Filed June 6, 2018

In re Drew Randolph Quitschau
Attorney-Respondent

Commission No. 2017PR00084

Synopsis of Hearing Board Report and Recommendation
(June 2018)

The Administrator filed a seven-count Complaint against Respondent. Count I charged that Respondent engaged in dishonesty by creating a false profile on Match.com in the name of another attorney, without the other attorney's permission, and making several false representations in that profile. Count I also charged that Respondent made a false statement to a partner at his law firm by denying any responsibility for the foregoing false profile. Counts II through V charged that Respondent engaged in dishonesty by using the Internet to register with organizations or subscribe to materials in the name of the same other attorney, without the other attorney's permission. Counts VI and VII charged that Respondent engaged in dishonesty by posting on the Internet false and negative reviews of the professional ability of the same other attorney.

The Respondent admitted in his Answer all of the charges of misconduct.

The Hearing Board found that all of the charges of misconduct were proved. The Hearing Board discussed the seriousness of the misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and concluded that a fixed term of a suspension, even a lengthy one, will not adequately maintain the integrity of the legal profession or protect the administration of justice from reproach. The Hearing Board recommended Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months and until further order of the Court.

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

In the Matter of:

DREW RANDOLPH QUITSCHAU,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6278288.

Commission No. 2017PR00084

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT

The Respondent admitted, and we find, that Respondent engaged in acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation as charged in each of the seven counts of the Complaint, when he registered another attorney on five websites, created a false Facebook account and wrote false reviews of the attorney legal abilities on three other websites.

We recommend that Respondent be suspended for six months and until further order of the Court.

INTRODUCTION

The hearing in this matter was held on February 6 and March 2, 2018, at the Springfield offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, before a Panel of the Hearing Board consisting of John L. Gilbert, Chair, Mark T. Peters, and Drinda L. OConnor. Tammy Evans appeared on behalf of the Administrator. The Respondent appeared in person and was represented by Carl Draper.

PAGE 2:

PLEADINGS

The Administrator filed a seven-count Complaint against the Respondent on August 4, 2017. Count I alleges that Respondent created an account and a false profile on the website of Match.com in the name of "Jane Doe" knowing that she had not authorized him to do so. (At the hearing in this matter "Jane Doe" was identified as attorney Michelle Mosby-Scott). Count I also charges that Respondent denied that he created the false profile in Doe's name when he was initially asked about it by a partner at his law firm. Count II alleges that Respondent knowingly completed a false online registration to the Obesity Action Coalition in the name of Jane Doe while knowing she had not authorized him to do so. Count III alleges that Respondent knowingly completed an online registration to Pig International in the name of Jane Doe while knowing she had not authorized him to do so. Count IV alleges that Respondent knowingly completed an online registration to Diabetic Living in the name of Jane Doe while knowing she had not authorized him to do so. Count V alleges that Respondent intentionally completed a false online registration in the name of Jane Doe for the organization entitled Auto Trader so that Doe would be a subscriber of and receive materials from that organization. Count VI alleges that Respondent knowingly created false reviews of Jane Doe's professional ability and posted the false reviews on Martindale.com and Lawyers.com. Count VII alleges that Respondent knowingly created false Facebook account in the fictitious name of John Kollengrade, created a false review of Jane Doe's professional ability in the name of Kollengrade, and posted the false review on the Facebook page of Doe's law firm.

The Respondent filed an Answer in which he admitted all of the factual allegations and the charges of misconduct.

PAGE 3:

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (Counts I through VII) in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

EVIDENCE

The Administrator presented the testimony of Michelle Mosby-Scott, Michael Scott, Matthew Majernik and Terence Kelly. The Administrator's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence. (Tr. 6). The Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Terence Kelly, Kathleen Kraft, Lance Cagle, Alice Smalley, Charles Reynard, and Michael Evans. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3 were received into evidence. (Tr. 7).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Administrator has the burden of proving the charges of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. See Supreme Court Rule 753(c)(6); In re Edmonds, 2014 IL 117696, par. 35. This standard of proof requires a high level of certainty, which is greater than a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more probably true than not true) but not as great as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 362, 818 N.E.2d 1214 (2004); Bangaly v. Baggiani, 2014 IL App (1st), par. 206. In determining whether the burden of proof has been satisfied, the Hearing Panel is to assess the credibility and believability of the witnesses, weigh conflicting testimony, draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and make factual findings based upon all of the evidence. In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423, 435, 721 N.E.2d 1126 (1999); In re Timpone, 208 Ill. 2d 371, 380, 804 N.E.2d 560 (2004).

An admission of fact in a pleading is a formal judicial admission that is binding on the party making it and dispenses with the need for any proof of that fact. Thus, when a respondent

PAGE 4:

in a disciplinary matter admits in his or her answer some or all of the allegations in a complaint it is unnecessary for the Administrator to present evidence to prove the allegations so admitted. . See In re Walker, 2014PR00132, M.R. 28453 (Mar. 20, 2017) (Hearing Bd. at 3); In re Davidson, 2014PR0016, M.R. 28694 (Sept. 22, 2017) (Hearing Bd. at 3).

I.    Respondent is charged in Count I with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary of Count I

We find that Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit by intentionally creating an account and a false profile on the website of Match.com in the name of Michelle Mosby-Scott, identified as "Jane Doe" in the Complaint, knowing that she had not authorized him to do so. We also find that Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit by denying that he created the false profile in Mosby-Scott's name when he was asked about it by a partner in his law firm.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

We considered the following facts that were admitted in the Respondent's Answer.

At all times pertinent to the charges in the Complaint, Respondent was a partner in the law firm of Thomson & Weintraub, located in Bloomington, Illinois. He was terminated from the law firm on February 10, 2017. Michelle Mosby-Scott, who is identified as "Jane Doe" in the Complaint, is an attorney and a partner in a law firm located in Bloomington, Illinois. Respondent and Mosby-Scott appeared as opposing counsel in more than 17 proceedings in McLean County in 2016 or earlier and 7 proceedings between June 2016 and 2017.

In September 2016, Respondent accessed the online dating website of Match.com from his office computer and created a false dating profile in the name of Michelle Mosby-Scott. Respondent created an online account in Mosby-Scott's name, a user name, a password, and an email address with the Match.com profile.

PAGE 5:

The Match.com profile created by Respondent included the following representations that Respondent knew were false: Mosby-Scott was separated from her husband; her children sometimes live with her; she smokes but is trying to quit; she regularly drinks alcohol; she is an agnostic; she is 56 years of age; she does not exercise and enjoys auto racing and motor cross; she has cats; and her favorite hot spots are the grocery store, all restaurants, the Pizza Ranch, all buffets, and NASCAR.

Also in September 2016, Respondent downloaded several photos of Mosby-Scott from her law firm website. He then uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile he created so that the photos could be viewed by the general public. Respondent knew the profile he created in Mosby-Scott's name was false and knew she had not authorized him to create the profile, user name, password, or email address.

In early October 2016, Mosby-Scott became aware of the Match.com profile in her name. She filed a lawsuit requesting the court to provide her with the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the Match.com profile. On December 9, 2016, Match.com provided to Mosby-Scott that IP address. On January 20, 2017, Comcast, the Internet provider for the Thomson & Weintraub law firm gave written notice that the law firm's IP address was used to create the false Match.com profile for Mosby-Scott. On the same date, Terrence Kelly, a partner at Thomson & Weintraub informed employees that the firm's IP address was used to create the false profile. He also announced that the firm would be hiring a computer expert to examine all of the firm's computers. On about the same date, Kelly asked Respondent whether he had created the false profile, and Respondent denied doing so. Respondent knew his statement to Kelly denying that Respondent created the profile in Mosby-Scott's name was false.

PAGE 6:

On February 10, 2017, a computer expert's search of the desktop computer assigned to Respondent revealed that that computer had accessed the set up page of the Match.com website and had downloaded Mosby-Scott's photos and uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile. Also on February 10, 2017, Kelly confronted Respondent with the foregoing findings and Respondent admitted that he created the false Match.com profile for Mosby-Scott. Respondent was immediately terminated from his position at the law firm. (Ans. at pars. 1-26).

Respondent's Exhibit 1

Respondent's Exhibit 1 is a document entitled "SELF-DISCLOSURE" signed by Respondent. In that document Respondent admits that he accessed the Match.com online dating website and created a fake online dating profile in Ms. Mosby-Scott's name. (Resp. Ex. 1 at 4)

We also considered the following testimony.

Respondent

Respondent testified that his practice at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm involved mostly divorce work, and in the last couple of years divorce cases were about 90 percent of his practice. Many of his divorce cases were contested matters, and he found such work to be very stressful. (Tr. 190-93). In his family law practice in McLean County he had a lot of cases against Michelle Mosby-Scott. He said he dealt with her on a weekly basis, and sometimes a daily basis during trials of contested cases. Respondent said he and Mosby-Scott were always civil to each other. There was no "bickering, or name calling, or nasty letters that went back and forth or anything like that." (Tr. 195-96).

Over time, however, Respondent became frustrated with having cases against Mosby-Scott. He explained that he thought their objectives as to how to practice law and how to get people through divorce cases were far apart. He said he tried "to get people through the process as efficiently and quickly and painlessly as possible." On the other hand, he thought that "one of

PAGE 7:

[Mosby-Scott's] goals was always to maximize the benefit to her client in any case." In other words, Respondent had a conflict in his attitude about how he practiced law and how he perceived Mosby-Scott practiced law. Respondent said he never confronted Mosby-Scott regarding the frustrations he had towards her with these cases. (Tr. 196-97).

Respondent acknowledged that he should have talked to someone about his frustrations, such as another partner, someone at church, his wife, or his parents. But he did not do so and internalized a lot of that frustration. (Tr. 198).

Respondent testified that he put a false profile of Mosby-Scott on Match.com without her knowledge. To do so, he used a fake email address. He put on the site a photo of Mosby-Scott and false information about her. Respondent said he knew at the time that the misstatements about her marriage and children were going to hurt her and have an impact on her, but he did not anticipate how effective it was going to be. He said he was frustrated and angry with her, was trying to be mean, and trying to make fun of her. He added that he was coming up with basically the meanest things. (Tr. 207-208, 211, 237-39, 241).

He acknowledged that he used a fake email address when he posted the profile of on Match.com. He also acknowledged that people, including Mosby-Scott's co-workers, friends, and parents of her children's friends could have viewed the profile. Respondent knew at the time he posted the misstatements about Mosby-Scott's marriage and children that it "would affect her." (Tr. 237-39).

In January 2017, Terrence Kelly, a partner at Respondent's law firm, began investigating to find out if anyone at the firm was responsible for the on line posting regarding Mosby-Scott. Respondent acknowledged that Kelly asked him whether he was responsible for the Match.com posting, and that Respondent denied any responsibility for it. Subsequently, Kelly confronted

PAGE 8:

Respondent with the results of the forensic review of computers, showing that the posting on Match.com regarding Mosby-Scott had come from the computer on Respondent's desk and that Respondent was in the office at that time. Upon being confronted with the foregoing information, Respondent admitted he was responsible for the posting. After his admission, Respondent was grateful and felt guilt and shame. When asked why he did not admit his misconduct sooner, he said he was scared, upset, and in panicked." (Tr. 213-15, 242).

Michelle Mosby-Scott

Ms. Mosby-Scott testified that she married Michael Scott in 1995, and they have three children, ages 18, 13, and 11. She has always resided with her husband since their marriage, and their children have also resided with them. She has been an attorney since 1995, and a partner in the law firm of Allison and Mosby-Scott since 2008 or 2009. The law firm handles a variety of cases, but Mosby-Scott primarily handles family law cases. (Tr. 24-26). (Tr. 26).

She first met Respondent when he started working at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm. She had cases with Respondent on a regular basis, and they were in court together more than once a week. Respondent's demeanor towards her was always professional and pleasant. He never acted in an inappropriate manner towards her. Also, he never mentioned to her any conflict with her or that he disapproved of anything she did. (Tr. 26-27, 70-71).

While on vacation in October 2016, Mosby-Scott received a text from a client informing her that he had seen a Match.com account in her name. She identified Administrator's Exhibit 1 as a copy of her profile that someone had placed on Match.com. The profile contained false information regarding her marriage, her children, her age, her smoking and consumption of alcohol, her being an agnostic, her favorite pastimes, and her favorite hot spots. When she saw the profile, she was extremely angry. She was concerned about explaining the matter to her

PAGE 9:

children; about how long it had been posted, about whether clients of hers had seen it, and whether parents of other children at the schools had seen it. (Tr. 33-38).

As a result of the lawsuit filed against March.com in November, 2016, Mosby-Scott obtained the IP address from which the posting about her originated, and learned the IP address was issued to the Thomson & Weintraub law firm. On February 10, 2017, Terry Kelly called Mosby-Scott and told her Respondent created the posting. (Tr. 48-55, 75-76).

Shortly after finding out that Respondent was responsible, Mosby-Scott met with Respondent's attorney, Scott Kording. She told Kording that she wanted to know everything Respondent had done so that all the false matters pertaining to her could be removed from the Internet. She explained "we kept getting calls to the office from clients, or clients' spouses, or clients' girlfriends in regard to the Match.com and the reviews." Kording told her he was working on such a list with Respondent. (Tr. 55-58).

Subsequent to her meeting with Kording, Mosby-Scott obtained a No Contact Order against the Respondent. Respondent agreed to the order. The order not only pertained to no contact with Mosby-Scott, but also with her husband, their children, and their home, and the schools of their children. Mosby-Scott added that she never had any romantic or other personal relationship with Respondent, but only had a professional relationship with him. (Tr. 59-60, 77-78).

Mosby-Scott planned to sue Respondent, but decided to settle the matter. (Resp. Ex. 2). One of the reasons she decided to settle was because she wanted to know all of the false postings by Respondent so that all of them could be removed. She signed the agreement and received $100,000 from Respondent and a document entitled "Self-Disclosure" (Resp. Ex. 1) that listed

PAGE 10:

the actions Respondent had taken against her. She believes Respondent has done everything the settlement agreement required him to do. (Tr. 60-63, 78, 80-83).

Matthew Majernik

Matthew Majernik testified that he is an attorney and has worked at the Allison and Mosby-Scott law firm since August 2013. (Tr. 105,120).

Majernik represented Michelle Mosby-Scott in regard to Respondent's Internet postings toward her. In November 2016, he prepared a complaint and filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mosby-Scott against Match.com to find out the owner of the IP address associated with the person who created the false profile of Mosby-Scott. In December 2016, as a result, Match.com provided the IP address, which was owned by Comcast. However, before receiving further information from Comcast, he received a call on behalf of the Thomson & Weintraub law firm. (Tr. 106-108).

On February 8, 2017, Majernik met with Wood and Terry Kelly. They informed him that the IP address was that of the Thomson & Weintraub law firm. They also told him that an internal search of the staff and attorneys indicated that no one at Thomson & Weintraub was responsible for the profile. Majernik informed them of two other Internet postings of false information regarding Mosby-Scott that came from the same IP address. He also provided them with the date and time of the Match.com and the other two postings. (Tr. 108-11).

On February 9, 2017, Majernik, Mosby-Scott, and Michael Scott met with Wood and Kelly. The meeting ended with Wood and Kelly being told that if the person responsible for the postings regarding Mosby-Scott was not identified by the following day, Majernik was instructed to amend the pending complaint to add the Thomson & Weintraub law firm and its partners. On February 10, 2017, Mosby-Scott received a call from Kelly, who told her the Respondent was responsible for the postings. (Tr. 111-12).

PAGE 11:

On February 13, 2017, Majernik was contacted by Scott Kording, who identified himself as the attorney for Respondent. Majernik, Mosby-Scott, and Michael Scott met with Kording on the evening of the same day. Kording was asked if Respondent would provide a list of all the actions he had taken against Mosby-Scott. Subsequently, an agreed No Contact Order was entered against Respondent on behalf of Mosby-Scott and her family. (Tr. 112-15, 123).

Majernik met with Kording again on February 24, 2017. At the meeting Kording disclosed that Respondent had posted two reviews of Mosby-Scott on Martindale.com and Lawyers.com in June 2016. He subsequently contacted both cites and the reviews were ultimately removed. Kording indicated that he would not provide any other information about the action taken by Respondent until the matter was settled. (Tr. 115-19, 124).

A settlement was reached in March 2017. After the settlement was signed, Respondent provided the list of all the actions he had taken to the detriment of Mosby-Scott. (Tr. 119-20; 123, 126; 128, 131; Resp. Ex. 1).

Terence B. Kelly

Mr. Kelly testified that he is an attorney and the principal partner in the law firm of Thomson & Weintraub. He has known the Respondent since 2003, when Respondent was hired by that law firm. Respondent became a partner. On February 10, 2017, Respondent was not formally terminated, but was excluded from the firm. (Tr. 133-34, 173-74).

Kelly first learned about the false Match.com profile from a January 19, 2017, newspaper article. On the following day, the Thomson & Weintraub firm received a letter from Comcast stating that the foregoing false Match.com profile was created from the firm's IP address. Kelly said an investigation was started immediately to find out who was responsible. (Tr. 134-44, 159-60, 171-72).

PAGE 12:

The letter from Comcast informed Thomson & Weintraub that it had 21 days to inform Mosby-Scott that its IP number was used to create her profile or to file an objection in court. On February 7, 2017, Mosby-Scott's office was contacted and a meeting was requested regarding the Match.com matter. On the following day, Kelly and attorney George Wood, who was hired by Thomson & Weintraub in the matter, met with Matt Majernik. At the meeting they informed Majernik that the IP number of Thomson & Weintraub was used to create the false Match.com profile. Majernik provided information about other inappropriate Internet conduct from the same IP number, which included specific dates. (Tr. 145-47, 160-61).

Another meeting was held on February 9, 2017, at which Mosby-Scott and her husband were present. Kelly described the meeting as "very uncomfortable" and "very heated." On the evening following this meeting or the next morning his IT people discovered that only Respondent's computer had accessed the Internet on the dates when the false information regarding Mosby-Scott had been posted. It was also learned that Respondent had obtained a new cell phone or wiped his old phone clean by January 27, 2017. Finally, it was determined that Respondent's computer had accessed the Match.com site on certain dates and that his computer had downloaded a photograph of Mosby-Scott. (Tr. 147-52, 161-64).

On the afternoon of February 10, 2017, the other partners met with Respondent and discussed the improper conduct towards Mosby-Scott. Initially Respondent would not admit it was him, but then he "broke down and cried and admitted it." Respondent was encouraged to own up to everything he did and he agreed to do so. Respondent expressed remorse and apologized to the other partners. He subsequently compensated the law firm for the expense of the investigation in the matter. (Tr. 152-55, 164-69).

PAGE 13:

Immediately after Respondent was expelled from the firm, Kelly contacted Mosby-Scott and informed her that Respondent was responsible for the Internet postings regarding her. Kelly described Mosby-Scott's reaction to the news as "very emotional." (Tr. 155, 172).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation: (1) by intentionally creating an account and a false profile on the website of Match.com in the name of Michelle Mosby-Scott, knowing that she had not authorized him to do so; and (2) by denying that he created the false profile in Doe's name when he was initially asked about it by Terence Kelly.

Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. It is well established that dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by an attorney includes "anything calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity." In re Edmonds, 2014 IL 117696, par. 53. See also In re Gerard, 132 Ill. 2d 507, 528, 548 N.E.2d 1051 (1989): In re Kessinger, 2014PR00083, M.R. 28530 (Mar. 20, 2017) (Hearing Bd. at 20-21).

  1. Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent knowingly created a false profile of attorney Michelle Mosby-Scott on the Match.com web site without Mosby-Scott's permission or knowledge.

In his Answer to the Complaint Respondent admitted that he created a false online dating profile in Michelle Mosby-Scott's name without her authority to do so in September 2016. (Ans. at

PAGE 14:

pars. 4, 11, 12, 13). He also admitted that the profile he created contained at least nine false representations about Mosby-Scott and that he knew such representations were false. (Ans. at pars. 6, 7, 10, 25). Further, Respondent admitted that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (Ans. at par. 20).

At the hearing Respondent also admitted that he placed a false profile of Mosby-Scott on Match.com without her knowledge. He further testified that he used a false email address to create the profile and that he knew he was placing false information in the profile of Mosby-Scott.

Mosby-Scott testified that she first learned of the profile in her name on Match.com was when a client informed her of it. She identified Administrator's Exhibit 1 as a copy of her profile on Match.com and pointed out that it contained false information regarding her marriage, her children, her age, her smoking and consumption of alcohol, her being an agnostic, her favorite pastimes, and her favorite hot spots. When she saw the profile, she was extremely angry. She further testified that, following a settlement with Respondent, she received a document from Respondent entitled Self-Disclosure. In that document Respondent admitted that he created a fake online dating profile in Mosby-Scott's name. (Resp. Ex. 1 at 4).

Terence Kelly, a partner at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm, testified that following an investigation at the law firm it was discovered that Respondent was responsible for posting the profile of Mosby-Scott on Match.com. Kelly further testified that, after being informed that Kelly and other partners knew he was responsible, Respondent admitted posting the profile of Mosby-Scott on Match.com.

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

PAGE 15:

  1. Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent knowingly made a false statement to Terence Kelly by denying that he created the false profile of Mosby-Scott on Match.com

Respondent admitted in his Answer that on or about January 20, 2017, Terence Kelly, a partner at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm, asked Respondent whether he had created the false profile. In response, Respondent denied creating the false Match.com profile. Respondent's statement to Kelly was false and Respondent knew it was false when he made the statement to Kelly. (Ans. at pars. 19-22). Further, Respondent admitted that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (Ans. at par. 20).

Kelly testified that, after learning that the false Match.com profile in Mosby-Scott's name was created from the law firm's IP address, each partner in the firm, including Respondent, was asked if he or she was responsible for creating the profile. Kelly said that, upon being asked, Respondent denied responsibility for creating the Match.com profile in Mosby-Scott's name.

Respondent testified that in January 2017, Kelly began investigating to find out if anyone at the law firm was responsible for posting the profile in Mosby-Scott's name on Match.com. Respondent acknowledged that Kelly asked him whether he had any responsibility for the Match.com posting regarding Mosby-Scott, and that Respondent denied any responsibility for it.

As discussed in section I. above, Respondent did in fact knowingly create the false Match.com profile in the name of Mosby-Scott in September 2016. Thus, in January 2017, when Respondent was asked about and denied being responsible for creating that profile he knew his denial was false. Clearly, Respondent intentionally and purposefully sought to deceive Kelly into believe Respondent was not responsible for creating the profile.

PAGE 16:

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of f Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

II.    Respondent is charged in Count II with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary

We find Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in that, without the knowledge or permission of Michelle Mosby-Scott, he intentionally completed an online registration in the name of Mosby-Scott for the organization entitled Obesity Action Coalition so that Mosby-Scott would be a member of and receive materials from that organization.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

In about July 2016, Respondent completed an online registration in Michelle Mosby-Scott's name for an organization entitled Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) so that Mosby-Scott would be a member of and receive materials from that organization. The Obesity Action Coalition is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping individuals affected by obesity to improve their health through education, advocacy and support. Members receive daily emails and a yearly subscription to the organization's magazine, Your Weight Matters. In registering Mosby-Scott, Respondent provided Mosby-Scott's name, email and business address to the Obesity Action Coalition

Respondent's registration in Mosby-Scott's name was false in that it was not submitted by her, and she never authorized Respondent to complete or submit a registration for the Obesity Action Coalition in her name. Also, Mosby-Scott never authorized Respondent to provide her name and contact information to the Obesity Action Coalition. At the time he submitted the registration in Mosby-Scott's name, he knew Mosby-Scott had not authorized him to complete

PAGE 17:

an online registration in her name for the Obesity Action Coalition and that the registration was false.

As a result of Respondent's actions, Mosby-Scott received emails from the Obesity Action Coalition and from Apollo-Endo-surgery. She also received a lap-band kit by U.S. Mail at her law office. (Ans. at pars. 27-35; Tr. 200-202, 204-2005, 237; Resp. Ex. 1).

Mosby-Scott testified that she never subscribed to the Obesity Action Coalition and never authorized anyone to subscribe in her name. Even though she had not subscribed, she began receiving correspondence from Obesity Action Coalition in about June 2016. She also received magazines related to obese people. She received the materials by both email and regular mail. She described the amount she received by late summer 2016 as "voluminous" and "overwhelming." (Tr. 27-29, 31, 73).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by intentionally completing an online registration in the name of Michelle Mosby-Scott for the Obesity Action Coalition, knowing that she had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false.

As we stated in our Analysis and Conclusions for Count I, a lawyer commits the professional misconduct of engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by conduct calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity.

Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent intentionally registered Michelle Mosby-Scott with the Obesity Action Coalition while knowing that he had no authority to do so and he was making it falsely appear that Mosby-Scott was registering with that

PAGE 18:

organization. Clearly, his purpose for doing so was to annoy, harass, and hurt another member of the legal profession.

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

III.    Respondent is charged in Count III with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary

We find Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in that, without the knowledge or permission of Mosby-Scott, he intentionally completed a false online registration in the name of Mosby-Scott for the organization entitled Pig International so that Mosby-Scott would be a member of and receive materials from that organization.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

In July or August 2016, Respondent completed an online registration in Michelle Mosby-Scott's name for an organization entitled Pig International so that Mosby-Scott would be a member of and receive materials from that organization. Pig International has a global nutrition and health publication for pork production. Members of Pig International receive daily emails about pork production. In registering Mosby-Scott, Respondent provided Mosby-Scott's name, email and business address to Pig International

Respondent's registration in Mosby-Scott's name was false in that it was not submitted by her, and she never authorized Respondent to complete or submit a registration for Pig International in her name. At the time he submitted the registration in Mosby-Scott's name, he knew that Mosby-Scott had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false. Also,

PAGE 19:

Mosby-Scott never authorized Respondent to provide her name and contact information to Pig International.

As a result of Respondent's actions, Mosby-Scott received daily emails from Pig International. (Ans. at pars. 36-44; Tr. 200-202, 204-205, 237; Resp. Ex. 1).

Mosby-Scott testified that she never subscribed to Pig International and never authorized anyone to subscribe in her name. She received a magazine from Pig International and other hog magazines by regular mail delivered to her office. She also received a "substantial amount" of electronic information related to pigs. (Tr. 29- 31).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by intentionally completing an online registration in the name of Michelle Mosby-Scott for Pig International, knowing that she had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false.

Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent intentionally registered Michelle Mosby-Scott with Pig International while knowing that he had no authority to do so and making it falsely appear that Mosby-Scott was registering with that organization. Clearly, his purpose for doing so was to annoy, harass, and hurt another member of the legal profession.

As we stated in our Analysis and Conclusions for Count I, a lawyer commits the professional misconduct of engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by intentional conduct calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity.

PAGE 20:

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

IV.    Respondent is charged in Count IV with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary

We find Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in that, without the knowledge or permission of Mosby-Scott, he intentionally completed a false online registration in the name of Mosby-Scott for the organization entitled Diabetic Living so that Mosby-Scott would be a subscriber of and receive materials from that organization.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

In about August 2016, Respondent completed an online registration in Michelle Mosby-Scott's name for an organization entitled Diabetic Living so that Mosby-Scott would be a subscriber of and receive materials from that organization. Diabetic Living is a monthly magazine devoted to helping individuals with diabetes to live fuller, healthier lives. In registering Mosby-Scott, Respondent provided Mosby-Scott's name, email and business address to Diabetic Living.

Respondent's registration in Mosby-Scott's name was false in that it was not submitted by her, and she never authorized Respondent to complete or submit a registration for Diabetic Living in her name. At the time he submitted the registration in Mosby-Scott's name, he knew that Mosby-Scott had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false. Also, Mosby-Scott never authorized Respondent to provide her name and contact information to Diabetic Living.

PAGE 21:

As a result of Respondent's actions, Mosby-Scott received materials from Diabetic Living and other magazines. (Ans. at pars. 45-53; Tr. 200-201, 237; Resp. Ex. 1).

Mosby-Scott testified that she neither subscribed nor provided any medical history to Diabetic Living. Nevertheless, she began receiving "lots and lots of emails" from Diabetic Living. She also received some written correspondence from Diabetic Living and materials from providers who offered medical services to people with diabetes. (Tr. 31-32).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by intentionally completing an online registration in the name of Michelle Mosby-Scott for Diabetic Living, knowing that she had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false.

Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent intentionally registered Michelle Mosby-Scott with Diabetic Living while knowing that he had no authority to do so and that he was making it falsely appear that Mosby-Scott was registering with that organization. Clearly, his purpose for doing so was to annoy, harass, and hurt another member of the legal profession.

As we stated in our Analysis and Conclusions for Count I, a lawyer commits the professional misconduct of engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by intentional conduct calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity.

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

PAGE 22:

V.    Respondent is charged in Count V with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary

We find that Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in that, without the knowledge or permission of Mosby-Scott, he intentionally completed a false online registration in the name of Mosby-Scott for the organization entitled Auto Trader so that Mosby-Scott would be a subscriber of and receive materials from that organization.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

In December 2016, Respondent completed an online registration in Michelle Mosby-Scott's name for an organization entitled Auto Trader so that Mosby-Scott would be a subscriber of and receive materials from that organization. Auto Trader is an online marketplace for car shoppers and sellers. In registering Mosby-Scott, Respondent provided Mosby-Scott's name, email, business address, and telephone number to Auto Trader.

Respondent's registration in Mosby-Scott's name was false in that it was not submitted by her, and she never authorized Respondent to complete or submit a registration for Auto Trader in her name. At the time he submitted the registration in Mosby-Scott's name, he knew that Mosby-Scott had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false. Also, Mosby-Scott never authorized Respondent to provide her name and contact information to Auto Trader. (Ans. at pars. 54-62; Tr. 200-202, 204-205, 237; Resp. Ex. 1).

Mosby-Scott testified that on a Friday afternoon in December 2016, an employee, Cindy, in Mosby-Scott's office informed her that she received three calls from "a variety of [car] dealerships who say you have gone online and applied to purchase a vehicle before Christmas." Mosby-Scott said that she did not go online or apply to purchase any vehicle. Mosby-Scott then received a half a dozen similar calls on her cell phone and 20 or 30 emails. Mosby-Scott said it

PAGE 23

was "unnerving" to her that the person who made the false posting stated that she had an interest in purchasing certain types of vehicles and most of them were, in fact, the types of vehicle she had driven. She added that it "kind of freaked me out because I knew this person had known me for an extended period of time because three of the four vehicles were vehicles that I had driven. (Tr. 45-47).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by intentionally completing an online registration in the name of Mosby-Scott for Auto Trader, knowing that she had not authorized him to do so and that the registration was false.

Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent intentionally registered Mosby-Scott with Auto Trader while knowing that he had no authority to do so and that he was making it falsely appear that Mosby-Scott was registering with that organization. Clearly, his purpose for doing so was to annoy, harass, and hurt another member of the legal profession.

As stated in our Analysis and Conclusions for Count I, a lawyer commits the professional misconduct of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by intentionally engaging in conduct calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity. In subscribing to Auto Trader in Mosby-Scott's name, Respondent purposefully deceived Auto trader into believing the subscription was completed by Mosby-Scott and that Mosby-Scott wanted to receive information from Auto Trader. He also purposefully hid the fact that he was responsible for the false subscription.

PAGE 24:

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

VI.    Respondent is charged in Count VI with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary

We find that Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in that he intentionally created a false review of Mosby-Scott's legal ability and posted the false review on the Martindale.com website and on the Lawyers.com website.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

On June 12, 2016, Respondent created a false review of Mosby-Scott's legal ability and posted the false review on the Martindale.com and/or the Lawyers.com website. Martindale.com and the Lawyers.com are websites in which individuals can locate and connect with attorneys and read reviews from attorneys' peers and clients. In creating the false reviews Respondent listed Mosby-Scott's name and provided a low rating of 1.0 out of a possible 5.0 for her.

On June 14, 2016, Respondent created another false review of Mosby-Scott's legal ability and posted the false review on the Martindale.com and/or the Lawyers.com website. In this review, Respondent listed Mosby-Scott's name and provided a low rating of 1.3 out of a possible 5.0 for her. (Resp. Ex. 1).

Respondent sent an apology to Mosby-Scott and her family. In his apology Respondent stated "I think my actions were directed toward you because you were more effective in court than I was." (Resp. Ex. 3 at 3).

Respondent testified that he posted a false review of Mosby-Scott's law firm on the Martindale-Hubbell and the Lawyers.com websites, by giving her "a 1 out of a 5" rating. He

PAGE 25:

knew at the time that the rating was false and that "it was the wrong thing to do." But, he felt "anger and frustration towards Michelle," and thought "this was a way that I could get back at her to some degree." He added that "I could hurt her to some degree and make myself feel a little bit better for all of the angst that I had internalized." Respondent did not have to identify himself in posting the review and he "thought it was something I could get away with." (Tr. 198-200, 236-37).

He knew when he posted the reviews for Mosby -Scott's law firm that they were false and that he was not a client of Mosby-Scott. (Tr. 236-37)

Mosby-Scott testified that she was not aware of the Respondent's false reviews of her on Martindale-Hubbell until she received Respondent's Self Disclosure (Resp. Ex. 1). She received the Self Disclosure shortly after the settlement with Respondent was signed, which was in May 2017. (Resp. Ex. 2 at 8-10). She noted that the false reviews had been posted months earlier and had not yet been removed. After the Self Disclosure was received, attorney Matt Majernik contacted Martindale-Hubbell and had them removed. (Tr. 86-87).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by knowingly creating false reviews of Mosby-Scott's professional ability and posting the reviews on the Martindale.com and Lawyers.com websites for viewing by the general public.

Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent knowingly created false reviews of Mosby-Scott's professional ability and posted the false reviews on Internet sites where the reviews could be viewed by the general public. Specifically, Respondent's reviews were false in that he gave Mosby-Scott the lowest rating number of 1.0 out of a possible 5.0 in

PAGE 26:

one review and an extremely low rating of 1.3 out of a possible 5.0 in another review. Clearly, his purpose for doing so was to annoy, harass, and hurt another member of the legal profession. Further, Respondent knew or should have known that such low ratings could have caused a loss of clients and income for Mosby-Scott.

As stated in our Analysis and Conclusions for Count I, a lawyer commits the professional misconduct of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by intentionally engaging in conduct calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth or the suggestion of falsity. In posting the reviews, Respondent purposefully deceived anyone reading the reviews into believing that some client or peer of Mosby-Scott actually believed there was a basis for such a low rating. He also purposefully hid the fact that he was responsible for the false reviews.

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

VII.    Respondent is charged in Count VII with engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

A. Summary

We find that Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in that he knowingly created an account on Facebook.com in the fictitious name of John Kollengrade and used that account to post a false and negative review of Mosby-Scott's professional ability on the Facebook page of Mosby-Scott's law firm.

B. Admitted Facts and Evidence Considered

Respondent created a false account on the Facebook.com website in the fictitious name of John Kollengrade for the sole purpose of posting a negative review of Michelle Mosby-Scott's professional ability. Respondent created a negative review of Mosby-Scott's professional ability

PAGE 27:

and then posted the negative review on the Facebook page of Mosby-Scott's law firm so that the negative review could be viewed by individuals who accessed the Facebook page of Mosby-Scott's law firm. Specifically, Respondent gave Mosby-Scott a one-star rating, which is a low negative rating. Respondent knew the account and the review were false. (Tr. 203-204, 236; Resp. Ex. 1 at 8).

Mosby-Scott testified that the first time she learned someone had posted false information about her on the Internet was in July 2015. At that time, a person in her office informed her that there was a Facebook review of her by someone named John Kollengrade. The fake review gave Mosby-Scott's firm a 1.0 out of a possible 5.0 rating. An alleged photo of Kollengrade was also posted. A search was conducted to find out if Kollengrade had ever been a client, an opposing party, or otherwise showed up in her contact system. They found nothing in regard to Kollengrade. Later the same day, Mosby-Scott's husband searched the photo and found that the photo had been used in a news story about a person with a different name. She and her husband then realized that it was not a real review. They were successful in having the review removed that same evening. (Tr. 39-40, 67-68, 88).

Michael Scott testified that in July 2015 he became aware that a negative review had been posted on the Facebook page of his wife's law firm. The name on the review was John Kollengrade, and included an alleged photo of him. Mosby-Scott and her staff looked to see if there was any client with that name, but no such person was found. Scott explained how he discovered that there was no such person with that name and how he learned that the alleged photo of Kollengrade came from a news article about a person with a different name. He notified Facebook and the review was removed several hours later. (Tr. 94-96).

PAGE 28:

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The Administrator charges that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by knowingly creating Facebook account in the fictitious name of John Kollengrade for purpose of making a false review of Michelle Mosby-Scott's professional ability and by knowingly posting, in the name of the John Kollengrade, the false review on the Facebook page of her law firm.

Based on the admissions of Respondent in his Answer and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find it clearly and convincingly established that Respondent knowingly and purposefully created a false and negative review of Michelle Mosby-Scott's professional ability by a fictitious person and posted that false review on the Facebook page of Michelle Mosby-Scott's law firm where the review could be viewed by anyone who viewed that Facebook page. Respondent's review was false in that the review gave Mosby-Scott the lowest rating number possible. Clearly, his purpose for doing so was to annoy, harass, and hurt another member of the legal profession. Further, Respondent certainly knew or should have known that such low ratings could have caused a loss of clients and income for Mosby-Scott.

As stated in our Analysis and Conclusions for Count I, a lawyer commits the professional misconduct of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by intentionally engaging in conduct calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth or the suggestion of falsity. In posting the review on the Facebook page of Mosby-Scott's law firm, Respondent purposefully deceived anyone reading the review into believing that an actual person posted the review. He also purposefully hid the fact that he was responsible for the false review.

Based upon the above, we find the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

PAGE 29:

EVIDENCE IN AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION

The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 2002, and he has not been previously disciplined. (Tr. 23-24).

Respondent

Respondent testified that he graduated from law school in 2002 and then worked at a law firm in Normal, Illinois for about one year. He was hired by the Thomson & Weintraub law firm in 2003. He was an associate until he became a partner in about 2011. (Tr. 188-89).

Respondent said he was a former Chair of the McLean County Bar Association Family Law Division. He became a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys several years ago. He has received "several awards and accolades." (Tr. 194-95). He said he also has participated in pro bono activities. Since he has been practicing in Peoria, he has contacted the Legal Assistance Foundation in Peoria, has taken "a number of cases," and has completed two or three pro bono cases. (Tr. 229-30)

Respondent testified that his practice at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm involved mostly divorce work, and divorce cases were about 90 percent of his practice. Many of his divorce cases were contested matters, and he found such work to be very stressful. (Tr. 190-93).

When asked why he singled out Mosby-Scott for harassment, Respondent explained that the "amount of frustration that I felt after dealing with Michelle for a period of 15 years was more frustration that I had ever felt in my life." (Tr. 232).

He also replied that there was not a simple answer, but that it was a combination of a lot of different things. He was very unhappy and dissatisfied with being a divorce lawyer. He added that "I wish I had never gone down that road. (Tr. 209).

PAGE 30:

He also pointed out the stress and pressure he was under. He kept taking more cases, started speaking at CLE courses, and started doing appeals. He was having panic attacks, waking up during the night, and felt as though he was having heart attacks. He said the "stress was piling on, and then there was this conflict with Michelle that I was internalizing obviously." And the "frustration with it was just getting to me." He went on to explain that he was just trying to get these people though these divorces, but felt as though her ultimate goal in these divorce cases was to end up making them take longer and to cost more. He added that his perception could be completely wrong and that Mosby-Scott was trying to do what she thought was best for her client. (Tr. 210-11).

Respondent said there was always some degree of frustration any time you have a full day of trial [in] divorce court" and he would have "some frustration in a case like that with another attorney." However, he never had such a "conflict, or anger, or frustration like [he] took out on Ms. Mosby-Scott with any other attorney. Respondent never did anything like what he did to Mosby-Scott to any other attorney. (Tr. 202).

Respondent acknowledged Mosby-Scott did not do anything that justified any kind of retaliatory harassing behavior by him and he said he accepted full responsibility for his misconduct. Respondent denied having any difficulty in regard to excessive drinking, taking prescribed medication, or taking medication that was not properly prescribed. He also said he is not blaming his actions on "any medical condition or something else that somehow mitigates against what [he] did." (Tr. 211-12, 245).

Respondent was asked why he did not admit his misconduct when he was first asked about it by in January 2017 by Terrence Kelly. Respondent replied "I was extremely scared, very upset, and in total panic." He added that "I was a coward." (Tr. 213-14, 242).

PAGE 31:

After he was fired and locked out of the law firm, Respondent realized he had done something really horrible and knew there was not going to be any easy permanent fix to it. Within two or three days, Respondent hired an attorney, Scott Kording. He said he told his attorney that he wanted to "fix this to the degree I can fix it" and wanted to try to settle this as quickly and amicably as possible. He prepared a full disclosure of everything he did regarding Mosby-Scott and gave it to his attorney. Respondent did not attend any settlement discussions between his attorney and the attorney for Mosby-Scott. (Tr. 215-19, 233-34, 243-44).

Mosby-Scott sought a no contact order against Respondent. Respondent said he instructed his attorney to agree to the order. The attorney did so, and the order was entered. (Tr. 219, 221, 233) Also, Respondent was charged with and pleaded guilty to the Class C misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct arising out of his actions toward Mosby-Scott. He was placed on court supervision for six months. Respondent also sent an apology to Mosby-Scott. (Resp. Ex. 3). Further a settlement agreement was reached in the civil suit filed against him by Mosby-Scott. (Tr. 220)

Respondent acknowledged that he hurt a lot of people by his misconduct. He said he hurt Mosby-Scott and her family, his partners at the law firm, his wife, and other members of his family. (Tr. 221).

For about six months following losing his position at the law firm, Respondent did not work. He then sought non-legal employment in Peoria as a closing agent at a title company. However, the owner of the title company, Mike Evans, is a lawyer and has a law in Peoria. Evans decided to hire Respondent as an attorney in his firm, and Respondent has been practicing law since September 1, 2017. Respondent said he fully disclosed to Evans the disciplinary matter and the nature of what he did. He said he also told Evans that "I can't be a divorce lawyer anymore."

PAGE 32:

Respondent said that "I do currently have a couple of family law cases, but it's a tiny amount of my current caseload that I'm handling." Respondent said he and Evans have spent a lot of time talking about what motivated Respondent to engage in the misconduct and about "stress, conflict, and internal feelings." (Tr. 221-25)

Respondent said he expects that this disciplinary case will end with a suspension of some kind. After he completed the suspension, Respondent would like to return to work for Evans. They have discussed the matter, and Respondent understands that Evans will help him regardless of the disposition. (Tr. 225).

Respondent was asked what assurance he can give that he will conform his conduct to the Rules of Professional Responsibility if he is restored to practice after a suspension. He replied that he has learned a lot of lessons and learned a lot about himself. He said he is never going to intentionally cause any kind of harm to anyone. He said he learned that he is not immune to stress, pressure, frustration, and anger. He said "I can't spend 15 years doing something I don't like doing;" "I can't internalize all my frustrations;" "I can't take on unlimited amounts of obligations;" and "I have to find a productive way to deal with [stress]." (Tr. 226-27).

Respondent said that after the termination of his partnership, he saw Dr. Neil Jepson, a psychologist 3 to 4 times. He also saw his primary care physician. Neither the counselor nor the primary care physician recommended any testing, evaluation, or medication. He also said he has complied with what the counselor and the primary care physician recommended for him. (Tr. 227-29, 239-40, 246-47). Also, Respondent said he is accepting full responsibility for his misconduct and is not attempting to place blame on anyone else. (Tr. 245).

PAGE 33:

Michelle Mosby-Scott

Mosby-Scott testified that in the summer of 2016, she went to the hospital for ulcers. Additionally, she tried various medications to help her sleep at night. At some point, she and her husband became worried about safety for their family. For about six or eight months they would not let their 13 year old son stay home alone. Their younger children were not allowed to be outside unless the oldest brother or parent was with them. She also found it necessary to explain to her children what was going on, and to talk with their school principal to make sure no stranger tried to pick them up. (Tr. 41-44, 66).

When she saw the profile on Match.com, she was extremely angry. She was concerned about explaining the matter to her children; about how long it had been posted, about whether clients of hers had seen it, and whether parents of other at the schools had seen it. (Tr. 33-38).

When she initially began to receive the unrequested correspondence, she and her husband took no action to find out who was responsible for it thinking it would be "short-lived." (Tr. 32-33). However, after the Match.com profile was posted, the matter "was becoming a major interference in regard to functioning," and they decided to find out the source of the unauthorized postings. (Tr. 38-39). In November 2016 she and her husband decided to file a law suit to obtain the IP address of the person who was responsible. Attorney Matt Majernik, who worked in Mosby-Scott's firm, assisted her in preparing the law suit, which was filed in November 2016. (Tr. 44-45, 48, 75).

In December 2016, Mosby-Scott learned someone had falsely posted on the Internet that she was interested in purchasing a vehicle before Christmas. She said it was "unnerving" to her that the person who made the false posting listed certain types of vehicles, and most of them were, in fact, the types of vehicle she had driven. She added that it "kind of freaked me out

PAGE 34:

because I knew this person had known me for an extended period of time because three of the four vehicles were vehicles that I had driven. (Tr. 45-47).

Mosby-Scott said that as a result of the false Internet postings her family grew closer together. On the other hand, it has not enhanced her relationship with the Thomson & Weintraub law firm. Also, people were on the Internet "making accusations that [she] was having an extramarital relationship with [Respondent] because nobody could understand why anybody would engage in this behavior." Her 13 year old son would not stay home alone for "a number of months." Also, her children now have a different perception of lawyers. (Tr. 63-65).

Mosby-Scott was asked about her additional expense and loss of revenue due to Respondent's actions toward her. She said from July 2015, until she learned of the Match.com account in October 2016, she did not keep track of costs. However, she did know that she and her six paralegals spent "hours over months and months" searching files for someone who might be responding negatively after a hearing. From the time she decided to file the lawsuit to obtain the IP address, she did keep track of time and said her cost was "probably in excess of $30,000. (Tr. 88-89).

Although she believes she has had all of the postings by Respondent removed, she still has her staff do a "twice a week check [of] the Internet to see if anything is coming up." (Tr. 91-92).

Michael Scott

Scott testified that during the summer of 2016, after his wife Michelle Mosby-Scott had been receiving harassing e-mails and publications that were demeaning, he and Michelle were concerned about the safety of their children. The children were not allowed to stay at home alone

PAGE 35:

and not allowed to play outside unless supervised. The schools of the children were contacted about people trying to pick the children up. (Tr. 97-98, 104).

In October 2016, he learned that a false profile with Michelle's name had been created on Match.com. Scott said he spent a "lot of hours" trying to find the source of the false information about Michelle on the Internet. While staying at hotels on business trips he would search the Internet in an effort to get things removed. Also, while traveling, he was concerned that something might happen to his family while he was away. His 17 year old son took on more responsibility while Scott was traveling. (Tr. 96-97, 100-101).

As a result of Respondent's actions, both Scott and Michelle were upset and found it very frustrating. Michelle was losing sleep and had some issues with her ulcer. The matter was also stressful to their children. (Tr. 97, 103-104).

Terence B. Kelly

Kelly testified that while Respondent worked at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm he met all of Kelly's expectations until the events in the Michelle Mosby-Scott matter. Respondent became a partner in about 2011-12. Kelly said that Respondent had a very strong work ethic; did good legal work; and there were no client complaints or other attorney complaints. Kelly also said that Respondent had a very good reputation within the legal community in the Bloomington area. Additionally, before this matter, there was never any concern with how Respondent interacted with other attorneys, clients, our partners, or with staff. (Tr. 174-81).

Kelly further testified that he was "incredibly surprised" when he learned that Respondent was responsible for the actions against Mosby-Scott. He described Respondent's misconduct as a "very huge lapse in judgment" and "aberrant behavior." (Tr. 173, 182).

PAGE 36:

Michael Evans

Evans testified that he has been practicing law for 32 years. He now has a small law firm in Peoria. He has mostly a general practice with a tilt toward business law. (Tr. 339-40).

In August 2017, Respondent applied for a closing agent position at Evans' title company. During their initial telephone conversation' Respondent told Evans about the disciplinary complaint pending against him. Respondent then brought a copy of the disciplinary complaint with him to the interview. Respondent admitted his mistake regarding the misconduct. Evans found Respondent to be genuinely contrite and ashamed for this misconduct. Evans thought that Respondent wanted to practice law. After Evans spoke with various people in Bloomington, he hired Respondent to an attorney position, rather than as a closing agent. (Tr. 343-4, 354-55).

Evans' law firm consists of himself, Respondent, and one other lawyer. He also has six staff people. Before hiring Respondent, Evans had Respondent meet with all the other members of the firm. A person named Nina runs the office and is a licensed clinical practitioner, that is, essentially a social worker. Evans has relied on Nina to continue to make certain Respondent does not have another lapse as he did in regard to his misconduct. Evans also explained that if somebody in his firm is stressed, everybody else in the firm is aware of it. He said there is a great support system because they then talk about the situation to "make sure everybody's focused and handling it appropriately." (Tr. 348-49, 352-53, 359-60).

Respondent has been working with Evans for about six months and is doing "exceptionally well." Evans also said Respondent is handling family law cases. Evans was asked what percentage of Respondent's caseload consisted of family law cases, and he replied "perhaps 50 percent, maybe a little less, something like that." Evans was then asked if he was concerned because Respondent's prior handling of family law cases created some of the issues that led to

PAGE 37:

his misconduct. Evans replied that the intake of cases goes through Nina and his firm is selective about the kinds of family law cases it accepts. Further, Evans told Respondent that if a case becomes difficult Evans will take it over. Finally, Evans said he plans to employ Respondent "in the long run." (Tr. 350, 354, 356-57).

Kathleen Kraft

Kraft testified that she became a licensed attorney in 1992 and has worked at the law firm of Thomson & Weintraub thereafter. She is a partner in that firm. The bulk of her work is in family law, but she does handle some other cases as well. (Tr. 251-52).

She has known Respondent since he was hired at Thomson & Weintraub in 2003. She and Respondent have handled cases together and they have discussed issues on a regular basis. She described Respondent as a hard worker who did quality work. She said that Respondent had a reputation in the legal community for doing high quality work, being a capable attorney, being very truthful, and being very forthright. Also his clients were satisfied with his work. (Tr. 253-54, 258).

Kraft is aware of the proven disciplinary allegations against Respondent. She said she was shocked when she learned Respondent was responsible for the unwanted subscriptions, false ratings on websites, and false dating profile. She explained that he was always so level headed and showed such common sense. She acknowledged that what he did was inappropriate, but views it as an aberration. (Tr. 254-55, 261).

At the time Respondent admitted his misconduct to the partners, his composure melted, he was sobbing, and he was very contrite. He also compensated the firm for the expense of investigating to find what computer was used to post the materials on the Internet. (Tr. 258-59).

PAGE 38:

Lance Cagle

Cagle testified that he became a licensed attorney in 2005. From 2005 to 2009, he worked at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm, where he met Respondent. Cagle is currently a solo practitioner in Paxton, Illinois. (Tr. 263-64).

While at Thomson & Weintraub, the bulk of Cagle's practice was in family cases and criminal defense. He worked with Respondent on a daily basis. Cagle described Respondent as a very good attorney. Also, Respondent had a good reputation in the legal community for truthfulness and honesty. (Tr. 264-667).

Cagle further testified that he believes Respondent is remorseful and understands his mistake, and he has no reservation about Respondent's ability to practice law ethically in the future. He added that "I would have never suspected or expected that what did happen would have happened." (Tr. 271).

Alice Faye Smalley

Smalley testified that she has been an attorney for 29 years and is a solo practitioner in Bloomington. About 75% of her practice is in family law. She has known Respondent for many years and has been counsel in quite a few cases in which Respondent was counsel on the other side. She found Respondent to be always prepared, professional, and a good advocate. Also, he never treated her in any manner that she thought inappropriate. She never heard anyone in the legal community say anything bad about Respondent. (Tr. 273-75).

Smalley was "totally shocked" upon learning about Respondent's misconduct. She added "I never expected him to do something like this" and it was "totally out of character." (Tr. 278-79).

PAGE 39:

Charles Grandel Reynard

Judge Reynard testified that he is a retired judge. He was State's Attorney in McLean County from 1987 to 2002. In 2002 he was elected Circuit Court Judge. He retired from the bench at the end of 2015. During the last five years as judge, he was in the family division. Respondent practiced before him regularly. (Tr. 322-24).

Judge Reynard described Respondent as being a very well prepared attorney and in the "top tier of practitioners that appeared before me during my five years in the Family Law Division." Respondent also had a good reputation among the other judges. (Tr. 324 -29).

Respondent and Michelle Mosby-Scott were frequently opposing counsel in cases before Judge Reynard. He described both of them as very high level practitioners. Respondent did not exhibit any form of misconduct or unprofessional treatment of the court, counsel or witnesses. He ranks contested family law cases as the most emotionally stressful experience imaginable in litigation. (Tr. 325 329-31).

Judge Reynard was shocked and very disappointed when he learned Respondent engaged in the misconduct. He said it was entirely out of character for him. At some point, Respondent telephoned and asked him to be a character witness. During their conversation Respondent said he was totally mortified at what he had done. Judge Reynard said he believes Respondent has the ability to resume the practice of law in an ethical manner. He added that it would be a loss to the profession if Respondent is unable to resume the practice of law. (Tr. 332-36).

RECOMMENDATION

A. Summary

We recommend Respondent be suspended for six months and until further order of the Court.

PAGE 40:

B. Analysis

The purpose of the attorney disciplinary system is not to punish the attorney for the misconduct. Rather, the goal is "to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach." In re Edmonds, 2014 IL 117696, par. 90. In determining the appropriate sanction, we must consider the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, and any aggravating and mitigating circumstances shown by the evidence. In re Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d 350, 360-61, 802 N.E.2d 1194 (2003). In addition, we may consider the deterrent value of the sanction, the "need to impress upon others the seriousness of the misconduct at issue," and whether the sanction will "help preserve public confidence in the legal profession." In re Twohey, 191 Ill. 2d 75, 85, 727 N.E.2d 1028 (2000); Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d at 361. Although each disciplinary case "is unique and must be resolved in light of its own facts and circumstances," the sanction imposed should be "consistent with those imposed in other cases involving comparable misconduct." In re Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, 472, 641 N.E.2d 473 (1994).

In this case, the Administrator requested a suspension for two years and until further order of the Court. (Tr. 374-75). Respondent requested a suspension of less than six months. (Tr. 396).

We first consider the nature and seriousness of Respondent's misconduct. The Respondent's misconduct was of the most egregious nature. On nine separate occasions from July 2015 to February 2017 he knowingly and purposefully engaged in acts of dishonesty and deceit. His acts of dishonesty included accessing the Internet and falsely registering or subscribing in the name of another attorney, Michelle Mosby-Scott, to such organizations as Obesity Action Coalition, Pig International, and Diabetic Living, He also created a false profile

PAGE 41:

on the dating service Match.com in Mosby-Scott's name and made several false representations about her personal life. Further, on three occasions, he used the Internet to post false, negative reviews of Mosby-Scott's professional ability.

The Supreme Court has consistently pointed out the seriousness of an attorney engaging in dishonesty. For example, in In re Crisel, 101 Ill. 2d 332, 342, 461 N.E.2d 994 (1984), the Court said that "purposeful misrepresentations" are "contrary to the basic commitment to honesty intrinsic in the lawyer's oath of office." In In re Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2d 222, 228, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982), the Court stated that honesty is "fundamental to the functioning of the legal profession." In In re Armentrout, 99 Ill. 2d 242, 252, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983), the Court described misconduct involving dishonesty and deceit as "contrary to the bar's fundamental obligation of honesty." In the reinstatement case of In re Polito, 132 Ill. 2d 294, 303, 547 N.E.2d 465 (1989), the Court stated that "[o]ne important element of good moral character and general fitness to practice law is honesty." Finally, in Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d at 473, the Court stated that the fraudulent act of an attorney acting in his own behalf in which he seeks personal gain, directly or indirectly, to the detriment of honesty, is no less reprehensible than when he acts on behalf of his client."

The Respondent's dishonesty was not limited to an isolated incident and did not involve a "single, quick and unreasoned failure of judgment." In re Thebeau, 111 Ill. 2d 251, 256, 489 N.E.2d 877 (1986). See also In re Cahnman, 2009PR00118, M.R. 26517 (May 16, 2014) (Hearing Bd. at 35). Rather, his misconduct is aggravated because it involved a pattern of misconduct over a lengthy period of time. See In re Feldman, 89 Ill. 2d 7, 13, 431 N.E.2d 388 (1982); In re Rinella, 175 Ill. 2d 504, 518, 677 N.E.2d 909 (1997). Clearly, the Respondent had

PAGE 42:

ample time to reflect on what he was doing to another attorney, exercise sound judgment, and cease his misconduct, but he failed to do so until he was caught.

Also in aggravation, the testimony of Mosby-Scott and her husband clearly established that the Respondent's misconduct was extremely harmful to them and their children. For example, Mosby-Scott suffered from ulcers and was hospitalized in the summer of 2016. She was unable to sleep at night and tried various medications to do so. Both Mosby-Scott and her husband became worried about the safety of their family because they did not know who was responsible for the false postings and subscriptions in her name. For about six or eight months they would not let their 13-year old son stay home alone. Their younger children were not allowed to be outside unless the oldest brother or parent was with them. They also found it necessary to talk with the school principal to make sure no stranger tried to pick up their children. Additionally, Mosby-Scott, and the staff at her law office spent numerous hours trying find out who was responsible for the false postings and to have them removed.

Additionally, not only did Respondent's misconduct cause harm, but he intended it to do so. Respondent's testimony showed that he wanted to hurt Mosby-Scott; wanted to make fun of her; harass her.

Further in aggravation, we consider that Respondent testified falsely in an attempt to mislead the Panel regarding his family law caseload in his current position at the law firm of Evans. Respondent testified that a combination of a lot of different things caused his misconduct and one of them was that he was very unhappy and dissatisfied with being a divorce lawyer. He added that "I wish I had never gone down that road" and "I don't know why anyone is a divorce lawyer." (Tr. 209). In his apology letter to Mosby-Scott, Respondent said "I am done practicing family law." (Resp. Ex. 3 at 4). Respondent said he told Evans that "I can't be a divorce lawyer

PAGE 43:

anymore." (Tr. 221-25). Respondent then testified that "I do currently have a couple of family law cases, but it's a tiny amount of my current caseload that I'm handling." (Tr. 223). However, Mr. Evans was asked what percentage of Respondent's caseload consists of family law cases, and he replied "perhaps 50 percent, maybe a little less, something like that." (Tr. 356). We find the testimony regarding Respondent's current caseload of family law cases is material; that Mr. Evans' testimony in this regard was very credible; and that Respondent's testimony in this regard was false. See Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d at 366.

There is also considerable mitigation in this case. Respondent has been practicing law since 2002 and has not been previously disciplined.

Two former partners of Respondent at the Thomson & Weintraub law firm testified that Respondent was a very competent attorney; he did high quality legal work; there were no client or attorney complaints about him; and he had a good reputation for being truthful and forthright.

An attorney who worked with Respondent on virtually a daily basis at Thomson & Weintraub from 2005 to 2009 described Respondent as a very good and very competent attorney who was well prepared. He also said Respondent had a good reputation in the legal community for truthfulness and honesty.

An attorney who handled many cases in which Respondent was the opposing counsel described Respondent as a good advocate who was always prepared and always acted in a professional manner.

A retired judge, who Respondent appeared before on a regular basis from about 2010 to 2015, said that Respondent was always well prepared and described him as being in the "top tier of practitioners that appeared before me during my five years in the Family Law Division."

PAGE 44:

All of the above five witnesses indicated that they were shocked or surprised when they learned Respondent had committed the misconduct in this case.

Respondent's employer for the past six months described Respondent as a good lawyer who is doing exceptionally well.

In regard to his misconduct, Respondent was asked to explain why it occurred. He indicated that the misconduct was caused by a combination of things, including the stress and pressure he was under and the frustration in my life. He also specifically noted that he was very unhappy and dissatisfied with being a divorce lawyer. He added that he was internalizing the conflict he had with Mosby-Scott while handling divorce cases. (Tr. 209-11; 232). When asked what assurance he could give that he would practice law ethically in the future, he replied that he learned he is not immune to stress, pressure, frustration, and anger. (Tr. 226-27).

We recognize that the practice of law is a stressful professional. However, attorneys do not routinely snap and engage in a lengthy revenge attack on another attorney or anyone else, such as Respondent did. As we mentioned above, Respondent did not have a sudden burst of anger or a short-term lapse of sound judgment because some adverse incident occurred. Respondent's anger and serious lapse of sound judgment lasted over a lengthy period of time against someone who he acknowledged did nothing that "justified any kind of retaliatory harassing behavior."

We find in the record no credible explanation as to why the stress and pressure of handling divorce cases, among other things, caused Respondent to make his dishonest attacks on another attorney. There was a lack of any evidence from a clinical perspective as to why the Respondent was so affected to engage in the egregious misconduct.

PAGE 45:

We are also troubled by the fact that even though Respondent believes his handling of family law cases was a factor in causing his misconduct he continues to handle such cases. He is doing so after expressly telling Mosby-Scott that he was done practicing family law and after asserting that he told his current employer, Evans, that could not be a divorce lawyer anymore." (Tr. 221-25). As we mentioned above, Respondent attempted to minimize his family law cases by testifying "I do currently have a couple of family law cases, but it's a tiny amount of my current caseload that I'm handling." (Tr. 223). We also point out that Judge Reynard testified that he ranks contested family law cases as "the most emotionally stressful experience imaginable in litigation." (Tr. 331).

We find that the evidence shows Respondent is a very competent attorney and is well respected in the legal profession. Nevertheless, he engaged in egregious misconduct directed at another attorney that continued over a lengthy period of time and caused significant harm. In fact, his acts of dishonesty continued until he was caught.

We find no basis in the record for concluding that Respondent would not again engage in misconduct when confronted by the stress, pressure, and frustration of practicing law. We note that the character witnesses indicated they believe Respondent would practice law ethically in the future. However, those same witnesses also believed that to be true before learning of Respondent's misconduct in this case, and were shocked or surprised that he did so. We do not doubt the good faith of the character witnesses, but we do not find their testimony in this regard persuasive under the circumstances.

We have not found any disciplinary case that involved overall facts and circumstances similar to those in this case. However, we have considered the following cases in determining the appropriate sanction in this case.

PAGE 46:

In Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, the respondent was found to have engaged in dishonesty by providing false information regarding her income, employment history and social security number on a residential loan application and submitting the false documents in connection with the application. Additionally, respondent provided false information regarding her social security number and her name at birth on her application for admission to the bar. The respondent admitted the foregoing acts of dishonesty. Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d at 462. In mitigation, respondent had no prior discipline, fully cooperated, and expressed remorse. Also, she presented 4 character witnesses, including two circuit court judges, and a college assistant dean. The Court noted, however, that the character witnesses were not aware of the full extent of her misconduct. Id. at 467, 476. The Court imposed a suspension for 3 years and until further order of the Court. Id. at 478).

In In re Little, 2014PR00043, M.R. 26738 (Sept. 12, 2014), cited by the Administrator, the facts were set out in the Amended Petition for Reciprocal Discipline before the Supreme Court of Illinois. The respondent was licensed in both California and Illinois. While working in California as a deputy district attorney he worked with another deputy referred to as Denise Y. In July 2009, respondent assumed the identity of Y and created false profiles in her name on two social media websites and posted a link to a newspaper article that described allegations about the District Attorney engaging in sexual affairs with several women in his office The article further alleged women in that office, including Y, were promoted in exchange for the sexual conduct with the District Attorney. In April or May 2010, respondent posted comments on two Internet blogs about purported extramarital affairs by the District Attorney. The respondent pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of identity theft. In aggravation, the misconduct caused harm to the administration of justice and to Denise Y. In mitigation, Y suffered from depression and

PAGE 47:

anxiety that were directly responsible for the misconduct. The Supreme Court of California suspended respondent for 3 years and placed him on probation after 2 years subject to conditions. In Illinois, respondent was suspended for 2 years and until he is reinstated in California. We note that the California Supreme Court's order mentioned the respondent's good character as being attested to by a wide range of references. However, we do not know the extent of such references or whether they are similar to the testimony of the character witnesses in this case.

In In re Greanias, 01 SH 117, M.R. 19079 (Jan. 20, 2004), cited by the Administrator, the respondent filed 5 lawsuits against the Commissioners of the Industrial Commission, other lawyers, and lay persons, alleging conspiracy, bribery, fraudulent schemes that impugned their honesty. All of the lawsuits were groundless and were filed with reckless disregard for the truth. The respondent, however, continued to believe such lawsuits were properly filed. The Hearing Board was concerned that the respondent did not understand her wrongdoing and would not change her ways. The Hearing Board concluded that the respondent "should not be permitted to practice law until she proves to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that she will not engage in similar misconduct in the future." Greanias, 01 SH 117 (Hearing Bd. at 35, 37). A suspension for 2 years and until further order of the Court was imposed.

We believe the sanction imposed in Greanias is consistent with the accepted principle that a suspension until further order of the Court is appropriate to ensure that a respondent is sufficiently fit and able to meet professional standards before being permitted to resume the practice of law. See In re Houdek, 113 Ill. 2d 323, 327, 497 N.E.2d 1169 (1986); In re Redell, 03 CH 66 & 05CH 100, cons., M.R. 23075 (Nov. 12, 2010) (Review Bd. at 11); In re Broyles, 2010PR00035, M.R. 25239 (May 18, 2012) (Hearing Bd. at 39).

PAGE 48:

Suffice it to say that we find the facts and circumstances in the cases of In re McBride, 95 SH 877, M.R 14540 (Jun. 30, 1998) and In re Leitter, 05 CH 117, M.R.21148 (Nov. 17, 2006), cited by the Administrator, in which disbarment was imposed, to be significantly more egregious than in the case before us.

We also find the facts and circumstances in the cases of In re Gerstein, 99 SH 1, M.R 18377 (Jun. 30, 1998) and In re Pollock, 09 CH 60, M.R. 23808 (May 18, 2010), cited by Respondent, in which suspensions of 60 days and 30 days, respectively, were imposed to be significantly less egregious than in the case before us.

In Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d 350, cited by the Respondent, the respondent was contacted by the sister (Morrison) of a long-time friend about obtaining her boyfriend a job with the county. The respondent agreed to make some calls and get back to Morrison. Thereafter, the respondent left three messages on Morrison's answering machine and had a telephone conversation with her. Summarily stated, the respondent falsely told Morrison that her boyfriend could get a county job by paying $4,000 to $6,000 to the campaign fund of the county board chairman. The respondent also falsely claimed she had talked with the county board chairman about the matter and that "he's on board." The respondent ultimately admitted making the foregoing false statements to Morrison. The Supreme Court stated that the "facts of this case are unique" and described the Respondent's false statements as being the type that "undermine public confidence in the integrity of the government and, in conjunction with the aggravating factors . . . merit a suspension." Gorecki, 208 Ill. 2d at 353-55, 370.

The aggravating factors in Gorecki included: the respondent made a deceptive response to the ARDC's initial request for information; her false statements harmed the county board chairman by creating a genuine risk to his reputation and by causing him to "endure the

PAGE 49:

inconvenience and stress of [a] special prosecutor's investigation; and she demonstrated a lack of candor by testifying that she couldn't remember why she left the messages on Morrison's answering machine." Id. at 363-64, 366. In mitigation, the Court noted: respondent had practiced law for more than 10 years without prior discipline; she had an "impressive [10-year] history of charitable and community activities" and "devoted a tremendous amount of time;" several character witnesses, including a judge and an attorney, testified about her good reputation for honesty and integrity; and the attorney accepted responsibility for her misconduct expressed remorse, and apologized to the county board chairman and to the ARDC. The attorney was suspended for 4 months. Id. at 359, 369-70.

We first point out that there was no mention in Gorecki of any concern about the respondent being unable to comply with ethical standards in the future. As discussed above, there is considerable concern in the case before us. In fact, in Gorecki the Administrator did not request a suspension until further order of the Court See Id. at 361, but does request a suspension until further order of the Court in this case. The Supreme Court has stated that the recommendation of the Administrator is important in regard to the sanction. See Armentrout, 99 Ill. 2d at 254. We also find that the number of acts and the pattern of dishonesty in this case are significantly greater than in Gorecki, as is the harm intended and inflicted.

Based upon the nature and seriousness of the multiple acts of misconduct, the aggravating factors, the mitigating factors, and consideration of the above cases, we believe that a relatively short suspension and until further order of the Court is appropriate to serve the purposes of a disciplinary sanction in this case. This will allow Respondent to present evidence, if he has such evidence, to support his reinstatement in a relatively short period of time. Based upon the evidence, we find no basis to conclude that a fixed term of a suspension, even a lengthy one, will

PAGE 50:

adequately maintain the integrity of the legal profession or protect the administration of justice from reproach. Rather, we conclude that the Respondent should be required to prove to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that he is not likely to engage in such misconduct again and that he is able to practice law in an ethical manner.

Therefore, we recommend that the Respondent, Drew Randolph Quitschau, be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and until further order of the Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

John L. Gilbert
Mark T. Peters
Drinda L. OConnor

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and keeper of the records, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board, approved by each Panel member, entered in the above entitled cause of record filed in my office on June 6, 2018.

Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois