Hair Apparently Improper

The Illinois Review Board recommends a six-month suspension and probation for a lawyer's inappropriate courthouse behavior

The Review Board recommended that Respondent be suspended for two years, UFO [until further order], with the suspension stayed after six months, by an eighteen-month period of probation, with conditions. In other words, the Review Board recommended a six-month suspension, followed by eighteen months of probation, subject to conditions, and a violation of probation would result in a UFO sanction.

Misconduct

Between 2016 and 2023, Respondent made harassing, offensive, inappropriate, and lewd comments to Will County Courthouse staff, and in one instance, he put his hand in a female employee’s hair, without her permission. The evidence at the disciplinary hearing included the allegations in the Complaint, which allegations were deemed admitted. (See Complaint, Common Law Record (“C.”) 5-11.) The evidence also included the testimony of Thaddeus Zito (“Zito”), the Deputy Trial Court Administrator for the 12th Judicial District, who investigated Respondent’s actions. (See Tr. 23-47.) Additionally, the evidence included Respondent’s closing argument, which he gave under oath. (See Tr. 54-65.)

The investigation in this case began in 2021, when a court employee on the court bailiff’s staff complained about inappropriate behavior by Respondent dating back to 2016. (Complaint at ¶2, C.5-6.) According to Zito, that court employee outlined several interactions she had with Respondent that involved sexual harassment-type conduct between 2016 and 2021. (Tr. 25.) The employee’s complaint also summarized similar interactions that other people had with Respondent, which included Respondent’s asking court employees out on dates; offering to show them “a good time;” and telling women that they “smell really good” and “look good enough to eat.” (Complaint at ¶2, C.5-6.) Zito investigated Respondent’s actions, and conducted interviews with courthouse staff members. (Complaint at ¶3, C.6; Tr. 45-46.) Respondent’s misconduct includes the following actions.

In March 2021, Respondent came up behind a woman, who worked at the courthouse; Respondent patted her head and placed his hand in her hair, without her consent. (Complaint at ¶5, C.6; Tr. 42, 59.) That woman worked in the law library, and Respondent sometimes discussed his personal life with her and left candy on her desk. (Complaint at ¶4, C.6.) In his response to the Complaint (“Response”), Respondent stated, “I did touch her inappropriately on the top of her head;” and “I did leave candy on her desk on a number of occasions.” (Response at ¶7, C.32.) A deputy sheriff, who saw Respondent touch the woman’s hair, warned Respondent not to do anything like that again. (Complaint at ¶5, C.6.)

In April 2021, during a meeting with Zito and another court representative, (“the April meeting”), Respondent was asked whether he had ever said to female staff or female attorneys at the Will County Courthouse, “Nice dress, but it would look better on my floor.” Respondent replied, “I’ve told them they have a nice dress, but it would [be] better if it was off.” (Complaint at ¶9, C.7) At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent testified, “I made the statement, boy, it sure would be nice if you took your dress off.” (Tr. 60.)

During the April meeting, Respondent also admitted that he sometimes asked female opposing counsel, “Will begging or flirting be more effective?” (Complaint at ¶8, C.7) In his Response to the Complaint, Respondent stated, “I have stated to opposing counsel would begging or flirting be more effective.” (Response at ¶2, C.31.) At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent testified that while he was discussing a criminal case with a prosecuting Assistant State’s Attorney, he asked her, “[W]ould begging or flirting be more effective?” (Tr. 59.)

After Zito had met with Respondent about his behavior

In May 2021, Zito sent Respondent a letter warning him not to make inappropriate comments to staff members, including inappropriate comments on women’s hair, dress, or appearance; the letter also warned Respondent not to talk to staff members about his personal life, and not to ask staff members on dinner dates. (Complaint at ¶¶10-11, C.8.) In August 2021, Respondent told a male employee in the Clerk’s Office to “eat shit and die.” (Complaint at ¶12, C.8.) Respondent asked the employee for assistance, and when the employee said that Respondent needed to file certain forms electronically, Respondent became  agitated and told the employee to “eat shit and die.” (Id.) 

He denied the last comment but

In November 2021, Respondent approached a woman, who was an employee in the Clerk’s Office, and began talking to her about his personal life. During that conversation, Respondent asked the employee to have dinner with him. She declined. (Complaint at ¶13, C.8-9.) According to Zito, the clerk reported that Respondent asked her out on a romantic date and made some type of lewd comment. (Tr. 30.) At the disciplinary proceeding, Respondent admitted that he asked the clerk to go out on a date with him (Tr. 57), and testified that “she’s a nice girl and I thought we would have a good time maybe.” (Tr. 58.)

In June 2022, while speaking with four law students, who were judicial externs, Respondent talked about another law student, who was not there, stating, “If I were 55 years younger, I would get with her.” (Complaint at ¶15, C.9.) In his Response to the Complaint, Respondent stated, “The conversation with the 4 externs took place about a week [after I talked to the law student]. I said if I were 50 years younger I would ask her out.” (Response at ¶6, C. 32.) At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent testified, “I said [the law student] seemed like a nice girl to me. If I were 55 years younger, I would think about asking her out.” (Tr. 57.)

Sanction

Respondent subjected people to hurtful and demeaning behavior. His actions were so clearly offensive that he was reprimanded by a judge and a deputy sheriff on two separate occasions. Respondent’s misconduct also had the ability to undermine the public’s confidence in the legal profession. See Commentary to Rule 8.4, Comment 3 (stating, “[H]arassment by lawyers in the practice of law … undermines confidence in the legal profession and legal system …. [That includes] interacting with … court personnel, lawyers, and others.”).

Respondent’s harassment of court staff was prejudicial to the administration of justice because it interfered with the staff’s work; it caused court employees to spent substantial time and resources investigating and addressing his misconduct; and it caused needless work for the Chief Judge, who issued an order restricting Respondent’s movements in the courthouse in order to protect the staff.

Admitted in 1974 with no prior discipline

we believe that the recommended sanction will help to ensure that Respondent does not engage in misconduct in the future. We also believe that it properly balances the serious nature of Respondent’s actions, with the mitigating evidence, including that Respondent practiced law for more than forty years without any blemishes to his record.

(Mike Frisch)