BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION AMENDED ANSWER

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: JOSEPH PRESTON HARRIS, Attorney-Respondent, Comm. No. 2013PR No AMENDED ANSWER COUNT I {Alleged Neglect in Employment Discrimination Matter - Angela Williams) 1. On or about July 20, 2007, Angela Williams consulted with Respondent about representing her in an employment discrimination claim against her former employer, Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Williams for a contingency fee wherein Respondent's fee would be one-third ofany award Respondent obtainedon behalfof Ms.Williams. Respondentrequested that Ms.Williams advance $1,000 toward his anticipated costs. Respondent admits that on or about July 20, 2007, he agreed to represent Angela Williams in connection with an employment discrimination claim against Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation. Respondent denies that he agreed to represent Ms. Williams on a contingent-fee basis. Respondent denies that he requested that Ms. Williams advance $1,000 toward his anticipated costs.

2 2. At no time did Respondent set forth his contingent fee agreement with Ms. Williams in writing, despite several requests by Ms. Williams that he do so. Respondent denies that he had a contingent fee agreement with Ms. Williams, and he therefore denies all of the allegations contained in paragraph On October 6, 2008, Respondent filed an employment discrimination complaint on behalf of Ms. Williams in the United States District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, entitledangela D. Williams v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, etal, case number 08CV5679. The matter was assigned to Judge Joan B. Gottschall with designated Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph On November 25, 2008, the defendants in Williams v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation, et al., filed their answers, defenses, and motions to dismiss certain allegations in case number 08CV5679. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph On December 10, 2008, Judge Gottschall held a status conference in case number 08CV5679 wherein the Judge entered a discovery schedule order requiring that parties exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on or before January 15, 2009, and set a new status hearing date of January 21,2009. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph On January 21, 2009, Respondent failed to appear, on behalf of Ms. Williams, before Judge Gottschall in case number 08CV5679. Judge Gottschall rescheduled the status hearing for February 4,2009, and indicated that the failure of plaintiff, or plaintiffs counsel,

3 to appear in the matter on February 4, 2009 would result in an order dismissing Ms. Williams' case for want ofprosecution. Respondent admits thathe did notappear for the January 21,2009 status date. Furtheranswering, Respondent affirmatively states that he was inexperienced in theuseofthe PACER/ECFsystematthetimethathe filed Ms.Williams' case; and that as a result, he was not able to keep apprised of the status dates at which an appearance was required. 7. On February 4, 2009, Respondent appeared, on behalf of Ms. Williams, before Judge Gottschall in case number 08CV5679. The Judge entered an order requiring Respondent to comply with defendants' discovery requests by March 2, Additionally, Judge Gotschall set forth a detailed discovery schedule, with deadlines for compliance, and June 10,2009 as the next status hearing date. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph From March 2009 through April 2009, Ms. Williams placed several telephone calls to Respondent requesting status updates in her case number 08CV5679. Respondent failed to return any of Ms. Williams' calls regarding the status ofher pending matter. Respondent admits that Ms.Williams contacted him regarding her case during March and April Respondent denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph On March 2,2009, Respondent contacted counsel for defendants, Anna Hartog, and informed her that he was unable to obey the Judge's discovery order deadline of March 2,2009 but agreed to comply with the defendant's discovery requests by March 4,2009. Respondentadmits that on March 2,2009, he had a discussion with Ms. Hartog in which he requested the brief extension of time described in paragraph 9. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9.

4 10. At no time on or before March 4, 2009 did Respondent comply with defendants' discovery requests. Instead, Respondent notified Ms. Hartog that he would complywith outstanding discovery requests by March 6,2009. At no time on orbefore March 6,2009 did Respondent comply with the court's February 4,2009 discovery order. Respondent admits that he requested a brief further extension of time to comply with Ms. Hartog's discovery requests. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that as of March 6, 2009, he was not in possession of sufficient information to assemble a response to Ms. Hartog's discovery requests. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph On March 9,2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion to compel discovery, based upon Respondent's failure to comply with the court ordered discovery schedule in case number 08CV5679. The motion was scheduled for hearing before Judge Gottschall on March 12,2009. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11. Further answering, Respondent denies that he received notice of the defendants' motion. 12. On March 12, 2009, neither Respondent nor Plaintiff appeared before Judge Gottschall in case number 08 CV Judge Gottschall granted the defendants' motion to compel discovery and required Plaintiff respond to outstanding discovery by March 26, The Judge also awarded defense counsel's fees and costs for the filing and preparation of the motion to compel and set a next status hearing date of April 1, Judge Gottschall indicated that the failure of Plaintiff to appear either in person or by counsel on the status date of April 1, 2009, would result in the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. On March 31,2009, Defendants filed a petition for attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,700.

5 Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he had not received notice of the defendants' motion or the March 12, 2009 hearing date; and that as of March 12, 2009, he believed, incorrectly, that he was not required to appear for a status date in Ms. Williams' case until June 10, OnApril 1,2009,neither Respondent nor Ms. Williams appeared before Judge Gottschall in case number 08 CV The Judge rescheduled the status hearing for April 8, Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 08CV5679 on April 1, Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he was not aware of the April 1, 2009 date, and that as of April 1, 2009, he believed, incorrectly, that he was not required to appear for a status date in Ms. Williams' case until June 10, On April 8,2009, neither Respondent nor Ms. Williams appeared before Judge Gottschall in case number 08 CV Judge Gottschall entered orders dismissingthe matter for want of prosecution and directing Ms. Williams and Respondentto pay defense attorneys' costs in the amount of$2,700. Respondent admits that he did not appear in case number 08CV5679 on April 8, 2009, and that Judge Gottschall entered the orders described in paragraph 14. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he was not aware ofthe April 8, 2009 date, and that as ofapril 8, 2009, he believed, incorrectly, that he was not required to appear for a status date in Ms. Williams' case until June 10, On each and every status date in case number 08CV5679, Judge Gotschall's clerk mailed notice ofthe Judge's orders to Respondent. Respondent received the notices of orders sent by the Judge's clerk for each and every status date in case number 08CV5679. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth orfalsity of the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 15, and therefore denies those allegations. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15.

6 16. Shortly after the April 8, 2009 dismissal of her lawsuit in case number 08CV5679, Ms. Williams telephoned Judge Gottschall's clerk to determine the status of her lawsuit. At that time, the Judge's clerk informed Ms. Williams that on April 8, 2009, Respondent was not present in court and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Respondenthas insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16, and therefore denies those allegations. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he informed Ms. Williams of the dismissal of the case shortly after he himself learned of it. 17. In April 2009, after learning that her lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution, Ms. Williams made repeated telephone calls to Respondent to discuss the dismissal of her lawsuit Respondent did not immediately return Ms. Williams' telephone calls. Respondent admits that in April 2009, Ms. Williams contacted him regarding her case. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph In May 2009, Ms.Williams spoke with Respondent via telephone atwhich time Respondent informed Ms. Williams that he was aware that case number 08CV5679 was dismissed for want ofprosecution, and would be filing an appeal. Respondent admits that he had a conversation with Ms. Williams in April or May 2009 in which he informed her that case number 08CV5679 had been dismissed for want of prosecution. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 18.

7 19. At no time after case number 08CV5679 was dismissed for want of prosecution on April 8, 2009, did Respondent file an appeal, motion to reconsider or take any other action on behalfof Ms. Williams in case number 08CV5679. Respondent admits that he did not file an appeal or take any other action on behalf of Ms. Williams in case number 08CV5679. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 19. Further answering, Respondent states that after April 8,2009, he discussed with Ms. Williams the merits of her case and her options with regard to any continued proceedings. During that discussion, Respondent recommended against initiating or pursuing any further proceedings, and Ms. Williams accepted that advice and accordingly determined not to proceed further. 20. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in b. representing a client, Ms. Williams, by conduct including c. failing to prosecute the employment discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of Ms. Williams, 08CV5679, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); d. failure to keep a client, Ms. Williams, reasonably informed regarding the status of the employment discrimination lawsuit, 08CV5679, in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); e. failure to reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing, in the employment discrimination matter, 08CV5679, in violation of Rule 1.5(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and f. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by failure to comply with court rules and orders

8 in the employment discrimination matter, 08CV5679, and delaying the resolution of Ms. Williams' matter, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990). Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 20. COUNT II {AllegedConflict ofinterest - Neal and Cathleen Green) 21. Prior to 200 7, Harold Richmond consulted Respondent on an estate matter. At that time, Respondent declined to represent Mr. Richmond in that matter as Respondent suspected Mr. Richmond fabricated a deed. Respondent admits that he was retained by a person named Howard Richmond several years ago in relation to a probate matter. Respondent also admits that he eventually suspected that Howard Richmond may have participated in engaging in dishonest conduct with respect to a deed, and so he discontinued that representation of Howard Richmond. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph In 2007, Mr. Richmond discussed his interest in acquiring property to fund a new ministry with Neal Green. Mr. Green was interested in Mr. Richmond's proposition as both he and Mr. Richmond were ministers. Mr. Richmond discussed the possibility of purchasing an eight-flat building located in Chicago at W. Jackson Boulevard, hereinafter "West Jackson property," which was owned by Mr. Green and his wife, Cathleen. The West Jackson property had been damaged in a fire. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in any allegations relating to the content ofconversations between Howard Richmond and Rev. Neal Green, because he was not a party to those discussions. Therefore, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22. 8

9 23. At the time of the discussions between Mr. Green and Mr. Richmond, Mr. Green was 73 years ofage, had a third-grade education and modest liquid assets. The Green's assets consisted of several properties acquired by Mr. Green during his lifetime which, in addition to the West Jackson property, included three multiple-family buildings and the home he shared with his wife, Cathleen. Respondent was not a party to of any discussions between Rev. Neal Green and Howard Richmond in 2007, and he was therefore not aware, at that time, of any of the facts alleged in paragraph 23 regarding Rev. Green's condition and assets. Respondent therefore denies the allegations contained in paragraph In 2007, Mr. Richmond referred the Greens to Respondent for legal representation in several matters, including a landlord-tenant dispute, a contempt of court proceeding against Ms.Green, and a dispute with the Green's insurer following the fire at the West Jackson property. Respondent agreed to represent the Greens in all of their legal matters. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in paragraph 24 that Howard Richmond referred the Greens to Respondent, and he therefore denies those allegations. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph After retaining Respondent, the Greens provided the Respondent with their financial, real estate and legal documents. As a result, Respondent was aware of the extent of the Green's debt and real estate holdings, including the West Jackson property. The West Jackson property was the only property unencumbered by a mortgage and, for that reason; [sic] the Greens were reluctant to sell the West Jackson property. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25.

10 26. Mr. Richmond and Respondent entered into an agreement such that Mr. Richmond would pay any legal fees Respondent incurred in representing the Greens, should the Greens be unable to pay for Respondent's legal services. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph Later in 2007, Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Richmond in his purchase of the Greens West Jackson property for a purchase price of $300,000. At that time, the property was valued at between $600,000 and $700,000. Respondent admits that he agreed to represent Howard Richmond in connection with the West Jackson property. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph At all times alleged in Count II of the Complaint, as a result of their ongoing attorney-client relationship, the Greens expected Respondent to exercise his independent professional judgment for the Green's protection. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 concerning the state of mind ofthe Greens. To the extent an answer is possible or required regarding those allegations, Respondent denies those allegations. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph By reason ofthe trust and confidence thatthe Greens placed in Respondent as a result of the attorney-client relationship, Respondent stood in a position of a fiduciary to the Greens. As such, Respondent owed the Greens the fiduciary duties attendant to the attorney-client relationship, including the duty to perform the requested services with the highest degree of honesty, fidelity, and good faith, a duty of undivided loyalty, a duty to avoid placing himselfin a position where his interests would conflict with the interests of his client, a former client or a third party, and a duty of care, including but not limited to a duty to 10

11 ascertain if the actions he was taking on behalf of the Greens in relation to the sale of the West Jackson property accurately reflected the Green's desires and protected their legal interests. Paragraph 29 alleges legal conclusions which are the province of the Hearing Panel to draw. Therefore, Respondent should not be required to answer that paragraph. To the extentan answeris possible orrequired, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph At no time did Respondent take any steps to ascertain whether the actions he took on behalf of the Green's sale of the West Jackson property accurately reflected the Green's desires or protected their legal interests. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph At no time did Respondent advise the Greens that he was simultaneously representing Mr. Richmond in relation to the purchase ofthe West Jackson property that the interests ofmr. Richmond and the Green's interests could be adverse, that his representation ofone party could be limited by his responsibilities to the other party. Respondent admits that he did not advise the Greens in the manner described in paragraph 31. Further answering, Respondent states that he did not so advise the Greens because he only represented Howard Richmond in connection with the the West Jackson property. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph On January 29,2007, the closing on the West Jackson property occurred, with all parties present Respondent prepared all documents relating to the sale and purchase of the West Jackson property. While Mr. Richmond agreed to a purchase price of $300,000, he failed to convey a check to the Greens at the closing. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence ofparagraph 32. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second and third sentences ofparagraph

12 33. The Greens were owed $269, at closing but have never received any consideration for the sale of the West Jackson property to Mr. Richmond. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permitthe clients, Neal and Cathleen Green, to make informed decisions about the representation, by conduct including failing to explain the risks and benefits of the real estate transaction, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and b. representation of multiple clients in a single matter, a real estate transaction, by conduct including failure to make full disclosure of the implications of common representation of Neal and Cathleen Green as well as Harold Richmond, and the risks involved, in violation of Rule 1.7(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990). Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 34. COUNT III {Alleged Neglect in Foreclosure Matter - Ali and Amina Sheikhani) 35. On or about October 20, 2011, Ali and Amina Sheikhani consulted with Respondent about their defense of a foreclosure action, pending in the Circuit Court ofwill County, entitled Wells Fargo v. Amina Sheikhani, etal., case number 10CH3113. Respondent agreed to represent the Sheikani's in the foreclosure action for a fee of $3500. Mr.Sheikhani advised Respondent that October 26,2011 was the next court date in the foreclosure action. Respondent advised the Sheikhanis that their court appearance was unnecessary as he would appear on their behalfin the foreclosure action. 12

13 Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first, second, and third sentences of paragraph 35, except that he denies that he consulted with both Ali and Amina Sheikhani. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he met with Ali Sheikhani on or about October 20, Respondent denies the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph 35. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he told Ali Sheikhani that he would not file an appearance and answer on the Sheikhanis' behalf in case number 10CH3113 unless and until he received full payment of the $3,500 fee. 36. On October 20,2011, pursuant to the agreement between and the Sheikhanis, Ali Sheikhani paid Respondent $250 in cash toward Respondent's fee. Mr. Sheikhani agreed to pay Respondent monthly installments of $200 toward Respondent's fee. Respondent agreed to provide the Sheikhanis with a copy of Respondent's appearance and answer to the foreclosure complaint in case number 10CH3113. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 36, except that he denies that the amount of the agreed-upon monthly installments was $200. Further answering, Respondent states that the amount of the agreed-upon monthly installments was $ On October 26,2011, Respondent failed to appear in case number 10CH3113. The court set a next status hearing date of November 23,2011. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 37. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph In mid-november 2011, Respondent's administrative assistant, James Lee, telephoned Mr. Sheikhani and requested an immediate additional $750 for attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Sheikhani asked Mr. Lee whether Respondent had filed his appearance and answer in case number 10CH3113. At the direction of Respondent, Mr. Lee told the Sheikhanis that Respondent had filed both an appearance and answer. 13

14 Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph Mr. Sheikhani demanded a copy of Respondent's appearance and answer prior to any further paymentbeyondthe $250 initially paid to Respondent Mr. Sheikhani was not provided a copy of documents as Respondent had not filed an appearance or answer in 10CH3113. Mr. Sheikhani attempted to call Respondent, but was unable to speak with him or leave any message for Respondent as Respondent's business voic inbox was full and not accepting any messages. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39, except that he admits that he had not filed an answer or appearance in case number 10CH3113. Further answering, Respondent states that as the Administrator concedes in paragraph 36 and 39, as of mid-november 2011, the Sheikhanis had only paid him $250 of the agreed-upon $3,500 fee. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that $250 was insufficient to cover the fees and costs he would incur in filing any pleadings on the Sheikhanis' behalf in case number 10CH As ofthe date ofmr. Sheikhani's conversation with Mr. Lee in November 2011, Respondent had neither filed his appearance or answer in case number 10CH3113. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 40. Further answering, Respondent states that as the Administrator concedes in paragraph 36 and 39, as ofmid-november 2011, the Sheikhanis had only paid him $250 of the agreed-upon $3,500 fee. 41. On November 23, 2011, Respondent failed to appear in case number 10CH3113 wherein, the court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale against the Sheikhanis. At no time did Respondent advise the Sheikhanis that judgment for foreclosure and sale had entered against the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41, except that he admits that the court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale in case number 10 CH 3113 on November 23,

15 42. At no time did Respondent file an appearance or take any action on behalf of the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 42, except that he admits that he did not file an answer or appearance in case number 10CH3113. Further answering, Respondent states that as the Administrator concedes in paragraph 36 and 39, as of November 23, 2011, the Sheikhanis had only paid him $250 of the agreed-upon $3,500 fee. 43. On or about February 29, 2012, the Sheikhanis received notice of a Sheriffs sale of real estate on their property which was the subject of foreclosure in case number 10CH3113. Prior to February 29, 2012, the Sheikhanis were not aware that judgment had entered or that Respondent took no action on their behalfin case number 10CH3113. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth orfalsity of the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 43, and therefore denies those allegations. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph On March 7, 2012, Mr. Sheikhani filed a request for investigation of Respondent with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, hereinafter "ARDC," relating to the alleged misconduct of Respondent. As a result of Mr. Sheikhani's request, the Administrator initiated investigation number 2012IN Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph By letter dated March 14,2012, but received by counsel for the Administrator on April 13,2012, Respondent wrote that "On November 23,2011,1 did appear on behalfof Mr. Sheikhani and requested leave of court to file my Appearance, Answer or otherwise plead, which was granted." Respondent provided a copy of the appearance and answerwhich he purportedly filed on that date, although the documents were not file stamped by the clerk ofthe court. 15

16 Respondent admits drafting and sending the letter dated March 14, Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 45 to the effect that counsel for the Administrator received that letter on April 13, 2012, and so denies those allegations. Respondent admits that he wrote the quoted portion of the March 14,2012 letter, and that he enclosed a copy of the draft appearance and answer referred to in paragraph 45. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph Respondent's statements to the Commission that on November 23, 2011, he had appeared in court and filed pleadings on behalf of the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113 were false and Respondent knew they were false because he had not filed any pleadings in case number 10CH3113. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that at no time did he tell the ARDC, or any of its employees or agents, that he filed pleadings on behalf of the Sheikhanis in case number 10CH3113. Respondent affirmatively states that he only told the ARDC that he had requested leave of court to file his appearance and answer, and that the court had granted that request Respondent affirmatively states that both of those statements are true. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. failure to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, by conduct including failing to advise Amina and Ali Sheikhani of the status of their foreclosure, in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); b. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by conduct including failing to represent the Sheikhanis in their foreclosure action, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); 16

17 c. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, by conduct including failing to advise the Sheikhani's that a judgment for foreclosure and sale had entered in their foreclosure, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); d. failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by conduct including failing to respond to the Sheikhani's requests for information, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); e. conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation, by conduct including Respondent's representation that he filed his appearance and pleadings in the Sheikhani's foreclosure matter, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and f. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including failing to appear and answer the Sheikhani's foreclosure proceeding and the resulting judgment of foreclosure and sale on their property, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 47. COUNT IV [Alleged Neglect in Loan Modification Matter - Glenn and Clarissa Love) 48. On oraboutjuly 15,2011, Glenn and Clarissa Love consulted with Respondent about representing them in securing a loan modification of their mortgage and preventing a foreclosure action by their lender, Vericrest Financial, hereinafter "Vericrest" Respondent agreed to represent the Lovesfor a fee of $3000. At that time, Respondent advised the Loves that they might have a fraud claim against Vericrest. 17

18 Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 48, except that he denies that he agreed to representthe Loves in connection with "preventing a foreclosure action by" Vericrest 49. On July 15,2011, pursuant to the Loves' agreement to pay a total fee of $3,000 to Respondent, the Loves paid Respondent $1000 in cash toward Respondent's requested fee. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph Between July 15, 2011 and January 2012, the Loves regularly telephoned Respondent to request the status of their loan modification and property foreclosure. On each occasion, Respondent told the Loves that he was "making great progress, I'm on top of things," and "we are making great progress on your case." Respondent admits that he spoke with the Loves several times between July 15, 2011 and January 2012 regarding the status of the loan modification matter in connection with which the Loves had retained him. Respondent further admits making the statements quoted in paragraph 50. Further answering, Respondent denies that the statements quoted in paragraph 50 comprise the entirety of his conversations with the Loves during their several conversations between July 15, 2011 and January Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph In January 2012, Respondenttelephoned the Loves, toldthem thatthathe had "been working hard" on their matter and requested an additional $500 payment for attorney's fees. On January 16, 2012, the Loves mailed a check to Respondent in the amount of $500 for attorney's fees. Respondent admits that he spoke with the Loves in January Respondent admits that he made the statement quoted in paragraph 51, and that he requested that they pay another $500 toward the $3,000 total fee they had agreed to pay. Further answering, Respondent denies that the statements quoted and described in paragraph 51 comprise the entirety of his January 18

19 2012 conversation with the Loves. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph On March 2, 2012, U.S. Bank and Trust initiated a foreclosure action against the Lovesin the Circuit Court of CookCounty entitled U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trusteefor LSF6 MRA REO Trust v. Clarissa Love, etal, 12CH7755. The Loves were served with the foreclosure complaint on March 2,2012. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 52 on information and belief. Further answering, Respondent denies that he was aware of case number 12CH7755 on or about March 2, Between March 2, 2012, and March 16, 2012, the Loves made multiple telephone calls to Respondent to request information about the foreclosure matter, 12CH7755. Respondent failed to respond to their requests for information. Respondentadmits the allegations contained in the first sentence ofparagraph 53. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph On or about March 16, 2012, the Loves contacted their lender, Vericrest, and were told that Respondent neither contacted the lender by telephone or letter regarding the foreclosure matter. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 54 concerning what the Loves were told by an unnamed employee or agent of Vericrest, because Respondent was not a party to any such conversation. Therefore, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he or James Lee had had several contacts with employees or agents of Vericrest prior to March 16, 2012 in relation to the loan modification matter as to which the Loves had retained him. 55. On or about March 16, 2012, the Loves obtained new counsel to represent them in case number 12CH

20 Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 55 regarding the date on which the Loves obtained an attorney to represent them in case number 12CH7755, but he admits that they did obtain counsel in that matter. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph On March 19, 2013, Respondent received notice that attorney David Kadzai filed his appearance on behalfof the Loves in case number 12CH7755. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he became aware of Mr. Kadzai's representation of the Loves in a separate conversation with Mr. Kadzai. 57. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, Glenn and Clarissa Love, by conduct including failing to assist the Loves in securing a loan modification and prevent a foreclosure action, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); b. failure to keep the client, the Loves, reasonably informed about the status of the loan modification, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); c. failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by conduct including failing to provide the Loves with information related to their loan modification, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) ofthe Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); d. conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation, by conduct including the representation that Respondentwas making progress on the Loves loan modification matter, in violation of Rule 20

21 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and e. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including failing to assist the Loves in a loan modification and the subsequent filing of a foreclosure action against the Loves, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). Respondentdenies the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 57. BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO COUNTS V-VIII 58. Between 2010 and 2012, James Lee, a non-lawyer, was a full-time employee at Respondent's law office, Law Office ofjoseph P. Harris & Associates, hereinafter "Law Office." Respondent, as well as Mr. Lee himself, identified Mr. Lee to clients as a loan officer or mortgage broker, although Mr. Lee's broker's license had lapsed prior to his employment at Respondent's office. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58, except that he admits that Mr. Lee's broker's license lapsed at one time. 59. Between 2010 and 2012, Mr. Lee, frequently met, and communicated with, Respondent's clients unaccompanied by Respondent. Mr. Lee independently negotiated with insurance companies and mortgage companies on behalfofthe Law Office. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph In text messages sent by Mr. Lee to Respondent's clients, Mr. Lee identified himselfas "James Lawyer" thereby suggesting that Mr.Lee was a licensed attorney employed as an associate in Respondent's Law Office. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph

22 61. Mr. Lee was the registered agent, and only officer, of an entity entitled "Premiere Property Solutions." Premiere Property Solutions advertised on social media sites, such as Facebook, stating the following: "Our Mission is to protect the American Dream of home ownership through Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization. We Buy and Sell Bank Owned Foreclosure at a Discount Premiere Property Solutions is a nonprofit corporation that help distressed homeowners get through the challenges of mortgage default and foreclosure. Our Goal is to empower homeowners, individuals and investors with the information, resources and assistance needed to purchase property and rebuild neighborhoods in our communities." Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 61, and therefore denies those allegations. 62. At all times relevant to Counts V-VIII, Mr. Lee maintained a TCF Bank account, with the last four digits 6576, entitled "Premiere Property Solutions." Mr. Lee was the only signatory and authorized user ofthe TCF account number ending in Mr. Lee used the TCF bank account for both business and personal purposes. During the time of Mr. Lee's employmentwith Respondent, and with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, Mr. Lee deposited fee payments for the following clients directly into his Premiere Property SolutionsTCFaccountendingin 6576: TaschaWilliams-Akodu, Michael Turner, Eddie Sylas, Erica Cuneen, Michael Williams, Charese and Wendell Howard, Linita McMillian, Bruce Callahan, Catherine Rison, Khalil Rahim. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first three sentences of paragraph 62. Respondent denies that the deposits referred to in the fourth sentence of paragraph 62 were made with his knowledge or authorization, and he denies that Erica Cuneen, referred to in the fourth sentence of paragraph 62, was a client of Respondent or his law firm, or that she made any "fee 22

23 payments" to Respondent or his firm. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 62. COUNTV {Alleged Neglect/Failure to Supervise Insurance Matter - Regina Hall) 63. Prior to August 22, 2012, the property owned by Regina Hall, located at 5223 W. Monroe Street in Chicago, was damaged by fire. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 63 on information and belief. 64. On or about August 22, 2012, Regina Hall went to Respondent's office where she consulted with Respondent and Mr. Lee. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Hall in investigatingliability, and subsequentlyfiling a civil suit, related to the fire damage at 5223 W. Monroe Street Respondent suggested that a lawsuit might be filed against the "public property adjuster," the repair contractor, or Ms. Hall's insurer, State Farm Insurance Company. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph On September 18,2012, Ms.Hall signed an agreementto pay an initial retainer fee of $3,500 to Respondent, with an immediate initial $1,500 fee for administrative costs including initial drafting of court documents. The remaining $2000 paymentwas to be made as soon as reasonably possible, pursuant to the written fee agreement Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 65. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that in or about September 2012, he determined not to represent Ms. Hall, and that he wrote her a disengagement letter to that effect. 66. On or about September 20,2012, Mr. Lee telephoned Ms. Hall and told her that Respondent wanted to "move quickly to get [Hall and her family] out of the house to begin 23

24 the repair process and legal proceeding." Mr. Lee requested to immediately meet with Ms. Hall and pick up the initial $1500 retainer fee from her. Ms. Hall agreed to meet with Mr. Lee later that same day, at her place of employment wherein Mr. Lee received Ms. Hall's check number 1363, payable to "Premiere Property Solutions" in the amount of $1,500. Ms. Hall believed the $1,500 payable to "Premiere Property Solutions" was for the filing of a civilsuit related to the fire at 5223 W. Monroe Street. Respondent has insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 66, and therefore denies those allegations. 67. Between September 20, 2012 and November 28, 2012, Ms. Hall left multiple messages for Respondent and Mr. Lee at the Law Office via texts, telephone messages and e- mails requesting the status of the civil suit involving the fire at 5223 W. Monroe Street Respondent denies that he was aware ofany messages from Ms. Hall between September 20, 2012 and November 28, Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph On November 28, 2012, Mr. Lee telephoned Ms. Hall and informed her that Respondent did not want to "take the case," and, as it was Respondent's decision to decline representation of Ms. Hall, she would receive a full refund of $1,500 from Respondent. Respondenthas insufficient knowledge on which to base a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 68, and therefore denies those allegations. 69. At no time subsequent to November 28, 2012, did Respondent refund any portion of Ms. Hall's $1,500 retainer. Respondent denies that he ever received a $1,500 retainer from Ms. Hall. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph

25 70. Respondent did not provide sufficient legal services to warrant a fee in the amount of$1,500. Respondent denies that he agreed to, or did, perform legal services for Ms. Hall other than in the initial consultation he had with her on or about August 22, Further answering, Respondent denies that he received a fee from Ms. Hall in the amount of $1,500. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, Regina Hall, by conduct including the failing to investigate fire damage and file a civil suit, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); b. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the investigation and potential for filing a civil suit, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); c. failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by conduct including failing to answer Ms. Hall's phone, text and messages, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); d. failure to refund promptly any part of a fee, $1,500, paid in advance that has not been earned, by conduct including Respondent's failing to investigate and file a civil suit, in violation of Rule 1.16(e) ofthe Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and e. failure to supervise a non-lawyer, employee James Lee, over whom a lawyer has direct supervisory authority in the Regina Hall matter, in violation of Rule 5.3 of the Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010). 25

26 Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 71. COUNT VT {Alleged Failure to Supervise Employee - Edgarand Patricia Banks) 72. Prior to October 2011, Edgar and Patricia Banks consulted with Respondent about representing them in their attempts to obtain a loan modification and/or reduction of the amount of the principal with the lenders relating to three mortgages on three separate properties which the Banks owned. Of the Banks' three properties, one property was the Banks' residence and the remaining two were commercial properties. Respondent agreed to represent the Banks for a total fee of $9000, after obtaining forensic audits of their mortgage documents to determine whether there were statutory violations which could be used as leverage in negotiations. At no time did the Banks' advise Respondent that their properties were in danger offoreclosure or any other legal action by their mortgage holders. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 72, except that he denies that he ever agreed to, or did, obtain forensic audits in relation to the Bankses. Further answering, Respondent states that Patricia Lawson, an acquaintance of the Bankses, agreed to prepare or obtain the forensic audits. 73. On October 28,2011, the Banks' paid a forensic auditor $2,100 for three audits relating to their mortgages on each property. The audits were delivered to Respondent's office. Respondent did not provide the Banks' with a copy of the audits. Respondent admits the first sentence of paragraph 73, upon information and belief. Further answering, Respondent states, upon information and belief, that the "forensic auditor" referred to in paragraph 73 was Patricia Lawson. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 73, except that he denies that he received the audits in October 2011, as he was recovering from a stroke at that time. Further answering, Respondent states that he received the audits in or about December Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 73. Further answering, Respondent denies that the Bankses 26

27 requested copies of the forensic audits. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph On November 4, 2011, after reviewing the audits, Respondent advised the Banks' thatthe audits yielded informationwhich could be useful in negotiatingreductions of the principals or modification of the Banks' mortgages. Respondent requested that the Banks pay an initial retainer of one-third of his requested fee of $3,000 per property. The Banks paid Respondent $3,000 of Respondent's total requested fee of $9,000. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 74, and, further answering, states that he did not receive or review the audits until December Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 74. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence ofparagraph After receiving the initial retainer from the Banks', Respondent advised them that, James Lee would be their "contact person" at the Law Office in relation to negotiating reductions of the principals or modifications of the Banks' mortgages, due to Respondent's busy court schedule. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph At no time after November 4, 2011, did Respondent or his employee, Mr. Lee, contact the Banks regarding any efforts to seek principal reductions or modifications of the Banks' loans. The Banks left multiple voic messages, and wrote letters, to both Respondent and Mr. Lee requesting information about the status of their loan modifications or principal reductions. Neither Respondent nor Mr. Lee returned the Banks' telephone calls or responded to their letters requesting information. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph

28 o 77. At no time did Respondent, or Mr. Lee, refund any portion of the $3,000 which the Banks paid to Respondent as an initial retainer. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph At no time did Respondent, or Mr. Lee, contact the lenders on behalf of the Banks. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph Respondent did not provide sufficient legal services to warrant a fee in the amount of$3,000. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79, including any legal conclusions pled therein. 80. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, Edgar and Patricia Banks, by conduct including failing to assist the Banks in securing a loan modification and/or mortgage reduction, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); b. failure to keep the client, the Banks, reasonably informed about the status of the loan modification and/or mortgage reduction, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); c. failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by conduct including failing to turn over forensic audits and to respond to the Banks' voic messages and letters, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); d. failure to refund promptly any part of a fee, $3,000, paid in advance that has not been earned, by conduct 28