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

In the Matter of:

 KENNETH EDWARD MATEAS,

Attorney-Respondent, 

No.  6183645.

 

Commission No.  09 CH 20

FILED -  May 11, 2009

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Athena T. Taite, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 761, complains of Respondent, Kenneth Edward Mateas, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November 1, 1982, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

(Conviction for reproduction of child pornography)

1. In 2004, Respondent possessed and reproduced child pornography.

2. In 2004, 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(c) provided that it was a Class 1 felony to reproduce child pornography as described in 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(2), and that it was a Class 3 felony to possess child pornography as described in 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6).

3. On June 29, 2007, Respondent was charged with possession and reproduction of child pornography in a 49-count indictment filed with the Circuit Court for the 16th Judicial Circuit, Kane County, Illinois, in a matter docketed as People v. Mateas, case no. 07 CF 1848.

4. The indictment described in paragraph three, above, set forth the following allegations:

  1. in Counts 1-11, the indictment charged Respondent with child pornography in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(2)(vii) for knowingly reproducing depictions by computer of children whom Respondent knew or reasonably should have known to be under the age of 18 depicted in a pose involving the lewd exhibition of the unclothed genitals of the children;

  2. in Counts 12-47, the indictment charged Respondent with child pornography in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6)(vii) for knowingly possessing a depiction by computer of children whom Respondent knew or reasonably should have known to be under the age of 18 depicted in a pose involving the lewd exhibition of the unclothed genitals of the children;

  3. in Count 48, the indictment charged Respondent with child pornography in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6)(iv) for knowingly possessing a depiction by computer of two children whom Respondent knew or reasonably should have known to be under the age of 18 actually engaged in an act of lewd touching of another person; and

  4. in Count 49, the indictment charged Respondent with child pornography in violation of 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6)(iii) for knowingly possessing a depiction by computer of a child whom Respondent knew or reasonably should have known to be under the age of 18 actually engaged in an act of masturbation.

A certified copy of the indictment is attached as Exhibit One.

5. On October 27, 2008, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1-9 of the indictment described above in paragraph three, stipulating that if witnesses were called, they would testify competently to sufficient facts to support a finding of guilty. The Kane County State's Attorney made a motion to nolle prosequi Counts 10-49 of the indictment. A certified copy of the Plea of Guilty is attached as Exhibit Two.

6. On January 7, 2009, having found Respondent guilty of Counts 1-9 of the indictment and granting the motion to nolle prosequi, Judge Timothy Sheldon sentenced Respondent to four years in the Department of Corrections, $3,889 in fines, costs and fees, and registration for life as a sex offender. Judge Sheldon also ordered that Respondent receive credit for time already served on home monitoring and in jail. A certified copy of the Judgment Order is attached as Exhibit Three. [The Judgment Order reflects the nolle prosequi of Counts 10-48, not Counts 10-49, because Counts 26 and 27 relate to the same allegedly pornographic image.]

7. On February 6, 2009, the Kane County State's Attorney filed a motion to clarify Respondent's sentence in People v. Mateas, due to the State's Attorney's belief that Respondent had mistakenly been given credit for time served on home monitoring.

8. On February 20, 2009, having granted the motion to clarify sentence, Judge Sheldon entered an Amended Judgment Order Nunc Pro Tunc modifying the credit that Respondent received for time already served to time served in jail. A certified copy of the Amended Judgment Order is attached as Exhibit Four.

9. As a result of the order of conviction and 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, by violating 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(6)(vii), in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

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

WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 761, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.

Athena T. Taite
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
Telephone: (312) 565-2600
Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:   Athena T. Taite