STATEMENT OF CHARGES PURSUANT
TO SUPREME COURT RULE 762(a)

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Lea S. Black, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a), states that on the date Ronald A. Tash (hereinafter "Movant") signed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, the Administrator’s complaint containing charges related to Movant’s conversion of an amount in excess of $200,000 was pending before the Hearing Board. If those charges had proceeded to hearing, the evidence set forth below would clearly and convincingly establish the misconduct described below:

DESCRIPTION OF MOVANT’S MISCONDUCT
Misconduct relating to Movant’s conversion of at least $280,000 from Claude Brunet

Commission records, bank records from Movant’s personal account and Telford Investments’ business account, and Movant’s admissions would establish that:

1. Sometime prior to March 2001, Movant agreed to represent Claude Brunet in matters relating to Brunet’s estate plan. During the course of Movant’s representation, Movant learned information about Brunet’s financial condition and was given access to Brunet’s funds.

2. Brunet was the sole owner of a business, Telford Investments, Incorporated, which owned shares of stock in Efoora, Incorporated.

PAGE 2:

3. On March 8, 2001, Movant opened a bank account on behalf of Telford Investments. Movant was the sole signatory on the account.

4. Between September 9, 2003, and March 2004, Movant deposited a total of $465,000 into the Telford account.

5. On various occasions between September 9, 2003, and January 8, 2007, Movant made wire transfers and drew numerous checks on Telford’s account in payment of his own business and or personal expenses. The checks and the wire transfers totaled at least $230,000.

7. On January 8, 2007, Telford’s account was closed by the bank when the account balance fell to zero.

8. In January 2007, Brunet died. Brunet’s daughter, Tanya Brunet, was named Executrix of Brunet’s estate.

9. At no time did Brunet or his daughter authorize Movant to use any portion of the $230,000 described in paragraph five, above, for Movant’s own business or personal use.

10. As a result of the conduct described above, Movant has engaged in the following misconduct:

1. conversion;

2. failure to hold property of clients or third persons separate from the lawyer’s own property in violation of Rule 1.15(a) 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 that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

PAGE 3:

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