Monday, June 8, 2009
In a case involving allegations that a lawyer had misled his client about the status of his appeal, the Illinois ARDC has filed charges alleging that the misrepresentations to the client took place over a 27 year period:
Between November 8, 1982 and May 20, 2009, the date the Inquiry Board voted that a complaint be filed in this matter, Respondent advised Konicki [the client] at least on a yearly basis that the lawsuit involving his dispute with OBRC was still pending in the circuit court. Respondent also told Konicki that they had prevailed in the circuit court, OBRC had appealed and the matter was pending in the Appellate Court and ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court. Respondent's statements to Konicki were false and Respondent knew they were false because he knew that he had done nothing to reinstate Konicki's case and that Konicki's matter was not pending in any court.
In September 1998, Respondent prepared what purported to be an agreed court order dated March 2, 1998 in case number 76 L 1111, in which the court found in favor of Konicki and stated that the non-compete clause in the consultation agreement was void as against public policy. The order was false and Respondent knew it was false because he knew that he had not done anything to reinstate Konicki's case after the appellate court opinion. Respondent sent the purported agreed order to Konicki in order to lead Konicki to believe that the arbitrator's decision had been vacated.
At no time did Respondent advise Konicki that he had not done anything to reinstate Konicki's case after the appellate court opinion [in 1982].
The opposing party was a racquet club. The lawyer's client was a part owner who had entered into a consulting agreement with the club.
If these charges are proven, the client should be recognized as the most patient and trusting individual to ever hire an attorney. (Mike Frisch)