:30 p.m., Chicago police officers responded to a call of shots being fired and drugs being sold at an apartment at 6132 S. Ada, first floor, in Chicago, at which Respondent resided.

2. When police officers arrived at the Ada apartment, Respondent was sitting at a table with a box.

3. When police officers rang the doorbell, Respondent stood up to carry the box to the rear of the apartment. While walking, Respondent dropped a plastic baggie containing cannabis.

4. When Respondent returned to the front of the apartment, he picked up the baggie and placed it in a drawer. Respondent then answered the door.

5. Police officers recovered the baggie and placed Respondent under arrest.

6. Police officers recovered the box from the rear of the apartment which contained cannabis, crack cocaine, powdered cocaine and $1,866 in cash.

7. Police officers also recovered powdered cocaine from the kitchen.

8. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, by violating 720 ILCS 570/401 and 720 ILCS 550/5, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  2. 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 770.

COUNT III
(Criminal Conduct)

1. On January 13, 2006, while responding to a call of auto theft in progress, Chicago Police Officer J. Esquivel observed Respondent sitting in a vehicle at 6526 S. King Drive, Chicago. The vehicle matched the description of the vehicle allegedly being stolen.

2. Upon questioning Respondent, Officer Esquivel discovered that Respondent did not have a valid driver's license, and placed Respondent under arrest.

3. Officer Esquivel conducted a search of Respondent and recovered a clear plastic bag containing cannabis.

4. Officer Esquivel then searched Respondent's vehicle and recovered from the ashtray a blunt cigarette which was cannabis.

5. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects by violating 720 ILCS 550/4(b) and 625 ILCS 5/6-303, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  2. 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 770.

COUNT IV
(Criminal Conduct)

1. On February 8, 2006, Chicago Police Officers C. Sabin and B. Gatrell observed Respondent smoking a hand-rolled cigarette containing cannabis in an automobile at 556 S. Wabash, Chicago.

2. Respondent had cash in his possession in the amount of $1,354. Upon inquiry of the officers, Respondent did not account to the officers the origin of the money. At that time, the cash contained trace amounts of narcotics.

3. Respondent was also in the company of persons known to the officers as having prior narcotic arrests. The officers placed Respondent under arrest.

4. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects by violating 720 ILCS 550.0/4-A, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  2. 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 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.

Marita C. Sullivan
Counsel for Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 565-2600
Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:  Marita C. Sullivan