Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Cass R. Buscher, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a), states that on the date Eric Phillip Ferleger (hereinafter "Movant") filed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, a Hearing Board report had been filed in Commission Number 05 CH 103 recommending that Movant be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court. In addition, a one-count complaint was pending before the Hearing Board charging Movant with the conversion of $42,500 (In re Ferleger 07 CH 84). The charges in 05 CH 103 have been subject of a hearing, and the description of the proven misconduct is sent forth below. Had the charges in 07 CH 84 been the subject of a hearing, the Administrator would have introduced the evidence described below, and that evidence would have clearly and convincingly established the conclusions of misconduct set forth in Part IV of this statement.

On March 20, 2008, the Hearing Board issued a Report and Recommendation finding that, based on Movant's admissions, the Administrator's exhibits, and the testimony of former clients and others, the Administrator had established, by clear and convincing evidence, the following:

PAGE 2:

1. On September 8, 2004, the Administrator filed a petition to impose discipline on consent in In re Ferleger, 03 CH 4, M.R. 19711. The petition recommended that Movant be suspended for 9 months stayed after the first 60 days by a two-year period of probation. The Court allowed the petition on November 17, 2004.

2. During his period of suspension, Movant continued to be actively involved in the management of his law practice. Movant called his office, communicated with multiple clients regarding pending matters, and spoke with employees of the firm almost daily. He also dictated numerous pleadings regarding three of his clients.

3. On July 22, 2004, Movant was found slumped over the wheel of his car, and the results of a portable breathalyzer test showed Movant's blood alcohol level to be .187. On November 16, 2004, Movant pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to an 18-month period of supervision.

4. On October 28, 2004, Movant was issued a judicial driving permit which prohibited him from drinking any alcohol and provided that he could only drive from 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. On November 17, 2004, as part of his probation in In re Ferleger, 03 CH 4, M.R. 19711, Movant was prohibited from drinking any alcohol.

5. On January 29, 2005, Movant attended a friend's band performance and drank alcohol. He also drove outside the hours of his judicial driving permit and was stopped for speeding. As a result of this conduct his 18-month period of supervision was revoked.

PAGE 3:

6. On August 6, 2005, Movant was stopped while driving without a valid license at approximately 1:25 a.m. On November 1, 2005, Movant was convicted of driving on a suspended license.

7. On August 18, 2005, in an attempt to resolve a civil dispute, Movant sent Lisa Zito a demand letter stating the following "If we go to court, we will seek punitive damages as well as criminal sanctions against you. I will also make certain that these transgressions are made public so that you are recognized as the person you appear to be in this instance…"

8. On December 5, 2005, Movant was issued a ticket for driving on a suspended license when he attempted to use an entrance ramp as a passing lane. On March 25, 2006, Movant was stopped while driving, and it was determined that he had a blood alcohol level in excess of .08.

9. On September 1, 2006, Movant pled guilty to two felony charges for driving on a suspended license and one felony charge of driving under the influence of alcohol while his license was suspended, based on his conduct on December 5, 2005, and March 25, 2006. Movant was sentenced to one year in prison based on these convictions. Movant's probation in 03 CH 4 was also revoked, and he was required to serve the remaining 7 months of his suspension.

II. PROVEN MISCONDUCT

10. By reason of the conduct described above, Movant has engaged in the following misconduct:

PAGE 4:

1. threatening to present criminal charges to obtain advantage in a civil matter, in violation of Rule 1.2(e) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

2. practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

3. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his 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, by violating 625 ILCS 5/6-303(a), 625 ILCS 5/6-303(d), 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), and 625 ILCS 5/11-501(c);

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

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

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

Documents from Movant's bank accounts, court records, and Movant's admissions would establish the following:

11. On March 26, 2001, Movant, as one of the sellers, agreed to hold $42,500 in escrow in connection with a real estate transaction. On March 27, 2001, Movant deposited the $42,500 into his client trust account.

12. The real estate transaction did not close as planned, and multiple lawsuits were filed to determine ownership of the escrow funds. On July 30, 2004, prior to a determination as

PAGE 5:

to whom the $42,500 belonged, Movant's client trust account was overdrawn by $3,530.61, after Movant had used all the $42,500 without authority.

13. By reason of the conduct described above, Movant has engaged in the following misconduct:

1. conversion;

2. failure to promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive, in violation of Rule 1.15(b) 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 which is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

PAGE 6:

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