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

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Marita C. Sullivan, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a), states that on the date Albert Liberfarb ("Movant") signed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, a two-count complaint was pending before the Commission Hearing Board alleging that Movant assisted a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and shared legal fees with that nonlawyer. If the cause proceeded to a hearing, the Administrator would have introduced the evidence set forth below, which would have clearly and convincingly established the conclusions of misconduct set forth below:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Movant’s admissions, the testimony of Movant’s former office manager, Alex Boltin, and Movant’s former secretaries, Olena Kucher and Natalya Shatayeva, and account records from Amcore Bank, would establish the following:

1. In May 2005, Movant learned that this Court had entered an order suspending attorney Alexander Goldman ("Goldman") for three years and until further order of this Court, In re Alexander Goldman, M.R 21076, 04 CH 92 (May 20, 2005), and that Goldman’s office space was available in a three-office suite in Skokie, Illinois, leased by Alex Boltin ("Boltin"). At that

PAGE 2:

time, Movant approached Boltin, a nonlawyer who had not completed high school, and Movant and Boltin agreed that Movant would move his law offices into Goldman’s former space. At that time, Movant and Boltin also agreed that Boltin would function as Movant’s office manager, and that Boltin would help run the law practice, including meeting with clients, negotiating personal injury settlements with insurance companies, supervising any support staff, sending out correspondence and overseeing firm bank accounts. Movant and Boltin agreed that Boltin would be paid out of the legal fees obtained from the settlement of personal injury claims.

2. In May and June 2005, Movant and Boltin went to Amcore Bank and opened a client trust account and a business account, respectively, for Movant’s firm. Movant authorized Boltin to make deposits into, and issue checks from, both accounts. Movant further authorized Boltin to be a signatory on the business account, and to use a signature stamp containing a reproduction of Movant’s signature on checks issued from the client trust account.

3. From May 2005 through December 2008, prospective personal injury clients met with Boltin, who conducted an intake interview and had the client execute an attorney-client agreement in which the client agreed to retain Movant’s firm to pursue their personal injury claim. Boltin also had the client execute a power of attorney which, among other things, permitted the firm to sign the client’s name on any release and settlement draft. Movant was not present when Boltin met with prospective clients, and the clients were signed up without talking to Movant.

4. From May 2005 through December 2008, Boltin communicated with clients and insurance carriers in order to process and settle personal injury claims after a personal injury client retained the firm. Boltin also contacted insurance companies that insured adverse parties, advised those companies that Movant’s firm represented the injured party, and attempted to

PAGE 3:

negotiate a settlement of the matter with the insurance carriers. Movant did not meet with clients, verify information obtained by Boltin, investigate the merits of the clients’ claims, negotiate with insurance carriers, review any resulting settlement offers, or confer with clients regarding the acceptance or rejection of such offers.

5. From May 2005 through December 2008, Boltin endorsed and deposited settlement drafts which the firm received in settlement of personal injury matters into the client trust account at Amcore Bank, and, during that same time period, Boltin regularly transferred and deposited funds from the client trust account into the firm’s business account. From June 2005 through December 2008, Boltin received payments from the firm totaling $887,739. During the same time period, Respondent received payments from the firm totaling $23,725.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF MISCONDUCT

6. By reason of the conduct described above, Movant has engaged in the following misconduct:

1. assisting a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Rule 5.5(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

2. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer and the firm in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

3. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer in violation of Rule 5.3(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

4. sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule 5.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

PAGE 4:

5. conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

6. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and

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