Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging misconduct by an attorney who took and passed the bar examination in 2003.
According to the complaint, there was a delay in securing admission because of character and fitness issues:
Respondent’s application was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness of the First Judicial District due to Respondent’s on-going credit problems, including unpaid medical bills, overdue credit card accounts, and a collection lawsuit filed against him; Respondent’s 1999 criminal arrest for patronizing a prostitute; Respondent’s non-disclosure to the two law schools he attended of his criminal arrest, even though both law school applications asked whether Respondent had ever been arrested; and a significant number of traffic offenses, including many traffic citations issued while he was attending law school.
He was admitted in 2006. Here, he is charged with failing to reveal a civil complaint alleging fraud filed between the period he passed and his admission.
There are also charges that he failed to respond to a bar complaint alleging mortgage fraud:
On February 28, March 2, March 4, and March 8, 2011, Commission Investigator James Easoz ("Easoz") attempted to personally serve Respondent at Respondent’s home address with a subpoena duces tecum commanding Respondent’s appearance at the ARDC on March 18, 2011. On each occasion, Easoz went to the condominium building where Respondent resided, and the doorman at the condominium building called Respondent’s condominium unit but Respondent did not answer the call. On each occasion, Easoz left a business card with the doorman of Respondent’s condominium building, and on each occasion the doorman agreed to place the business card in Respondent’s mailbox. On each occasion, the doorman placed the business card in Respondent’s mailbox.
On March 8, 2011, Easoz obtained Respondent’s current phone number from the doorman at the condominium building where Respondent resided. On March 9, March 11, and March 14, 2011, Easoz attempted to reach Respondent by telephone at his current phone number. On each occasion Easoz phoned Respondent, he did not answer the call, and Easoz left a voicemail message requesting that Respondent contact him. Respondent received each of the voicemail messages that Easoz left for him, but at no time did Respondent return Easoz’ calls.
On March 15, 2011, Easoz returned to Respondent’s home address to again attempt to personally serve Respondent with a subpoena duces tecum commanding Respondent’s appearance at the ARDC. On that date, the doorman gave Easoz an envelope from Respondent containing one of the business cards Easoz previously left for Respondent, with the hand-written note "I don’t want" scrawled across the front of the envelope and signed "Ancuta", and Respondent’s condominium number underneath his name. Easoz returned the envelope to the doorman, and told the doorman to give the envelope back to Respondent, as it was important that Respondent contact the ARDC.
On March 16, 2011, the Administrator sent a subpoena duces tecum by certified and regular mail to Respondent at Respondent’s home address. The subpoena duces tecum commanded Respondent’s appearance on April 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. at the Chicago offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the production of certain documents at that time. The U.S. Postal Service notified Respondent of the certified letter, but Respondent never claimed it. On April 11, 2011, the subpoena duces tecum which had been sent by certified mail was returned to the Administrator by the U.S. Postal Service with the notation "unclaimed." Respondent received the subpoena duces tecum sent to Respondent by regular mail.
As of July 6, 2011, the date the Inquiry Board voted to file this complaint against Respondent, Respondent had not produced the information or documents requested in the Administrator’s letters or subpoena duces tecum, nor had he appeared to provide testimony in response to the subpoena duces tecum. Counsel for the Administrator never waived or excused Respondent’s production of information and documents, or his appearance at the Chicago offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.