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

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Robert J. Verrando, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a), states that on the date Deron Baker Elliott ("Movant") filed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, a complaint was pending against Movant before the Hearing Board charging him with conduct that formed the basis for his conviction of the offense of assault in Morris County, New Jersey, with making offensive statements to Illinois bar admissions and ARDC personnel and with failing to provide requested information to the ARDC. Had Movant’s conduct 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 misconduct indicated below:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Criminal Conduct Involving Assault on a Police Officer

Records of the Superior Court of New Jersey in the matter entitled The State of New Jersey v. Deron B. Elliott, case number 08-0337, would establish that:

PAGE 2:

1. On February 10, 2008, Movant verbally assaulted several people in a public park in Morristown, New Jersey, and shouted racist epithets. When a police officer attempted to intervene, Movant attacked the officer, used a disparaging ethnic epithet, poured hot coffee on him and threw him to the ground. Movant then wrestled with several other police officers before being arrested and incarcerated.

2. On April 8, 2008, Movant was charged by indictment in the Superior Court of New Jersey in the matter entitled The State of New Jersey v. Deron B. Elliott, case number 08-0337, with the offense of aggravated criminal assault on a law enforcement officer in violation of New Jersey Statutes 2C:12-1b(5)(1) and resisting arrest in violation of New Jersey Statutes 2C:29-2a(3)(a), in connection with the February 10, 2008 incidents.

3. On September 15, 2008, Movant entered a plea of guilty in case number 08-0337 to the offense of simple assault and was sentenced to 219 days of incarceration.

4. At no time did Movant notify the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of his conviction, as required by Supreme Court Rule 761(a).

B. Offensive and Threatening Statements to Illinois Personnel
and Failure to Provide Requested Information to ARDC

The testimony of employees of the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission would establish that:

5. In March 2009, Movant made several telephone calls to the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar in an attempt to learn his 1996 Multistate Bar Examination score. During the telephone conferences, several Board employees informed Movant that the Board was not authorized to release that information.

PAGE 3:

6. On March 23, 2009, during a telephone conference with Board employee Linda Giger, Movant cursed Giger, called her a criminal and threatened to sue the Board. Movant also stated that he was descended from "the pilgrims" and that "you don’t want to mess with a pilgrim."

7. In April 2009, Movant again telephoned the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar, spoke with Board employee Martha Hicks-Robinson, and told her in an angry tone that he was on his way to her office to get his examination score, that the score was his property, that he had a right to it and that if Hicks-Robinson did not release it, he would have her arrested and charged with obstruction of justice and theft.

8. In April 2009, the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission initiated an investigation of Movant’s communications with the Board of Admissions and requested information from him. At no time did Movant provide information to the Administrator regarding the matter.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF MISCONDUCT

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

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

2. failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(1);

3. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3);

 

PAGE 4:

4. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5);

5. failing to notify the Administrator of his conviction in writing within 30 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction in violation of Supreme Court Rule 761(a); and

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