BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
In the Matter of:
TIMOTHY JOHN HUYETT,
Commission No. 2013PR00123
FILED --- December 11, 2013
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), by his attorney, Denise Church, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Timothy John Huyett, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 6, 1986, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which subjects Respondent to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:
(Prohibited Sexual Relations with Client - Shaina Allen)
1. On January 28, 2011, Respondent, the Marion County Public Defender, was appointed to represent Shaina Allen ("Allen") in a pending criminal case, People v. Shaina Allen, Marion County case number 08 CF 27. The State's Attorney had filed a Petition to Revoke Probation against Allen, based on Allen's testing positive for opiates. Allen had previously been convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and on May 20, 2010, was sentenced to two years of probation.
2. On February 18, 2011, Allen was admitted into the Marion County Drug Court program. Under the provisions of the Drug Court program, if Allen successfully completed the 30-month program, the pending Petition To Revoke Probation would be dismissed.
3. In September 2011, Respondent began to have sexual relations with Allen, while still representing her in case number 08 CF 27. At the time the sexual relationship began, Respondent was 54 years old and Allen was 23 years old.
4. On February 17, 2012, the State's Attorney filed a Petition to Revoke Drug Court Participation, alleging, inter alia, that Allen had tested positive for alcohol use.
5. On March 23, 2012, Allen appeared with Respondent in case number 08 CF 27, and filed a Consent to Revocation of Drug Court Status. Allen was then sentenced to 30 months in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
6. By reason of his conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
having sexual relations with a client, in violation of Rule 1.8(j) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
failing to withdraw when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that continued employment will result in violation of these Rules in violation of Rule 1.16(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
(False statements to Judge Schwarm and Judge Stedelin, and
to the ARDC regarding sexual relations with Allen)
7. The Administrator realleges and incorporates paragraphs one through five, above.
8. On April 18, 2013, Judge Mark Stedelin, the resident Circuit Judge of Marion County, and Judge S. Gene Schwarm, the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, met with Respondent and confronted him with information they had received about Respondent's relationship with Allen.
9. During the meeting, Respondent denied having sexual relations with Allen while Allen's case was pending in Drug Court, and told the judges that he began sexual relations with her shortly after she was released from the Illinois Department of Corrections in April 2012.
10. Respondent's statement that he did not have sexual relations with Allen while her case was pending, and that he began sexual relations with Allen in April 2012 was false, in that Respondent began sexual relations with Allen in September 2011, while he was her counsel in case number 08 CF 27.
11. Respondent knew his statements were false.
12. On April 22, 2013, Respondent formally resigned his position as Marion County Public Defender.
13. On May 14, 2013, the Administrator asked Respondent to respond to allegations regarding his relationship with Allen.
14. On May 22, 2013, Respondent wrote to the Administrator and stated "At no point did I ever engage in any sexual relationship with Ms. Allen while she was my client in the year 2011 through April 2012."
15. Respondent's statement to the Administrator that he did not engage in any sexual relationship with Ms. Allen while she was his client in 2011 through April 2012 was false, in that he began his sexual relations with Allen in September 2011, while he was her counsel in case number 08 CF 27.
16. Respondent knew his statement was false.
17. On August 22, 2013, Respondent appeared with counsel for a sworn statement in the Springfield office of the ARDC and admitted that he had begun his sexual relations with Allen in September 2011.
18. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ,or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, in violation of Rule 8.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.
Jerome Larkin, Administrator