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

In the Matter of:

HUNTER HOGAN,

Attorney-Respondent, 

No.  6296751.

 

Commission No.  2011PR00047 

FILED -  May 26, 2011

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney Wendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b) complains of Respondent, Hunter Hogan, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 6, 2008, 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:

Background Common to Both Counts

1. On February 2, 2009, Respondent began employment as an Assistant State's Attorney in Carroll County, Illinois, assisting primarily in the prosecution of misdemeanors and petty offenses. At that time, Respondent was 34 years old.

2. In his position as Assistant State's Attorney, Respondent was a minister of justice as a representative of the People of the State of Illinois, and was in a position of power and authority over defendants and victims in criminal matters.

Count I
(Overreaching his Position of Trust as a Prosecutor in K.I. matter)

3. On February 5, 2008, the State of Illinois filed a complaint against K.I. charging her with minor drinking, a class A misdemeanor, in the Circuit Court of Carroll County. The clerk of the court assigned the matter a case number and it proceeded as, People of the State of Illinois v. K.I. (1).

4. On March 3, 2008, K.I., then age seventeen, plead guilty to the charge of minor drinking and was sentenced to court supervision for a period of 12 months in the case.

5. On October 20, 2008, the State of Illinois filed a second complaint against K.I. charging her with unlawful consumption of alcoholic liquor as a minor, a class A misdemeanor, in the Circuit Court of Carroll County. The clerk of the court assigned the matter a case number and it proceeded as, People of the State of Illinois v. K. I. (2).

6. On October 22, 2008, the State filed a petition to revoke court supervision which K.I. had received in her case (1), due to K.I.'s failure to comply with the condition of the supervision that she not violate any criminal statutes of any jurisdiction.

7. Prior to March 9, 2009, the state consolidated the two case numbers relating to K.I. On March 9, 2009, K.I. entered a plea of guilty to the offense of minor drinking and was sentenced to incarceration for 22 days followed by a period of probation with conditions for 12 months.

8. Prior to April 2, 2009, Respondent was assigned as prosecutor in K.I.'s cases.

9. On April 12, 2009, Respondent filed a petition to revoke probation on behalf of the state in K.I.'s case, on the basis that K.I. had failed to keep her home visit appointment with her probation officer, failed to complete her alcohol and substance abuse treatment as ordered, and failed to notify the probation department of her change of address.

10. On April 15, 2009, a warrant of arrest was issued against K.I. in her cases.

11. On October 20, 2009, following a traffic stop of K.I., K.I. was charged with resisting or obstructing a peace officer, a class A misdemeanor, when she ran from a police officer who noted the arrest warrant issued in her case, and advised her she was under arrest. The clerk of the court assigned the matter case number, People of the State of Illinois v. K.I. (3)

12. On October 21, 2009, Respondent met with K.I. in jail. K.I. was unrepresented by counsel. Respondent and K.I. engaged in a discussion of a personal nature, during which she stated that she hoped to pursue a career in photography.

13. Between October and November 2009, as a result of his prosecution of K.I. in her cases, Respondent learned that K.I drank to intoxication almost daily, had experimented with controlled substances and had poor relationships with her family. Respondent also learned that K.I. had been dating a thirty year-old man.

14. On January 8, 2010, K.I. was sentenced to a period of incarceration for 162 days, credit for time served of 81 days, and an 18 month period of probation in her case. K.I. was released from jail shortly thereafter to her grandparents' custody.

15. Between January 8 and January 14, 2010, Respondent saw K.I. at the court house with her grandparents. Respondent asked K.I. how she was doing and she told him that she was waiting to get admitted to a halfway house. She also told Respondent about her interest in becoming a photojournalist. Respondent offered to loan her his old extra digital SLR camera and told K.I. to contact him to effectuate the loan.

16. About two weeks later, K.I. called Respondent at his office at the Carroll County State's Attorneys office. They had a 25-40 minute conversation of a personal nature. At the conclusion of the conversation, Respondent indicated he would drop the camera off at her grandparents' home.

17. Between January 8, 2010, and January 24, 2010, Respondent left at least one telephone message and one text message for K.I.

18. On January 24, 2010, Respondent drove to K.I.'s grandparents' home and stated that he was there to lend K.I. a camera to assist her in her pursuit of her photography career. Respondent invited K.I. to join him in a shopping trip to Sterling, Illinois. K.I. agreed and accompanied Respondent in his car to Wal-Mart and dinner at Appleby's restaurant. On the route home in the car, K.I. told Respondent that she had "a crush on him forever." Respondent asked K.I. if she wanted to "hang out" again, and K.I. told Respondent that she was going to a halfway house. Respondent and K.I. returned her grandparents' home, and before K.I. exited the car, Respondent kissed K.I. Respondent placed his hand on K.I.'s knee and invited her back to his apartment. K.I. refused, departed the car and Respondent drove away.

19. On January 25, 2010, Respondent sent the following four text messages to K.I.:

"11:23 a.m. Good morning! I had fun last night and I am looking forward to seeing you again tonight. Also, for right now, let's not create gossip, so let's be discrete.

12:05 p.m. Let's take some pictures tonight.

4:02 p.m. I think I can get out of here by 4:30. How about I pick you up at 5:00?

4:07 p.m. Hey this is hunter. Just checking 2 c if my txts r getting 2 u.

K.I. did not respond to the text messages. Respondent then telephoned K.I. K.I.'s grandmother answered the telephone and asked Respondent not to communicate further with her granddaughter.

20. On February 11, 2010, K.I.'s probation officer had a home visit with K.I. at her grandparent's house. K.I. informed the probation officer of the January 24, 2010, contact between Respondent and K.I., as well as Respondent's subsequent e-mails, both of which K.I. described as "inappropriate." K.I. also stated that Respondent's conduct made her feel "uncomfortable." K.I. told her probation officer that she was concerned about the contact with Respondent, was worried that it would jeopardize her probation, and wanted Respondent to leave her alone. On February 16, 2010, the probation officer informed the Carroll County State's Attorney of the information given to her by K.I. about Respondent.

21. On February 25, 2010, the State's Attorney advised Respondent that if Respondent did not tender his resignation by February 26, 2010, effective March 12, 2010, then the State's Attorney would terminate Respondent's employment. On February 26, 2010, Respondent tendered his resignation, effective March 12, 2010.

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

  1. overreaching his position of trust and authority as a prosecutor;

  2. conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the 1990 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
(Criminal Conduct in J.C. Matter)

1-2. The Administrator realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs one and two of count I above.

3. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-16(f), which provided, "Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse: a person commits aggravated criminal sexual abuse if he or she commits an act of sexual conduct with a victim who was at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age when the act was committed and the accused was 17 years of age or over and held a position of trust, authority or supervision in relation to the victim."

4. On April 29, 2009, the State filed a complaint against A.F. charging him with violating a civil no contact order held by J.C. The clerk of the court assigned the matter a case number and it proceeded as, People of the State of Illinois v. A.F. While prosecuting the case, Respondent first became acquainted with the victim, J.C.

5. On June 24, 2009, when J.C. was 16, Respondent filed a two-count complaint on behalf of the state charging A.F. with child pornography by photographing J.C. when she was 14 years old in several poses with her genitals exposed, with the intent to disseminate the photos. In the course of his prosecution of the pornography charges against A.F., Respondent viewed the photos at issue of J.C.

6. As a result of Respondent's position as Assistant's State's Attorney and his prosecution of the A.F. case wherein J.C. was the State's primary witness and victim, both J.C. and her mother, N.C., trusted Respondent and believed he was pursuing J.S. best interests because of his position as an Assistant State's Attorney.

7. After June 2009, during the course of his prosecution of the A.F. matter, Respondent developed a personal relationship with J.C. Respondent and J.C. exchanged e-mails and text messages, and communicated on Facebook and MySpace about matters of a personal nature and matters unrelated to the prosecution of A.F. Respondent also occasionally met J.C. alone and for swing dance lessons. In addition, J.C. placed Respondent on her MySpace on her Heroes Page, and the defendant's attorney introduced Respondent's My Space page into evidence.

8. As a result of the interactions between Respondent, J.C. and her family, the State's Attorney, advised Respondent that he was concerned that Respondent's objectivity had been called into question. The State's Attorney advised Respondent to have no further outside contact with J.C. or her family, until the A.F. case was concluded, and also removed Respondent from any further involvement in the case.

9. On January 9, 2010, N.C., sent an e-mail to Respondent advising Respondent that J.C. was 16 years old and that she did not approve of her spending time alone with Respondent.

10. On January 14, 2010, N.C. sent Respondent an email advising him that even after J.C.'s 17th birthday, N.C. did not want Respondent to be alone with J.C.

11. On January 16, 2010, J.C. had her 17th birthday. Shortly thereafter, Respondent informed J.C. that since she was 17, she "was of legal age to date anyone."

12. On January 22, 2010, A.F.'s attorney filed a motion for to adjudicate A.F.'s fitness for trial in the case, requesting a fitness hearing on behalf of his client, who had been involved in a serious car accident and had sustained brain injuries. On February 3, 2010, the Judge presiding entered an order directing a fitness examination.

13. On February 22, 2010, J.C. and her sister told N. C. that they were going to a high school basketball game. J.C. dropped her sister off at the high school and then drove to Respondent's apartment. At that time, Respondent kissed J.C. and touched her breasts.

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 criminal sexual abuse in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-16(f);

  2. overreaching his position of trust and authority as a prosecutor;

  3. conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  4. 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 753(b) and 761, that the Panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation of such discipline as is warranted.


Wendy J. Muchman
Counsel for Administrator
130 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-565-2600
Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:   Wendy J. Muchman