as of 6/18/2026 6:28:04 AM

Robert Raymond Jung

11 W. Jefferson Street Luhrs Bldg - Suite 5
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2306

(602) 506-3029

Not available

Date Admitted

November 07, 1991

Illinois Registration Status

Not authorized to practice law due to discipline and has not demonstrated required MCLE compliance – Last Registered Year: 1995

Malpractice Insurance

No malpractice report as attorney is disciplined

Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings
Case(s) below are identified by caption and Commission case number. If there is more than one case, the cases are listed from most recent to oldest. A case may have more than one disposition or more than one component to a disposition, in which case each disposition and component is also listed separately within that case record, again in an order from most recent to oldest.

Click on
Case Research
to access any documents regarding this lawyer that are in our database. Case Research contains most disciplinary opinions of the Supreme Court and most disciplinary orders and board reports issued since 1990. If Case Research does not contain the information you are seeking, please contact the Commission's Clerk's Office for assistance. Contact information for the Clerk's office is available under Clerk's Office Services.

In re Jung, Robert Raymond, 2020PR00005
Disposition Reprimand
Effective Date of Disposition 05/18/2020
End Date of Disposition Not Applicable. Censures and reprimands do not affect the authority of the lawyer to continue to practice law.
Definition of Disposition A reprimand reflects a determination that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct, but that the violation is not so serious to warrant a sanction that would affect the lawyer’s authority to continue to practice law. As a result, a reprimand does not affect the authority of the lawyer to continue to practice law. A reprimand is the only form of discipline that may be imposed by the Hearing Board or Review Board. All other discipline must be imposed by the Supreme Court.
Case Summary Mr. Jung was licensed in Arizona in 1992 and in Illinois in 1991. The Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee of the Supreme Court of Arizona entered an order admonishing him for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by representing his fiancée in communications regarding her legal claims while he was serving a suspension from practice in Arizona. The Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline and reprimanded him in Illinois.
In re Jung, Robert Raymond, 2011PR00095
Disposition Suspension with condition(s)
Effective Date of Disposition 12/08/2011
End Date of Disposition
Definition of Disposition A suspension with conditions reflects a determination that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct and that the misconduct warrants both an interruption of the lawyer's authority to practice law during the suspension period, and the imposition of conditions with which the lawyer must comply. The suspension may be for a fixed period of time or for a fixed period of time and until the lawyer complies with the conditions. The lawyer is not authorized to practice law during the period of the suspension.
Case Summary Mr. Jung was licensed in Illinois in 1991 and in Arizona in 1992. He was suspended in Arizona for two years and placed on probation for an additional two years upon any reinstatement for failing to abide by client decisions, failing to adequately communicate with clients, neglecting client matters, not promptly returning client property, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court of Illinois imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for two years and until he is reinstated in Arizona. The suspension is effective on December 8, 2011.
In re Jung, Robert Raymond, 2010PR00074
Disposition Suspension with condition(s)
Effective Date of Disposition 10/11/2010
End Date of Disposition
Definition of Disposition A suspension with conditions reflects a determination that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct and that the misconduct warrants both an interruption of the lawyer's authority to practice law during the suspension period, and the imposition of conditions with which the lawyer must comply. The suspension may be for a fixed period of time or for a fixed period of time and until the lawyer complies with the conditions. The lawyer is not authorized to practice law during the period of the suspension.
Case Summary Mr. Jung was licensed in Illinois in 1991 and in Arizona in 1992. He was twice suspended in Arizona, the first time for six months followed by six months probation with conditions, the second time for sixty days followed by two years probation with conditions. He failed to refund unearned fees, did not communicate with clients, failed to promptly withdraw upon discharge in three criminal matters, and misused his client trust account, causing it to become overdrawn. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and suspended him for eight months and until he is reinstated in Arizona. He was also placed on probation until his current period of probation in Arizona is successfully completed. The suspension is effective on October 11, 2010.
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. Disciplinary results displayed above, if any, include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.

ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email registration@iardc.org. Attorneys may make changes to their contact information on the ARDC’s Online Registration page, or by completing and submitting the Change of Address form available on our Address Changes page. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests page for details.