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

In the Matter of:

PAUL M. WEISS,

Attorney-Respondent, 

No. 6217260.

 

Commission No.    08 CH 116

 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Maureen GormanWendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Paul M. Weiss, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November 4, 1993, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

COUNT I-Rachel Barker
Telephone Harassment, Assault and Battery

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-3, which provides, "Battery. (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-1, which provides, "Assault. (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."

3. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois ILCS 5/10-3, which provides, "Unlawful restraint. (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint when he knowingly without legal authority detains another."

4. At all times alleged in this complaint there was in effect a criminal statue in Illinois 720 ILCS 135/1-1 which provides:

"Harassment by telephone. Harassment by telephone is use of telephone communication for any of the following purposes:

(1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with an intent to offend; or

(2) Making a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues with intent to abuse, threaten or harass any person at the called number; or

(4) Making repeated telephone calls, during which conversations, ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or

(5) Knowingly permitting any telephone under one's control to be used for any of the purposes mentioned herein.

5. In the fall of 2001, Rachel Barker ("Rachel") began employment as a legal assistant at the law office of Freed & Weiss, LLC, hereinafter ("the firm") where Respondent is a named partner. Rachel's birthday is July 26, 1982. The highest level of education she had completed was high school.

6. Within the first week of Rachel's employment, Respondent brought her into a new office space, stood extremely close to her, and made a comment to her about wanting to kiss her. Rachel refused Respondent's suggestion.

7. Shortly after Rachel began her employment at Respondent's request, Rachel agreed to go to a Chicago Bulls basketball game at the United Center with him.

8. Following the game, Respondent told Rachel he would take her home. While still in the United Center parking lot, Respondent reached over to Rachel and grabbed her upper thighs and attempted to reach her vagina. Rachel pushed Respondent away and asked him to bring her home.

9. Respondent then pulled down his pants and asked Rachel to "kiss it," referring to his penis. Rachel exited Respondent's car and went home alone.

10. During the period of her employment at the firm, Respondent on various occasions made sexually suggestive comments to Rachel. On various occasions, Respondent also attempted to kiss Rachel and touch her breasts and vagina over her clothing. When these incidents occurred, Rachel asked Respondent not to touch her or say anything vulgar to her.

11. Between November 1, 2001 and July 28, 2002 while Rachel was employed at the firm, Respondent called Rachel's cell phone on forty-nine occasions at various hours during the day and night. Respondent commented about Rachel's attractive appearance and things of a sexual nature that he wanted to do to her. Respondent made other comments that were obscene, lewd, lascivious and filthy or indecent with intent to offend. Rachel would tell Respondent not to call her anymore. Instead of the calls ceasing, Respondent's phone call became more persistent, forceful and inappropriate as time continued. Respondent asked Rachel to talk dirty to him while he masturbated. Rachel refused. Rachel heard Respondent grunting and moaning during the calls. Respondent would tell Rachel that he was masturbating. Rachel repeatedly requested Respondent to cease making the telephone calls.

12. Respondent made the telephone calls outlined in paragraph eleven above with the intent to abuse, threaten or harass Rachel.

13. In 2002, Rachel requested an advance on her salary to pay her cell phone bill. Respondent gave Rachel $300 and told her to consider it a loan, which she could pay back "in the flesh."

14. Between 2002 and 2003 on regular occasions, Respondent pushed Rachel against a wall in an office, kiss her and grab her breasts. Rachel told Respondent to stop and got away as quickly as she could. On one such occasion, Respondent told Rachel, "While I had sexual relations with my wife this morning, I was thinking about you."

15. At some time after January 7, 2003, Respondent cornered Rachel while she was on her way to the office restroom. Respondent then forced Rachel into a stairwell where he attempted to kiss her. Respondent grabbed Rachel's breasts, touched her vagina over her clothing and attempted to put his hand down her pants. When Rachel resisted Respondent's advances, Respondent exposed himself and masturbated until he ejaculated on the stairwell wall. During this incident, Rachel repeatedly requested that he release her and stop what he was doing.

16. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing battery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3, assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-1; unlawful restraint in violation of 720 ILCS 5/10-3 and telephone harassment in violation of 720 ILCS 135/1-1;

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

COUNT II-Tanja Samardzija
Assault and Battery

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-3, which provides, "Battery. (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-1, which provides, "Assault. (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."

3. In 2002, Tanja Samardzija ("Tanja") began her employment as an associate attorney at the law firm, Freed & Weiss, LLC (hereinafter "the firm") where Respondent is a named partner.

4. During the period of her employment at the firm, Respondent made comments of a lewd or sexual nature to Tanja.

5. In August 2002, Respondent approached Tanja in a copy room and asked her if she had a boyfriend. She replied not really. He then asked if she believed in "sex between friends." Respondent asked Tanja if he could feel her calf muscle and when Tanja did not reply, Respondent reached down and felt her muscle, saying, "I bet you'd be a lot of fun. You've gotten a lot better looking in the past year." Respondent then said, "I'm not harassing you, am I?" Tanya looked at Respondent warning him that she wanted him to stop.

6. On September 12, 2002, Respondent went into Tanja's office to discuss her draft responses of motions to dismiss. Tanja was wearing an ankle-length skirt with a slit in the front and was seated. During a discussion about a legal matter, Tanja crossed her legs, briefly exposing her right calf. Respondent reached over to Tanja to touch her right calf. She quickly uncrossed her legs and held the slit in her skirt closed to get Respondent to stop. Tanya then asked Respondent about the edits to divert his attention back to work and so he would leave her alone.

7. On September 13, 2002, Respondent entered Tanja's office to discuss a legal matter. Respondent then interjected, "You know, you need to start coming in her wearing some low-cut shit…because sex sells." Tanja replied with disgust, that sex had nothing to do with work. Respondent left her office.

8. On September 23, 2002, Tanya met with Respondent and his partner, Eric Freed. Among other things, she told them that she wanted the sexual harassment to stop.

9. On December 12 and 21, 2002, Tanya and Rachel had conversations during which they discussed some of Respondent's inappropriate conduct towards them.

10. On December 26, 2002, Respondent's firm terminated Tanya Samardzija's employment by leaving a voice mail message for her when she was out of the office.

11. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing battery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3, and assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-1;

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

COUNT III-Krystle White
Assault and Battery

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-3, which provides, "Battery. (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

2. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-1, which provides, "Assault. (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."

3. In the summer of 2002, Krystle White ("Krystle") began her employment as a hourly employee at Respondent's law firm, Freed & Weiss, LLC (hereinafter "the firm"). Her job responsibilities included answering phones and filing. Krystle's birthday is June 29, 1985.

4. During the period of her employment at the firm, Krystle was walking down the hall dressed in a khaki skirt and black shirt. Respondent came up behind her, said "you look great," and then grabbed her buttocks and said, "I just wanted you to know that."

5. Krystle was very upset by Respondent's touching her body. Her half-sister, Rachel Barker was also employed at the firm. Krystle, still shaking, went and told Rachel about what Respondent had done. Rachel and Krystle went to talk to Respondent. Rachel asked Respondent, "Did you just touch my sister's butt?" Respondent denied the same. Krystle left Respondent's employ shortly thereafter.

6. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing battery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3, and assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-1;

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

COUNT IV-Stephanie Newman
Telephone Harassment, Assault and Battery

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 5/12-3, which provided: "Battery. (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-1, which provided: "Assault. (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."

3. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 135/1-1 which provided:

"Harassment by telephone. Harassment by telephone is use of telephone communication for any of the following purposes:

(1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with an intent to offend; or

(2) Making a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues with intent to abuse, threaten or harass any person at the called number; or

(4) Making repeated telephone calls, during which conversations ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or

(5) Knowingly permitting any telephone under one's control to be used for any of the purposes mentioned herein.

4. In 2000, Stephanie Newman ("Stephanie"), began employment as a legal assistant at Respondent's law firm.

5. Shortly after Stephanie began her employment, Respondent began calling her at home and made sexually suggestive comments, including asking her what she was wearing. Stephanie would respond to Respondent's inappropriate comments by saying things like "stop being gross, and you know I'm not telling you." Stephanie would then end the conversation. At no time did Stephanie encourage Respondent's comments nor did she make him think they were welcome.

6. During Stephanie's employment, Respondent on various occasions made sexually suggestive comments to Stephanie in the firm's office. At no time did Stephanie encourage Respondent's comments nor did she make him think they were welcome.

7. On one occasion in 2001, Respondent was seated across from Stephanie and began rubbing his crotch in a sexually suggestive manner. Stephanie again told Respondent to stop it.

8. On another occasion in 2001, Respondent was meeting with Stephanie alone in his office with the door closed. He took his pants off in front of her and stood in his boxers. Stephanie asked Respondent to stop it and advised him she was not interested in seeing him get undressed.

9. In 2001, while they were alone in the kitchen of Respondent's law office, Respondent reached his hand down Stephanie's shirt and grabbed her breast. Stephanie pulled away and told Respondent to stop.

10. Shortly after the incident in the kitchen described in paragraph 9 above, Stephanie resigned from Respondent's law firm. At the time Stephanie tendered her resignation, Respondent told Stephanie that now that she had resigned, she could have sexual intercourse with him because he would no longer be her boss.

11. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing battery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3, assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-1; unlawful restraint in violation of 720 ILCS 5/10-3 and telephone harassment in violation of 720 ILCS 135/1-1;

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

COUNT V
(Public Indecency and Disorderly Conduct-Molly Kelly)

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/11-9-1, which provided, "Public Indecency. (a)(2) Any person of the age of 17 years and upwards commits a public indecency when he performs the act of a lewd exposure of the body done with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of the person."

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/26-1, which provided, "Disorderly Conduct. (a)(1) A person commits disorderly conduct when he acts in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace."

3. In 1999 and 2000, Molly Kelly lived on the top floor apartment of a three-flat brownstone building located on north Greenview in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent and his wife resided in the second floor apartment. The apartment building had a common entry way used by all residents where newspapers and mail was delivered.

4. On 10 to 15 occasions during 1999 and 2000, as Kelly departed her third floor apartment and descended the stairs approaching Respondent's second floor apartment, Respondent opened his door to ask Kelly to throw him up the newspaper from the bottom floor.

5. On several occasions, when Respondent opened his door to speak to Kelly, Respondent appeared to be nude. Initially, Respondent would open the door a crack, then on each subsequent occasion Respondent would open the further until he was standing nude and fully exposed to Kelly.

6. In or about February or March 2000, after Respondent had opened his door and fully exposed himself to Kelly, Kelly felt threatened and upset and reported Respondent's conduct to her apartment building managers, Patrick and Caroline Michel. On March 2, 2000, the Michels telephoned Respondent and advised Respondent that his actions in exposing himself would not be tolerated and demanded that Respondent cease such conduct.

7. On June 9, 2000, Respondent again stepped out fully nude into the hallway as Kelly was descending the stairs from her apartment. Respondent had an erection and made no remark to Kelly, but stood on the landing as she passed by. Kelly was concerned that Respondent's action was intended to intimidate her because she had reported to the building manager the prior incidents where Respondent had exposed himself to her.

8. Subsequent to the incident on June 9, 2000, Kelly reported Respondent's conduct to the Michels. The Michels sent a letter to Respondent advising Respondent that in light of their prior warning and the June 9, 2000, incident, Respondent vacate the premises within 60 days.

9. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing public indecency in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-9-1, and disorderly conduct in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1;

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

COUNT VI
(Public Indecency and Disorderly Conduct -Reyna Castellanos)

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/11-9-1, which provided, "Public Indecency. (a)(2) Any person of the age of 17 years and upwards commits a public indecency when he performs the act of a lewd exposure of the body done with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of the person."

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/26-1, which provided, "Disorderly Conduct. (a)(1) A person commits disorderly conduct when he acts in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace."

3. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a municipal code in the Village of Deerfield, Illinois, Sec. 15-2 (6), Disorderly Conduct, which provided, "Disorderly Conduct: A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly acts in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another person and provoke a breach of the peace."

4. On or about July 8, 2003, Reyna Castellanos departed the train station in Deerfield and began walking north on Chestnut. As Castellanos approached Linden Ave., Respondent pulled up next to Castellanos in his automobile.

5. Respondent called out his car window to ask Castellanos if she cleaned houses. Castellanos told Respondent that she did clean houses, but that she was too busy to take on more work. Castellanos offered to convey Respondent's name and telephone number to a friend who also cleaned homes.

6. Respondent told Castellanos that he did not have a business card, paper or pen and asked if Castenllanos had pen and paper. Castellanos approached Respondent's car and gave Respondent her calendar book and a pen so he could write his name and number.

7. Respondent wrote his telephone number in Castellanos' calendar book. Castellanos noted that Respondent did not write his name and she asked Respondent for his name. He stated that his name was "Paul." Castellanos further noted that the telephone number was 312 area code and asked if he lived in Deerfield. Respondent told Castellanos that he did live in Deerfield but the number was his office number in Chicago.

8. Respondent then asked Castellanos if he could give her a ride to work. Castellanos declined, and told Paul that she liked to walk.

9. Respondent then requested that Castellanos get in his car, which she refused. At that time, Respondent unzipped his pants, grabbed and exposed his penis and pulled it toward her.

10. Castellanos was shocked by Respondent's action in exposing his penis to her. She walked away from Respondent's car.

11. Castellanos felt threatened and upset by Respondent's actions as set forth in paragraph nine above and she decided to report the matter to the Deerfield Police Department.

12. On or about July 8, 2003, after receiving Castellanos' complaint, Officer Juan Maziegos of the Deerfield Police Department called the telephone number Respondent wrote in Castellanos' calendar book. Respondent answered the telephone and advised the officer that his name was Paul Weiss. Because his first name was the same name given to Castellanos, Officer Maziegos informed Respondent of Castellanos' complaint and requested Respondent to come to the police station. Respondent agreed to come to the Deerfield Police station in the evening of July 9, 2003.

13. On July 17, 2003, Respondent was arrested and charged with violation of Deerfield Municipal Code Sec. 15-2(6), disorderly conduct, and released after posting bond.

14. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing public indecency in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-9-1, and disorderly conduct in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1 and Deerfield municipal code Sec. 15-2 (6);

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

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

COUNT VII-Angela Aneiros
Telephone Harassment, Assault and Battery

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-3, which provided, "Battery. (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-1, which provided, "Assault. (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery."

3. At all times alleged in this complaint there was in effect a criminal statue in Illinois 720 ILCS 135/1-1 which provided:

"Harassment by telephone. Harassment by telephone is use of telephone communication for any of the following purposes:

(1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent with an intent to offend; or

(2) Making a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues with intent to abuse, threaten or harass any person at the called number; or

(4) Making repeated telephone calls, during which conversations, ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or

(5) Knowingly permitting any telephone under one's control to be used for any of the purposes mentioned herein.

4. On March 17, 2010, Angela Aneiros was hired as a contract lawyer in Freed & Weiss (hereinafter, "the firm"). Aneiros agreed to be paid on an hourly basis.

5. In May 2010, during working hours, Respondent made comments to Aneiros about her personal appearance. Respondent commented that Aneiros, a triathelete, was "in really good shape" and "an attractive girl." Respondent asked Aneiros questions about how often she ran and worked out. Aneiros did not encourage Respondent's personal comments but did not strongly object because she was reasonably concerned that if she did so, it would negatively impact her employment prospects at the firm and she needed employment.

6. On May 21, 2010, Respondent offered Aneiros a full time associate position, which she accepted and began on June 1, 2010.

7. In June and July 2010, Respondent's comments to and behavior towards Aneiros during working hours escalated to become more overtly sexual. Respondent requested to rub Aneiros' calf, asked if he could give her massages, told her repeatedly that he found her to be attractive and asked if she would show him her body or wear a bathing suit to the office. Aneiros consistently advised Respondent that she had a boyfriend, that his comments of a personal or sexual nature were not welcome, and that she would not permit him to touch her.

8. In mid-July 2010, Respondent, who was not in the law office, telephoned Aneiros on her direct office line and asked her to describe what she was wearing. Aneiros advised Respondent she was wearing clothing she'd worn previously to the office and Respondent asked Aneiros to take a picture of herself and send it to him. Aneiros objected to and declined Respondent's personal request.

9. Respondent made the telephone call outlined in paragraph eight above with the intent to abuse, threaten or harass Aneiros.

10. During the time of Aneiros' employment, Respondent engaged in behavior during working hours which became increasingly aggressive and sexual, often asking Aneiros to go to an empty office or hallway, ask to see her "without a top," offer money for her "favors" or "to work out a deal." Aneiros always declined and advised Respondent that she considered such comments to be offensive. Respondent casually touched Aneiros frequently although she asked him not to do so. Respondent told Aneiros that he would "wear [her] down" and that in the end, he "always got what he wanted."

11. In early September 2010, Respondent asked Aneiros to go pick up lunch with him. Respondent directed Aneiros to enter an alley south of Washington Street, between Clark and LaSalle Streets, as a means to the restaurant, and, once they were in the alley, Respondent tried to touch and kiss Aneiros. Aneiros pushed Respondent away and told him to "talk to your psychologist."

12. On more than one occasion on September 23, 2010, Respondent told Aneiros that he found her to be attractive and tried to touch the side of her torso. Aneiros asked Respondent not to touch her because she found it offensive and uncomfortable.

13. On September 24, 2010, Respondent and Aneiros were scheduled to travel to New Jersey for a meeting, and return that same day. Respondent told Aneiros that his wife objected to Respondent and Aneiros traveling together, that he and his wife were fighting about Aneiros, and that his wife had gone through Aneiros' e-mail. At 5:00 p.m., Aneiros advised Respondent that she had found the day upsetting and wanted to go home. Respondent asked if he could give her a hug. Aneiros refused, but Respondent attempted to hug Aneiros anyway. Aneiros opened Respondent's office door in an effort to stop his physical contact with her and to move away from him. That evening Respondent telephoned Aneiros and she told him that she was uncomfortable with her work environment and that his behavior was offensive and causing problems for her.

14. On October 6, 2010, Respondent told Aneiros that there were perceptions that she did not work hard. Aneiros objected and described to Respondent how many extra hours she worked.

15. On October 18, 2010, during working hours, Respondent told Aneiros that she was sexy, had a great body, and asked her to give him "one day" with her. Aneiros objected to Respondent's comments. Later that day, Respondent sent Aneiros an e-mail complaining about her language and conduct towards him in the office.

16. Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs 10-13, and 15 above was knowing contact of an insulting or provoking nature and designed to place Aneiros in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

17. On October 18, 2010, after receiving Respondent's e-mail described in paragraph 15 above, Aneiros telephoned Respondent and asked if his comments described in paragraph 14 and e-mails as set forth in paragraph 15 above, were designed as a defense to a possible harassment charge from her or whether he was "trying to make a case" against her. Respondent told Aneiros that the e-mails would prevent him from being in a position of his word against her word.

18. On November 5, 2010, Respondent asked her why he "couldn't have just one day" with her and Aneiros told Respondent absolutely not, he could not have one day with her, and that she was not attracted to him in any way whatsoever. Respondent then angrily told Aneiros that she was incompetent.

19. On November 8, 2010, Aneiros told Respondent that she believed he retaliated against her when she rejected his unwelcome advances and that the inappropriate things he said to her were upsetting to her and decreasing her productivity.

20. On November 23, 2010, Respondent asked Aneiros several times to go out to dinner with him that evening. Aneiros declined. After Aneiros left the office, Respondent repeatedly called and e-mailed Aneiros asking her to return to the office without stating a work-related reason. When she said no, he asked her why she was "playing so hard to get" and why couldn't she "just have a little fun." Aneiros told Respondent she was not ‘playing hard to get' because she was not interested in Respondent. Respondent told her she wore "cute little outfits" to work. Aneiros denied Respondent's statements about her clothes and told Respondent it was not her clothing that was the problem, it was him.

21. On Friday, December 10, 2010, Respondent's comments in the office to Aneiros were constant and intolerable. Aneiros observed Respondent to be drinking alcohol in the office. Respondent told her "I just want to bend you over." Aneiros was afraid of Respondent and decided to leave the office at 5:30, at which time Respondent asked her if he could walk her to her train. Although Aneiros did not want to be alone with Respondent, Respondent insisted on joining her. In the elevator, Respondent pushed himself against Aneiros and asked, "Am I scaring you yet?" Aneiros asked Respondent not to touch her. As she was walking to the train, Respondent said things including, "Do you think you are going to have sex tonight?" "Why do you play hard-to-get?" and "Would you be offended if I put my cock in you?" and similar comments. Aneiros responded that she was offended. Walking on South Riverside Plaza, as they approached Adams Street, Respondent grabbed Aneiros and leaned her back and grabbed her breasts over her clothing. Aneiros dropped her bags and pushed Respondent away. Respondent called Aneiros a "cunt" and a "bitch" who would not "give it" to him. He said she "wore outfits to work that show your pussy." Aneiros told Respondent he was the problem she and got on the train.

22. Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs 18-21 above was knowing contact of an insulting or provoking nature and designed to place Aneiros in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

23. On Friday, December 10, 2010, from the train, Aneiros sent text messages to a friend describing her distress with Respondent's conduct, including one that said "my boss cornered me and I had my hands full and he just completely felt me up. Then he called me a cunt for not giving it to him. Whose fucking life am I living. I'm freaking out I think I need to wuit [sic] "Quit."

24. By e-mail on Sunday, December 12, 2010, Anieros informed Respondent's partners of Respondent's conduct toward her, specifically including his conduct on December 10, 2010, and stated that she did not intend to ever return to the office.

25 As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by committing battery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3, assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-1; unlawful restraint in violation of 720 ILCS 5/10-3 and telephone harassment in violation of 720 ILCS 135/1-1;

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

WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.

 

Wendy J. Muchman
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, #1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 565-2600
Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:   Wendy J. Muchman