Illinois Hearing Committee Finds Altered Emails

An Illinois Hearing Commitee found that an attorney had altered internal work emails that he had created himself to appear to have been sent by his supervisor.

The substance of the emails involved denial of three claims assigned to him when he was employed by Stewart Title Guaranty Company

Based upon our assessment of witness credibility, our resolution of conflicting testimony, and our evaluation of all of the evidence presented to us, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that Respondent altered emails to make it appear as though Rickenbach had approved the denial of the Wolffe, Summit, and Beck-Quale claims when, in fact, she did not send Respondent emails approving those denials.

We therefore find that the Administrator proved that Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of Rule 8.4(c).

Respondent's evidence

we have considered his primary theory of defense, which is that, in retaliation for his filing a human resources complaint, Stewart employees manufactured a pretext to fire him by making it appear as though he fabricated the Wolffe, Summit, and Beck-Quale emails when he did not do so. We found the evidence provided by Respondent to be insufficient to cast doubt upon the credible testimony of Rickenbach, McBee, and Vishnevetsky, as well as the documentary evidence that supports their testimony.

We found Respondent’s version of events to be highly implausible. We also found much of his testimony to be vague, confusing, and occasionally contradictory, and therefore not credible. See In re Wilkins, 2014PR00078, M.R. 028647 (May 18, 2017) (Hearing Bd. at 18) (hearing panel is not required to accept testimony that is inherently improbable and contrary to human experience).

In addition, other than Respondent’s own testimony, the record is utterly devoid of evidence that would substantiate his claim that Stewart employees essentially framed him by making it appear as though he altered the emails in question when he did no such thing. We acknowledge that Vishnevetsky could not reach a conclusion as to who altered the emails. However, his definitive and uncontradicted expert testimony that they had been altered, combined with documentary evidence indicating that Respondent sent the emails and the absence of any evidence that another Stewart employee had access to Respondent’s computer or email account, convince us that Respondent altered the emails in an effort to deceive his employer.

Sanction

Given the minimal mitigation and serious aggravation present in this matter, we find that Respondent’s conduct warrants a six-month suspension. In addition, based upon Respondent’s antagonistic behavior toward his opposing counsel during his disciplinary proceedings, we believe that Respondent would benefit from a review of his professional obligations. We therefore recommend that Respondent be required to successfully complete the ARDC Professionalism Seminar before resuming practice.