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

Transcription

1 In the Matter of: BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 1 I Kbb EZg gj FEB ATTY REG & DISC COMM CHICAGO MARK DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Attorney-Respondent, Commission No. 2013PR00034 No ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Respondent, MARK DOUGLAS JOHNSON, by his attorney, William F. Moran, III, for his answer to the Amended Complaint filed in the above-referenced cause by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, JEROME LARKIN, states as follows: PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 1. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois on February 19, In addition, Respondent was licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama in 1993, Registration No. ASB-9552-N59M. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in 1993, the United States District Court for the Southern District ofillinois in 1994, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Respondent believes all of his licenses are current, and are held under his present name. 2. Respondent has no other professional license. -1-

2 ALLEGATIONS IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dishonest Conduct-Representation ofronald Hanson) 1. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 1 of the 2. Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 2 of the Respondent admits that some of the personal property Mr. Hanson claimed he owned was located at 357 Railroad Street, Cameron, Illinois, as alleged in the second sentence ofparagraph 2. Answering further, Respondent would state that the building located at 357 Railroad Street was in no manner a "residence," but rather was a commercial building which was part ofa junk yard that Mr. Wilson had created on the property. Hanson owned the property at 357 Railroad Street, but had attempted to trade it to Wilson as part oftheir "muddled" business dealings. By September 2009, title to the property at 357 Railroad was in dispute for a number of different reasons, including, but not limited to a claim made by Hanson that the alleged consideration provided by Wilson for the trade oftitle had failed, as well as several material irregularities with the deed allegedly transferring title ofthe property from Hanson to Wilson, which Respondent believed made the deed void, not simply voidable. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in the third sentence of Paragraph 2. Answering further, Respondent would state that it was Hanson's position that Wilson had no legal basis upon which to claim the right to "use" the property located at 411 Railroad Street by September Respondent denies the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Answering further, Respondent would state that while he

3 Q may have spoken to Mr. Hanson about his criminal matter in May2009, he did not agree to get involved in the civil claims betweenhanson and Mr. Wilson until September Respondent denies the allegations as set forth in the first sentence ofparagraph 4 ofthe Answering further, Respondent would state that he advised Mr. Hanson that he would attempt to obtain an ex parte temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Mr. Wilson on September 25, 2009, which would prohibit Wilson from trespassing on the relevant real properties; prohibit Wilson from continuing to violate local ordinances by creating a junk yard on the properties, as had been alleged by the Warren County State's Attorney; and prohibit Wilson from damaging or disposing of any of the personal property owned by Hanson. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 4, with the exception of the allegation that Respondent participated with Hanson in arranging for the crew and trucks to retrieve Hanson's personal property from 357 and 411 Railroad Street on September 26, 2009, which allegation he denies. Answering further, Respondent would state that it was always his legal opinion that Mr. Hanson did not need a court order to remove his own personal property from real estate that he owned, and he advised Hanson ofthat opinion. 5. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Answering further, Respondent would state that the complaint he filed on behalf of Mr. Hanson against Mr. Wilson contained numerous additional causes of action, including Larceny, Theft, Conversion, Fraudulent Conveyance, Trespass, Nuisance and Declaratory Judgment. -3-

4 6. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 6 of the 7. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Answering further, Respondent advised Mr. Hanson that during this trip to Cameron, Illinois, he could not take any personal property which was owned by Mr. Wilson. Rather, Respondent specifically advised Hanson that he could only retrieve those items ofpersonal property which belonged to him. 8. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in the first sentence ofparagraph 8 ofthe Administrator's Amended Complaint, with the exception ofthe allegation that Respondent traveled to the property with Mr. Hanson and his crew, which allegation Respondent denies. Answering further, Respondent would state that he traveled to the properties separately from Hanson and his crew. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 8, with the exception ofthe allegation that Mr. Wilson owned the relevant real estate, which allegation Respondent denies. Answering further, Respondent would again state that he believed that his client, Hanson, owned the relevant parcels ofreal estate on September 26, Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 9 of the 10. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Answering further, Respondent would state that the reason he had the court papers with him in the first place was because he was going to have Mr. Wilson served by a special process server who was on the scene that morning. -4-

5 11. Respondent denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Answering further, Respondent would state that he advised Deputy Carithers about the court papers because the same needed to be served on Mr. Wilson. Respondent never stated or implied that anything in the papers formed the basis for his opinion that Mr. Hanson had the right to enter his own real property and retrieve personal property that belonged to him. 12. Respondent has insufficient personal knowledge with which to judge the truth or falsity ofthe allegations as set forth in Paragraph 12 ofthe Administrator's Amended Complaint, so he will neither admit nor deny the same, but demand strict proofthereof. 13. Respondent has insufficient personal knowledge with which to judge the truth or falsity ofthe allegations as set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 13 of the Administrator's Amended Complaint, so he will neither admit nor deny the same, but demand strict proof thereof. Respondent denies the allegations as set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 13 that he advised Ms. Frymyre that he had a "court order" or other "legal documentation" which formed the basis for his opinion that Mr. Hanson had the legal right to enter the 357 and 411 Railroad Street properties and retrieve his personal property. Respondent admits that he would have advised Ms. Frymyre that it was his belief that Hanson had the legal right to enter the properties and retrieve his personal property, as alleged in the second sentenceof Paragraph Respondent denies that he advised Ms. Frymyre that he had a "court order" or "legal documentation" which formed the basis for his opinion that Mr. Hanson had the legal rightto enterthe 357 and 411 Railroad Street properties and retrieve his personal property, so he will deny the allegation in Paragraph 14 of the Administrator's Amended Complaint that he -5-

6 o made a false statement to Frymyre in this regard. Answering further, Respondent will repeat his representation made above that he would have advised Ms. Frymyre that it was his belief that Hanson had the legal right to enter the Railroad Street properties and retrieve his own personal property. Respondent believed this position was well-substantiated under the law, so he denies that making this representation to Frymyre was in any manner false, misleading or deceptive. 15. Respondent again denies that he made any statement to Ms. Frymyre about having a "court order" or "legal documentation," as is implied in Paragraph 15 of the Respondent would also repeat his position that any statement he made to Ms. Frymyre concerning Mr. Hanson's legal right to enter the Railroad Street properties and retrieve his own personal property was well-substantiated under the law. As a result, Respondent denies that he knowingly made any statement to Frymyre which was in any manner false or misleading. 16. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Administrator's Amended Complaint, with the exception of the allegation that Respondent physically "took personal property" on September 26, 2009, which allegation he denies. Answering further, Respondent would state that Mr. Hanson and his crew did all of the moving ofthe personal property belonging to Hanson on the date in question. 17. Respondent denies the allegation as set forth in the first sentence ofparagraph 17 ofthe Answering further, Respondent would state that he filed a motion for default judgment against Mr. Wilson on November 10, 2009, as demonstrated on the docket sheet for the case. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 17. Respondent denies the allegation as set forth in the third sentence of -6-

7 a Paragraph 17. Answering further, Respondent would state that he filed a response to Mr. Wilson's demand for bill of particulars on December 15, 2009, again as demonstrated on the docket sheet for the case. 18. Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 18 of the 19. Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Answering further, Respondent would state that Mr. Hanson and his crew returned to 411 Railroad Street for the specific purpose of cleaning up the property, and tossing scrap metal into a dumpster that Hanson caused to be delivered to the property. Hanson was taking this action in response to the demands of the Warren County State's Attorney, who indicated that the property either needed to be cleaned up of garbage and debris or Hanson would be sued for violations of the Warren County Garbage and Junk ordinance. Further, continued litigation occurred between Hanson, Mr. Wilson and others in Case No CH 28. On March 23, 2010, after a full evidentiary hearing, the Court in Case No CH 28 entered a preliminary injunction adjudicating the parties' rights. In the order, the Court first enjoined Hanson and his agents from further entering the properties located at 357 and 411 Railroad Street, Cameron, Illinois, without prior leave of court. In addition, the Court denied Wilson's request for the return ofthe personal property previously taken from these two properties by Hanson and his agents, including, but not limited to the property retrieved on September 26, 2009 and December 26, Finally, the Court ordered Wilson to turn over to Hanson some additional personal property which was specifically described in the order, including two fuel tanks, a Chevrolet truck, and a motorcycle trailer that Wilson had unlawfully

8 taken from Hanson's personal residence located in Monmouth, Illinois. Wilson filed a Notice of Appeal ofthe Court's order, but later voluntarily dismissed the same on his own motion. 20. Respondent denies each and every allegation as set forth in Subsections (a) through (e) ofparagraph 20 ofthe WHEREFORE, Respondent, MARK DOUGLAS JOHNSON, would request that an evidentiary hearing be held on the Amended Complaint filed in this cause by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, JEROME LARKIN, and Respondent's Answer to Amended Complaint; that subsequent to the hearing, the Hearing Board make such findings of fact and conclusions of law which are supported by the record; and thereafter, that the Hearing Board recommend that the Administrator's Amended Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, MARK DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Respondent /l/-jfa ^f By: His attorney COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: William F. Moran III (# ) STRATTON, GIGANTI, STONE, MORAN & RADKEY 725 South Fourth Street Springfield, IL Telephone: 217/ Facsimile: 217/ bmoran@stratton-law.com