Filed December 9, 2009

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

In the Matter of:

DENNIS R. SCHUMACHER,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 3124986.

Commission No. 07 CH 20

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD

INTRODUCTION

The hearing in this matter was held on May 4, 5 and 6 2009, before a panel consisting of Joseph A. Bartholomew, Chair, James P. Fieweger and David Winter. Wendy J. Muchman appeared as Counsel for the Administrator. David J. O'Connor appeared as Counsel for Respondent. Respondent was also present.

PLEADINGS

On April 20, 2009, the Administrator filed a four-count Third Amended Complaint against Respondent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b). The Complaint alleged Respondent committed a battery of a sexual nature with a client and a client's wife and engaged in improper conduct of a sexual nature with two other clients. Respondent filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on July 8, 2008, in which he denied most of the factual allegations and denied all the allegations of misconduct.1

THE EVIDENCE

The Administrator presented the testimony of Respondent, Dirk Patrick Miller, Leah Miller, Missy Osborne Clark, Sandra R. Day-Shenefelt, Linda Mae Wedig, Teresa Brevoort, Michelle Lynette Johnson and Stephanie Wendt and Exhibits 1-18. Respondent presented his

PAGE 2:

testimony, the testimony of Beverly Schumacher, Jonathan Arthur Ortman, Becky Riffe, Dan Doyle, John Barsanti, Paul Logli, Ron Jacobson, Joe McGraw and Robin Minnis and Exhibits 1-42, 44-48. The testimony of the witnesses, the Exhibits, and the admitted allegations of the Complaint established the following facts.

Count I

Sara R. Day-Shenefelt

Sara R. Day-Shenefelt is a certified nurse's assistant and is presently employed at Heartland Home Nursing where she has worked for 10 years. (Tr. 243). Sara is paid $21 for each home visit she does. (Tr. 281). The number of home visits Sara does during the course of a week depends on how much work is available and Sara currently visits four homes. (Tr. 282).

Sara is married to Paul Shenefelt and was previously married to Donald Day. (Tr. 243-44). Sara and Donald adopted a child while they were married named Caleb Day. (Tr. 244). Caleb is Donald's nephew and presently resides with Sara. (Tr. 244). Sara met Paul in May 2005 and they were in a romantic relationship in June 2005. (Tr. 276).

In January 2005 Sara hired a lawyer named Alan Cargerman to file for divorce from Donald. (Tr. 245). In April 2005 Mr. Cargerman withdrew from her case because he became a judge and Sara hired Respondent. (Tr. 245-46; Adm. Ex. 2 at 13-17). Sara was prescribed Paxil and Lexapro by a medical doctor in April 2005 to treat anxiety and depression and she was taking both medications when Respondent began representing her. (Tr. 302).

The first time Sara met with Respondent they had a meeting in his personal office on April 29, 2005. (Tr. 246-47). The door to Respondent's personal office was closed while they met and they discussed Sara's concerns about losing custody of Caleb because he is Donald's blood relative. (Tr. 248-50). Sara also told Respondent that Donald was entering her house

PAGE 3:

when she was not there and leaving her notes, which made her worried that Donald might harm her or Caleb. (Tr. 248-50).

Sara also told Respondent during their first meeting that she met Donald when she was 13 years old and Respondent asked her if she was sexually active at that time. (Tr. 249). Sara told Respondent that she was sexually active when she was 13 and that she had been sexually abused as a child. (Tr. 249). Sara testified that she was sexually abused by five different men at separate times in her childhood and she has named all of her abusers except for one who is still alive. (Tr. 289-90).

In May 2005 Respondent filed a petition for temporary relief on her behalf so that Sara could continue to have custody of Caleb and receive money from Donald for her living expenses. (Tr. 251; Adm. Ex. 2 at 19-20). A hearing on the petition for temporary relief was scheduled for June 21, 2005. (Adm. Ex. 2 at 24). Sara met with Respondent at his law office on June 15, 2005, in the evening, to prepare for the hearing. (Tr. 251-52). Sara had not received or prepared a financial affidavit prior to meeting with Respondent on June 15, 2005, and did not know what a financial affidavit was at that time. (Tr. 252).

On the evening of June 15, 2005, Respondent met Sara in the lobby and walked her back to his personal office. (Tr. 253). On the way back to Respondent's office Sara saw Robin Minnis at her desk in her office. (Tr. 253). Sara recognized Ms. Minnis because Ms. Minnis used to be a judge in Ogle County and Sara had appeared before her. (Tr. 307-8). Sara followed Respondent into his personal office and the door to the office was shut during their meeting which lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. (Tr. 254). No one else was present in Respondent's personal office during their meeting. (Tr. 254).

When they entered Respondent's personal office Respondent went behind his desk while Sara put her things down and got out some letters from Donald that she wanted Respondent to

PAGE 4:

review. (Tr. 255, 262-63, 303-4). The letters contained sexual connotations and showed that Donald was almost stalking Sara. (Tr. 255, 262-63, 303-4).

Respondent said "You look beautiful today," and Sara said, "Me? Chunker Butt?" (Tr. 255). Respondent then said, "You smell so good," and Sara sat down. (Tr. 255). Respondent asked Sara if she wanted something to drink and Sara said "No." (Tr. 255-56). Respondent then walked out of the office and came back with a bottle of water and shut the door. (Tr. 256).

Respondent went behind his desk again and put his hands behind his head and leaned back and said "Oh, I have had a hard day today" and Sara replied "Oh really?" (Tr. 256). He stood up and said, "Oh, I have had such a hard day" and asked Sara if he could have a hug. (Tr. 256). Sara replied "Dennis" and Respondent said, "Can I just have a hug?" and Sara replied "Okay." (Tr. 256). Sara got up and went over to where Respondent was standing and hugged him. (Tr. 257). When Sara tried to let go Respondent held onto her and Sara asked him, "Dennis, what are you doing?" and then Sara said "That's enough." (Tr. 257).

Respondent started pushing his groin up against Sara and "humping" her, but she and Respondent both had all their clothes on. (Tr. 257). Sara stumbled and fell against the wall and Respondent put his hands on Sara's breasts and simulated turning Sara's breasts like a faucet. (Tr. 257-58). Sara said, "Okay, Dennis, that's enough," but Respondent kept pressing himself up against Sara and said, "Oh, you don't know what you do to me" and then Respondent put his tongue in Sara's mouth. (Tr. 257).

Sara backed up and Respondent said, "You don't know what you do to me." (Tr. 258). Respondent then took Sara's hand and put it over his pants on his semi-erect penis and began rubbing her hand on his penis over his pants. (Tr. 258). Respondent said "Oh, you don't know what you do to me" and "I could lay you right there." (Tr. 258). Then Respondent "snapped right out of it" and walked back over to his desk. (Tr. 258). Sara testified that the incident lasted

PAGE 5:

for "minutes" but that it "was way too long" and it reminded her of being sexually abused as a child. (Tr. 259). Sara did not scream because she did not know whether Ms. Minnis was still in the office and she was afraid it might make Respondent angry. (Tr. 259, 316). Sara was "freaked out" and dumbfounded. (Tr. 259).

Sara told Respondent she had to go to the bathroom and then left Respondent's personal office and went to the bathroom down the hallway. (Tr. 258). On her way to the bathroom she passed Ms. Minnis' office, but Sara did not look in to see if Ms. Minnis was there. (Tr. 260). Sara went into the bathroom and took a deep breath because she did not know what to do. (Tr. 258, 260). Sara did not have the money to hire another lawyer. (Tr. 260). She had borrowed the money to hire Mr. Cargerman from her employer and Respondent received the remainder of the money Mr. Cargerman had not used when she hired Respondent. (Tr. 260). Sara wanted to get out of Respondent's office, but she did not leave. (Tr. 320).

Sara went back into the Respondent's personal office after going to the bathroom. (Tr. 261, 321). On her way back to Respondent's office she passed Ms. Minnis' office again, but Sara did not look in to see if she was there. (Tr. 313-14, 327). Sara also did not know whether the door next to the bathroom she used was a door to the outside or a door to another office. (Tr. 321).

When she returned to his personal office Respondent was acting normal and professional. (Tr. 261, 321). Sara asked Respondent if he had read the letters from Donald that she had left out for him and Respondent replied that he had not. (Tr. 261). Sara told Respondent that there was "something right down there" on one of the letters she wanted him to read and Respondent said, "Oh, right down there" in a "bedroom" voice. (Tr. 262). Then Respondent began acting professionally again, but was not interested in the letters. (Tr. 262-63).

PAGE 6:

Respondent made a telephone call to Sara's father in law, Jimmy Day, about the real estate taxes for a house Sara and Donald bought. (Tr. 264). While Respondent was on the phone with Jimmy, he received another call, but when Respondent tried to answer the other call he was unable to. (Tr. 264). After Respondent got off the phone with Jimmy, Ms. Minnis knocked on Respondent's door and came in to his office. (Tr. 265). Ms. Minnis told Respondent she was leaving for the night and handed him some papers. (Tr. 265).

After Ms. Minnis left, Sara heard some noise in the lobby. (Tr. 265). Sara told Respondent that she wanted to keep their relationship professional and that all she wanted was to get her divorce completed. (Tr. 266). When Sara and Respondent walked out of his personal office they saw Ms. Schumacher standing down the hallway. (Tr. 266). Ms. Schumacher said to Respondent, "Why didn't you answer that phone when I called you? I had to come all the way down here." (Tr. 266-67). Ms. Schumacher was ranting at Respondent and Sara felt embarrassed. (Tr. 267). Sara "almost stuck up" for Respondent and told Ms. Schumacher that Respondent was on the phone with her father in law. (Tr. 329). Sara then left and told Respondent she would see him tomorrow because she had paperwork that she needed to fill out. (Tr. 267).

At some point during her meeting with Respondent on June 15, 2005, Sara took Respondent's picture while he was sitting behind his desk. (Tr. 293-94). Sara is a "scrapbooker" and carries her camera with her all the time. (Tr. 294, 342). Sara does not remember at what point during her meeting with Respondent she took his picture and she does not know where the picture of Respondent is now, but is fairly certain she threw it out. (Tr. 294, 304, 343).

Sara called Respondent's office three times on June 16, 2005, and spoke to Gwen Faley. (Tr. 268, 330, Resp. Ex. 14). Sara did not recall why she hung up and called Respondent's office

PAGE 7:

back twice after her initial call, but she thought it was because Ms. Faley had to go to another phone. (Tr. 330-31; Resp. Ex. 4). The three calls were consecutive starting at 11:17 a.m. for six minutes, 11:25 a.m. for six minutes and ending at 11:29 a.m. for one minute. (Resp. Ex. 14).

During their phone conversation Sara told Ms. Faley exactly what had occurred in Respondent's personal office the previous evening. (Tr. 268). Once Sara arrived at Respondent's office on June 16, 2005, she spoke to Stephanie Wendt in the lobby. (Tr. 268-69). Sara then told Stephanie exactly what had occurred in Respondent's personal office the previous evening. (Tr. 269). Sara also told Stephanie that she did not want to be left alone with Respondent. (Tr. 269).

Stephanie and Bethany White went into the law library at Respondent's office with Sara and began assisting her in filling out a financial affidavit. (Tr. 269-70; Adm. Ex. 5). Stephanie, Ms. White and Sara were in the law library for approximately a half an hour completing the financial affidavit and Respondent knocked on the door at one point and raised his eyebrows at Sara. (Tr. 271). Once the affidavit was completed Sara signed it and Stephanie notarized her signature. (Tr. 270; Adm. Ex. 5).

After Sara left Respondent's office on June 16, 2005, she received a voicemail message on her cell phone from Respondent in which he apologized for his conduct, but Sara did not save the message. (Tr. 272, 304-5, 333). Subsequently, Sara and Respondent spoke on the phone and Sara told Respondent that he made her feel cheap and that he should not treat her like that. (Tr. 272-74, 331). Respondent told Sara that he was sorry and would keep their relationship professional. (Tr. 274-75, 332). Sara saved one voice mail message Respondent left for her on June 16, 2005, but there was nothing in the message to suggest that anything occurred between Respondent and Sara. (Tr. 334-36).

PAGE 8:

On June 17, 2005, Sara reported the incident that occurred with Respondent on June 15, 2005, to the Illinois State Police. (Tr. 277; Adm. Ex. 15). No criminal charges were brought against Respondent. (Tr. 289). Sara told the police that she was not interested in Respondent losing his law license or getting money from him, but she wanted to prevent other women from being subject to Respondent's behavior and unwanted advances. (Tr. 344).

Sergeant Joseph Fiorini interviewed Sara over the pone on June 17, 2005, and taped the conversation. (Tr. 277; Adm. Ex. 15). The transcript of the taped conversation between Sara and Sergeant Fiorini reflects that Sara told Sergeant Fiorini that during her meeting with Respondent on the evening of June 15, 2005, Respondent told her how good she smelled and how beautiful she was and Sara replied to Respondent that she was "a chunker butt." (Adm. Ex. 15 at 3). Sara also said Respondent told her he had had a hard day and asked Sara for a hug. (Adm. Ex. 15 at 3).

Sara further stated to Sergeant Fiorini that when she hugged Respondent he grabbed her "bottom," pushed his penis towards her and rocked back and forth against her until he became "semi-erected." (Adm. Ex. 15 at 3). Respondent then put his hands on Sara's breasts and began turning his hands on her breasts like a faucet. (Adm. Ex. 15 at 3). Sara also stated that Respondent kissed her and put his tongue in her mouth and she told Respondent to stop and excused herself to go to the bathroom. (Adm. Ex. 15 at 3).

Respondent withdrew from Sara's case on June 21, 2005, during the court appearance for the hearing on the petition for temporary relief. (Tr. 272; Adm. Ex. 2 at 26). Sara did not want Respondent to withdraw from her case, but Respondent told her it was the professional thing to do. (Tr. 338). Sara asked Respondent to tell her in front of her friend who accompanied Sara to court that day exactly why he was withdrawing from her case. (Tr. 338). Respondent told Sara she needed emotional and psychiatric help and that he thought she wrote the letters she said were

PAGE 9:

from Donald, which upset Sara. (Tr. 339). Sara thought about telling the judge at the court appearance what Respondent did to her, but she did not because Respondent was a popular and well known attorney and she felt embarrassed and afraid of describing the incident in front of a courtroom full of people. (Tr. 340, 347-48).

Sara met with a civil attorney about filing a lawsuit against Respondent a few weeks after the July 15, 2005 incident. (Tr. 294). Sara told her best friend, Julie Wiegand, that if she went forward with filing a suit against Respondent the civil attorney would want to sue Respondent for money. (Tr. 300-1). Sara also told Ms. Wiegand how she might spend any proceeds that came from filing a lawsuit against Respondent. (Tr. 301-2). Sara testified that she does not care about the money and she has not filed a lawsuit against Respondent. (Tr. 352-53, 354). Sara does not know whether she will file a lawsuit against Respondent in the future. (Tr. 352-53, 354).

Sara's first contact with the ARDC occurred when Counsel for the Administrator contacted her and Sara did not know how Counsel for the Administrator got her name. (Tr. 278). Sara does not know and has not spoken to Teresa Brevoort, Michelle Johnson or Leah Miller. (Tr. 278).

Stephanie Wendt

Stephanie Wendt has a real estate license and is currently employed as a real estate salesperson at ReMax of Rock Valley. (Tr. 551). Prior to that Stephanie worked as Respondent's personal secretary for five years. (Tr. 552). Stephanie is married to Ken Wendt who has worked for the Ogle County Sheriff's department as a detective for thirteen years. (Tr. 552). Ken knows Respondent. (Tr. 552).

On June 16, 2005, Sara came into Respondent's office between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. for an appointment with Respondent. (Tr. 554). Stephanie approached Sara and told her that

PAGE 10:

Respondent was running late and that Sara could sit and wait for him. (Tr. 555). Before Sara came into the office that day she called the paralegal at Respondent's office, Gwen Faley. (Tr. 555). Stephanie had spoken to Ms. Faley and was aware that Sara was upset and making sexual allegations against Respondent. (Tr. 555-56).

Sara was getting upset while she waited in the lobby for Respondent and when Stephanie told Sara that Respondent would be a few more minutes Sara pulled Stephanie aside. (Tr. 556). Sara told Stephanie that the evening before Respondent had asked Sara for a hug and that she gave Respondent a hug and at that time Respondent "stuck his tongue down her throat and placed her hand on his penis." (Tr. 556-57). Sara also said that Respondent told her "It could be quick" and Sara said no and that she did not want to because other people could be in the office. (Tr. 558). Sara was rushing when she told Stephanie about what happened with Respondent because she was afraid Respondent was going to come out. (Tr. 558).

Stephanie thought it was odd that Sara suddenly presented her with this information because they did not know each other. (Tr. 566-67). Stephanie also thought it was strange that Sara did not run out of Respondent's office when she had the opportunity to and that she had not called the police. (Tr. 567). Stephanie thought Sara accurately described Respondent's demeanor and who he was. (Tr. 570). Stephanie wanted to help Sara out if the incident with Respondent happened and part of her believed what Sara said, but Stephanie struggled with the fact that Sara did things that Stephanie did not think she would do if she were the victim. (Tr. 570).

After speaking to Sara, Stephanie went back to Respondent's office to tell him that Sara was in a hurry and that she needed to go. (Tr. 558). Respondent asked Stephanie to fill out the financial affidavit with Sara and the intern, Bethany White. (Tr. 558-59). Stephanie did not tell Respondent about the allegations Sara had made because she was in shock and did not know how

PAGE 11:

to handle the situation. (Tr. 559-60). Stephanie and Ms. White then met with Sara in the law library and filled out her financial affidavit. (Tr. 559; Adm. Ex. 5). At one point Respondent stuck his head in the library and told Sara that he was not going to be able to meet with her and to finish the affidavit with Stephanie and Ms. White. (Tr. 560).

After they finished filling out the financial affidavit and Sara left the office, Sara called Respondent's office again and spoke to Stephanie. (Tr. 560). Sara described the incident that occurred with Respondent the previous evening in more detail. (Tr. 560). Sara said that Respondent attempted to grab her breasts and that he turned her around and rubbed himself against her. (Tr. 561). Sara also said that she heard a loud noise at one point and Respondent told her it was the computer in his closet and that she excused herself to go to the bathroom. (Tr. 561). That evening when Stephanie went home she told her husband, Ken, about the incident with Sara. (Tr. 562). Stephanie did not know how to handle the situation and was upset and in shock. (Tr. 562).

Sara called Respondent's office again the following day, June 17, 2005, and asked to speak to Stephanie. (Tr. 563). Sara told Stephanie that she told her boss about what Respondent did and that her boss was going to hire an attorney. (Tr. 563). Sara asked Stephanie if she could file legal charges without filing criminal charges against Respondent and Stephanie told Sara she did not know and that Sara should call the police. (Tr. 563).

After she spoke to Sara, Stephanie called Ken and told him that Sara kept calling her. (Tr. 563-64). Ken told her she should tell Respondent about her conversations with Sara and Stephanie told Ken that she did not know how to do that. (Tr. 563). Ken told Stephanie he would tell Respondent what happened for her and he spoke to Respondent that afternoon. (Tr. 564). Respondent called Stephanie shortly after speaking with Ken and asked her to get Sara on the phone. (Tr. 569). Respondent indicated that he was no longer going to be able to represent

PAGE 12:

Sara. (Tr. 569). Stephanie did not have any further contact with Sara after June 17, 2005. (Tr. 564).

Stephanie has discussed Sara's allegations against Respondent with Respondent on multiple occasions. (Tr. 564). Stephanie also discussed the matter with Counsel for Respondent. (Tr. 564). Stephanie left Respondent's employ a couple months after the incident with Sara occurred. (Tr. 565). The incident with Sara had "a little" to do with why Stephanie left because it was a stressful situation, but she also left for her own personal gain to become a real estate agent. (Tr. 565).

Beverly Schumacher

Beverly Schumacher is Respondent's wife and the office manager of his law office. She testified that it is not unusual for Respondent to schedule a couple evening appointments a week because she and Respondent do not work on Fridays or Saturday mornings. (Tr. 591). Ms. Schumacher is generally present during all of Respondent's evening appointments to answer the phone for him and assist him with anything he needs (Tr. 591-92).

On June 15, 2005, Ms. Schumacher and Respondent had plans to play volleyball at the neighbor's house at 7:00 p.m. (Tr. 592-93). When Respondent was not home by 7:15 p.m., Ms. Schumacher tried to reach him at the office and on his cell phone. (Tr. 593). When she was unable to get in touch with him she decided to go into the office and do some work because she did not think they were going to play volleyball. (Tr. 593). Ms. Schumacher arrived at Respondent's law office at 7:30 p.m. and observed that Respondent was still meeting with a client. (Tr. 590-91, 593, 602).

Shortly after her arrival she saw Respondent and Sara and Sara did not appear disheveled, shocked or upset. (Tr. 594). Ms. Schumacher asked Respondent why he did not answer the phone and Sara told Ms. Schumacher that Respondent had been on the phone with her father in

PAGE 13:

law. (Tr. 594). Ms. Schumacher did not "rip into" Respondent and she knew there was a reason Respondent did not answer the phone. (Tr. 594-95). Ms. Schumacher is very quiet and does not yell when she is angry. (Tr. 595).

In the late morning of June 16, 2005, Ms. Schumacher saw Sara again at Respondent's law office. (Tr. 596). Ms. Schumacher had a brief conversation with Sara because Ms. Schumacher had to get a check from her. (Tr. 596-97). Sara told her she was upset that she had to wait for Respondent, but did not make any other complaints about Respondent to Ms. Schumacher. (Tr. 596-97).

Robin Minnis

Robin Minnis is currently employed as an "elbow clerk" for Justice Vicki Wright of the Third Appellate District. (Tr. 676-77). Ms. Minnis first worked for Respondent in 1983 when she was in law school as an intern at the Ogle County State's Attorneys Office. (Tr. 677). Ms. Minnis joined Respondent's law firm in 2000 and worked there until December 2007. (Tr. 677). Ms. Minnis considers Respondent a good friend. (Tr. 691-92).

Ms. Minnis' personal office was adjacent to Respondent's personal office. (Tr. 682-83; Resp. Ex. 4). Ms. Minnis could tell if someone else was in Respondent's office with him because she could hear voices but not the exact words that were being said. (Tr. 683-84). From her personal office Ms. Minnis could also see the front area of Respondent's law office where clients entered. (Tr. 682, 688-89; Resp. Ex. 41).

Ms. Minnis was working late on the evening of June 15, 2005. (Tr. 681). Ms. Minnis saw Sara come in to the office and Ms. Minnis let Respondent know that Sara was there to see him. (Tr. 682). Approximately 20 minutes later Ms. Minnis saw Sara go past her office to use the bathroom and a few moments later Sara passed Ms. Minnis' office again and went back to Respondent's personal office. (Tr. 689). Ms. Minnis looked up and made brief eye contact with

PAGE 14:

Sara when Sara returned from the bathroom. (Tr. 689). Sara did not say anything to Ms. Minnis when they made eye contact and Sara did not look upset, shocked or like she had been crying. (Tr. 689-90).

Ms. Minnis did not hear anything unusual from Respondent's office while Respondent met with Sara. (Tr. 697). Ms. Schumacher arrived at the office that evening approximately 10 minutes before Ms. Minnis left. (Tr. 690). It was common for Ms. Schumacher to come back to the office and work when Respondent worked late. (Tr. 690).

Ms. Minnis walked by Respondent's office when she was leaving and his door was closed. (Tr. 693). Ms. Minnis always knocked on Respondent's door to let him know she was leaving when they were the only people in the office. (Tr. 693). When Respondent was meeting with a client Ms. Minnis would knock first and then enter Respondent's office. (Tr. 693-94). Ms. Minnis was not certain whether she knocked on Respondent's door the evening of June 15, 2005, to let him know that she was leaving or if she just told Ms. Schumacher that she was leaving. (Tr. 691, 693, 697).

Respondent

Respondent represented Sara in her dissolution of marriage matter and first met with her on April 29, 2005. (Tr. 38, 41, 706-7; Adm. Ex. 3 at 7, 32). Respondent testified at his sworn statement on October 16, 2006, that he did not recall anything in particular about his first meeting with Sara, but after reviewing his calendar for June 15, 2005, which stated "Sara Day prepped for hearing" Respondent recalled that he gave Sara a financial affidavit at their first meeting, because he would not be able to prep her for the hearing without it. (Tr. 708, 808-10).

Respondent met with Sara again on May 20, 2005, and filed a petition for temporary relief on her behalf. (Tr. 48-49). Sara told Respondent she was concerned that her husband was entering the house without her permission. (Tr. 49-50; Adm. Ex. 3 at 20). Respondent told Sara

PAGE 15:

to contact an agency called Hope to obtain an order of protection and on June 3, 2005, Sara left Respondent messages to tell him that she was meeting with Hope. (Tr. 50-52; Adm. Ex. 3 at 41). Sara never told Respondent she had been sexually abused as a child. (Tr. 827-28).

Respondent had a meeting with Sara at his office on June 15, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. to prepare for a hearing on the petition for temporary relief for Sara's financial situation. (Tr. 53-55, 58, 708; Adm. Ex. 3 at 26). At the time Respondent's meeting with Sara started, Ms. Schumacher and the secretaries had gone home for the day. (Tr. 63). Robin Minnis, an associate at Respondent's firm, was in her office during the meeting, which is next door to Respondent's office. (Tr. 63-64).

Respondent walked Sara back to his personal office and shut the door. (Tr. 65-65). Respondent's time slips show his meeting with Sara lasted 20 minutes. (Tr. 56; Adm. Ex. 3 at 31). Sara was supposed to have brought the financial affidavit to her meeting with Respondent so that Respondent could make sure it was completed, but she did not. (Tr. 54, 709). Sara told Respondent she forgot it and dumped out a bunch of little pieces of paper on a table in Respondent's office, which were notes from her husband. (Tr. 709-10). Sara told Respondent she wanted to discuss the notes from her husband and that they contained "things he wants me to do to him sexually," but were not threatening. (Tr. 710). Respondent did not look at the notes and told Sara to put the notes away because that was not an issue that needed to be addressed. (Tr. 710).

Respondent then got out a financial affidavit and started to fill it out for Sara. (Tr. 711). Respondent asked Sara where she worked and Sara told him she worked for a home health service. (Tr. 711). Sara said, "for example, there's an elderly gentleman I care for, and after I get him bathed and put him to bed and he's had supper, then his son and I go and lay down naked in the bed, and I start rubbing cream all over his body." (Tr. 711). Respondent asked Sara how

PAGE 16:

old the son was and Sara told him the son was 57 years old. (Tr. 711). Sara asked Respondent how old he was and Respondent told her he was 55 and Sara said, "You're younger than he is," which was very awkward. (Tr. 711-12).

Respondent then asked Sara how she was going to survive financially for the next couple of weeks. (Tr. 712). Sara told Respondent that her father in law was going to provide her with financial assistance and Respondent called Sara's father in law to confirm this. (Tr. 65, 712). While Respondent was on the phone with Sara's father in law Ms. Schumacher called Respondent and Respondent did not answer Ms. Schumacher's call. (Tr. 65, 712). When Respondent got off the phone with Sara's father in law Sara excused herself to use the bathroom. (Tr. 712).

At one point during their meeting Sara asked Respondent if she could take his picture to refer him to other potential clients. (Tr. 715). Respondent told Sara to take some of his business cards, but she insisted on taking his picture. (Tr. 715). Respondent consented and Sara took two pictures of him because he did not look up in the first one. (Tr. 715). Respondent thought it was odd that Sara took his picture and she never told him that she took his picture for "scrapbooking." (Tr. 715-16).

Respondent testified that he never had any type of physical contact with Sara and denied that he hugged Sara, that he put his tongue in Sara's mouth, and that he placed her hand on an erection over his pants. (Tr. 67, 738). Respondent also denied that he said "look what you do to me" to Sara. (Tr. 67). Respondent testified that Sara lied about what took place in his personal office on June 15, 2005. (Tr. 68). Respondent further stated that Sara has a lot of emotional problems and that Sara wants to file a civil lawsuit against him to get money. (Tr. 68-69).

As his meeting with Sara ended Respondent became aware that Ms. Schumacher had returned to the office to do some work. (Tr. 717). Ms. Schumacher asked Respondent why he

PAGE 17:

did not answer when she called him and Respondent hesitated. (Tr. 717). Sara told Ms. Schumacher it was because Respondent was on the phone with her father in law. (Tr. 717).

Sara came back to Respondent's office on June 16, 2005, at 11:30 a.m. to prepare and sign the financial affidavit. (Tr. 66). Respondent instructed Stephanie and his law clerk, Bethany White, to meet with Sara in the library. (Tr. 66-67, 718-19). Respondent came into the library and introduced Sara to Stephanie and Ms. White and told Sara they would help her complete the financial affidavit. (Tr. 67-68, 719). Sara did not complain to Respondent, but she appeared unhappy. (Tr. 719).

Sara left a voicemail on Respondent's cell phone at 1:49 p.m. on June 16, 2005. (Tr. 720). Sara told Respondent in her message that she did not want Respondent to think she was a tramp and that she wanted to get her divorce over with as quickly as possible. (Tr. 720). Respondent thought Sara was referring to the conversation they had about the patient's son who Sara rubbed cream on. (Tr. 721-22).

Respondent returned Sara's call at 6:30 p.m. on June 16, 2005, and left a message indicating that he was willing to continue to represent her, but that if Sara felt more comfortable one of the female attorneys in the office could also represent her. (Tr. 722). At the time he left the message Respondent was not aware of the accusations Sara was making against him. (Tr. 722-23). Respondent did not leave any other messages for Sara that day. (Tr. 723-24).

Ken Wendt, who is a detective with the Ogle County Sheriff's Department, came to Respondent's home at 3:00 p.m. on June 17, 2005, and informed Respondent that Sara had made allegations against him. (Tr. 70-71, 724). Respondent called Stephanie and asked her to get Sara on the phone. (Tr. 725). Respondent got Sara's voicemail and left a message for Sara stating that he thought the allegations were very unprofessional and that she had to start looking for a new lawyer. (Tr. 725).

PAGE 18:

Respondent went to court for a hearing in Sara's case on June 21, 2005, and had his intern, Ms. White accompany him so that he did not have to be alone with Sara. (Tr. 726). Respondent, Ms. White, Sara and Sara's friend went into a conference room and Sara asked Respondent why he was withdrawing from her case and told him that despite her allegations against him Respondent could still represent her in court. (Tr. 726-27). Respondent told Sara that he thought she had some mental health problems, that she needed a psychiatrist and that he thought her husband had not written those notes to her and that she had written them to herself. (Tr. 727-28). Respondent also told Sara that if she hired another male attorney Respondent would tell him about the allegations Sara was making against Respondent and that she should hire a female attorney. (Tr. 728). Respondent did not represent Sara in court that day and filed his motion to withdraw which was granted. (Tr. 727).

Count II

Dirk Miller

Dirk Miller lives in Winnebago, Illinois and has been employed in the printing industry for 20 years. (Tr. 105). Dirk was married to Leah from April 1993 to March 2000. (Tr. 106). Dirk and Leah had two children during their marriage. (Tr. 106).

Dirk retained Respondent to get a divorce from Leah, because Respondent was a well-known divorce attorney in the community. (Tr. 107, 121). Dirk did not want the divorce, but he realized that Leah was not going to change her mind about wanting to end their marriage. (Tr. 107). Leah did not hire a lawyer because she and Dirk had already agreed how to divide everything in the divorce and they did not want to incur the expense of hiring another lawyer. (Tr. 108).

Dirk and Leah first met with Respondent in February 2000 in the library at Respondent's law office in the evening. (Tr. 108-10). After Dirk, Leah and Respondent talked for awhile

PAGE 19:

Respondent told them that part of his role as a lawyer was to also be a counselor and asked Dirk to step outside the law library so that Respondent could speak to Leah alone. (Tr. 111-12). Dirk sat in a chair three feet from the law library door while Respondent met with Leah for approximately 30 minutes. (Tr. 112-14). The door was shut the entire time Respondent and Leah were in the law library together. (Tr. 112-14).

During their meeting Dirk heard some laughing and crying. (Tr. 113). Dirk thought it was inappropriate that Respondent was meeting with Leah alone when Dirk was the person who hired him, but Dirk trusted Respondent and was very depressed at the time. (Tr. 113, 129). Dirk did not hear any particular words that were said while Leah and Respondent were in the law library. (Tr. 113). When Respondent and Leah came out of the law library, Respondent told Dirk that he would contact him and they wrapped up the meeting. (Tr. 114).

Dirk did not recall whether Leah appeared upset or shocked and he did not observe her to be physically shaken. (Tr. 130). Dirk and Leah left Respondent's office at the same time, but he did not recall whether he and Leah took separate cars. (Tr. 114, 130). Dirk and Leah shared the same residence at that time. (Tr. 114). Leah did not tell Dirk anything unusual had happened at the Respondent's office that evening. (Tr. 114-15).

The judgment for dissolution of marriage was entered on Dirk's behalf on March 21, 2000, and Dirk was satisfied with the legal terms of the judgment. (Tr. 120; Adm. Ex. 11 at 10-20). Dirk did not hire Respondent to represent him in a post decree matter that Leah filed to move their children out of the school district in January 2001. (Tr. 134-36; Adm. Ex. 11 at 70-83). Dirk recalled that he did not want to hire Respondent to represent him in the post-decree matter, but he did not recall why. (Tr. 134-36).

Approximately one to three years after Dirk and Leah were divorced; Leah told Dirk that something unusual happened during their first meeting with Respondent. (Tr. 115-16). Leah

PAGE 20:

said that while Dirk was sitting in the lobby and she and Respondent were in the law library, Respondent went to give her a hug and then took her hand and placed it on his erect penis and said, "See what you do to me." (Tr. 118). Dirk was very upset when Leah told him what occurred in the law library and felt that he had delivered someone he loved into the hands of a predator. (Tr. 118-19).

Leah also told Dirk that another time when she was at Respondent's office to sign some paperwork, Respondent told her that she had a fiery personality and that she would probably be good in bed. (Tr. 119). On that occasion Leah's friend Missy Osborne Clark had given Leah a ride to Respondent's office. (Tr. 120).

Leah told Dirk about the incidents with Respondent prior to Dirk having any contact with anyone at the ARDC and before he was aware that there were any disciplinary proceedings involving Respondent. (Tr. 116-17, 119). Dirk does not know and has never spoken to Sara Day-Shenefelt, Teresa Brevoort, and Michelle Johnson. (Tr. 117-18). Dirk has never seen a complaint that shows the allegations against Respondent regarding each witness in the ARDC matter. (Tr. 137).

Leah Miller

Leah Miller lives in Winnebago, Illinois and is not currently employed, but she is a licensed x-ray technologist in Illinois. (Tr. 142-44). Leah has lived at her current address for approximately four years and could not recall the exact house number for her prior address in Winnebago or her two prior addresses in Mt. Morris, Illinois. (Tr. 167-68). Leah and Dirk decided to hire one lawyer to represent Dirk when they got divorced for financial reasons and because they were in agreement about how to proceed in the divorce. (146, 189). Leah represented herself and she was the only one who wanted the divorce. (Tr. 146, 189). Leah

PAGE 21:

knew who Respondent was before Dirk hired him from word of mouth and some of Respondent's political events. (Tr. 146-47).

Leah and Dirk first met with Respondent regarding their divorce at his law office in early February 2000 in the late afternoon or early evening. (Tr. 147). Leah, Dirk and Respondent met in the law library with the door closed and for 45 minutes they discussed Leah and Dirk's expectations regarding their house, child support and visitation rights. (Tr. 149-50). Dirk and Leah both cried when they met with Respondent. (Tr. 152). At the end of the 45 minutes Respondent said that part of his job was to counsel Leah as well as Dirk and he asked Dirk to leave so that Respondent could speak to Leah alone. (Tr. 150-51).

Dirk left the library and went out to the lobby. (Tr. 151). Leah was alone with Respondent in the law library with the door shut for approximately 15 to 30 minutes. (Tr. 151). Respondent did not counsel Leah to reconcile with Dirk. (Tr. 151). Respondent asked Leah how she was doing and wanted to know her reasons for getting divorced. (Tr. 152). Respondent told her that usually people get divorced because of sex or money and Leah agreed that a lot of her and Dirk's issues were sexual in nature. (Tr. 152). Respondent told Leah that she had a "fiery personality" and that he thought she would be "good in bed." (Tr. 152). Leah responded to this comment by laughing it off, but she was in shock. (Tr. 153). Leah cried and laughed while she met with Respondent alone. (Tr. 153, 156, 195).

When their 15 to 30 minute meeting was finished Leah stood up from the table and was "still a little teary." (Tr. 156). Leah recalled that the table in the law library was an oval shape. (Tr. 193). She and Respondent talked briefly for a couple more seconds and then hugged. (Tr. 156). At the moment they hugged Respondent took Leah's hand and put it on his erect penis and said softly, "Look what you do to me." (Tr. 156-57). Leah backed away from Respondent, but she did not say anything. (Tr. 157). Leah did not scream, say "stop" or call out to Dirk. (Tr.

PAGE 22:

157, 197). Leah was in shock and could not believe Respondent had the nerve to do that, but she did not feel scared or threatened by Respondent. (Tr. 157, 209-210). Leah thought Respondent's contact with her was inappropriate and insulting. (Tr. 210).

After Leah backed away from Respondent he opened the door and asked Dirk to come back in. (Tr. 157). When Dirk came back in to the law library Leah, Dirk and Respondent sat back down briefly and recapped their discussion and then Leah and Dirk left Respondent's office. (Tr. 158). Leah did not tell Dirk about what had occurred while she was alone with Respondent. (Tr. 158). Leah also did not contact the police or the ARDC about Respondent's actions. (Tr. 199).

A few weeks later Leah was alone at Respondent's office to sign some papers. (Tr. 159). A friend of Leah's named Missy Osborne Clark dropped Leah off at Respondent's office that day and waited in the car for her while Leah was inside. (Tr. 159). Leah and Respondent met in the law library for approximately 10 minutes and they were alone with the door closed. (Tr. 159-60). Leah signed the papers, Respondent asked Leah how she was doing and made some brief comments about her personality. (Tr. 160). When Leah and Respondent stood up to leave Respondent hugged Leah, put his hands on her butt and pulled Leah into him. (Tr. 160). Respondent had an erection and said, "Look what you do to me." (Tr. 161). Leah pushed Respondent away and left the office immediately. (Tr. 161). Leah thought Respondent's actions were inappropriate but she did not scream or yell at him. (Tr. 161, 204).

Leah got back into Ms. Clark's car and said, "You are never going to believe what just happened to me." (Tr. 161). Leah explained to Ms. Clark what had occurred when she met with Respondent and Ms. Clark was shocked and disgusted. (Tr. 161-62). Ms. Clark and Leah had their children in the car and they were going to the park. (Tr. 162). Leah did not tell Ms. Clark what had occurred the first time Leah met with Respondent until they were at the park. (Tr.

PAGE 23:

162). While they were at the park Leah gave Ms. Clark more details about what Respondent had done. (Tr. 163).

Leah did not recall asking Respondent if the divorce case could be continued so that she could meet a friend that she worked with and several other people in Central America. (Tr. 206). Leah also did not recall discussing any of the details of her friend's death in Central America with Respondent or thanking Respondent for not letting her go to Central America. (Tr. 205-7).

Leah, Dirk and Respondent were all in court when the divorce became final on March 21, 2000. (Tr. 190). Dirk testified that Leah's extreme and repeated acts of mental cruelty were the basis for their divorce. (Tr. 191; Adm. Ex. 11 at 35). Leah did not tell the presiding judge what Respondent had done to her. (Tr. 191-92).

After the divorce was final Leah met with Respondent a third time in his personal office with the door closed. (Tr. 165). During that meeting Respondent made more comments about Leah's personality including that he thought she had a "fiery personality" and that he thought she would be "good in bed" because she was talkative and easy to get along with. (Tr. 166).

Over a year later Leah told Dirk what happened while she and Respondent were in the law library alone the first time Leah and Dirk met with Respondent and what transpired when Leah went to Respondent's office to sign some papers. (Tr. 163-64). Leah did not tell Dirk about what occurred right away because she did not want to upset him or have it affect the divorce proceedings because Respondent was Dirk's attorney. (Tr. 163). At that time Leah was mostly concerned with getting through the divorce and she did not want to cause any more stress or strain because she and Dirk were as amicable as they could be at that time. (Tr. 163). There was no specific reason that Leah told Dirk what happened with Respondent when she did. (Tr. 211). She and Dirk had become friends a year after their divorce and she told him during the course of a conversation. (Tr. 211).

PAGE 24:

In January 2001 Leah filed a petition to move her and Dirk's children out of the school district, which the divorce decree that was entered in March 2000 when Respondent represented Dirk prevented her from doing. (Tr. 213; Adm. Ex. 11 at 70-83). Leah testified that the post-decree matter did not occur during the same time period that she told Dirk about what Respondent did, but she did not recall whether she told Dirk about what occurred after the post-decree matter. (Tr. 213-14). Leah hired a female attorney to represent her in the post-decree matter, but Leah did not tell her attorney about anything that had occurred with Respondent. (Tr. 214).

Leah told Dirk about what had happened in the law library at Respondent's office before she spoke with anyone from the ARDC. (Tr. 164). An investigator at the ARDC contacted Leah at work, but she did not know how the investigator got her name in connection with Respondent and she did not ask the investigator at the time. (Tr. 212-13). Leah was fairly certain that Dirk contacted the ARDC after reading something about Respondent in the newspaper. (Tr. 212). Leah did not recall speaking to someone in the Ogle County State's Attorney's Office. (Tr. 164-65). Leah does not know Sara Day-Shenefelt, Teresa Brevoort or Michelle Johnson and has never spoken to any of them. (Tr. 166).

Leah had to complete substance abuse counseling because of an incident that occurred on January 13, 2007, and she completed the recommended treatment program. (Tr. 180). Leah drank alcohol prior to an incident that occurred in December 2007, but she was not intoxicated when the incident occurred. (Tr. 188).

Missy Osborne Clark

Missy Osborne Clark lives in Mt. Morris, Illinois. (Tr. 215). She has a cosmetology license and is presently employed as a hair dresser. (Tr. 216). Ms. Clark knows Respondent because she cuts his hair and they live in the same town. (Tr. 216, 237). Ms. Clark works with

PAGE 25:

five other women and Respondent will go to any of them to get his hair cut. (Tr. 237). Ms. Clark is presently married to Jason Clark who is a detective for the Ogle County Sheriff's Department. (Tr. 217).

Ms. Clark has known Leah for approximately 20 years because their ex-husbands went to school together. (Tr. 217). Presently Ms. Clark only has contact with Leah and Dirk approximately once or twice a year because Leah and Dirk moved to Winnebago, but prior to that she was very close friends with Leah and Dirk. (Tr. 217-18, 229-30).

Ms. Clark was aware in 2000 that Dirk had hired Respondent to represent him in Dirk and Leah's divorce. (Tr. 219). Ms. Clark drove Leah to Respondent's office in March or April, because they were on their way to do something with their children and Leah had to stop at Respondent's office first. (Tr. 219-20).

Ms. Clark waited in the car with the children while Leah went inside Respondent's office. (Tr. 220). Ms. Clark testified that she waited for Leah for approximately 15 minutes. (Tr. 221). Leah came back to the car and Ms. Clark could tell Leah was very upset. (Tr. 221-22). Leah looked very shaken and had a tear coming down her face. (Tr. 222). Ms. Clark asked Leah what was wrong and Leah told Ms. Clark that she wanted to leave immediately and did not say anything else. (Tr. 222-23).

Ms. Clark and Leah took their children to the park and once the children were playing she again asked Leah what happened. (Tr. 223). Leah said to Ms. Clark, "You aren't going to believe what happened." (Tr. 223). Ms. Clark asked Leah if she was okay and Leah responded, "No. He made a move on me." (Tr. 223). Leah told Ms. Clark that when she got up to leave Respondent grabbed her and put her hand on his erect penis. (Tr. 224). Ms. Clark told Leah she should call the police based on what Leah told her had happened, but Leah chose not to do that. (Tr. 226-27).

PAGE 26:

At her deposition Ms. Clark testified that when she asked Leah if she was okay Leah told her that Respondent pushed her against the wall, pressed his body against her and tried to kiss her and that Leah did not tell her anything else happened. (Tr. 232-33). Ms. Clark did not share all the details about what Leah told her regarding Respondent grabbing her hand and putting it on his erect penis at her deposition because Ms. Clark was extremely uncomfortable and Counsel for Respondent did not ask her to be more specific. (Tr. 233-35).

Ms. Clark and Leah had a second conversation in which Leah said that the first time she and Dirk met with Respondent they talked with Respondent together as a couple first and then Respondent told her and Dirk that he needed to speak to Leah alone and Dirk subsequently left the room. (Tr. 225-26). Respondent talked to Leah about what her and Dirk's problems were and why she wanted to leave him. (Tr. 226). Leah told Respondent that a lot of their problems were sexual and Respondent told Leah he did not understand that because she was beautiful and if Respondent and Leah were together they would not have sexual problems. (Tr. 226-27). Leah also told Ms. Clark that Respondent "made a move on her at that time too," and put Leah's hand on his erect penis. (Tr. 227).

Ms. Clark's first contact with the ARDC was when an investigator from the ARDC called her and Ms. Clark told the investigator she did not want to be involved in the proceeding and refused to talk to him. (Tr. 218). Ms. Clark did not know whether Leah had told anyone what had occurred and Ms. Clark did not think it was appropriate for her to say what happened without Leah's permission. (Tr. 218, 230). Once Ms. Clark spoke with Leah and Leah told her it was alright for her to talk to the ARDC, Ms. Clark called the investigator back and talked to him. (Tr. 230).

Ms. Clark also did not want to get involved with the ARDC proceeding because Respondent is one of her clients. (Tr. 239). Ms. Clark continued to cut Respondent's hair after

PAGE 27:

Leah told her about what Respondent did to her and after Ms. Clark was contacted by the ARDC. (Tr. 238). Ms. Clark does not know and has never talked to Sara Day-Shenefelt, Teresa Brevoort or Michelle Johnson. (Tr. 228).

Beverley Schumacher

Ms. Schumacher testified that the table in the law library at Respondent's office has always been circular and that the table was built specifically for that room. (Tr. 600).

Respondent

Respondent testified that Dirk told him he was still in love with Leah and was adamant that he did not want a divorce from her. (Tr. 86). Dirk asked Respondent to do whatever he could to keep Leah from going through with the divorce, but Dirk wanted to be the one to file for the divorce. (Tr. 86). Dirk did not want his children to be moved away from where he was living. (Tr. 86).

Respondent met with Dirk and Leah on February 11, 2000, in the law library at his office instead of his personal office. (Tr. 87-91; Adm. Ex. 12 at 193). During the meeting in the law library Dirk consistently stated that he did not want the divorce and Leah did. (Tr. 745). Respondent asked Dirk to step outside of the library for a minute. (Tr. 100). Respondent told Leah that Dirk loved her, pointed out that they had young children together and asked her whether it would be worthwhile to take some more time to review the situation. (Tr. 745-46). Leah was very coldhearted and laughed, she never cried while Respondent met with her. (Tr. 746). Leah told Respondent that she did not love Dirk anymore, they did not have the same interests and that she just wanted the divorce over with. (Tr. 746).

Respondent testified that he did not hug or touch Leah while they were alone in the law library. (Tr. 746). Respondent denied that he said anything sexually inappropriate to Leah or that he ever touched Leah in an improper manner. (Tr. 100-101). Respondent denied that he

PAGE 28:

ever pressed Leah's hand over his genitals or grabbed her buttocks and pulled her close to him. (Tr. 101, 752). Respondent also denied that he told Leah she had a fiery personality and testified that Leah was not someone he would want to be close to because Leah is vicious and difficult to work with. (Tr. 101, 752-53). Respondent testified that Leah is lying. (Tr. 101).

Prior to hiring Respondent, Dirk had agreed to allow Leah to move anywhere she wanted to with the children, to have any overnight guest that she wanted and to have no restrictions on her alcohol consumption. (Tr. 748). Respondent told Dirk he was not going to allow him to agree to those terms if he was his lawyer and Dirk agreed to change them. (Tr. 748). The order in the divorce case reflected that Leah could not leave the school district with the children, she could not have overnight guests that were not related to her and she could not consume alcohol when she was with the children. (Tr. 748). Leah was aware that Respondent encouraged Dirk to stand up to her demands. (Tr. 748-49).

Leah came to Respondent's office on three different occasions in March 2000 to pick up documents, but Respondent did not recall whether he saw or met with Leah on those occasions. (Tr. 94-5; Adm. Ex. 12 at 193). Respondent recalled meeting with Leah alone in the law library at his office on one occasion while her divorce was pending, because she was upset and wanted to speak to him. (Tr. 97-98, 750-51). Approximately a month earlier Leah had asked Respondent to continue the divorce proceeding so that she could travel to Central America with a man she worked with, but Respondent had refused to continue the case and Leah could not go on the trip. (Tr. 96-97, 751). Once they were in the law library alone Leah started crying and told Respondent that the man she wanted to go to Central America with was murdered during the trip and Leah thanked Respondent for "being a jerk in dealing with her," because she was grateful that she had not gone on the trip. (Tr. 98, 751). The meeting lasted 10 to 15 minutes and was

PAGE 29:

not reflected in Respondent's billing records. (Tr. 98). Respondent also met with Leah alone in his office on July 11, 2000. (Tr. 99; Adm. Ex. 12 at 199).

Count III

Teresa Brevoort

Teresa Brevoort has worked at Heartland Dental Company as a receptionist for two years. (Tr. 389-90). Ms. Brevoort knows Respondent because she was employed as a dispatcher for the Ogle County Sheriff's Office from 1974 to 1976 while Respondent was a deputy in the Ogle County Sherriff's office. (Tr. 390). During the time period she was employed as a dispatcher Ms. Brevoort spoke to Respondent over the radio almost every day. (Tr. 391-92). Ms. Brevoort would also see Respondent when he brought prisoners into the jail. (Tr. 392-93). Ms. Brevoort knows Respondent's voice. (Tr. 393).

Ms. Brevoort decided to hire Respondent when she divorced her third husband, David Brevoort, because she knew Respondent personally and she trusted him. (Tr. 394). Respondent did not represent Ms. Brevoort in any of her prior divorces. (Tr. 408). Ms. Brevoort called Respondent's office to make an appointment with him and Respondent called her back. (Tr. 394-95). Ms. Brevoort immediately recognized Respondent's voice. (Tr. 394-95). When Ms. Brevoort told Respondent she wanted to get a divorce Respondent said he was in her area and asked if she would mind if he stopped by her house. (Tr. 395). Ms. Brevoort did not think it was strange that Respondent came to her house to meet with her because she knew him. (Tr. 396).

Ms. Brevoort also had a meeting with Respondent in his personal office at his law office. (Tr. 397). The meeting took place in the evening after Ms. Brevoort got off work and she and Respondent discussed the paperwork that needed to be filed for the divorce. (Tr. 398). The door to Respondent's personal office was shut while they met. (Tr. 398). Respondent asked Ms. Brevoort why she wanted to get divorced and she told Respondent that her husband was an

PAGE 30:

alcoholic and that there was a lack of intimacy between them. (Tr. 399). Respondent said to Ms. Brevoort "Well, if you were my wife, you would be very well taken care of." (Tr. 399). Ms. Brevoort responded to Respondent's comment by laughing it off and saying "Oh, yeah, right, Dennis." (Tr. 399).

Ms. Brevoort testified that her divorce took approximately one year to complete because she and her ex-husband attempted to reconcile at one point. (Tr. 399-400; Adm. Ex. 6). Ms. Brevoort and her ex-husband reached an agreement in February 2005 and a final prove-up was scheduled in court for March 17, 2005. (Tr. 401; Resp. Ex. 22). On March 16, 2005, Ms. Brevoort called Respondent's office and left a message for him. (Tr. 401). Ms. Brevoort wanted to go over anything she needed to know with Respondent before the court proceeding the next day. (Tr. 401).

Ms. Brevoort received a return phone call from Respondent in the evening of March 16, 2005, between 5:30 and 7:00 p.m. while Ms. Brevoort was on her way home from work. (Tr. 401-2). Ms. Brevoort saw the phone number of an incoming call, but she did not recall what that number was. (Tr. 402). When Ms. Brevoort answered the phone Respondent said, "Hello, Terri. This is Dennis." (Tr. 402). Ms. Brevoort recognized Respondent's voice. (Tr. 402).

Respondent told Ms. Brevoort that he was returning her message and Ms. Brevoort asked Respondent if there was anything they needed to talk about before the court hearing or if she needed to be at court earlier the next day. (Tr. 403). Respondent said that there was not anything they needed to discuss and told Ms. Brevoort to be at court at the regular time. (Tr. 403).

Respondent asked Ms. Brevoort where she was and Ms. Brevoort told him that she was driving home. (Tr. 403). Respondent then said, "Oh, where are you going?" and Ms. Brevoort said "I am going to my friend's house." (Tr. 403). At that point Ms Brevoort leaned towards

PAGE 31:

Linda Mae Wedig who was in the car with her and Respondent said, "Would you be interested in performing a blow job." (Tr. 403). Ms. Brevoort paused for a minute and said, "Dennis, are you drunk?" and he said, "No, I'm not." (Tr. 403-4). Ms. Brevoort then said, "Well, I am just flabbergasted at you. I can not believe the person that I know as Dennis Schumacher would say something like this to me. I believe this conversation is over." (Tr. 404).

Ms. Brevoort was shocked and appalled that Respondent would say something like that to her because she was his client and they went to the same church. (Tr. 404, 417). Respondent had never said anything vulgar of a sexual nature to Ms. Brevoort on the phone or in person prior to the March 16, 2005 incident. (Tr. 410). Ms. Brevoort was very worried, concerned and nervous about facing Respondent the next day in court, but she thought Respondent would probably be on his best behavior in court. (Tr. 404-5).

Ms. Brevoort went to court the next day and her divorce was proved up. (Tr. 404). There were no further incidents with Respondent and Ms. Brevoort has not had any further contact with Respondent since the court hearing on March 17, 2005. (Tr. 404-5). Ms. Brevoort did not call the police or confront Respondent about the March 16, 2005 phone call the next day in court because she did not want to talk to Respondent and she wanted to get her divorce over with. (Tr. 417, 419). Ms. Brevoort also did not tell the judge at the court hearing what Respondent had said to her. (Tr. 419).

Ms. Brevoort's cell phone records indicate that she received an incoming call at 5:42 p.m. on March 16, 2005, that lasted for seven minutes. (Tr. 407; Adm. Ex. 7 at 8). The cell phone record reflects Ms. Brevoort's best recollection regarding the date and time that the phone conversation with Respondent occurred. (Tr. 407). When Ms. Brevoort received her cell phone bill in April 2005 it reflected the word "incoming" and not the actual phone number of the incoming call. (Tr. 407; Adm. Ex. 8). Ms. Brevoort had no reason at that time to ask the cell

PAGE 32:

phone company for any further records detailing Respondent's phone number and those records are no longer available. (Tr. 407; Adm. Ex. 8). At her deposition in October 2007 Ms. Brevoort testified that she received the call from Respondent on her way home from work at approximately 7:00 p.m. (Tr. 412-14, 426-27).

Ms. Brevoort was aware she had an outstanding invoice with Respondent's office, which her ex-husband had been ordered to pay. (Tr. 421). On April 26, 2006, Ms. Brevoort received a letter from Respondent's office stating that she had to pay the bill or a lawsuit would be filed against her. (Tr. 422; Resp. Ex. 24). Ms. Brevoort told Ms. Schumacher she would pay the bill as soon as she sold her house and subsequently paid the bill when her house sold. (Tr. 422-24). Ms. Brevoort was also the subject of a civil law suit for approximately $2,000 in credit card debt that she owed. (Tr. 423; Resp. Ex. 25).

Ms. Brevoort contacted the State's Attorney's Office over two years ago when she saw a news story about Respondent which asked other people to come forward who had experienced similar incidents with Respondent. (Tr. 417-18, 424-25). Ms. Brevoort testified that Respondent's actions have affected her opinion of attorneys because she is appalled that a lawyer would act the way Respondent did and she put her trust in Respondent. (Tr. 428). Respondent represented one of her sons in another matter before Ms. Brevoort hired Respondent to be her attorney. (Tr. 426). Ms. Brevoort does not know and has never met Sara Day-Shenefelt, Michelle Johnson or Leah Miller and she has never spoken to any of those women about this matter. (Tr. 405).

Linda Mae Wedig

Linda Mae Wedig lives in Ogle County and is a receptionist at a dentist's office. (Tr. 359). Ms. Wedig has been married to Matthew Wedig for seven years and was previously

PAGE 33:

married twice. (Tr. 360). Ms. Wedig knows Respondent because she has lived in Ogle County her whole life and has seen him at different functions. (Tr. 361).

Ms. Wedig and Ms. Brevoort went to high school together in the early 1970's and in the 1990's they worked next to one another at Quality Metal and then went to work at a dental office together. (Tr. 362, 372-73). Ms. Wedig and Ms. Brevoort also worked at a second dental practice together. (Tr. 372-73). Ms. Wedig and Ms. Brevoort do not currently work together and the last time that they worked together was two years ago. (Tr. 362). Ms. Wedig and Ms. Brevoort talk to each other approximately two times a week and have remained good friends. (Tr. 362, 373).

Ms. Wedig was aware that Respondent represented Ms. Brevoort in her divorce. (Tr. 363). Ms. Brevoort told Ms. Wedig that when Respondent became aware that Ms. Brevoort and her ex-husband had ceased having sexual relations, Respondent made comments to Ms. Brevoort about the fact that he would not stop having sex with her if she was his wife. (Tr. 363-64).

In March 2005 between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Ms. Wedig was in the car with Ms. Brevoort when Ms. Brevoort received a phone call on her cell phone. (Tr. 364). Ms. Brevoort told Ms. Wedig that the phone call was from Respondent. (Tr. 365-67). Ms. Wedig does not have any independent knowledge of Respondent's voice. (Tr. 366).

Ms. Wedig heard the phone conversation between Ms. Brevoort and Respondent. (Tr. 365). Ms. Brevoort and Ms. Wedig often listened to each other's phone conversations while they were in the car together. (Tr. 367). Respondent asked Ms. Brevoort where she was going and when Ms. Brevoort answered that she was going to a friend's house Respondent asked Ms. Brevoort what friend's house she was going to. (Tr. 368). Respondent then said to Ms. Brevoort "Would you like to give a blow job to me?" (Tr. 368). At her deposition Ms. Wedig testified that

PAGE 34:

she was not certain exactly what Respondent said, but that it had the word "blow job" in it. (Tr. 385).

Ms. Brevoort continued to talk to Respondent and she was very irate. (Tr. 368). Ms. Brevoort said, "I can't believe you just said that to me. I am very upset with you." (Tr. 368). Ms. Brevoort then asked Respondent what time she needed to meet him the next day. (Tr. 369). Ms. Brevoort and Respondent's conversation lasted for approximately five minutes. (Tr. 369). Ms. Brevoort was very upset with Respondent when she hung up the phone and Ms. Brevoort did not understand why Respondent would say something like that to her. (Tr. 369).

Ms. Wedig does not know Leah Miller, Sara Day-Shenefelt or Michelle Johnson and she has never spoken to any of those women. (Tr. 369). Ms. Wedig has discussed the phone call from Respondent with Ms. Brevoort approximately five times. (Tr. 379, 380-81, 386). Ms. Wedig also discussed Ms. Brevoort's deposition in this mater with her approximately six months before Ms. Wedig gave her deposition. (Tr. 379, 380-81, 386). Ms. Wedig was aware that Ms. Brevoort had difficulty paying her bills and was behind in her payments to Respondent. (Tr. 381).

Respondent represented Ms. Wedig's current husband's ex-wife during their divorce which was contentious, but Ms. Wedig was not personally involved in that matter. (Tr. 361). Ms. Wedig knows that her husband does not like Respondent because her husband lost many of his possessions to his ex-wife. (Tr. 374).

Respondent also represented Ms. Wedig's daughter Stephanie Seaworth when she got divorced. (Tr. 362, 382). Ms. Wedig was involved in Respondent's pending ARDC matter when Ms. Seaworth hired Respondent. (Tr. 382). Ms. Wedig told Ms. Seaworth that Respondent was probably a good divorce lawyer because "he's pretty nasty." (Tr. 382). Ms. Wedig also told Ms. Seaworth that Respondent would sexually abuse a woman verbally, but her

PAGE 35:

daughter is very strong and told Ms. Wedig that she did not care and still wanted Respondent as her divorce lawyer because he was the better divorce lawyer in town. (Tr. 384).

Beverly Schumacher

Ms. Schumacher testified that she was in the office on March 16, 2005, and that Respondent had "back to back" appointments during the late afternoon and into the early evening. (Tr. 589). Ms. Schumacher has no independent recollection of being in the office that day, but the appointment calendar indicated that Respondent had a meeting with a client at 5:00 p.m. about a personal injury case and Ms. Schumacher is always present for those meetings to do the accounting sheets. (Tr. 604-5; Resp. Ex. 26).

Respondent has one cell phone and Ms. Schumacher has one cell phone. (Tr. 590). The phone records for Ms. Schumacher's cell phone do not show any outgoing calls on March 16, 2005. (Tr. 589-90; Resp. Ex. 42(c)). The office phone records show there were no phone calls from any of the phone lines in the office at 5:42 p.m. on March 16, 2005. (Tr. 599; Resp. Ex. 44).

Respondent

Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Brevoort in her dissolution of marriage matter in March 2004. (Tr. 82; Adm. Ex 9 at 1). Respondent had known Ms. Brevoort for 20 years prior to representing her because Ms. Brevoort was a dispatcher when Respondent was a deputy in the Sheriff's office and they had regular radio communications and personal contact during that time. (Tr. 82-3). Ms. Brevoort's cell phone number was on the intake sheet Respondent prepared. (Tr. 82; Adm. Ex. 9 at 1). Respondent's initial meeting with Ms. Brevoort was at her residence, which was not uncommon because if Respondent is nearby he will stop at a client's house or their work place to save the client the time of traveling to his office. (Tr. 729-30).

PAGE 36:

Ms. Brevoort's divorce case was simple, but it was delayed because she and her husband tried to reconcile for several months. (Tr. 83-84). On March 16, 2005, Respondent was at his office and had client appointments at 5:00 p.m., 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Tr. 731-32; Resp. Ex. 26). Respondent's calendar reflects that none of those appointments were canceled which meant that Respondent met with those clients. (Tr. 732; Resp. Ex. 26). Respondent's cell phone records show that there were no calls made on his cell phone on the evening of March 16, 2005. (Tr. 733; Resp. Ex. 45). There were also no calls made to Ms. Brevoort from any of Respondent's office phones on March 16, 2005. (Tr. 734). Respondent testified that he did not make a phone call to Ms. Brevoort soliciting any form of a sex act from her. (Tr. 734).

On March 17, 2005, Respondent, Ms. Brevoort and Ms. Brevoort's ex-husband appeared in court for a prove-up and a judgment was entered. (Tr. 84-85). Respondent met with Ms. Brevoort before the hearing and Ms. Brevoort did not make any complaints to Respondent about receiving a phone call from him the evening before. (Tr. 736).

Respondent testified that Ms. Brevoort and her friend, Linda Wedig, are lying and concocted a story about him making sexual comments to Ms. Brevoort because Ms. Brevoort was upset when she received a "nasty" letter from Respondent's office in April 2006 stating that she had not paid Respondent's fees and a small claims complaint would be filed against her. (Tr. 85-86, 735-36; Adm. Ex. 9 at 11-12). Respondent had forgotten that he told Ms. Brevoort she could wait to pay her bill until her house was sold and once he realized he had made a mistake he had Ms. Schumacher put a note in Ms. Brevoort's file to that effect. (Tr. 85-86, 735-36). Respondent also apologized to Ms. Brevoort. (Tr. 735). Respondent represented two of Ms. Brevoort's sons in other matters after Ms. Brevoort's divorce was completed. (Tr. 737-38).

PAGE 37:

Count IV

Michelle Lynette Johnson

Michelle Lynette Johnson lives in DeKalb County which is approximately 30 minutes from Ogle County. (Tr. 436). She is currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program in English at Northern Illinois University and teaches two sessions of English composition as part of her program. (Tr. 440). Ms. Johnson is also employed as a keyboardist at John Wiley & Company. (Tr. 440). Ms. Johnson's current annual income is $24,000 and her present debt, including student loans, is approximately $70,000. (Tr. 489).

Ms. Johnson has three children and was previously married to Todd Alan Johnson. (Tr. 437). Ms. Johnson sought a divorce because her ex-husband was a philanderer and it began to affect their children. (Tr. 437). Ms. Johnson had three different lawyers over the course of her divorce proceedings which were very acrimonious and took approximately four years to be completed. (Tr. 437-38). Ms. Johnson testified that one of her previous lawyers tried to coerce her into signing a child custody agreement that she was not comfortable with. (Tr. 491-93). Ms. Johnson's youngest child resides with her ex-husband and an agreed order was entered prohibiting Ms. Johnson from contacting her youngest child. (Tr. 484-85).

Ms. Johnson knew Respondent by name before she hired him because of his position as State's Attorney of Ogle County. (Tr. 442). Ms. Johnson's stepfather and mother also knew Respondent personally. (Tr. 442). Ms. Johnson hired Respondent to represent her in a custody issue against her ex-husband. (Tr. 443).

Ms. Johnson first met with Respondent for approximately an hour on April 25, 2006, at the Lee County Courthouse. (Tr. 442-43). During their initial meeting Respondent was very "flirty" and complimentary to Ms. Johnson and they had an immediate connection. (Tr. 444-45). When Ms. Johnson first sat down Respondent told her "Oh, you are very beautiful and you look

PAGE 38:

much younger than I had anticipated." (Tr. 444). Respondent also told Ms. Johnson that she had "the most beautiful smile." (Tr. 444). Respondent winked at her a lot and told her, "If I were your husband, I would never let you out of bed." (Tr. 445). Respondent also remarked in regards to another man Ms. Johnson had a relationship with that "Gosh, I wish I was that guy" and "What a lucky guy that guy was to have slept with you." (Tr. 445).

After their meeting was over, Respondent walked Ms. Johnson to the elevators and stood very close to her while they waited for an elevator. (Tr. 445-46). Respondent then walked Ms. Johnson to her car. (Tr. 446). Ms. Johnson drives a convertible and Respondent said to her, "I bet you look so sexy in that car. I would love to drive with you in that car." (Tr. 446).

Ms. Johnson had another meeting with Respondent in his personal office with the door closed on May 1, 2006, which lasted for approximately two hours. (Tr. 446-47). Ms. Johnson and Respondent discussed Ms. Johnson's case, that fact that Ms. Johnson's mother was paying for her legal bills and Respondent's problems with his new secretary. (Tr. 447-50). There was also a lot of banter and eye contact between Ms. Johnson and Respondent and Respondent often touched Ms. Johnson's hand and put his hand on the small of her back when he was leading her out the door. (Tr. 449-50). During their second meeting Respondent would pause and say things like "You are just so incredibly beautiful," "Your eyes are so beautiful" and "Oh, I love that shirt that you are wearing." (Tr. 450).

At one meeting Ms. Johnson had with Respondent in a conference room at Lee County Courthouse she put her hand on Respondent's leg and was pressed up against the wall with Respondent, but they did not kiss. (Tr. 527-28). The contact between herself and Respondent was all consensual. (Tr. 528-29). There is a window on the door of the conference room. (Tr. 529; Resp. Ex. 37, 38).

PAGE 39:

Ms. Johnson and Respondent had a "flurry" of phone conversations after the second meeting and every phone call they had included conversations of a sexual nature which progressed as time went on. (Tr. 451-52, 457-58). Respondent initiated almost all of their phone conversations and called Ms. Johnson at various times during the day and evening. (Tr. 503). Ms. Johnson did not recall what her phone number was at that time and did not procure any phone records. (Tr. 504). Each call had the pre-text of something they needed to discuss about Ms. Johnson's case, but then they would talk about personal things. (Tr. 458). Respondent was always saying to Ms. Johnson "If I was your ex-husband, I would never have cheated on you," "I would never have let you out of bed" and "I will call you and tell you bedtime stories." (Tr. 452, 458). Ms. Johnson told Respondent "I love your voice. You have the most beautiful voice." (Tr. 458). Those types of comments were "threaded throughout" all of Ms. Johnson and Respondent's conversations. (Tr. 453, 458).

Ms. Johnson recalled that during a phone conversation on May 4, 2006, Respondent told her he was going to be out of town in Springfield to teach incoming district attorneys. (Tr. 453). Respondent told Ms. Johnson which hotel he was staying at and asked Ms. Johnson to come with him, but she told him she could not because she had a final exam. (Tr. 454-55). Respondent then said, "Well, I would really like to be with you." (Tr. 454). Respondent also told her, "I would love to see you without your clothes on." (Tr. 454-55). There was no doubt in Ms. Johnson's mind that Respondent was making a sexual reference when he asked her to come to Springfield and stay with him. (Tr. 532-33). Ms. Johnson did not know that Respondent's wife was going to be in Springfield with him. (Tr. 533).

Ms. Johnson also recalled that on June 2, 2006, she was in her car when Respondent called her and asked her what she was wearing. (Tr. 459). Ms. Johnson said, "I am wearing my swimsuit" and Respondent said "Oh, I would love to see you out of your swimsuit." (Tr. 459-

PAGE 40:

60). Ms. Johnson then said, "Well, it just so happens that when I get into the water, sometimes it is very secluded and I will take off my swimsuit." (Tr. 460). Respondent said, "I would feel real nice on your naked body, too" and then they talked about skinny dipping and meeting at Lake Sule. (Tr. 460).

Ms Johnson met with Respondent at his office approximately five times while he represented her. (Tr. 505). On one occasion at the end of May 2006 Ms. Johnson met Respondent at a gas station in Respondent's home town and Respondent drove Ms. Johnson around in his truck while he flirted with her and told her "I would like to be with you. Let's go to my office." (Tr. 506-7). Ms. Johnson followed Respondent back to his office at approximately 9:00 p.m. in her own car and when they arrived they went into the office through the back door and Respondent's wife was there, which was awkward. (Tr. 506). Ms. Johnson used the restroom and left. (Tr. 506). Ms. Johnson did not describe that incident at her deposition, but she did make reference to being at Respondent's office one time late at night and was not asked any further questions about being at Respondent's office late at night. (Tr. 507-8, 543-45).

Initially, Ms. Johnson was flattered by the banter between her and Respondent. (Tr. 460). Ms. Johnson found Respondent to be a very intelligent, nice-looking man. (Tr. 460). Ms. Johnson and Respondent both have gregarious personalities which meshed and they had a lot of things in common. (Tr. 460). Ms. Johnson felt that Respondent was "a little bit aggressive" after their first meeting, but she spoke to her mother about it and her mother said that Respondent was a "good guy." (Tr. 460-61).

Ms. Johnson first spoke to Respondent about withdrawing from her case in July 2006, because their relationship was progressing beyond flirtation to the point where she thought it would be sexually realized and she was worried Respondent would get in trouble. (Tr. 461-63).

PAGE 41:

During their last meeting at the Lee County Courthouse she and Respondent spoke a lot about having an affair and the logistics of that. (Tr. 461-62). Ms. Johnson knew Respondent was up for a judgeship and was concerned about having that type of conversation in a courthouse, but Respondent told her not to worry about it. (Tr. 462).

Ms. Johnson thought an affair outside the attorney-client relationship would be better for Respondent than an affair within the attorney-client relationship. (Tr. 462-63). She told Respondent he was crossing some ethical lines and that she cared too much for him to put him in that position. (Tr. 463). Ms. Johnson liked Respondent "quite a lot" at that time. (Tr. 463). She and Respondent were going to have an affair, but then Ms. Johnson's mother got sick and "everything else went by the wayside." (Tr. 468). Ms. Johnson and Respondent never went on any dates. (Tr. 498).

An agreed order was entered in Ms. Johnson's custody matter on August 25, 2006, but Ms. Johnson was not in court that day and Respondent handled the matter for her. (Tr. 510-12, 541; Resp. Ex. 29). Ms. Johnson wrote Respondent a letter dated August 26, 2006, which stated that she no longer required Respondent's legal services. (Tr. 463; Adm. Ex. 13 at 129). Ms. Johnson also thanked Respondent in the letter for his "wonderful advice, instruction and heartfelt concern" and stated at the end of the letter "You are a singular attorney and a singular human being and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to know you. Your concern for my mother and my family in general has touched me deeply." (Tr. 464; Adm. Ex. 13 at 129).

Ms. Johnson was still very smitten with Respondent when she wrote the August 25, 2006 letter. (Tr. 464; Adm. Ex. 13 at 129). Respondent wrote Ms. Johnson a letter in response dated August 31, 2006, thanking Ms. Johnson for her "heartfelt" letter to him. (Tr. 514; Resp. Ex. 31). Respondent also stated in the letter, "I truly appreciate your sensitivity and caring interest over

PAGE 42:

your children" and complimented Ms. Johnson's ability to do what is in the best interest of the children. (Tr. 542; Resp. Ex. 31).

Respondent withdrew from Ms. Johnson's case on September 7, 2006. (Tr. 461). Ms. Johnson's mother died in March 2007. (Tr. 488, 509). After her mother passed away Ms. Johnson was prescribed Fluoxetine which is a generic form of Prozac for depression. (Tr. 487).

The initial retainer Ms. Johnson paid Respondent was $1,200 and she signed a retainer agreement dated April 25, 2006. (Tr. 443, 498-99; Resp. Ex. 28). The retainer agreement stated that she would receive monthly billing statements from Respondent, but she did not receive any invoices from Respondent's office while he was representing her. (Tr. 499-502; Resp. Ex. 28, 32). Ms. Johnson thought she did not receive any bills from Respondent because the retainer she paid him was sufficient to cover the work he did for her. (Tr. 466). Ms. Johnson never saw a letter dated September 7, 2007, from Respondent stating that she owed him an outstanding balance. (Tr. 516; Resp. Ex. 33(a)). Ms. Johnson testified that it was a very hectic time in her life and she may have received the letter, but she did not read it. (Tr. 516-17).

Ms. Johnson first became aware that Respondent was suing her for an outstanding balance when she saw the Small Claims Summons that had been served on her son on October 12, 2007. (Tr. 464-68; Adm. Ex. 14 at 8-9). Ms. Johnson's son did not tell her about the summons when he received it and she discovered it sometime later when she was going through her paperwork. (Tr. 517-19). Her life is very chaotic and she is not organized. (Tr. 519).

Ms. Johnson called Respondent on October 31, 2007, which was the date she was required to be in court according to the summons. (Tr. 519; Adm. Ex. 14 at 8-9). Ms. Johnson asked Respondent what the fees she owed him were for and whether he had been billing her for all their personal conversations. (Tr. 468-69). Respondent said "Oh, my God, no. I would never do that." (Tr. 468-69). Ms. Johnson told Respondent she could not be in court that day because

PAGE 43:

she had classes. (Tr. 469-70). Respondent told her he would dismiss the suit and that she should make an appointment with him to discuss the outstanding fees. (Tr. 469-70). After she talked to Respondent Ms. Johnson did not think she had to appear in court that day. (Tr. 470).

Ms. Johnson made an appointment to meet with Respondent on November 12, 2007, but she was unable to keep that appointment because she was swamped at school. (Tr. 469-70). Ms. Johnson left a message on Respondent's cell phone and told him she was not going to be able to meet with him and asked if they could meet somewhere closer to DeKalb. (Tr. 521). On November 14, 2007, a judgment was entered against Ms. Johnson. (Tr. 521-22).

On February 13, 2008, Ms. Johnson met with Respondent's associate, Shane Temple, in court regarding the small claims proceeding. (Tr. 470-71, 478). Ms. Johnson told Mr. Temple she did not owe Respondent the outstanding fees because she and Respondent had a personal relationship outside the bounds of the attorney-client relationship. (Tr. 472-73; Adm. Ex. 17). That was the first time Ms. Johnson told anyone that she and Respondent had a personal relationship. (Tr. 522).

Mr. Temple then asked Ms. Johnson if she was aware that there were similar claims against Respondent pending at the ARDC. (Tr. 473). Ms. Johnson was shocked that there were similar claims against Respondent because she thought that she was special and did not know the banter between her and Respondent was "business as usual." (Tr. 474). Mr. Temple told Ms. Johnson he was ethically required to report her claims that she had a personal relationship with Respondent to the ARDC. (Tr. 474).

Ms. Johnson contacted Prairie Legal Services for guidance regarding the small claims proceeding. (Tr. 475). Ms. Johnson filed a motion to vacate the small claims judgment against her on July 31, 2008. (Tr. 476; Adm. Ex. 14 at 20-21). Mr. Temple informed Ms. Johnson that the motion was granted and the small claims suit was dismissed. (Tr. 477).

PAGE 44:

Ms. Johnson wrote a letter to an investigator at the ARDC on August 26, 2008, in which she stated about Respondent, "I hope the ARDC is successful in this case not just to protect future victims, but hopefully also to force Denny to change. Perhaps this is naive, perhaps he is a scumbag who is not redeemable. Either way, the only way to remedy the situation is to stop the wrist slapping and implement serious consequences." (Tr. 536-37; Adm. Ex. 18). Ms. Johnson also stated in the email that her past might prevent her from being a credible witness. (Tr. 537; Adm. Ex. 18).

Ms. Johnson would have preferred not to be involved in this proceeding because she is "far too busy," but she was subpoenaed to testify. (Tr. 474). Ms. Johnson does not know Sara Day-Shenefelt, Leah Miller or Teresa Brevoort and she has never spoken to any of them. (Tr. 477).

Ms. Johnson was convicted of felony retail theft on April 22, 2002. (Tr. 481-82; Resp. Ex. 27). The retail theft occurred while she was going through her divorce and her children were living with her husband. (Tr. 482-83). Ms. Johnson had lost her identity as a wife and mother and was in an "odd space" where she thought she was either above the law or that the law did not work for her. (Tr. 539). Ms. Johnson's arrest redirected her life because she realized that she needed to get herself together and get on a "straighter path." (Tr. 540-41). As a direct consequence of that experience, Ms. Johnson became a better mother and a high achieving student. (Tr. 540-41).

In another criminal matter Ms. Johnson claimed that she was the subject of a witch hunt by the State of Illinois and that she was the victim of unethical acts committed by the Illinois State Police and the Rochelle Police. (Tr. 493). Ms. Johnson believed she was set up and that the State discarded a lot of evidence that was exculpatory. (Tr. 494). The matter was dropped

PAGE 45:

and Ms. Johnson was informed that the prosecutor was reprimanded for allowing such an expensive, but unsubstantiated case to go forward. (Tr. 494-95).

Beverly Schumacher

Ms. Schumacher did not remember Respondent ever bringing Ms. Johnson or any client into the office through the back door. (Tr. 598). Ms. Schumacher, Respondent and the employees use a back door near the employee parking lot, but no clients ever enter through that door. (Tr. 611). Ms. Schumacher also did not recall an occasion where she was present in the office in the evening and Respondent came in with Ms. Johnson. (Tr. 610). She only recalled seeing Ms. Johnson in the office a couple times during the day. (Tr. 610).

Ms. Schumacher always goes to Springfield with Respondent when he teaches a trial advocacy program for the State Appellate Prosecutor's Office. (Tr. 624). Ms. Schumacher is the official photographer and is part of the program. (Tr. 624-25).

Ms. Schumacher used to do the client billings at Respondent's office and testified that each client is supposed to receive a bill every month. (Tr. 587). Ms. Schumacher is aware of 13 invoices that were sent to Ms. Johnson and none of them were returned to the office for failed delivery. (Tr. 587-88; Resp. Ex. 32).

Respondent

Respondent met with Ms. Johnson for the first time on April 25, 2006, for one hour to represent her in a post decree matter involving visitation with her daughter and some unpaid medical bills Ms. Johnson owed money for. (Tr. 71-72, 753; Adm. Ex. 13 at 155). Respondent met with Ms. Johnson again on May 1, 2006, for two hours. (Tr. 72-72; Adm. Ex. 13 at 155). Respondent had a 12 minute conversation with Ms. Johnson on May 4, 2006. (Tr. 73; Adm. Ex. 13 at 156). On May 9, 2006, Respondent met with Ms. Johnson for two hours. (Tr. 75; Adm. Ex. 13 at 156).

PAGE 46:

On June 2, 2006, Respondent made a court appearance for Ms. Johnson and spoke to her on the phone twice that day about what occurred. (Tr. 76-77; Adm. Ex. 13 at 163). On June 12, 2006, Respondent made a court appearance for Ms. Johnson and Ms. Johnson was also present in court. (Tr. 77-78; Adm. Ex. 13 at 98, 122). Respondent also had a phone conference with Ms. Johnson on June 20, 2006, July 13, 2006 and July 20, 2006. (Tr. 78-79; Adm. Ex. 13 at 190). Respondent made a court appearance for Ms. Johnson on August 3, 2006 and a final order in the matter was entered on August 25, 2006. (Tr. 79, 755; Adm. Ex. 13 at 99, 190).

Before the final order was entered Respondent had met with Ms. Johnson's daughter who told him that she did not want to see her mother because Ms. Johnson allowed her older brother's friends to drink at the house and she was afraid of some of her older brother's friends when they were drinking. (Tr. 757). Ms. Johnson's daughter was believable and Respondent advised Ms. Johnson to go to counseling with her daughter instead of going forward with a legal proceeding regarding visitation, because she would not win. (Tr. 755-58). Respondent told Ms. Johnson that he could not do anything else for her in the case because she owed money for the medical bills and she also owed his firm a lot of money. (Tr. 758). Respondent withdrew from the matter on September 8, 2006. (Tr. 79; Adm. Ex. 13 at 99, 190)

Ms. Johnson wrote Respondent a complimentary letter shortly after the final order was entered and Respondent wrote her a letter in response thanking her for her kind words. (Tr. 759). Respondent did not want Ms. Johnson to think he was abandoning her and offered to represent her again once she worked out the issues with her daughter. (Tr. 759). Respondent knew Ms. Johnson's stepfather, but he did not know her mother and he did not know her mother was giving Ms. Johnson money for her legal bills. (Tr. 759). Respondent's office continued to send Ms. Johnson monthly invoices after he withdrew from her case, but no payments were received. (Tr. 760).

PAGE 47:

On September 5, 2007, Respondent's office sent Ms. Johnson a demand letter and on October 9, 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Ms. Johnson to collect $1,900 in fees and Ms. Johnson was required to appear in court on October 31, 2007. (Tr. 762; Adm. Ex. 14 at 4, 6). Respondent talked to Ms. Johnson on October 31, 2007, and told her that he would get a new court date. (Tr. 763). Respondent and Ms. Johnson also set up an appointment for her to come in to the office at 11:00 a.m. on November 12, 2007, and work out a payment schedule for the fees that she owed. (Tr. 763-64; Resp. Ex. 39). Ms. Johnson did not appear for her appointment at Respondent's office and she did not call Respondent to let him know she could not be there. (Tr. 765). A default judgment was entered against Ms. Johnson on November 14, 2007. (Tr. 765).

Ms. Johnson appeared in court on February 13, 2008, regarding an alias citation to discover assets that was filed subsequent to the default judgment being entered. (Tr. 765). Respondent's associate, Shane Temple, was in court covering all the small claims cases that day. (Tr. 766). Mr. Temple came back from court and told Respondent that Ms. Johnson said she had a romantic relationship with him and that they had planned to have an affair. (Tr. 766). Mr. Temple also said that Ms. Johnson told him she should not be responsible for the bills because the charges were for things that were personal in nature. (Tr. 766).

Respondent told Mr. Temple that he had an obligation to report Ms. Johnson's allegations to the ARDC. (Tr. 767). Mr. Temple and Counsel for Respondent both wrote letters to the ARDC regarding Ms. Johnson's allegations. (Tr. 767-68). Mr. Temple told Respondent he did not want to handle the case against Ms. Johnson any longer and Respondent agreed. (Tr. 767-68). Respondent had the case against Ms. Johnson dismissed because he did not want to spend the money to hire an outside law firm to get the money Ms. Johnson owed him. (Tr. 768).

PAGE 48:

Respondent intends to reinstate the claim when the ARDC matter against him is concluded. (Tr. 81).

Respondent testified that during his representation of Ms. Johnson he "almost always" met her at the courthouse because of the distance between his office and her residence. (Tr. 72; Adm. Ex. 13 at 155). On at least one occasion they met in a conference room at the courthouse which had a window in the door so that anyone walking by the conference room could look in. (Tr. 769-70; Resp. Ex. 37). Ms. Johnson never touched Respondent in the conference room and there was never any physical contact between Ms. Johnson and Respondent. (Tr. 770). Respondent also did not walk Ms. Johnson to the elevators or out to her car the first time they met at the courthouse. (Tr. 770).

Respondent and Ms. Johnson never had any sex-related conversations or flirtatious discussions. (Tr. 770-71). Respondent denied that he ever made improper sexual comments to Ms. Johnson. (Tr. 79-81). Sometimes Respondent would put Ms. Johnson on speaker phone and allow her to "rattle on" about her problems while he did other things. (Tr. 771). Respondent has a pickup truck, but testified that he never drove Ms. Johnson around in his truck and he did not bring her to the office through the back door late at night. (Tr. 771, 803). Respondent also did not invite Ms. Johnson to come to Springfield with him and Respondent's wife always goes to Springfield with him for the training course. (Tr. 773-74). Respondent testified that he believes Ms. Johnson is lying because she does not want to pay Respondent's bill. (Tr. 79-81).

Evidence in Aggravation and Mitigation

Prior Misconduct

The Illinois Supreme Court censured Respondent on May 30, 1990, pursuant to a petition for discipline on consent. In re Schumacher, 90 CH 233, M.R. 6662. Respondent was censured for engaging in a conflict of interest and failing to exercise independent professional judgment

PAGE 49:

on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois while he was the Ogle County State's Attorney and a member of the Board of Trustees of a church known as Faith Assembly of Grand Detour ("the Church").

Respondent failed to timely recuse himself and seek the appointment of a Special State's Attorney to investigate an alleged act of child abuse at a school that the Board of the Church Respondent was affiliated with had direct control over. Respondent also contacted the mother of the child who was the subject of the allegations of abuse and informed her that he would convene a Grand Jury and subpoena her minor child to appear if she did not submit a letter stating that the allegations were false. Respondent further issued Grand Jury subpoenas relating to the alleged incident and opposed a petition for a Special State's Attorney to be appointed in the case. Accordingly, Respondent was found to have engaged in a conflict of interest, failure to represent the People of Illinois with undivided fidelity and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Respondent

Respondent received a Bachelor's degree in administration of justice from American University and worked as a finger print technician for the Federal Bureau of Investigation while he attended American University. (Tr. 702). After he received his Bachelor's degree, Respondent worked as a deputy sheriff in Ogle County from 1973 to 1980. (Tr. 38, 704). Respondent attended law school while he was a deputy sheriff and graduated in 1979. (Tr. 704). Respondent ran for State's Attorney of Ogle County in March 1980 and served as the State's Attorney of Ogle County from 1980 to 1992. (Tr. 38). Respondent went into private practice in 1992 and is currently a family law practitioner. (Tr. 37-38, 706).

Since 1992 Respondent has coordinated a four day program in Springfield which takes place in both the spring and fall for young assistant state's attorneys. (Tr. 773). The program

PAGE 50:

includes veteran prosecutors, judges and ex-prosecutors who critique, review and lecture young assistant state's attorneys to help them develop basic trial advocacy skills and techniques. (Tr. 773). Respondent enjoys his work with the program immensely and is paid by the State of Illinois for his work with the program. (Tr. 801-2, 843).

Respondent's law office made over $11,000 in charitable contributions to the community from 2001 to 2007. (Tr. 775; Resp. Ex. 46(a)). Respondent and his wife personally made over $115,000 in charitable contributions to the community during that same time period. (Tr. 776-77; Resp. Ex. 46(a)). Respondent has earned several law enforcement badges which represent his dedication to public safety during the years that he was a police officer. (Tr. 778; Resp. Ex. 48). Respondent has received certificates of appreciation and awards from the State Appellate Prosecutor's Office for serving on the Board of Governors, the City of West Chicago Police Department for helping to stop an armed robber when Respondent was off duty, the Mount Morris Police Department, the Lutheran Social Services of Illinois, the Let Freedom Ring festival, the Jireh Counseling Services and the American Heart Association. (Tr. 779-81; Resp. Ex. 47).

Respondent and his wife have three children and seven grandchildren. (Tr. 778). Respondent was with his children and grandchildren when they saw a story on the news about Sara's allegations against Respondent. (Tr. 782). Respondent testified that "it is not worth practicing law" to have to go through a proceeding such as this and have his credibility brought into question. (Tr. 782, 784-85). Respondent has practiced law over the past 30 years with honor and distinction with the help of his wife and the other attorneys that have worked in his office. (Tr. 785).

Respondent almost always shut the door to his personal office, which was wood, when he was meeting with a client and asked his staff to knock first before entering in case the client was

PAGE 51:

upset. (Tr. 61, 783). Respondent now has a glass door and never closes it. (Tr. 62, 783). Respondent also refuses to shut the door to the conference room in the courthouse while he is meeting with clients. (Tr. 783). Respondent will no longer meet with female clients in the evening at the office without his wife being present. (Tr. 784).

Beverly Schumacher

Beverly Schumacher is Respondent's wife and they have been married for approximately 38 years. (Tr. 585-86). Ms. Schumacher works at Respondent's law office as the office manager. (Tr. 586-87). Ms. Schumacher's salary is derived from Respondent's law office. (Tr. 605). Ms. Schumacher testified that she does not believe any of the allegations against Respondent are true, because she trusts Respondent completely and knows him to be honest and trustworthy. (Tr. 597-98).

Jonathan Arthur Ortman

Jonathan Arthur Ortman is an emergency room physician. (Tr. 626). Mr. Ortman has known Respondent for approximately 20 years as a neighbor and a friend. (Tr. 628). Mr. Ortman and Respondent work on their farming equipment together and play volleyball and racquetball. (Tr. 628). Mr. Ortman has never had any conversations with anyone in the community regarding Respondent's reputation for honesty because "it has never come up." (Tr. 631). Mr. Ortman's personal opinion is that Respondent is very honest and Mr. Ortman has never heard Respondent's morality called into question. (Tr. 629-31).

Becky Riffe

Becky Riffe is a licensed attorney in Illinois. (Tr. 634-35). Ms. Riffe worked at Respondent's law offices from 1991 to 2006. (Tr. 634-35). Ms. Riffe knows Respondent very well and has observed him in both professional and social settings. (Tr. 635-36). Respondent is

PAGE 52:

well respected in the community and Ms. Riffe has never heard anything negative regarding Respondent's honesty, morality or chastity. (Tr. 636-37, 641-42).

Dan Doyle

Dan Doyle is a retired Appellate Court Justice and serves on the Character and Fitness Committee for the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar. (Tr. 642). Mr. Doyle has known Respondent since he and Respondent were both State's Attorneys in neighboring counties. (Tr. 644). Respondent also tried a murder case in front of Mr. Doyle in 2005 and Respondent and Mr. Doyle are both instructors at the State's Attorney's Appellate prosecutor course in Springfield. (Tr. 645). Respondent has an excellent reputation in the community for honesty, morality and chastity. (Tr. 646).

John Barsanti

John Barsanti is the Kane County State's Attorney, which is an elected position. (Tr. 646). Mr. Barsanti has known Respondent both professionally and socially since 1980 and they have taught at the State Appellate Prosecutor's School together since 1995. (Tr. 649-51). Respondent's reputation in the community for honesty, morality and chastity is very good. (Tr. 650). Mr. Barsanti has discussed Respondent's reputation for honesty and morality with approximately 10 to 12 attorneys who either participate in the State Appellate Prosecutor's School or who work in Kane County and used to work with Respondent. (Tr. 651-52). Mr. Barsanti has not discussed Respondent's reputation with anyone in the Ogle County legal community. (Tr. 652).

Paul Logli

Paul Logli is an attorney and has been licensed to practice law in Illinois since 1974. (Tr. 654). Mr. Logli is currently the president and CEO of the United Way of Rock River Valley. (Tr. 654). Prior to that Mr. Logli was the State's Attorney of Winnebago County from 1986 to

PAGE 53:

2007 and served as a circuit court judge for approximately a year and a half. (Tr. 655). Mr. Logli has known Respondent since the mid 1980's and knows Respondent and his wife very well. (Tr. 656). Respondent's reputation for honesty, morality and chastity in the community is excellent. (Tr. 657). Mr. Logli has had conversations with members of the legal community about Respondent's reputation for honesty, but not about Respondent's morality and chastity. (Tr. 658-59).

Ron Jacobson

Ron Jacobson is the presiding circuit court judge in Dixon in Lee County and has held that position since 2007. (Tr. 660). After Judge Jacobson graduated from law school in 1982 he worked for Respondent in the State's Attorney's Office in Ogle County until 1986 and then again briefly in 1988. (Tr. 661, 664). Judge Jacobson has not had "much to do" with Respondent since 1988, but Respondent appears in Judge Jacobson's courtroom and does "a very fine job." (Tr. 664, 665). Respondent has always been very honest in his dealings with Judge Jacobson and has a good reputation for honesty in the community. (Tr. 665). Judge Jacobson's opinion about Respondent's reputation for honesty is based on the fact that he did not hear anything negative about Respondent's reputation for honesty from 1982 to 1988. (Tr. 666).

Joe McGraw

Joe McGraw is a circuit court judge in Winnebago and Boone counties. (Tr. 672). Judge McGraw is the presiding judge of the criminal division and handles major felonies. (Tr. 672). Judge McGraw has known Respondent for 25 years and has observed him in both professional and social settings. (Tr. 673). Based on Judge McGraw's conversations with "hundreds" of people in the legal community in Illinois, Respondent has a reputation in the community for being an honest person. (Tr. 673-75). Based on Judge McGraw's conversations with "dozens"

PAGE 54:

of people in the legal community in Illinois, Respondent has a reputation in the community for being a moral person because of his strong Christian beliefs. (Tr. 673-75).

Robin Minnis

Robin Minnis has known Respondent for 25 years and has seen him in both professional and social settings. (Tr. 678). Ms. Minnis has never heard anything negative about Respondent's reputation for honesty in the community and he has a good reputation for morality and chastity. (Tr. 678-79). Ms. Minnis also knows Ms. Schumacher and Ms. Schumacher and Respondent appeared to have a close, healthy marriage. (Tr. 679).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Administrator must prove the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Supreme Court Rule 753(c)(6); In re Ingersoll, 186 Ill.2d 163, 168, 710 N.E.2d 390 (1999). "Clear and convincing evidence is a standard of proof which, while less than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is greater than the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence." Cleary and Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence, sec. 301.6 (6th ed. 1994). This standard of proof is one in which the risk of error is not equally allocated; rather, it requires a high level of proof, both qualitatively and quantitatively, from the Administrator. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 764-66 (1982); In re Tepper, 96 CH 543, M.R. 14596 (1998) (Review Bd. Dec. at 12). Suspicious circumstances are insufficient to warrant discipline. In re Lane, 127 Ill.2d 90, 111, 535 N.E.2d 866 (1989).

It is the responsibility of the Hearing Panel to determine the credibility and believability of the witnesses, weigh the conflicting testimony, draw reasonable inferences, and make factual findings based upon all the evidence. In re Timpone, 157 Ill.2d 178, 196, 623 N.E.2d 300 (1993). In this case we conclude the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in all the misconduct alleged in Counts I, II and III of the Third Amended

PAGE 55:

Complaint. Specifically, we conclude Respondent: 1) represented clients where the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest; 2) breached the fiduciary duties owed to his clients; 3) overreached the attorney-client relationship; 4) committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; 5) failed to withdraw when the lawyer knew or reasonably should have known that continued employment will result in a violation of the Rules; 6) engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 7) engaged in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Rules 1.7(b), 1.16(a)(2), 8.4(a)(3) and 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 770. We further find the Administrator did not prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the charges in Count IV of the Third Amended Complaint.

Count I

We find the Administrator proved Respondent made unsolicited and improper sexual advances towards Sara Day and that he touched her in an insulting and demeaning manner. Respondent admitted that he met with Sara alone in his personal office on the evening of June 15, 2005, with the door closed. Sara testified that at the beginning of the meeting Respondent told her she was beautiful to which she replied, "Me? Chunker Butt?" Respondent then told her he had a hard day and asked her to give him a hug. Sara further stated that she consented and gave Respondent a hug and that he began "humping" her and put his hands on Sara's breasts and simulated turning her breasts like a faucet. Despite Sara's protestations, Respondent continued to press himself against Sara and put his tongue in her mouth. Respondent also said, "You don't know what you do to me" and took Sara's hand and rubbed it on his pants over his semi-erect penis.

PAGE 56:

Respondent maintained that he never had any form of physical contact with Sara and denied that he hugged her, that he put his tongue in her mouth and that he placed Sara's hand over his pants on an erection. Respondent further testified that he did not say "Look what you do to me" to Sara. He testified that Sara lied about what took place in his office on the evening of June 15, 2005.

The misconduct alleged in this Count hinges on the finding of whether Respondent improperly touched Sara in a sexual manner. This finding is based on a credibility determination and after observing Respondent and Sara's demeanor and evaluating the other evidence; we find Sara's testimony about the events that occurred on June 15, 2005, positive, credible and detailed. See In re Cutright, 233 Ill.2d 474, 488, 910 N.E.2d 581 (2009) (the Hearing Board is in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses).

Sara made immediate responses to Respondent's unwanted sexual advances towards her by relating those advances to Respondent's secretary, Stephanie, the following day and to the police two days later. Sara's description of Respondent's actions towards her on the evening of June 15, 2005, has been consistent since it first occurred. Her statements to Stephanie and the police were very similar to her testimony at the hearing.

Stephanie testified that on June 16, 2005, Sara was upset while she waited for Respondent to meet with her. Stephanie further stated that Sara pulled her aside and told her that during her meeting with Respondent the previous evening Respondent "stuck his tongue down her throat and placed her hand on his penis" when Sara gave him a hug. Stephanie also testified that Sara accurately described Respondent's demeanor. Stephanie was a very credible witness and had no reason to lie about what Sara told her.

Sara told the police on June 17, 2005, that when she met with Respondent on the evening of June 15, 2005, Respondent told her he had a hard day and asked her for a hug. Sara further

PAGE 57:

stated that when she gave Respondent a hug Respondent rubbed up against her until he became semi erect, put his hands on her breasts and turned his hands on her breasts like a faucet and kissed her and put his tongue in her mouth. Sara also told the police that when Respondent told her she smelled good and was beautiful she replied that she was "a chunker butt."

Sara's testimony was also remarkably consistent with Leah Miller's testimony regarding Respondent's language patterns and the physical contact he made with her. Sara and Leah's testimony together shows Respondent used the same modus operandi, namely, rubbing himself against both women with an erection, putting each woman's hand on his erection and stating "Look what you do to me." Although these were the only two witnesses who described this particular conduct on the part of Respondent, these two witnesses evidence a pattern, however slight, of sexual impropriety. We find that Sara and Leah independently corroborate each other's stories, and add additional credibility to them individually. There was no evidence to contradict Sara and Leah's testimony that they do not know each other and have never met or spoken. Thus, we conclude that there was no opportunity for them to corroborate their stories about Respondent.

Moreover, Respondent had a strong motive, and Sara had little motive, to lie. The only way for Respondent to avoid the consequences of his obvious violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by inappropriately touching and making sexual comments to his client is to deny that it occurred. Respondent has also been married for 38 years. Respondent's motive to lie about whether the events with Sara occurred is obvious. Conversely, Sara did not appear to be vengeful or vindictive and no other improper motive is evident to us.

Respondent argues Sara's credibility is suspect for several reasons. Respondent points out that Sara was taking medications for depression and anxiety at the time Respondent represented her. However, we did not find any evidence to show that taking these medications

PAGE 58:

affected Sara's ability to recall the events that transpired in Respondent's office on the evening of June 15, 2005.

Additionally, Respondent argues that Sara is not credible because she did not immediately leave Respondent's office when he made the sexual advances towards her, she did not scream and she did not go to Ms. Minnis, who was also present in the office on the evening of June 15, 2005, to tell her what Respondent had done. Respondent argues that it is particularly significant Sara did not tell Ms. Minnis what happened because Sara recognized Ms. Minnis as a former judge. Respondent also argues that Ms. Minnis testified that Sara did not look upset when she made eye contact with her on her way back from the bathroom to Respondent's personal office.

The fact that Sara did not immediately leave, scream or tell Ms. Minnis what had occurred does not erode her credibility. It is consistent with Sara's testimony that she was shocked and dumbfounded and did not know how to react to Respondent's advances towards her. Sara testified that when she left Respondent's office to go to the bathroom she did not know what to do. Sara did not want to make Respondent angry and she did not have any money to hire another attorney. Sara also testified that she did not look in to Ms. Minnis' office on her way to and from the bathroom to see if she was still there.

Respondent further argues that Sara's testimony that she made excuses for Respondent to his wife when their meeting was finished is inconsistent with her testimony that Respondent touched her inappropriately. Sara testified that she was nervous when Ms. Schumacher confronted Respondent. However, this testimony is entirely consistent with Respondent's testimony that he paused when Ms. Schumacher asked him why he did not answer the phone and that Sara told Ms. Schumacher he was on the phone with her father in law. Therefore, we do not find this undermines Sara's credibility.

PAGE 59:

Respondent also contends that Sara acted in a bizarre manner during her meeting with Respondent by bringing the notes from her husband, taking Respondent's picture and failing to bring a financial affidavit, which was the purpose of the meeting. We do not find there was anything bizarre about Sara's desire to discuss her concerns about the notes from her husband with Respondent and it is consistent with Respondent's testimony that Sara had previously spoken to him about seeking an order of protection against her husband. Sara also testified that she took Respondent's picture because she is a "scrapbooker." Although it is not routine for a client to take her attorney's picture, we do not find that this fact diminishes Sara's credibility. Additionally, we do not find Sara's failure to bring a financial affidavit to her meeting with Respondent exhibits a lack of credibility because there was no evidence besides Respondent's self-serving testimony to show that Sara knew she had to fill out a financial affidavit prior to her June 15, 2005, meeting with Respondent.

Respondent claims that Sara is not credible because she wanted Respondent to continue to represent her after the June 15, 2005 incident. This argument fails because as stated above, Sara did not have the money to hire another lawyer. Sara's testimony also revealed that she had a strong desire to have her divorce completed and that she asked Respondent to act professionally and complete the work on her case.

Respondent maintains that Sara's testimony that she was abused by five different men during her childhood is not believable particularly because Sara would not name the only one of her alleged abusers that is still alive. We do not agree that that Sara's testimony regarding her past abuse is entirely unbelievable. There was no evidence Sara had any motivation to lie about her past. Additionally, we conclude Sara's history of abuse lends to her credibility in this matter because it made her a vulnerable target for Respondent's unsolicited sexual advances towards her.

PAGE 60:

Respondent further argues that it is not believable that Sara deleted the voice message in which Respondent apologized to her, but saved other voicemails from Respondent which do not reveal that Respondent engaged in any misconduct. Sara's testimony about the events that occurred on June 15, 2005, is sufficient to establish Respondent's misconduct regardless of whether or not he left her a message apologizing for that conduct. Accordingly, we do not find this aspect of Sara's testimony integral to our findings of misconduct.

Respondent also finds it significant that no criminal charges were brought against Respondent after Sara went to the police and reported the June 15, 2005 incident. We disagree. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is to examine the underlying conduct and how that conduct affects an attorney's ability to continue practicing law, regardless of whether or not an attorney has been formally convicted. See In re Clark, 97 CH 111, M.R. 17713 (November 20, 2001) (Hearing Bd. at 18-19) citing In re Ettinger, 128 Ill.2d 351, 538 N.E.2d 1152 (1989). The fact that no criminal charges were brought against Respondent does not affect our credibility determinations in this matter.

Respondent further claims Sara has a motive to testify falsely at the hearing because she wishes to file a potential lawsuit against Respondent. Sara admitted that she spoke to a civil attorney and discussed how she might spend any proceeds that came from filing a lawsuit against Respondent with a friend. Stephanie testified that Sara asked her if she could file a civil case against Respondent without bringing criminal charges against him. Sara stated at the hearing that she does not know whether she will bring a lawsuit against Respondent. However, we do not find the fact that Sara has contemplated bringing civil charges against Respondent sufficient to show that she is lying about the events that transpired with Respondent.

In conclusion, we do not find any of Respondent's arguments sufficient to diminish Sara's credibility. Sara's recollection of the relevant facts concerning Respondent's improper

PAGE 61:

physical contact and sexual advances towards Sara in his office on the evening of June 15, 2005, was clear and consistent. Moreover, we observed Sara testify and we find her believable and credible. See Cutright, 233 Ill.2d at 488.

Based on our determination that Respondent inappropriately touched Sara, including specifically, pressing himself up against Sara, putting his hands on Sara's breasts and simulating turning her breasts like a faucet, putting his tongue in Sara's mouth and taking Sara's hand and rubbing it on his pants over his semi-erect penis, we find Respondent engaged in all the misconduct alleged in Count I of the Third Amended Complaint. A person commits a battery by intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means making "physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual." 720 ILCS 5/12-3. There is no doubt based upon the foregoing conduct that Respondent intentionally and knowingly touched Sara in an insulting manner without justification in his office on the evening of June 15, 2005.

Respondent took advantage of his superior position as Sara's attorney to make sexual advances towards her and to touch her in a demeaning manner at a time when she was vulnerable and dependent on him. Sara had insufficient money to hire another attorney and wanted to get her divorce completed. Respondent was aware of the limited nature of Sara's finances as evidenced by the petition for temporary relief he prepared on her behalf and Respondent's testimony that he called Sara's father in law to confirm that he would be able to provide Sara with financial assistance. By placing Sara in this position, Respondent "compromised the exercise of his professional judgment on [her] behalf and failed to represent [her] with undivided fidelity." In re Rinella, 175 Ill.2d 504, 516, 677 N.E.2d 909 (1997). Accordingly, Respondent breached his fiduciary duty to Sara and his representation of Sara was materially limited by his own interests.

PAGE 62:

Respondent also engaged in overreaching. An attorney commits overreaching when he takes undue advantage of his position of influence over his client. Rinella, 175 Ill.2d at 516 citing In re Stillo, 68 Ill.2d 49, 368 N.E.2d 897 (1977). In Rinella, the Court found the attorney committed overreaching by "making lewd and unsolicited sexual advances to his clients during appointments purportedly scheduled to discuss their cases. Id. Similarly, in this case Respondent committed overreaching by making uninvited sexual overtures to Sara and touching her in an insulting and demeaning manner during his appointment with her on the evening of June 15, 2005.

Respondent's actions were also prejudicial to the administration of justice, tended to defeat the administration of justice, and brought the legal profession into disrepute. Respondent's misconduct originated from his attorney-client relationship with Sara. He abused that relationship for his own pleasure. Rinella, 175 Ill.2d at 516-17.

Count II

We find the Administrator proved Respondent made unsolicited and improper sexual advances towards Leah Miller and that he touched her in an insulting and demeaning manner. Respondent admitted that the first time he met with Leah and Dirk Miller on February 11, 2000, he asked Dirk, who was his client, to step outside the law library so that he could speak to Leah alone. After Dirk left the law library, Respondent and Leah met with the door closed. Leah testified that Respondent asked her why she wanted to divorce Dirk and when Leah told Respondent that a lot of her and Dirk's issues were sexual in nature Respondent told Leah that he thought she had a "fiery personality" and would be "good in bed." Leah further testified that when she and Respondent hugged at the end of their conversation Respondent took Leah's hand and put it on his erect penis and said, "Look what you do to me."

PAGE 63:

Leah also testified that a few weeks later she met with Respondent alone in the law library at his office with the door closed to sign some papers while her friend Missy Osborne Clark waited for her in the car. Leah testified that when she stood up to leave Respondent hugged Leah, put his hands on her butt and pulled Leah towards him. Leah testified that Respondent had an erection and said, "Look what you do to me."

Respondent maintained that he did not hug or touch Leah when they were alone in the law library. Respondent denied that he ever said anything sexually inappropriate to Leah and testified that he never told Leah she had a fiery personality. Respondent stated that he never pressed Leah's hand over his genitals or grabbed her buttocks and pulled her close to him. Respondent testified that when Dirk stepped out of the law library Respondent asked Leah to take some more time to review her situation because she and Dirk had young children, but that Leah was very coldhearted and wanted to get the divorce over with.

A finding regarding whether Respondent engaged in the misconduct alleged in this Count is dependent on a determination of whose testimony is more credible. After observing Leah and Respondent testify and reviewing the evidence admitted in this case, we find Leah's testimony significantly more credible than Respondent's. Leah's testimony was unequivocal, convincing and credible. See Cutright, 233 Ill.2d at 488. Leah appeared sincere and candid as she testified. Additionally, her testimony was corroborated by Ms. Clark's testimony who the panel observed to be an extremely credible witness. It was clear Ms. Clark was uncomfortable testifying against Respondent because he is a client at the hair salon Ms. Clark works at and she had no motive to lie. Further, as previously discussed, Sara's testimony corroborates Leah's testimony and vice-versa. Although we find Sara and Leah credible individually, their testimony together establishes a pattern of inexcusable sexual misconduct on the part of Respondent.

PAGE 64:

Moreover, as stated above, given Respondent's clear violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the fact that he has been married for 38 years, Respondent had a strong motive to lie at the hearing and deny that he inappropriately touched and made sexual comments to the wife of his client. Conversely, Leah had nothing to gain by lying, she did not appear to be vengeful or vindictive and no other improper motive is apparent to us.

Respondent argues Leah is not a credible witness because she is recalling events that occurred nine years ago and does not have a good memory. Respondent points out that Leah could not remember her prior addresses and described the table in the law library as oval shaped when it is round. Respondent further argues that Leah did not remember telling Respondent about her friend who was killed in Central America.

We do not agree. Although Leah had some difficulty remembering her prior addresses and may have been incorrect about the shape of the table in the law library, she had no difficulty recalling the events that occurred on both occasions in the law library at Respondent's office. Leah also disputed Respondent's testimony that she told him about her friend who was killed in Central America. Leah clearly and credibly recited the relevant facts regarding what occurred in the law library on both occasions and was unshakeable in that regard. Given the nature of the alleged misconduct, Leah's prior addresses, the shape of the table in the law library and whether or not Leah told Respondent about her friend who was killed in Central America, are all facts that are not essential to our findings. We observed Leah testify and we find her believable and credible. See Cutright, 233 Ill.2d at 488.

Respondent also argues Leah's credibility is suspect because she did not scream or hit Respondent. Respondent further argues that Leah made no complaint to her husband who was sitting three feet away from the law library the first time Respondent made sexual advances towards Leah and touched her in an insulting manner. The fact that Leah did not scream or tell

PAGE 65:

Dirk about what Respondent did to her until over a year later was consistent with her testimony that she did not want to delay the completion of the divorce and risk causing any further stress or strain between Dirk and herself.

Respondent further contends Leah was aware that Respondent encouraged Dirk to stand up to her demands during their divorce including prohibiting her from moving their children out of the school district. We do not find this relevant to Leah's credibility. Although Leah did not tell Dirk about Respondent's actions towards her until a year later there was no evidence that her revelations to Dirk were related to her filing of a post decree matter in January 2001 to move her children out of the school district. Additionally, Leah told Ms. Clark about Respondent's sexual advances towards her in the spring of 2000 contemporaneously with when they occurred. Therefore, we can not conclude that Leah's testimony was motivated by any vindictiveness against Respondent. Further, we do not find Respondent's argument that Leah was not a credible witness because of her treatment for alcohol use in 2007 has any merit.

Based on our determination that Respondent inappropriately touched Leah, including specifically, taking Leah's hand and putting it on his erect penis and saying, "Look what you do to me" and putting his hands on Leah's butt and pulling her towards him while he had an erection and saying, "Look what you do to me," we find Respondent engaged in all the misconduct alleged in Count II of the Third Amended Complaint.

A person commits a battery by intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means making "physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual." 720 ILCS 5/12-3. There is no doubt based upon the above conduct Respondent intentionally and knowingly touched Leah in an insulting manner and without justification in the law library at his office on two separate occasions. We are not persuaded by Respondent's argument that Respondent's actions did not constitute a battery because Leah laughed it off. Leah testified that

PAGE 66:

she responded to Respondent's comments that she had a fiery personality and would be good in bed by laughing them off, but further testified that she was shocked and insulted by Respondent's physical contact with her. Additionally, Ms. Clark testified that Leah was visibly shaken after the second time Respondent made physical contact with Leah of an insulting and demeaning manner.

Respondent took advantage of his superior position as Dirk's attorney to make sexual advances towards Leah and to touch her in a demeaning manner at a time when Dirk and Leah were both vulnerable and dependent on him. Dirk and Leah testified that they did not want to incur the expense of hiring two attorneys and had agreed that Leah would represent herself in the divorce. Respondent was aware of this arrangement between Dirk and Leah. Respondent was also aware that Dirk was still in love with Leah and did not want the divorce, but that Leah did.

By making sexual advances towards Leah and touching her in an insulting and demeaning manner, Respondent compromised the exercise of his professional judgment on Dirk's behalf and failed to represent Dirk with undivided fidelity. See Rinella, 175 Ill.2d at 516. Accordingly, Respondent breached his fiduciary duty to Dirk and his representation of Dirk was materially limited by his own interests. Respondent should have withdrawn from representing Dirk.

Respondent's actions were also prejudicial to the administration of justice, tended to defeat the administration of justice, and brought the legal profession into disrepute. Respondent abused his position as Dirk's attorney when he improperly touched Leah and made sexual advances towards her for Respondent's own pleasure. Rinella, 175 Ill.2d at 516-17; In re Silverman, 04 SH 120; M.R. 21413 (March 19, 2007).

PAGE 67:

Count III

We find the Administrator proved that while Respondent was representing Ms. Brevoort in a dissolution of marriage matter he made an unsolicited sexual advance towards her over the phone. Ms. Brevoort testified that the evening before the final court date in her divorce proceeding on March 16, 2005, she received a phone call from Respondent while she was driving home from work. During the phone call Respondent asked her if she would like to perform a "blow job." Ms. Brevoort testified that she was shocked and appalled by Respondent's comment. Respondent testified that he did not make a phone call to Ms. Brevoort on the evening of March 16, 2005, soliciting any form of a sex act from her. Respondent further testified that he was at his office and had client appointments at 5:00 p.m., 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the evening of March 16, 2005, and his office phone records and cell phone records do not show any calls made to Ms. Brevoort that evening.

A finding regarding whether Respondent engaged in the misconduct alleged in this Count is dependent on a determination of whose testimony is more credible. After observing Ms. Brevoort and Respondent testify and reviewing the evidence admitted in this case, we find Ms. Brevoort was a credible and believable witness, and her testimony was sufficient to prove the misconduct alleged in Count III. See Cutright, 233 Ill.2d at 488. Ms. Brevoort's testimony was also corroborated by her friend, Ms. Wedig, who was in the car with Ms. Brevoort on the evening of March 16, 2005. Ms. Wedig credibly testified that she listened to the conversation between Ms. Brevoort and Respondent and that she heard Respondent ask Ms. Brevoort if she would perform a "blow job."

We also note that, as with the other complaining witnesses, there was no evidence of any motive for Ms. Brevoort to make a false charge against Respondent. We were not persuaded by Respondent's argument that Ms. Brevoort's financial difficulties gave her a motive to lie about

PAGE 68:

the phone call. We also did not find Respondent's argument compelling that Ms. Wedig had a motive to testify falsely against Respondent because he represented her husband's ex-wife in a prior divorce. Moreover, as previously stated, given Respondent's clear violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and his 38 year marriage, Respondent had a strong motive to lie at the hearing and deny that he solicited a sex act from a client. Conversely, neither Ms. Brevoort nor Ms. Wedig had anything to gain by lying and they did not appear to be vengeful or vindictive.

Respondent argues that he could not have made the phone call to Ms. Brevoort because there were no calls made to Ms. Brevoort on the evening of March 16, 2005, from any of the phones at Respondent's law office, his cell phone or his wife's cell phone. Respondent further states that he had appointments with clients that evening. However, we are convinced by Ms. Brevoort's testimony that she received a phone call from Respondent that evening. Ms. Brevoort knew Respondent's voice from the years they worked together when Respondent was a deputy and she was a dispatcher for the sheriff's office. Additionally, it is possible Respondent made the phone call from another cell phone or from a different location than his law office. Although evidence was presented to show Respondent had several meetings the evening of March 16, 2005, there was no evidence presented to show the duration of each meeting or to establish that Respondent was present in the law office the entire evening.

Respondent further argues that Ms. Brevoort's credibility is questionable because at her deposition Ms. Brevoort testified that the call from Respondent came in at approximately 7:00 p.m., but at the hearing testified that the incoming call received at 5:42 p.m. on her cell phone records reflects her best recollection regarding the date and time that the phone conversation with Respondent occurred. We did not find Ms. Brevoort's testimony regarding the time that the conversation with Respondent took place inconsistent. Ms. Brevoort testified at both her deposition and the hearing that she received the call from Respondent in the evening on her way

PAGE 69:

home from work. Ms. Brevoort's inability to remember the exact time she received the call from Respondent does not affect her credibility. See In re Dotson, 03 SH 110, M.R. 20718 (March 21, 2006) (Hearing Bd. at 16).

Respondent also argues that it is unbelievable that Respondent would call Ms. Brevoort and solicit a sex act from her the evening before her divorce was to be finalized when he had never previously propositioned her in a sexual manner. We disagree. Ms. Brevoort testified that when she first hired Respondent she told him there was a lack of intimacy between her and her husband and in response Respondent said that that she would be "very well taken care of" if she were his wife. Accordingly, it was not the first time Respondent made a sexual reference to Ms. Brevoort and we find Ms. Brevoort's testimony that Respondent asked her if she would perform a "blow job" on the evening of March 16, 2005, both credible and believable.

Finally, we do not find Respondent's argument persuasive that Ms. Brevoort's testimony is not credible because she did not complaint to the ARDC, the police or the judge in her divorce case regarding Respondent's offensive sexual comment. Ms. Brevoort testified she did not confront Respondent about his comments or report him to the judge or the police because she did not want to delay the finalization of her divorce. Ms. Brevoort further testified she thought Respondent would have to be on his best behavior in court.

Overreaching occurs when an attorney takes undue advantage of or abuses the position he holds in relation to a client. See Rinella, 175 Ill.2d at 516. Ms Brevoort's testimony indicated that she believed her interests would be harmed if she reported Respondent's offensive comment or confronted him about it. Ms. Brevoort testified that she was shocked and appalled by Respondent's sexual advances and was nervous to face Respondent the following day in court, but did not report Respondent's offensive sexual comment to anyone or complain to Respondent because she wanted her divorce to be completed. It is clear that by making an insulting and

PAGE 70:

offensive sexual comment to Ms. Brevoort while acting in his professional capacity as her attorney, Respondent committed overreaching. See In re Silverman, 04 SH 120, M.R. 21413 (March 19, 2007) (Hearing. Bd. at 36), Dotson, 03 SH 110 (Hearing Bd. at 19-20).

We further find Respondent placed his interests above Ms. Brevoort's interests when he asked her if she would give him a "blow job" the evening before the final court appearance in her dissolution of marriage case. Not only did he act inappropriately, he caused Ms. Brevoort to be worried and nervous about how he would act in court the next day when he was to representing her. Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent breached his fiduciary duty, continued to represent Ms. Brevoort when that representation was materially limited by his own interests and should have withdrawn from representing her.

We also find that Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and brought the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 770. The evidence showed Respondent abused his attorney-client relationship with Ms. Brevoort by subjecting her to unsolicited sexual advances. See Dotson, 03 SH 110 (Hearing Bd. at 19-20).

Count IV

We did not find the Administrator provided clear and convincing evidence to establish any of the charges against Respondent in Count IV. Ms. Johnson's testimony was not sufficient to show that Respondent engaged in a breach of his professional obligations during his representation of her. Ms. Johnson testified that she and Respondent had a mutual attraction towards each other and engaged in a series of flirtatious and sexual conversations in person and over the phone. Ms. Johnson stated that Respondent asked her to go to Springfield with him and made a sexual reference in regards to the invitation because he told her that he wanted to be with her and to see her without her clothes on.

PAGE 71:

Ms. Johnson also recalled that Respondent drove her around in his truck on one occasion and drove her to his office late in the evening, but that nothing happened between them because Respondent's wife was at his office when they arrived. Ms. Johnson further testified that there was some flirtatious touching between her and Respondent and that she spoke to Respondent about withdrawing from her case because they planned to have an affair. Respondent denied that he and Ms. Johnson had any sex-related conversations or flirtatious discussions. Respondent stated that he did not invite Ms. Johnson to go to Springfield with him or drive her around in his truck.

After observing Ms. Johnson's demeanor and evaluating the other evidence; we do not find Ms. Johnson's testimony clearly and convincingly established that she and Respondent engaged in flirtatious and sexual conversations, that Respondent made sexual advances towards Ms. Johnson or that Respondent and Ms. Johnson planed to have an affair. Cutright, 233 Ill.2d 474, 488. There was no evidence to corroborate Ms. Johnson's account of what occurred between her and Respondent. Additionally, the evidence supported Respondent's testimony that he withdrew from Ms. Johnson's case because he had completed all the work on her case rather than because he and Ms. Johnson planned to have an affair.

We further note that there was nothing in Ms. Johnson's testimony to suggest that she was shocked, offended or troubled by the personal relationship she testified developed between her and Respondent. Ms. Johnson did not express any concern that her personal relationship with Respondent affected his representation of her. On the contrary, Ms. Johnson testified that she was flattered by the banter between her and Respondent, that she and Respondent had an instant connection and that she and Respondent planned to have an affair. Ms. Johnson also wrote a glowing letter to Respondent at the end of his representation of her and appeared to be satisfied with the work he did on her behalf.

PAGE 72:

Ms. Johnson's testimony indicated that she remained satisfied with Respondent's representation of her and untroubled by their alleged personal relationship until approximately one year later when she became aware that Respondent was suing her for outstanding legal fees. Ms. Johnson then became concerned that Respondent had charged her for time that he spent engaging in flirtatious and sex-related conversations with her and eventually a fee dispute arose between them.

The Administrator argues that Ms. Johnson is a credible witness because she was unaware of the other complaints pending at the ARDC against Respondent when she told Respondent's associate, Shane Temple, about the personal interactions between her and Respondent. However, at the time Ms. Johnson spoke to Mr. Temple the fee dispute had already arisen between her and Respondent. Ms. Johnson was contending that she did not owe Respondent any money because Respondent had improperly billed her for the time he spent having a personal relationship with her. Therefore, Ms. Johnson had a potential motive to exaggerate the nature of her and Respondent's interactions. We further note that we do not find Ms. Johnson's conviction for felony retail theft in 2002 or her relationship with her daughter relevant to a credibility determination.

The Administrator also argues that the amount of time Respondent billed Ms. Johnson for meeting with her and speaking with her on the phone was unusual in comparison to Respondent's bills for his other clients. However, we do not find sufficient evidence to establish Respondent billed Ms. Johnson for time he spent engaging in personal conversations and flirtations with her. Accordingly, we conclude there was not clear and convincing evidence Respondent took advantage of his position of authority as Ms. Johnson's attorney and made improper sexual advances towards her.

PAGE 73:

RECOMMENDATION

The purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the administration of justice. See In re Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d 350, 802 N.E.2d 1194 (2003); In re Howard, 188 Ill.2d 423, 721 N.E.2d 1126 (1999). "The Rules of Professional Conduct recognize that the practice of law is a public trust and lawyers are the trustees of the judicial system." In re Smith, 168 Ill.2d 269, 287, 659 N.E.2d 896 (1995). The objective of a disciplinary inquiry is not punishment, but to protect the public from incompetent or unscrupulous attorneys, maintain the integrity of the profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. See In re Twohey, 191 Ill.2d 75, 727 N.E.2d 1028 (2000). In determining the appropriate sanction for an attorney's misconduct, the purpose of the disciplinary system and the facts surrounding the misconduct must be considered. See In re Chernois, 114 Ill. 2d 527, 502 N.E.2d 722 (1986). Also, "it is important to recognize the deterrent value of a sanction and the need to impress upon others the seriousness of the misconduct at issue." Twohey, 191 Ill. 2d at 85.

The discipline imposed on an attorney who has engaged in misconduct also depends on the aggravating and mitigating factors presented during that attorney's disciplinary proceedings. See Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d at 360-61. In the present case there are several mitigating and several aggravating factors.

Respondent's misconduct is mitigated by his involvement in charitable and community activities. The evidence showed Respondent has made extensive charitable contributions to the community both personally and through his law office. Respondent also earned several awards and badges for his involvement in the community and his dedication to public safety during the years he served as a police officer. Additionally, Respondent has coordinated a four day program bi-annually since 1992 to train young assistant state's attorneys.

PAGE 74:

We do not find Respondent's misconduct to be mitigated by the evidence of his good character. Respondent presented eight character witnesses who testified Respondent has a good reputation for honesty, morality and chastity. However, we have specifically found Respondent was not truthful in this matter. He may have a good reputation for honesty, morality and chastity, but he was not forthright in connection with this case.

In aggravation, Respondent's misconduct involved a selfish motive and followed a pattern that extended over a period of several years. Respondent also abused his position of authority with respect to Sara, Leah and Ms. Brevoort. See In re Erwin, 04 CH 114, M.R. 22401 (September 16, 2008) (Hearing Bd. at 32); In re Clark, 97 CH 111, M.R. 17713 (November 29, 2001) (Hearing Bd. at 24). In further aggravation, Respondent has been previously disciplined. In re Storment 203 Ill.2d 378, 401, 786 N.E.2d 963 (2002). Respondent's prior disciplinary matter occurred over 20 years ago, but his previous censure should have provided him with a heightened awareness of the necessity to conform strictly to all of the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Having considered these mitigating and aggravating factors, we must now recommend the appropriate sanction. The Administrator recommends Respondent be suspended for one year to 15 months, and cites numerous cases to support his recommendation. See In re Rinella, 175 Ill. 2d 504, 677 N.E.2d 909 (1997) (three year suspension and until further order of the Court); See In re Erwin, 04 CH 114, M.R. 22401 (September 16, 2008) (15 month suspension), In re Silverman, 04 SH 120, M.R. 21413 (March 19, 2007) (nine month suspension); In re Dotson, 03 SH 110, M.R. 20718 (March 21, 2006) (one year suspension); In re Morris, 02 CH 48, M.R. 20753 (March 21, 2006) (nine month suspension); In re Fishman, 01 CH 109, M.R. 19462 (September 24, 2004) (one year suspension); In re Clark, 97 CH 111, M.R. 17713 (November 29, 2001) (two year suspension and until further order of the Court); In re Landry, 95 CH 446,

PAGE 75:

M.R. 14025 (November 25, 1997) (nine month suspension); In re Horne, 93 CH 568, M.R. 12936 (May 30, 1997) (18 month suspension); In re Bloomquist, 94 CH 695, M.R. 10693 (March 27, 1995) (18 month suspension).

Respondent argues that no discipline is warranted because Respondent did not engage in any of the misconduct in the Third Amended Complaint and in the alternative recommends that a censure would be the appropriate sanction. He also cites to several cases to support his recommendation. See In re Greenstein, 02 RC 1501, M.R. 17978 (March 22, 2002) (censure); In re Orner, 94 CH 533, M.R. 10435 (September 23, 1994) (censure); In re Kenney, 92 CH 293, M.R. 8423 (September 29, 1992) (censure). All the cases cited by Respondent involve attorneys who admitted wrongdoing and engaged in sexual misconduct outside the scope of the attorney-client relationship. Additionally, the attorneys in Greenstein, 02 RC 1501 and Kenney, 92 CH 293 received psychological counseling to address their sexual misconduct.

After reviewing these cases, we find Respondent's misconduct is more analogous to the misconduct in the cases cited by the Administrator. We believe this case is most comparable to Dotson, 04 SH 120 and Silverman, 03 SH 110.

The attorney in Dotson "engaged in a pattern of reprehensible and grossly offensive misconduct by making uninvited sexual advances and/or comments to three women who visited his law office on separate occasions." (Hearing Bd. at 25). These advances included inappropriately touching the girlfriend of his client when she came to his office to pick up some paper work by rubbing her breasts, grabbing her between her legs and rubbing her vagina through her clothing. He also made lewd and offensive remarks to two female clients which caused them emotional upset. The attorney in Dotson was suspended from the practice of law for one year for his misconduct.

PAGE 76:

In Silverman the attorney made sexual advances towards the girlfriend of a client and touched her in an insulting and demeaning manner when he coerced her into allowing him to rub his penis against her buttocks until he ejaculated. He also made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a female client by asking her to "fool around" and "screw around." The attorney in Silverman was suspended for nine months for his misconduct and the Hearing Board took into consideration his substantial mitigation including significant pro bono service and no prior discipline.

Similarly to the attorneys in Dotson and Silverman, Respondent engaged in misconduct of a sexual nature towards two clients and toward the wife of another client. Respondent's actions were reprehensible and insulting and could not have been reasonably considered by him to be acceptable behavior under the ethical rules of our profession. We believe a one year suspension is warranted in this case. Respondent does not have the substantial mitigating evidence presented in Silverman and similarly to the attorney in Dotson, Respondent engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct involving three different women.

Considering the nature of the Respondent's misconduct, the evidence in mitigation and the evidence in aggravation, this Panel recommends Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Date Entered: December 9, 2009

Joseph A Bartholomew, Chair, with James P. Fieweger and David Winter concurring

__________________________
1 The Administrator's Third Amended Complaint corrected typographical errors contained in the Second Amended Complaint and Respondent was not required to file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.