Filed June 26, 2013

In re Hunter Hogan
Respondent-Appellant

Commission No. 2011PR00047

Synopsis of Review Board Report and Recommendation
(June 2013)

The Administrator charged Respondent with misconduct arising out his conduct in two matters Respondent handled while he was an Assistant State's Attorney in Carroll County. In the first count, the Administrator alleged that Respondent overreached his position of trust as a prosecutor when he began a personal relationship with a defendant, K.I., in a case he prosecuted. Respondent engaged in a discussion with K.I. while she was in jail. After K.I. was sentenced and released from custody, Respondent had another conversation of a personal nature. Respondent took K.I. out to dinner, and while in the car, touched her leg and kissed her. Respondent later sent K.I. four text messages. In the second count, Respondent, in his capacity as an Assistant States Attorney, charged A.F. with child pornography for taking pictures of J.C., who was 14 years old when the pictures were taken. During the course of the prosecution of the case, Respondent developed a personal relationship with J.C. and her family. As a result of that relationship, Respondent was removed from the case, but he continued the relationship with J.C. and her family. On February 22, 2010, when J.C. was 17 years old, she was at Respondent's apartment, and he kissed her and touched her breast.

Respondent failed to appear at his disciplinary hearing. The Hearing Board filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that Respondent engaged in overreaching his position of trust and authority as a prosecutor in both matters. The Hearing Board concluded that Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the 1990 Rules of Professional Conduct or 8.4(d) of the 2010 Rules because his conduct undermined the authority of the State's Attorney's Office and the criminal justice system. The Hearing Board also concluded that with respect to the second matter, Respondent engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Rule 8.4(b). The Hearing Board recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing Board's Report and Recommendation.

Upon review, the Review Board noted that Respondent's brief failed to comply with the Rules and failed to provide a comprehensible basis for the review of the Hearing Board's conclusions. The Review Board reviewed the record and found no reason to disturb the Hearing Board's findings or recommendation. The Review Board recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

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

In the Matter of:

HUNTER HOGAN,

Respondent-Appellant,

No. 6296751.

Commission No. 2011PR00047

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEW BOARD

The Administrator's charges in this matter arise out of Respondent's conduct in two matters handled while Respondent was an Assistant State's Attorney in Carroll County. In the first matter, the Administrator alleged that Respondent overreached his position of trust as an Assistant States Attorney and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice when he initiated and pursued a personal relationship with a defendant, K.I., in a case he prosecuted. Respondent engaged in inappropriate personal discussions with K.I. while she was in jail and after she had been placed on probation for engaging in underage drinking. While K.I. was on probation, Respondent took her out to dinner and offered to obtain an alcoholic drink for her in violation of her probation and in violation of the law. When he drove her home from the dinner, he kissed her and placed his hand on her leg. After she rebuked his advances, he sent her four text messages.

In the second matter, Respondent met J.C. in 2009 when, as an Assistant States Attorney, he assisted in charging A.F. with child pornography for taking pictures of J.C., who was 14 years old when the pictures were taken. During the course of the criminal matter, Respondent initiated and pursued a personal relationship with J.C. and her family. After he was removed from the criminal case, he continued the personal relationship. In February 2010, when

PAGE 2:

J.C. was 17 years old and Respondent was 34 years old, he invited J.C. to his apartment where he kissed her and touched her breast. The Administrator charged Respondent with engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, with overreaching, and with engaging in criminal conduct, namely aggravated criminal sexual abuse.

Although Respondent was provided with adequate notice of the hearing, Respondent failed to appear at his disciplinary hearing. Numerous witnesses testified at the hearing, including J.C., K.I. and Dr. Henry, the Administrator's expert who examined Respondent and opined that Respondent suffered from a depressive disorder and prominent narcissistic personality features. Following the hearing, the Hearing Board filed its Report and Recommendation. The Hearing Board's Report contains a more detailed factual summary, which we adopt. The Hearing Board concluded that the Administrator proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in overreaching his position of trust and authority as a prosecutor in both matters. The Hearing Board concluded that Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the 1990 Rules of Professional Conduct or 8.4(d) of the 2010 Rules because his conduct undermined the authority of the State's Attorney's Office and the criminal justice system. The Hearing Board also concluded that with respect to J.C., Respondent engaged in criminal conduct, aggravated criminal sexual abuse in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-16(f). The Hearing Board found that this violation of the criminal statute reflected adversely on Respondent's trustworthiness and fitness to practice law and consequently the Board concluded Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b).

The Hearing Board noted that Respondent used his position of trust and authority to take advantage of vulnerable girls. He has not acknowledged his misconduct. Given Dr. Henry's opinion that without treatment Respondent is at risk to engage in similar conduct in the future, especially with vulnerable or susceptible clients, the Hearing Board concluded that

PAGE 3:

Respondent is a threat to the public. The Hearing Board recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing Board's Report and Recommendation. He filed a brief, but his brief fails to comply with Commission Rule 302. Respondent's brief is incomprehensible. Given his refusal to appear at his disciplinary hearing and his inability to file a brief that conforms to the Rules or provides a comprehensible basis for consideration of the Hearing Board's Report and Recommendation, there are no issues for us to consider on appeal. Moreover, we have carefully reviewed the Hearing Board's Report and Recommendation and the record and we see no reason to disturb the Hearing Board's findings and recommendation.

On March 28, 2013, the Court suspended Respondent until further order pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings.

We approve and confirm the findings of the Hearing Board and recommend to the Court that Respondent be disbarred.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard A. Green
Robert M. Henderson
Gordon B. Nash, Jr.

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and keeper of the records, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Review Board, approved by each Panel member, entered in the above entitled cause of record filed in my office on June 26, 2013.

Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois