IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
In the Matter of:
Supreme Court No. M.R.26214
Commission No. 2013PR00082
STATEMENT OF CHARGES PURSUANT
TO SUPREME COURT RULE 762(a)
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Sharon D. Opryszek, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a), states that on the date Jason William Smiekel ("Movant") filed a motion requesting that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, the Administrator was investigating the conduct that formed the basis for Movantís conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for the offense of use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire in the matter entitled U.S. v. Jason W. Smiekel, docket number 11 CR 50055-1.1 Had Movantís 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 following conclusions of misconduct:
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Records of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, would have established the following facts:
1. On August 16, 2011, a grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois returned a seven-count superseding indictment against Movant in U.S. v. Jason W. Smiekel, docket number
1On November 15, 2011, the Court suspended Movant from the practice of law until further order of the Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 774, in the matter of In re Jason William Smiekel, M.R. 24880, Commission Number 2011PR00110.
11 CR 50055. Counts One and Two of the superseding indictment charged Movant with the use of interstate commerce facilities, a cellular telephone or Lexus automobile, in the commission of a murder-for-hire on the date of August 1, 2011. Counts Three and Four involved charges based on events that allegedly occurred on August 2, 2011 and Counts Five, Six and Seven involved events on August 4, 2011. All seven counts charged Movant with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
2. On April 12, 2012, Movant agreed to enter into a voluntary plea of guilty to Count Three, which charged that on August 2, 2011, Movant used his cellular telephone to communicate a plan to pay money as consideration for a murder-for-hire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
3. As part of that plea, Movant admitted that on August 1, 2011, Movant spoke with an undercover agent and identified the intended victim of the murder-for-hire. Movant agreed to pay $20,000.00 to an undercover agent for the killing of the intended victim, and to provide an initial payment of $1,500.00 and a photograph of the intended victim to the undercover agent on August 2, 2011. On August 2, 2011, Movant used his cellular telephone to call the undercover agent and arrange a meeting wherein Movant gave $1,500.00 and a photograph of the intended murder victim to the undercover officer.
4. On December 4, 2012, Movant pled guilty to Count Three of the superseding indictment in case number 11 CR 50055, and was sentenced to 102 months imprisonment in the United States Bureau of Prisons. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed pursuant to the agreed plea.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF MISCONDUCT
5. By reason of the conduct described above, Movant has engaged in the following misconduct:
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(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.
Sharon D. Opryszek