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

In the Matter of:

DON PAUL KOENEMAN, JR.,

Attorney-Respondent, 

No.  6182868.

 

Commission No.  09 SH 112

FILED -  September 2, 2009

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Gary S. Rapaport, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 753(b) and 761, complains of Respondent, Don Paul Koeneman, Jr., 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 which brings the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

Allegation common to all counts.

1. In 2007 and 2008, the offense of disorderly conduct was defined to include the following: "(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and provoke a breach of the peace." 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a).

Count I
(Disorderly conduct toward Kimberly Wingerter)

2. In 2008, Kimberly Wingerter ("Wingerter") was a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service. Her route included Respondent's home in Chester, Illinois. Respondent's mailbox was on a post at the curb.

3. Between May, 2008, and September, 2008, on numerous occasions, generally between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Respondent, while wearing no clothes other than very small and tight, Speedo-style swim briefs or women's panties, met Wingerter at the curb when she delivered his mail. On some or all of those occasions, including on September 18, 2008, Respondent had an erection that was obviously visible through his swim briefs or panties.

4. On two of the occasions described in paragraph 3, above, specifically, once in early September, 2008, and on September 18, 2008, Respondent ejaculated in Wingerter's presence.

5. Respondent's above-described conduct alarmed and disturbed Wingerter and provoked a breach of the peace.

6. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. commission of a criminal act, disorderly conduct, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(1), 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;

  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

  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 II
(Disorderly conduct toward Paige Welge)

7. In 2007, Respondent and Paige Welge ("Welge") were neighbors and lived three houses apart in Chester, Illinois.

8. On a weekday morning in July, 2007, at or about 8:50 a.m., Respondent was outside his home wearing no clothes other than very small and tight, Speedo-style swim briefs.

9. On the above-mentioned day and time, Welge drove by Respondent's home on her way to work. Respondent went to the curb and waived Welge to stop. When Welge stopped, Respondent had an erection that was obviously visible through his swim briefs. Respondent asked Welge if she had seen his dog. Welge replied that she had not and would let him know if she did see it, and she drove away.

10. Respondent's above-described conduct alarmed and disturbed Welge and provoked a breach of the peace.

11. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. commission of a criminal act, disorderly conduct, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(1), 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;

  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

  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 III
(Disorderly conduct toward Bitzie Link)

12. In 2008, Welge and Bitzie Link ("Link") were friends and often met at Welge's home to jog together in Welge's neighborhood. Respondent and Link were acquainted.

13. On September 22, 2008, before 9:00 a.m., Link drove to Welge's home and met with her to exercise together. Link walked in the neighborhood and Welge jogged in the neighborhood.

14. On the same date, between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Respondent was outside his home wearing no clothes other than very small and tight, Speedo-style swim briefs. Respondent saw Link and Welge exercising.

15. Between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Link and Welge completed their exercise and returned to Welge's house. Link departed in her car from Welge's home. As she drove by Respondent's home, Respondent ran to the street and waived her to stop. When Link stopped, Respondent had an erection that was obviously visible through his swim briefs. Respondent asked Link to drive back down the street to look for his dog, and Link said that she would.

16. Link did not did not see Respondent's dog and decided to drive home. As she drove by Respondent's home a second time, Respondent again ran to her car and waived her to stop. He still wore no clothes other than very small and tight, Speedo-style swim briefs. When Link stopped, Respondent held his penis through his swim briefs and ejaculated in her presence.

17. Respondent's above-described conduct alarmed and disturbed Link and provoked a breach of the peace.

18. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. commission of a criminal act, disorderly conduct, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(1), 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;

  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

  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 IV
(Conviction for disorderly conduct)

19. On November 13, 2008, the State's Attorney for Randolph County, Illinois, filed a criminal complaint charging Respondent with three counts of disorderly conduct on the basis of the conduct described in Counts I, II and III, above. The matter was docketed as People v. Dan Paul Koeneman, Jr., No. 08-CM-684, in the Circuit Court for Randolph County.

20. Count I of the criminal complaint stated as follows: "That on September 22, 2008, in Randolph County, DON PAUL KOENEMAN, JR., committed the offense of DISORDERLY CONDUCT in that the said defendant knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm and disturb Bitzie Link, and provoke a breach of the peace, in violation of Chapter 720 Ill. Compiled Statutes, Act 5, Section 26-1(a)(1)."

22. Count II of the criminal complaint stated as follows: "That in July of 2007, in Randolph County, DON PAUL KOENEMAN, JR., committed the offense of DISORDERLY CONDUCT in that the said defendant knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm and disturb Paige Welge, and provoke a breach of the peace, in violation of Chapter 720 Ill. Compiled Statutes, Act 5, Section 26-1(a)(1)."

23. Count III of the criminal complaint stated as follows: "That on September 18, 2008, in Randolph County, DON PAUL KOENEMAN, JR., committed the offense of DISORDERLY CONDUCT in that the said defendant knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm and disturb Kimberly Wingerter, and provoke a breach of the peace, in violation of Chapter 720 Ill. Compiled Statutes, Act 5, Section 26-1(a)(1)."

24. On January 9, 2009, Respondent entered into an agreed disposition in case no. 08-CM-684. Respondent pleaded guilty to counts I and II, and the court dismissed count III. The court sentenced Respondent to a one-year term of supervision, with conditions that included a fine of $200.00 and psychological counseling.

25. A copy of the conviction is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

26. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. commission of a criminal act, disorderly conduct, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(1), 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;

  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

  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 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.

Gary S. Rapaport
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission
One North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 333
Springfield, Illinois 62701
Telephone: (217) 522-6838
Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:   Gary S. Rapaport
        Counsel for the Administrator