BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLNOIS ATTORNEY AND REGISTRATION AND. ) Commission No. 2016PR00001 Attorney-Respondent, )

Transcription

1 Q BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLNOIS ATTORNEY AND REGISTRATION AND DICIPLINARY COMMISSION In the matter of: ) *^^5*D'8^COMM CHICAGO ) JULIE LYNN AJSTER, ) ) Commission No. 2016PR00001 Attorney-Respondent, ) ) No ) FILED FEB ATTORNEY-RESPONDENT JULIE LYNN AJSTER'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Attorney-Respondent Julie Lynn Ajster and for her Answer to the Complaint, states as follows: (Allegations common on all counts) 1. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 1 ofthe 2. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 2 ofthe Complaint in that she represented Danny French sued as Daniel French, a/k/a Daniel Ajster in a Bureau County small claims action bearing the number of2014-sc-351. Attorney-Respondent admits that French was sued by David Foote, d/b/a Yard Pros II after Foote and that David Foote, d/b/a Yard Pros II was represented in said matter by Jonathan Brandt. 3. Attorney-Respondent admits some allegations ofparagraph 3 ofthe Complaint and denies others. Attorney-Respondent admits that following a bench trial on October 29, 2014 the court found in favor ofdavid Foote, d/b/a Yard Pros II and entered judgment against French in the amount of $550.00, plus costs of $ Attorney-Respondent denies that following the court hearing, French, Respondent and Brandt spoke to each other outside ofthe courthouse. Attorney-Respondent admits that following the court hearing, she had a conversation with French. Attorney-Respondent admits that following the court hearing, she had a conversation with Brandt. Attorney-Respondent denies that she had a conversation with Brandt and French at the same time. Attorney-Respondent denies that after hearing French raising his voice, Deputy William Redshaw, a Bureau County deputy sheriff, told French he had to leave the area ofhe would be arrested and French and Respondent then left. Attorney-Respondent admits that

2 Deputy Redshaw stepped outside the Courthouse but denies that it was because he heard French raising his voice. Attorney-Respondent admits that Deputy Redshaw stepped outside the Courthouse but denies that he told French he had to leave the area or he would be arrested. Attorney-Respondent admits that Redshaw spoke to French but at the time French and Attorney-Respondent were already walking away. Attorney-Respondent admits that Redshaw yelled, "Leave" but denies Redshaw threatened French with arrest. Redshaw yelled because at the time he was at least 30 feet away from French, Brandt, Attorney-Respondent and others. 4. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the COUNT I 5. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 ofcount I ofthe 6. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 6 of Count I of the 7. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 7 ofcount I ofthe 8. Attorney-Respondent admits some allegations ofparagraph 8 ofcount I ofthe Complaint and denies some allegations ofparagraph 8 ofcount I ofthe Attorney-Respondent admits she filed Defendant's Verified Motion to Return Bail Bond and Release on Own Recognizance and/or Reduce the Amount of Bail Bond which was verified by French. Attorney-Respondent admits that said Motion contained statements that French was disabled and receives $ a month in social security and that the amount of bond was oppressive. Attorney-Respondent denies that said statements were false. 9. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 9 ofcount I. 10. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 10 ofcount I ofthe 11. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Count I of the 12. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 12 ofcount I ofthe Complaint regarding Defendant's Motion to Reduce Bail. 13. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofcount I ofthe 14. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 14 of Count I ofthe

3 a 15. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 15 of Count I ofthe 16. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 16 of Count I ofthe Attorney-Respondent's statements regarding French receiving $ a month in Social Security were true and correct statements. 17. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 17 of Count I ofthe 18. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Count I ofthe 19. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofcount I ofthe Attorney-Respondent's statements regarding French's "earnings" were true and correct statements. 20. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 20 of Count I of the 21. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofcount I ofthe 22. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofcount I ofthe Attorney-Respondent's statements regarding French receiving $ a month in Social Security were true and correct statements. 23. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofcount I ofthe Attorney-Respondent's statements were true and correct. 24. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 24 ofcount I ofthe 25. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 25 including all subparagraphs ofcount I ofthe Attorney-Respondent has not COUNT II 26. Attorney-Respondent repeats and restates her answers to Paragraphs 5-24 of Count I ofthe Complaint as Paragraphs 5-24 ofher answer to Count II ofthe Attorney-Respondent's answers to Paragraphs 5-24 ofcount I ofthe Complaint shall be used as her answers to Paragraphs 5-24 ofcount II ofthe 27. Attorney-Respondent admits some ofthe allegations ofparagraph 27 ofcount II ofthe Complaint and denies some ofthe allegations ofparagraph 27 ofcount II ofthe Attorney-Respondent admits she filed Defendant's Motion to

4 Q Reduce Bail Bond. Attorney-Respondent admits she argued that bond of $750, was too high. Attorney-Respondent admits she attached to said Motion a document described as her affidavit which was signed on April 9, 2015 but denies that it was notarized on April 29, A subsequent affidavit was signed and notarized on April 29, Attorney-Respondent admits the affidavit described and mentioned, among many other things, a telephone conversation she had with King on February 5, Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofsubparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) ofparagraph 27 ofcount II ofthe 28. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 28 of Count II ofthe The statements contained in Attorney-Respondent's affidavit are true. 29. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 29 ofcount II ofthe Attorney-Respondent's affidavit was true and correct. 30. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 including all subparagraphs ofcount II ofthe Attorney-Respondent has not COUNT III 31. Attorney-Respondent repeats and restates her answers to Paragraphs 5-24 of Count I ofthe Complaint as Paragraphs 5-24 ofher answer to Count III ofthe Attorney-Respondent's answers to Paragraphs 5-24 ofcount I ofthe Complaint shall be used as her answers to Paragraphs 5-24 ofcount III ofthe Attorney-Respondent repeats and restates her answers to Paragraphs ofcount II ofthe Complaint as Paragraphs of her answer to Count III ofthe Attorney-Respondent's answers to Paragraphs of Count II ofthe Complaint shall be used as her answers to Paragraphs of Count III ofthe 32. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 32 ofcount III ofthe 33. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 33 ofcount III ofthe 34. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 34 of Count III of the Attorney-Respondent further denies that the statements alleged to be false were false as said statements were true and correct. 35. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 35 ofcount III ofthe Attorney-Respondent further denies that the statements alleged in Paragraph 33 were false as said statements were true and correct.

5 36. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 including all subparagraphs of Count III of the Attorney-Respondent has not COUNT IV 37. Attorney-Respondent repeats and restates her answers to Paragraphs 5-24 of Count I ofthe Complaint as Paragraphs 5-24 ofher answer to Count IV ofthe Attorney-Respondent's answers to Paragraphs 5-24 ofcount I ofthe Complaint shall be used as her answers to Paragraphs 5-24 ofcount IV ofthe Attorney-Respondent repeats and restates her answers to Paragraphs ofcount II ofthe Complaint as Paragraphs ofher answer to Count IV ofthe Attorney-Respondent's answers to Paragraphs of Count II ofthe Complaint shall be used as her answers to Paragraphs of Count IV ofthe 38. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 38 ofcount IV ofthe 39. Attorney-Respondent cannot admit or deny the allegations ofparagraph 39 of Count IV ofthe Attorney-Respondent does not know what French learned and/or when he learned it. 40. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 40 of Count IV ofthe 41. Attorney-Respondent admits some ofthe allegations ofparagraph 41 ofcount IV ofthe Complaint and denies some ofthe allegations ofparagraph 41 ofcount IV ofthe Attorney-Respondent admits that a telephone conversation occurred and admits that the criminal allegations against French were discussed, among many other things. Attorney-Respondent denies that King called Attorney-Respondent's cell phone in order to talk to either Respondent or French. King called the phone ofattorney-respondent's law office and the call was transferred to her cell phone. Attorney-Respondent denies that King called to either speak with French or Respondent. King called Attorney-Respondent's law office to speak with her and not French. 42. Attorney-Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 42 ofcount IV ofthe 43. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 43 ofcount IV of the At the time ofthe call, King was not a party in any civil matter relating to French. Additionally, it is the understanding of Attorney-Respondent that King consulted with Attorney Jonathan Brandt prior to the February 5, 2016 phone call regarding any pending and/or potential civil litigationrelatingto French.

6 o o 44. Attorney-Respondent admits some of the allegations of Paragraph 44 of Count IV of the Complaint and denies some allegations of Paragraph 44 of Count IV of the Attorney-Respondent admits that Brett King was a potential witness against French in the criminal case but denies he was unrepresented in the criminal case involving French. 45. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of Count IV of the 46. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 46 ofcount IV ofthe 47. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 47 of Count IV ofthe 48. Attorney-Respondent admits some of the allegations ofparagraph 48 of Count IV ofthe Complaint and denies some allegations of Paragraph 48 ofcount IV of the Attorney-Respondent admits she had a conversation with King on February 5, Attorney-Respondent denies Brett King told her the Peru Police Department sent him a statement to sign and he didn't know what to do about it. King stated that he did not know who sent him the statement to fill out. Attorney-Respondent admits she told King not to send the statement back that if they wanted a statement from him they should have got in back in July, however, said allegation is not the complete statement made to King and is a misrepresentation as to what Attorney-Respondent said to King. Attorney- Respondent told King not to send it back unless he dated it for February 2015, the time of his creating the statement, and not July The incident report ofthe Peru Police Department stated that King provided a written statement in July 2014 which was not correct. Attorney-Respondent told not to send the statement back unless he dated February 2015 and not July Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 49 ofcount IV ofthe 50. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations ofparagraph 50 ofcount IV ofthe 51. Attorney-Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 51 including all subparagraphs ofcount IV ofthe Attorney-Respondent has not WHEREFORE, Attorney-Respondent requests this Complaint be dismissed.

7 c Response pursuant to Rule 231: (a) Attorney-Respondent has never been admitted topractice law inany other state court. Attorney-Respondent isonly admitted to practice law in Illinois. Attorney-Respondent is admitted to practice law in the federal courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the Central District of Illinois. Attorney-Respondent is registered to practice before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission but not necessarily admitted to practice law before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission. Attorney-Respondent has never been admitted to practice law before the bar of any foreign country. (b) certificate. Attorney-Respondent has never received any otherprofessional license or RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Julie Lynn Ajster, Attorney-Respondent Jtffitt Lynn Ajster, Attorney-Respondent Julie L. Ajster ARDC # Shooting Park Rd. Peru, IL fax