ARDC
ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION
Overview of ARDC | How to Contact ARDC | Department Directory | Board Member Roster
2002 Annual Report of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
Table of Contents
II. Report on Disciplinary Matters and Non-Disciplinary Action Affecting Attorney Status
A. Investigations
B. Hearing Matters
C. Matters Filed Before the Review Board
D. Supreme Court - Disciplinary Cases
E. Supreme Court - Non-Disciplinary Action
III. Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Profession
A. Supreme Court Rule 751 and 756: Registration Fees
B. Supreme Court Rule 715: Admission of Graduates of Foreign Law Schools
C. Supreme Court Rules 721 and 722: Adoption of Limited Liability Legal Practice
D. Supreme Court Rule 769: Maintenance of Records
A. Client Protection Program
B. Ethics Inquiry Program
C. Education
1. Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute: Professionalism Seminar
2. ARDC Web Site
3. Speeches and Presentations
A. Court Appointments
1. ARDC Commissioners
2. Review Board Appointments
VII. Relocation of Springfield Office
Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants
Statement of Financial Position
Statement of Activities
Statement of Cash Flows
Notes to Financial Statements
Commissioners
Review Board
Hearing Board
Inquiry Board
Oversight Review Panel
Client Protection Panel
Chicago
April 30, 2003
To the Honorable, the Chief Justice
and Justices of the Supreme Court
of Illinois
The annual report of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for 2002 is submitted to the Court, to the members of the Bar of Illinois, and to the public in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 751.
The report is a statement of activities of the Commission for calendar year 2002 and an accounting and audit of the monies received and expended during the twelve-month period that ended December 31, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Benedict Schwarz II, Chairman
Donn F. Bailey, Ph.D.
Patricia Campbell Bobb
John R. Carroll
R. Michael Henderson
John Paul Kujawski
Brian McFadden, Commissioners
Mary Robinson, Administrator
| I. Registration Report |
The Master Roll of attorneys registered in Illinois for the year 2002 contained the names of 75,421 attorneys as of October 31, 2002. After that date, the Commission began the 2003 registration process, so that the total reported as of October 31, 2002, does not include the 1,819 attorneys who first took their oath of office in November or December 2002. Chart A shows the breakdown of lawyers registered for 2002 by the registration categories set forth in Rule 756, and Chart B shows demographic information for registered lawyers.
Chart A: Registration Categories for 2002
Chart B: Age, Gender and Years in Practice for Attorneys Registered in 2002
 |
 |
|
|
|
||
The 2002 registration totals show a modest 1.5% increase in the number of lawyers registered in Illinois, a slight easing of the trend since 2000, when the number of registered lawyers remained virtually static. The absence of notable growth over the last few years contrasts sharply with the substantial growth that occurred during the three previous decades. See Chart C. An average 5.9% annual growth during the 1970’s, when annual registration began, an average 4.4% annual growth during the 1980’s, and an average 3.3% annual growth for the first half of the 1990’s combined to cause the lawyer population to nearly triple in the 25 years between 1974 and 1999. (During those same years, the Illinois population increased only 10% from 11,274,000 in 1974 to 12,359,000 in 1999.) The annual rate of increase in lawyer population dropped to 2.5% in 1996, and has remained there or decreased since then.
The arrest in growth of the Illinois lawyer population coincides with an increase in the number of lawyers leaving the profession each year due to retirement, death, discipline, or failure to register. The departures from the rolls rose dramatically in 2000, when the option of transferring to a retired status first became available, (from an average of 1,152 for the previous five years to 2,407 for 2000), and remained higher than average in the subsequent two years (1,986 for 2001 and 1,596 for 2002). The arrest in growth also follows a decline, beginning in 1995, in the percentage of candidates who pass the Illinois bar, with a resulting return to annual admission levels between 2,400 and 2,600, comparable to the levels experienced throughout most of the 1980’s. Nevertheless, as Chart C shows, the number of lawyers admitted each year since 1974 has remained relatively constant.
Chart C: Attorneys Admitted & Registered by Year
Charts D and E show the distribution by Judicial Circuit and by County of the 57,951 registered attorneys who report a principal business address in Illinois. Another 17,470 registered attorneys, who report a principal business address outside Illinois, are not included in those charts.
Chart D: Registration by Judicial Districts for 2002
Chart E: Registered Attorneys by County
| II. Report on Disciplinary Matters and Non-Disciplinary Action Affecting Attorney Status |
| Chart 1: Investigations Docketed in 2002 |
 |
During 2002, the Commission docketed 6,182 investigations, a 6% increase over last year and the most investigations docketed since 1998. Those 6,182 investigations involved charges against 4,227 different attorneys. This means that about 5% of all registered attorneys became the subject of an investigation in 2002. Nearly a quarter of the 4,227 attorneys were the subject of more than one investigation docketed in 2002, as shown in Chart 1.
Charts 2 and 3 report the classification of investigations docketed in 2002, based on an initial assessment of the nature of the misconduct alleged, if any, and the type of legal context in which the facts apparently arose. Chart 2 reflects that the most frequent areas of a grievance are: neglect of the client’s cause, failure to communicate with the client, fraudulent or deceptive activity, excessive fees, and improper management of trust funds.
Consistent with prior years, the top areas of practice most likely to lead to a grievance of attorney misconduct are: criminal law, domestic relations, tort, and real estate, as shown in Chart 3.
Chart 2: Classification of Charges Docketed in 2002 by Violation Alleged
Chart 3: Classification of Charges Docketed in 2002 by Area of Law
If an investigation fails to reveal sufficiently serious, provable misconduct, the Administrator will close the investigation. If an investigation produces evidence of serious misconduct, the case is referred to the Inquiry Board, unless the matter is filed directly with the Supreme Court under Rules 761, 762(a), or 763. The Inquiry Board operates in panels of three, composed of two attorneys and one nonlawyer, all appointed by the Commission. An Inquiry panel has authority to vote a formal complaint if it finds evidence to support a charge, to close an investigation if it does not so find, or to place an attorney on supervision under the direction of the panel pursuant to Commission Rule 108. The Administrator cannot pursue formal charges without authorization by an Inquiry Board panel.
Comparatively few investigations result in the filing of formal charges. Charts 4 and 5 show the number of investigations docketed and terminated during 2002, and the type of actions which terminated the investigations. The staff kept pace with the increased number of investigative files docketed during the year, with a 21% increase in the number of files referred to the Inquiry Board over the number referred during each of the four prior years.
Chart 4: Investigations Docketed
Chart 5: Investigations Concluded in 2002
Once an Inquiry Board panel authorizes the filing of charges, a formal complaint setting forth all allegations of misconduct pending against the attorney is filed, and the matter proceeds before the Hearing Board. The Hearing Board functions much like a trial court in a civil case and is comprised of three panel members, two lawyers and one nonlawyer, appointed by the Commission. Upon filing and service of the complaint, the case becomes public. In addition to complaints alleging misconduct filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753, and complaints alleging conviction of a criminal offense under Rule 761, the Hearing Board also entertains petitions for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 767, petitions for transfer to inactive status because of impairment pursuant to Rule 758, and petitions for restoration to active status pursuant to Rule 759.
Chart 6 shows the activity before the Hearing Board in 2002. The number of disciplinary complaints filed before the Hearing Board in 2002 was 118.
Chart 6: Matters Before the Hearing Board in 2002
Chart 7 shows the years in practice of the lawyers who were the subject of a formal complaint in 2002. The number of formal complaints filed against attorneys in practice for fewer than ten years continues to run high, accounting for a quarter of the disciplinary complaints filed in 2002.
| Chart 7: Disciplinary Complaints Filed in 2002 |
 |
Charts 8 and 9 show the types of misconduct alleged in the 118 disciplinary complaints filed during 2002 and the areas of practice in which the alleged misconduct arose. In large part, the categories most frequently seen in formal complaints track the categories most frequently seen in the initial charges, as reported in Charts 2 and 3. There was a noticeable increase in the number of cases alleging a conflict of interest. Also, the number of formal complaints alleging misconduct arising out of fraudulent/deceptive activity and criminal conduct remains high. Further, many complaints continue to include a count alleging misconduct impeding the disciplinary process (failure to cooperate/false statements in a disciplinary matter).
Chart 8: Types of Misconduct Alleged in Complaints Filed Before Hearing Board in 2002
Chart 9: Area of Law Involved in Complaints Filed Before Hearing Board in 2002
Chart 10 shows the type of action by which the Hearing Board concluded 122 cases during 2002.
Chart 10: Actions Taken by Hearing Board in Matters Terminated in 2002
C. Matters Filed Before the Review Board
Once the Hearing Board files its report in a case, either party may file exceptions before the Review Board, which serves as an appellate tribunal. Chart 11 shows activity at the Review Board during 2002.
Chart 11: Trend of Matters in the Review Board in 2002
D. Supreme Court – Disciplinary Cases
Only the Supreme Court has authority to sanction attorneys for misconduct, except for a Board reprimand which can be imposed in a disciplinary case without order of the Court by either the Hearing or Review Board. In 2002, the Review Board administered one reprimand and the Hearing Board administered five reprimands (see Charts 10 and 11). Other than Board reprimands, the Hearing and Review Board reports are recommendations to the Supreme Court.
During 2002, the Court entered 126 sanctions against 124 attorneys. Chart 12 reflects the nature of the orders entered.
Chart 12: Disciplinary Sanctions Ordered by the Supreme Court in 2002
Chart 13: Attorneys Disciplined in 2002
Chart 14: County of Practice
The Court ordered briefing and oral argument in one disciplinary case in 2002, in In re Leonard T. Timpone, Docket No. 93178. Respondent was charged with obtaining an improper loan from a client, improperly handling and converting client funds, and falsely stating to the Commission that the funds at issue were being held in his client trust account. The Hearing and Review Boards recommended disbarment for respondent, who had been suspended for three years in 1993 for conversion and other misconduct, and censured in 1994 for failure to pay federal income taxes. The issues on appeal are whether respondent waived his ability to challenge the Hearing Board’s findings of misconduct, whether an attorney-client relationship still existed at the time respondent obtained the loan, and whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction. The Court heard arguments on September 18, 2002.
Chart 15: Misconduct Committed in the 132 Disciplinary Cases in 2002*
Disciplinary cases reach the Court in several ways. Chart 16 reflects the actions taken by the Supreme Court in disciplinary matters in the varying procedural contexts in which those matters are presented.
Chart 16: Orders Entered by Supreme Court in Disciplinary Cases in 2002
E. Supreme Court – Non-Disciplinary Action
In addition to activity in disciplinary cases, the Supreme Court entertains pleadings in non-disciplinary matters that affect an attorney’s status. Chart 17 reflects the orders entered in such cases during 2002.
Chart 17: Non-Disciplinary Actions by the Supreme Court
Chart 18: A Comparison 1990-2002
| III. Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Profession |
A. Supreme Court Rules 751 and 756: Registration Fees
Effective for the 2003 registration year, the Court amended Rule 756(a)(1) to increase the registration fee to $229 for lawyers admitted to practice for three years or longer and registered as active. Of this amount, $7 is to be remitted to the Lawyers’ Assistance Program Fund, and $42 is to be remitted to the Lawyers Trust Fund. An amendment to Rule 751(e)(6) directs the Commission to collect and remit these amounts to the foregoing entities.
B. Supreme Court Rule 715: Admission of Graduates of Foreign Law Schools
Effective January 1, 2003, the Court adopted Rule 715, to allow for the admission of foreign law graduates without the requirement of having received a law degree from an ABA-approved law school. To qualify for admission, applicants must pass the Illinois bar examination, be certified by the Board of Admissions to the Bar as to educational background and character, and receive a passing score as determined by the Board on the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination in Illinois. Also, the applicant must have been licensed to practice in the foreign country in which the law degree was conferred, must be in good standing in that country and must have been actively engaged in practice for at least five of the seven years immediately prior to making application.
C. Supreme Court Rules 721 and 722: Adoption of Limited Liability Legal Practice
On April 1, 2003, effective July 1, 2003, the Court amended Rule 721 and adopted new Rule 722 to allow a law firm, organized as a “limited liability entity,” as defined under Rule 722, to enable its individual members to protect their personal assets from a malpractice suit involving another member of the law firm. To seek the new protections, a law firm must carry minimum insurance or proof of financial responsibility. Notwithstanding the protections afforded to a lawyer whose firm is organized as a limited liability entity, a lawyer is not relieved from personal liability for claims arising from the lawyer’s own professional conduct or the conduct of any person under the lawyer’s direct supervision or control. Rule 721, as amended, includes limited liability partnerships among the kinds of entities that may engage in the practice of law in Illinois. Rules 721 and 722 do not change lawyers’ ethical responsibilities for their own conduct or that of the law firm or the firm’s lawyers and employees as set forth in Rules 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
D. Supreme Court Rule 769: Maintenance of Records
On April 1, 2003, effective July 1, 2003, the Court amended Rule 769, to allow lawyers the option of retaining in electronic format the records required by the rule to be kept for 7 years.
| IV. ARDC Perception Survey |
In furtherance of its commitment to the fairness of the disciplinary process and the maintenance of an effective and diverse disciplinary system, the Commission retained Research USA, Inc. to conduct a survey of Illinois lawyers in order to learn about perceptions of ARDC fairness, particularly regarding issues that involve race. Research USA conducted 1,306 telephone interviews of Illinois lawyers. In order to insure that a sufficient number of African-American lawyers were surveyed, Research USA took names from The Guide to Chicago's Black Lawyers and other directories provided by African-American bar leaders and associations, whose assistance the Commission acknowledges. Approximately 300 of the telephone interviews were of African-American lawyers; the remaining 1,000 were drawn randomly from the Commission's Master Roll of Illinois lawyers. Results for white lawyers are projectable with a range of +/-3.2% for most questions. Results for black lawyers are not statistically projectable because a non-random sample was used.
The telephone survey elicited demographic information and perceptions that the Commission has found useful. Approximately three-quarters of lawyers from both races feel that ARDC's disciplinary process is "very" or "somewhat fair," although black lawyers were more likely than white lawyers to feel that the process was “somewhat fair,” as illustrated in the following chart:
Notwithstanding these positive fairness ratings, a majority of black lawyers, but few white lawyers, believe that race plays a role in ARDC's disciplinary processes, as noted in the following chart:
Similarly, a substantial minority of responding black lawyers (31.4%) strongly or somewhat agree that ARDC's decision whether to act on a case is influenced by the race of a complaining witness, whereas only 7.7% of white lawyers express that view. A substantial minority of responding black lawyers (34%), but only 7.7% of white lawyers, somewhat or strongly agree with the statement that there is a danger that ARDC will institute a system of racial profiling of black lawyers.
A majority of responding lawyers believe it is important for ARDC to know more about lawyers' perceptions regarding issues that involve race, as noted in the following chart:
For both black and white lawyers, opinions regarding ARDC fairness were influenced by discussions with other lawyers (60% for both blacks and whites) and by media accounts and court decisions (58% for blacks and 67% for whites). Black lawyers (52%) indicated that their own experience with ARDC also affected their opinion; the opinion of 37.1% of white lawyers were influenced by their own experience. Many black lawyers (68%) and white lawyers (50.6%) knew another lawyer who was investigated by ARDC or disciplined.
The Commission also surveyed members of the Boards, who handle the disciplinary cases. Collectively, the Boards are comprised of 119 members, 25 of whom are black. The 82 members who responded provided near unanimous statements that race is not taken into consideration in disciplinary matters. Specifically, more than 96% stated that the race of a respondent does not improperly affect discipline; that they have not observed racial prejudice in the disciplinary process; and that they have not observed the race of the respondent or complaining witness playing a role in the process. Board members rated the disciplinary process as very fair (83%) or somewhat fair (12%), with 5% of respondents not answering that question.
The Commission determined that the survey findings warranted a plan of action to address perceptions of those who do not have confidence in the racial fairness of the disciplinary system. The Commission has begun an ongoing dialogue regarding the survey findings and follow-up with representatives of the Cook County Bar Association in an effort to learn more about the perceptions of lawyers in the African-American legal community and to find ways to address those perceptions. The ARDC and CCBA team plans to meet every three to four months to find ways to address these issues.
Commission representatives also engaged in a productive dialogue regarding the survey findings at the Annual Meeting of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), the national association of lawyers engaged in lawyer disciplinary work. NOBC has undertaken the issue of diversity as an ongoing topic of discussions at its meetings. In addition, the Commission is attempting to gather demographic information on a sampling of lawyers who have been disciplined to see if discipline falls disproportionately on identifiable groups of lawyers, and, as the critical backdrop, to develop demographic data on the profession in general.
The Commission recognizes the significance of the wide divergence between the perceptions of black lawyers regarding the impact of race in the disciplinary process and the observations of board members and the perceptions of white lawyers on that same issue. The Commission remains committed to a continuing dialogue with all members of the legal profession to investigate and address the causes of the diverging views.
| V. ARDC Programs |
The Client Protection Program was created by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1994 by the adoption of Rule 780. In 2002, the program approved 57 claims totaling $215,564 to clients who lost money or property due to the dishonest conduct of attorneys holding an Illinois license. A summary of data on claims approved over the history of the program appears in Chart 19, and information on the claims approved in 2002 appears in Chart 20.
Chart 19: Summary of Approved Claims
Chart 20: Classification of Approved Claims
Effective April 1, 2003, the Commission amended Commission Rule 510, raising the maximum payment on any single claim from $10,000 to $25,000, and raising the aggregate limit on claims arising from the conduct of any one attorney from $100,000 to $250,000. The amendment brings the Illinois cap closer to the national median cap of $50,000, and it should make it possible to pay 90% of the claims submitted to the Program in full. While the vast majority of claims fall under $10,000, several claims each year far exceed that amount. The Commission concluded that the efficacy of the Client Protection Program mandated raising the caps to allow more realistic compensation in the cases involving substantial losses, particularly in the present economic climate which has led to more disciplinary cases involving thefts of greater amounts of client funds.
The Commission’s Ethics Inquiry Program is a telephone inquiry service that allows Illinois attorneys and members of the public to call for help in resolving hypothetical questions about ethical dilemmas, the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of the Commission. No legal opinion or binding advisory opinion is given.
The Ethics Inquiry Program continues to handle over 3,000 calls from attorneys each year. This figure does not include calls received from nonlawyers. Additional information about the program can be obtained from the ARDC website at www.iardc.org.
1. Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute: Professionalism
Seminar
Since November 1996, the Commission has sponsored a seminar on law
office management issues and ethical obligations of lawyers. The seminar
is held three times a year for lawyers who are required to attend as
part of their disciplinary sanctions or who attend voluntarily. Over 100
lawyers have attended the seminar thus far. Plans for 2003 include
presenting the program in association with some law schools for students
about to enter practice. Any attorney interested in learning more about
the Professionalism Seminar, may call Mary F. Andreoni,
Administrative Counsel, ARDC, Chicago, or consult the ARDC web site at
www.iardc.org.
2. ARDC Web
Site
On April 1, 2003, “Lawyer Search” was added to the ARDC web site (www.iardc.org).
Lawyer Search allows the user to search the Master Roll of Illinois
Attorneys for certain basic, public registration information about
Illinois lawyers, including date of admission, business address and
phone number, whether the attorney is registered and authorized to
practice, and whether the attorney has been disciplined. Attorneys are
invited to check their own information and to notify the ARDC of any
inaccuracies or changes.
The Web site also contains recently filed disciplinary complaints, sanction orders issued by the Supreme Court, Hearing Board and Review Board reports, the schedule of hearings in public disciplinary cases, as well as the procedural rules governing disciplinary cases and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Information and forms relating to registration matters and the investigation process are also available on the site. In the future, the site will include a searchable database of Supreme Court disciplinary opinions and Hearing and Review Board reports.
3. Speeches and Presentations
The Commission continued its efforts to familiarize attorneys with the
ethics rules and concerns by having its legal staff make more than 100
presentations to bar associations, law firms, law schools, continuing
legal education seminars and civic groups. Any group interested in
having a Commission representative speak to its members, may call Mary
F. Andreoni, Administrative Counsel, ARDC, Chicago.
| VI. Developments During 2002 |
1. ARDC Commissioners
The ARDC Commission consists of four members of the Illinois Bar and
three non-lawyers. The Commissioners, who serve without compensation,
establish ARDC policies, appoint members of the ARDC Inquiry and Hearing
Boards and, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, appoint the
Commission's chief executive officer, the Administrator. The ARDC
Administrator is Mary Robinson. As of April 2002, the Commissioners of
the ARDC included Benedict Schwarz II, of West Dundee, as Chairman, Donn
F. Bailey, Ph.D. of Chicago, Tobias G. Barry of LaSalle, Patricia C.
Bobb of Chicago, John P. Kujawski of Belleville, James J. McDonough of
Chicago, and Brian McFadden of Springfield.
Retirement of James J. McDonough
On December 31, 2002, James J. McDonough concluded his third term as a nonlawyer member Commissioner. Mr. McDonough began his service as a Commissioner in 1992. He is Chairman of the Board and President of McDonough & Associates, an engineering/architectural consulting firm. He previously served as Commissioner of the Streets and Sanitation Department of the City of Chicago and Chief Administrator of the Chicago Skyway. Additionally, he served as Chairman of the Chicago Transit Authority and is a past chairman of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Appointment of John R. Carroll
Effective January 1, 2003, the Court appointed John R. Carroll of LaGrange as a nonlawyer member Commissioner for a term expiring December 31, 2005. A graduate of DePaul University, Mr. Carroll was president and owner of Carroll Scientific, Inc., a manufacturing firm, until his retirement in 2001. He replaces James J. McDonough as a Commissioner.
Retirement of Tobias G. Barry
On December 31, 2002, Tobias G. Barry resigned his position as a lawyer member Commissioner upon his appointment by the Court to the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District, where he had served previously for 20 years until 1994. He is also a past president of both the Illinois Judges Association and the Lawyers Assistance Program. Prior to his reappointment to the bench, Justice Barry practiced with the LaSalle law firm of Aplington, Kaufman, McClintock, Steele and Barry, Ltd. Admitted to practice law in 1952, he received his J.D. from the University of Notre Dame.
Appointment of R. Michael Henderson
Effective January 1, 2003, the Court appointed R. Michael Henderson of Peoria as a lawyer member Commissioner. A founding partner in the firm of Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius in Peoria, Commissioner Henderson has a litigation practice primarily in the areas of products liability, professional negligence and commercial law. He received his J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law and was licensed in Illinois in 1969. He is a past president of the Peoria County Bar Association, and a past member of the Board of Governors for the Illinois State Bar Association. Mr. Henderson was appointed to complete the term of Hon. Tobias G. Barry, which expires December 31, 2003.
Retirement of Neil K. Quinn
On December 31, 2002, Neil K. Quinn concluded his term on the Review Board. He has been a member of the Review Board since 1991. Mr. Quinn is a partner in the law firm of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, where he concentrates in the areas of general and professional liability and commercial litigation. He received his J.D. from DePaul University Law School and was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1957.
Appointment of Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
Effective January 1, 2003, the Court appointed Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. to a three-year term to serve on the Review Board. Mr. Zimmerman heads the Chicago law firm of Zimmerman and Associates, which concentrates in civil litigation, including class actions and medical malpractice. He received his law degree from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1996. Mr. Zimmerman was appointed to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Neil K. Quinn. His term expires December 31, 2005
Retirement of Martin H. Katz
On December 31, 2002, Martin H. Katz concluded his term on the Review Board. A member of the Review Board since 1991, Mr. Katz is a partner in the Rock Island law firm of Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger. Admitted in 1962, he received his J.D. from Northwestern University. His practice areas are civil trials and appeals; products liability; medical malpractice; insurance law; and business litigation. He is a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Appointment of Stuart R. Lefstein
Effective January 1, 2003, the Court appointed Stuart R. Lefstein to the Review Board for a term expiring December 31, 2005. Mr. Lefstein is of counsel to the law firm of Pappas & Schnell. Prior to joining the firm in 2000, he was name partner in another Rock Island law firm for 35 years. He is a litigator, and his practice areas are personal injury, products liability, professional malpractice, employment litigation and business crimes. He received his J.D. from the University of Michigan and was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1958. He is chair of the Illinois Supreme Court’s Third District Committee on Character and Fitness and is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He succeeds Martin H. Katz.
| VII. Relocation of Springfield Office |
In September 2002, the Commission relocated its Springfield office to better serve the residents and lawyers in central and southern Illinois. The new address is One North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 333, Springfield, IL 62701; Telephone: (217) 522-6838; Facsimile: (217) 522-2417 or (800) 252-8048.
| VIII. Financial Report |
The Commission engaged the services of Grant Thornton LLP to conduct an independent audit as required by Supreme Court Rule 751(e)(7). The audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2002, are attached.
The drop-off in growth of the Illinois lawyer population discussed at the outset of this report has negatively impacted Commission revenues which, for 2002, were $556,000 short of what had been projected in 2000, when the Commission asked the Court to raise the annual fee. Revenues for 2003 are expected to fall more than $768,000 below the 2000 projections.
The Registration staff are pursuing efforts to test whether lawyers who have failed to register or who have registered as inactive are still practicing, and for getting any lawyers found practicing back on the fee-paying rolls. In the meantime, the same economic trends that have contributed to diminishing revenues have resulted in a growing caseload.
Nevertheless, the present fee structure should fund operations through 2006. For the immediate future, the Commission will actively pursue initiatives designed to build revenues and will continue to look for any efficiencies that will help control expenses.
| 2002 FINANCIAL REPORT |
| COMMISSIONERS |
| REVIEW BOARD |
| HEARING BOARD |
| INQUIRY BOARD |
