Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission - signatory on an … · 2018. 5. 21. · ANSWER: Admit COUNT I (Conversion of$13,085.42 inclient and third-partyfunds intheCzapla

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

WILLIAM LLOYD MEYERS, Commission No. 2016PR00077

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 1900838.

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

William Lloyd Meyers, Respondent, by his attorney, Mary Robinson of Robinson Law

Group, LLC, answers the complaint filed by the Administrator in this matter, as follows:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. At all times alleged in this complaint, Respondent managed William B. Meyers &Associates, a law firm located in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: Admit.

2. At all times alleged in the complaint, Respondent maintained and was the solesignatory on a IOLTA client trust account ending in the four digits 8971 at Citibank ("trustaccount ending in the four digits 8971"). The account was titled "William B. Meyers &Associates Attorney Trust."

ANSWER: Admit.

3. Respondent used the trust account ending in the four digits 8971 for depositingfunds belonging to Respondent's clients, third parties, or, presently or potentially,Respondent.

ANSWER: Admit

4. At all times alleged in the complaint, Respondent maintained and was the solesignatory on an operating account ending in the four digits 3774 at Citibank ("operatingaccount"), whichwas entitled "William B. Meyers &Associates OperatingAccount."

RaquelT

Filed - ARDC Clerk - Today's Date

ANSWER: Admit

COUNT I

(Conversion of$13,085.42 in client and third-party funds in the Czapla matter)

5. On August 3, 2012, Derrick Czapla ("Czapla") was involved in an automobileaccident whenhisvehicle collided with a vehicle being driven by Michael Ayris ("Ayris"). Asa result of the accident, Czapla sustained injuries and incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

6. Shortly after August 3, 2012, Respondent and Czapla agreed that Respondentwould represent Czapla in matters relating to the accident referred to in paragraph 1, above.Respondent and Czapla agreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would be contingent uponRespondent recovering a settlement or award on behalf of Czapla, and that Respondentwould receive an amount equal to one third of any such recovery in a personal injury case.

ANSWER: Admit

7. On or about September 23, 2014, Respondent and Czapla agreed to accept $20,000from Auto-Owners Insurance, Ayris' insurer, as full and final settlement of Czapla's claimsagainst Ayris. From those proceeds, and pursuant to his fee agreement with Czapla,Respondent was entitled to receive $6,666.66 as his attorney's fee, plus $248.58 in costs heexpended on the matter. Czapla was entitled to receive $13,084.76, less any amounts dueCentral Care Chiropractic and Blue Cross Blue Shield in satisfaction of their liens.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $20,000 from Auto-Owners

Insurance, and state further that the decision to accept the settlement was Czapla's. Admit

all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 7.

8. On or about September 23, 2014, Auto-Owners Insurance, sent Respondent checknumber 353916827 in the amount of $20,000.00, which had been made payable to "DerrickCzapla and William B Meyers & Associates." Respondent received the check shortly after itwas sent.

ANSWER: Admit.

9. On or about September 29, 2014, Respondent deposited the $20,000 check m mstrust account ending in the four digits 8971.

ANSWER: Admit that Respondent or someone in his employ deposited the check

as alleged.

10. On September 29, 2014, Respondent wrote two checks payable to William B.Meyers and Associates totaling $3,581.58 on Respondent's IOLTA trust account. The firstcheck, number 2720, in the amount of $3,333.33, represented one-half of Respondent's legalfee in Czapla's matter. The second check, number 2722, in the amount of $248.58,represented the costs Respondent had expended on Czapla's matter. Respondent wrote acheck, number 2721, to Ursula B. Babicz and Associates, in the amount of $3,333.33,

representing one-half of Respondent's legal fee in Czapla's matter. Respondent also wrotetwo checks to third-party lienholders: check number 2724 to Blue Cross Blue Shield in theamount of $2,284.57, and check number 2723 to Central Care Advanced Pain Relief Center

in the amount of $960.00.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent wrote the checks referred to in Paragraph 10.

Admit that the checks were written by one of Respondent's employees as guided by a

settlement statement approved by Respondent, and admit that Respondent signed the

checks.

11. On or about September 29, 2014, Respondent deposited checks number 2720 and2722 into his operating account.

ANSWER: Admit that Respondent or someone in his employ deposited the checks

as alleged.

12. As of October 8, 2014, Respondent had not yet paid Czapla any portion of hissettlement, and should have been holding $9,840.85 in his trust account on behalf Czapla,but the Respondent caused the balance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, as he drewchecks on the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal or businessobligations. On that date. Respondent had also not yet paid Czapla's lienholders, Blue CrossBlue Shield and Central Care Advanced Pain Relief Center, and should have been holding$3,244.57 in his trust account on behalf of Czapla's lienholders, but Respondent caused thebalance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, as he drew checks on the account or madeother withdrawals in payment of his personal or business obligations.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent made withdrawals or drew checks on the IOLTA

accountin payment ofhis personal or business obligations. Admit the remainingallegations

of Paragraph 12.

13. At no time did Czapla authorize Respondent to use any portion of Czapla's$9,840.45 for Respondent's own purposes. At no time did Czapla's lienholders, Blue CrossBlue Shield and Central Care Advanced Pain Relief Center, authorize Respondent to use anyportion of their $3,244.57 for Respondent's own purposes.

ANSWER: Admit.

14. At the time Respondent used Czapla and Czapla's lienholders' funds, Respondentknew he was using funds belonging to his client or third-parties.

ANSWER: Deny.

15. On or about October 9, 2014, Czapla signed the settlement statement Respondenthad prepared, and which authorized the distribution of the $20,000 settlement.

ANSWER: Admit.

16. On or about October 9, 2014, Respondent wrote a check number 2725, payable toDerrick Czapla, in the amount of $9,840.85, on his IOLTA trust account.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent wrote the check referred to in Paragraph 16.

Admit that the check was written by one of Respondent's employees as guided by a

settlement statement approved by Respondent, and admit that Respondent signed the check.

Respondent has lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the date the

check was written, and so denies the same.

17. On or about October 10, 2014, Czapla presented check number 2725 to his bankfor payment, but the check was returned for insufficient funds.

ANSWER: Admit that the records of activity in Respondent's IOLTA account

reflect the presentation and return of check number 2725 as described in paragraph 17.

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 17 and so denies the same. Stating further, upon

becoming aware that check number 2725 was not honored, Respondent immediately

replaced it with checknumber 2771 which was presented and honored on October 31, 2014.

18. On or about October 10, 2014, Ursula B. Babicz ("Babicz") presented checknumber 2721, referenced in paragraph 6, above, to her bank for payment, but the check wasreturned for insufficient funds.

ANSWER: Admit that the records of activity in Respondent's IOLTA account

reflect the presentation and return of check number 2726 as described in paragraph 18.

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 18, and so denies the same. Stating further, upon

becoming aware that check number 2721 was not honored, Respondent immediately

replaced it with check number 2769 which was presented and honored on November 4,

2014.

19. Respondent's use of the funds described above constitutes conversion of fundsreceived in connection with the representation of a client. As a result, as of October 9, 2014,Respondent had converted $13,085.42 of the funds he should have been holding on behalfof Czapla and Czapla's lienholders.

ANSWER: Deny. Stating further, all amounts alleged in this Count to be owed to

any party were paid no later than November 4, 2014.

20. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:

a. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to aclient or a third person, and to hold the funds separate from thelawyer's own property, by conduct including conversion of funds to hisown personal or business use, received by Respondent in settlement ofCzapla's claims by causing the balance in his client trust account to fallbelow the amounts due and owing to Czapla and Czapla's lienholders,in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byhis conversion of least $9,840.85 of Czapla's funds and at least$3,244.57 of Czapla's lienholders' funds for his own personal orbusiness purposes, thereby converting that property to his own use, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

COUNT II

(Conversion of $30,581.36 in client funds in the Pettiford matter)

21. On June 3, 2013, Michael Pettiford ("Pettiford") was involved in [a] work-relatedincident while employed by the CTA. As a result of the incident, Pettiford sustained injuriesto his left knee and incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

22. Shortly after June 3, 2013, Respondent and Pettiford agreed that Respondentwould represent Pettiford in matters relating to the incident referred to in paragraph 15[sic], above. Respondent and Pettiford agreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would becontingent upon Respondent recovering a settlement or award on behalf of Pettiford, andthat Respondent would receive an amount equal to forty percent of any such recovery in apersonal injury case and twenty percent of any such recovery in a worker's compensationcase.

ANSWER: Admit.

23. On July 8, 2013, Respondent filed an "Application for Adjustment of Claim" withthe Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission on behalf of Pettiford relating to the June 7,2013 incident. The Clerk of the Industrial Commission docketed the matter as Michael

Pettiford v. CTA, and assigned it case number 13 WC 021926.

ANSWER: Admit.

24. On or about June 23, 2014, Respondent and Pettiford agreed to accept $38,299.56from the CTA, as full and final settlement of Pettiford's claims against the CTA. From thoseproceeds, and pursuant to his fee agreement with Pettiford, Respondent was entitled toreceive $7,659.91 as his attorney's fee, plus $58.29 in costs he expended on the matter.Pettiford was entitled to receive $30,581.36.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $38,299.56 from the CTA, and

state further that the decision to accept the settlement was Pettiford's. Admit all remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 24.

25. On or about June 30, 2014, Respondent deposited the $38,299.56 settlementcheck in his trust account ending in the four digits 8971.


as alleged.

26. As of October 8, 2014, Respondent had not yet paid any portion of Pettiford'ssettlement, and should have been holding $30,581.36 in his trust account on behalf ofPettiford, but Respondent caused the balance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, as hedrew checks on the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal orbusiness obligations.


account in payment of his personal or business obligations. Admit the remaining allegations

of Paragraph 26.

27. At no time did Pettiford authorize Respondent to use any portion of Pettiford's$30,581.36 for Respondent's own purposes.

ANSWER: Admit.

28. At the time Respondent used Pettiford's funds, Respondent knew he was usingfunds belonging to his client.

ANSWER: Deny.

29. On or about October 9, 2014, Respondent wrote Pettiford check number 2557 inthe amount of $30,581.36 on Respondent's IOLTA trust account.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent wrote the check referred to in Paragraph 29.

Admit that the check was written by one of Respondent's employees as guided by a

settlement statement approved byRespondent, and admit that Respondentsignedthe check.

Respondent has lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the date the

check was written, and so denies the same.

30. Onor about October 10, 2014, Pettiford presented check number 2557 to his bankfor payment, but the checkwas returned for insufficient funds.

ANSWER: Admit. Stating further, upon becomingaware that check number 2557

was not honored, Respondent immediately replaced it with check number 2752 which was

presented and honored on October 23, 2014.

31. Respondent's use of the funds described above constitutes conversion of fundsreceived in connection with the representation of a client. As a result, as of October 8, 2014,Respondent had converted $30,581.36, of the funds he should have been holding onPettiford's behalf.

ANSWER: Deny.


a. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to aclient or a third person, and to hold the funds separate from thelawyer's own property, by conduct including conversion of funds to hisown personal or business use, received by Respondent in settlement ofPettiford's claims by causing the balance in his client trust account tofall below the amounts due and owing to Pettiford, in violation of Rule1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byhis conversion of least $30,581.36 of Pettiford's funds for his own

personal or business purposes, thereby converting that property to hisown use, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

COUNT III

(Conversion of $7,915 in client funds in the Kupiec matter)

33. On April 29, 2012, Halina Kupiec ("Kupiec") was involved in [a] work-relatedincident while employed by ABM Janitorial Services ("ABM"). As a result of the incident,Kupiec sustained injuries to her lower back and incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

34. Shortly after April 29, 2012, Respondent and Kupiec agreed that Respondentwould represent Kupiec in matters relating to the incident referred to in paragraph 25 [sic],above. Respondent and Kupiec agreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would be contingentupon Respondent recovering a settlement or award on behalf of Kupiec,and that Respondent

would receive an amount equal to forty percent of any such recovery in a personal injurycase and twenty percent of any such recovery in a worker's compensation case.

ANSWER: Admit.

35. On July 3, 2012, Respondent filed an "Application for Adjustment of Claim" withthe Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission on behalf of Kupiec relating to the April 29,2012 incident. The Clerk of the Industrial Commission docketed the matter as Halina Kupiecv. ABM Janitorial Services, and assigned it case number 12 WC 022875.

ANSWER: Admit.

36. On or about July 2,2014, Respondent and Kupiec to [sic] accept $10,000 from ESIS,Inc., ABM's insurer, as full and final settlement of Kupiec's claims against ABM. From thoseproceeds, and pursuant to his fee agreement with Kupiec, Respondent was entitled to receive$2,000 as his attorney's fee, plus $85 in costs he expended on the matter. Kupiec was entitledto receive $7,915.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $10,000 from ESIS, Inc., and

state further that the decision to accept the settlement was Kupiec's. Admit all remaining

allegations of paragraph 36.

37. On or about September 11, 2014, ESIS, Inc., sent Respondent check numberFC47362735 in the amount of $10,000, which had been payable to "Atty N Rubino and HalinaKupiec." Respondent received the check shortly after it was sent.

ANSWER: Admit.

38. On or about September 15, 2014, Respondent deposited the $10,000 check in histrust account ending in the four digits 8971.

ANSWER: Admit that Respondent or someone in his employ deposited the checkas alleged.

39. As of October 8, 2014, Respondent had not yet paid Kupiec any portion of hersettlement, and should have been holding $7,915 in his trust account on behalf of Kupiec, butRespondent caused the balance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, as he drew checkson the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal or businessobligations.



of Paragraph 39.

40. At no time did Kupiec authorize Respondent to use any portion of Kupiec's $7,915for Respondent's own purposes.

ANSWER: Admit.

41. At the time Respondent used Kupiec's funds, Respondent knew he was usingfunds belonging to his client.

ANSWER: Deny.

42. Respondent's use of the funds described above constitutes conversion of fundsreceived in connection with the representation of a client. As a result, as of October 8, 2014,Respondent had converted $7,915, of the funds he should have been holding on Kupiec'sbehalf.

ANSWER: Deny. Stating further that Kupiec presented Respondent's check

number 2688 in the amount of $7915 on November 17, 2014, and the check was paid as of

that date.


a. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to aclient or a third person, and to hold the funds separate from thelawyer's own property, by conduct including conversion of funds to hisown personal or business use, received by Respondent in settlement ofKupiec's claimsby causing the balance in his client trust account to fallbelow the amounts due and owing to Kupiec, in violation of Rule1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byhis conversion of least $7,915 of Kupiec's funds for his own personal orbusiness purposes, thereby converting that property to his own use, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

10

COUNT IV

(Conversion of $7,877 in client funds in the Watkins matter)

44. On June 4, 2013, Barbara Watkins ("Watkins") was involved in work-relatedincident while employed by the CTA. As a result of the incident, Watkins sustained injuriesto her hand and incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

45. Shortly after June 4, 2013, Respondent and Watkins agreed that Respondentwould represent Watkins in matters relating to the incident referred to in paragraph 34 [sic],above. Respondent and Watkins agreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would becontingent upon Respondent recovering a settlement or award on behalf of Watkins, andthat Respondent would receive an amount equal to forty percent of any such recovery in apersonal injury case and twenty percent of any such recovery in a worker's compensationcase.

ANSWER: Admit.

46. On July 16, 2013, Respondent filed an "Application for Adjustment of Claim" withthe Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission on behalf of Watkins relating to the June 4,2013 incident. The Clerk of the Industrial Commission docketed the matter as Barbara

Watkins v. CTA, and assigned it case number 13 WC 22999.

ANSWER: Admit.

47. On or about September 19, 2014, Respondent and Watkins agreed to accept$10,000 from Sedgwick Insurance ("Sedgwick"), the CTA's insurer, as full and finalsettlement of Watkins' claims against the CTA. From those proceeds, and pursuant to his feeagreement with Watkins, Respondent was entitled to receive $2,000 as his attorney's fee,plus $122.36 in costs he expended on the matter. Watkins was entitled to receive $7,877.64.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $10,000 from Sedgwick

Insurance, and state further that the decision to accept the settlement was Watkins'. Admit


48. On September 22, 2014, Respondent wrote two checks payable to William B.Meyers and Associates totaling $2,122.36 on Respondent's IOLTA trust account. The firstcheck, number 2716, in the amount of $2,000, represented Respondent's attorney's fees inthe Watkins matter. The second check, number 2717, in the amount of $122.36, represented

the costs Respondent had expended on Watkins' matter.

11

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent wrote the checks referred to in Paragraph 48.

Admit that the checks were written by one of Respondent's employees as guided by a

settlement statement approved by Respondent, and admit that Respondent signed the check.

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the date the check

was written, and so denies the same.

49. On September 22, 2014, Respondent deposited checks number 2716 and 2717into his operating account. Respondent paid himself fees and costs in the Watkins matterdespite the fact that he had not yet received a settlement check in the Watkins matter.

ANSWER: Admit that Respondent or someone in his employ deposited check

number 2716 as alleged. Deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 49.

50. On or about September 26, 2014, Sedgwick sent Respondent check number0051727454 in the amount of $10,000, which had been payable to "William Buddy Meyers& Barbara J. Watkins." Respondent received the check shortly after it was sent.

ANSWER: Admit.



as alleged.

52. As of October 8, 2014, Respondent had not yet paid Watkins any portion of hersettlement, and should have been holding $7,877.64 in his trust account on behalf ofWatkins, but Respondent caused the balance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, as hedrew checks on the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal or

business obligations.



of Paragraph 52.

12

53. At no time did Watkins authorize Respondent to use any portion of Watkins'$7,877.64 for Respondent's own purposes.

ANSWER: Admit.

54. At the time Respondent used Watkins' funds, Respondent knew he was usingfunds belonging to his client.

ANSWER: Deny.

55. Respondent's use of the funds described above constitutes conversion of fundsreceived in connection with the representation of a client. As a result, as of October 8, 2014,Respondent had converted $7,877.64, of the funds he should have been holding on Watkins'behalf.

ANSWER: Deny. Stating further that Watkins presented Respondent's check

number 2757 in the amount of $7887.64 on October 21, 2014, and the check was paid as of

that date.


a. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to aclient or a third person, and to hold the funds separate from thelawyer's own property, by conduct including conversion of funds to hisown personal or business use, received by Respondent in settlement ofWatkins' claims by causing the balance in his client trust account to fallbelow the amounts due and owing to Watkins, in violation of Rule1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byhis conversion of least $7,877.64 of Watkins' funds for his own


ANSWER: Deny.

13

COUNT V

(Conversion of$14,241.84 inclient funds in theWilliams matter)

57. On October15,2013,Audrey Williams ("Williams") was involved in work-relatedincident while employed by the CTA. As a result ofthe incident, Williams sustained injuriesto her back and neck and incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

58. Shortly after October 15, 2013, Respondent andWilliams agreedthat Respondentwould representWilliams inmatters relating to the incident referred to inparagraph 45 [sic],above. Respondent and Williams agreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would becontingent upon Respondent recovering a settlement or award on behalf of Williams, andthat Respondent would receive an amount equal to forty percent of any such recovery in apersonal injury case and twenty percent of any such recovery in a worker's compensationcase.

ANSWER: Admit.

59. On November 5, 2013, Respondent filed an "Application for Adjustment of Claim"with the Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission on behalf of Williams relating to theOctober 15, 2013 incident. The Clerk of the Industrial Commission docketed the matter as

Audrey Williams v. CTA, and assigned it case number 13 WC 035973.

ANSWER: Admit.

60. On or about August 21, 2014, Respondent and Williams to accept $17,920 fromSedgwick Insurance ("Sedgwick"), the CTA's insurer, as full and final settlement of Williams'claims against the CTA. From those proceeds, and pursuant to his fee agreement withWilliams, Respondent was entitled to receive $3,584 as his attorney's fee, plus $94.16 incosts he expended on the matter. Williams was entitled to receive $14,241.84.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $17,920 from Sedgwick

Insurance, and state further that the decision to accept the settlement was Williams'. Admit


61. On or about September 8, 2014, Sedgwick sent Respondent check number0051725434 in the amount of $17,920, which had been payable to "William Buddy Meyersand Audrey Williams." Respondent received the check shortly after it was sent.

ANSWER: Admit.

14


ANSWER: Admit that Respondent or someone in his employ deposited the checkas alleged.

63. As of October 8, 2014, Respondent had not yet paid Williams any portion of hersettlement, and should have been holding $14,241.84 in his trust account on behalf ofWilliams, but Respondent caused the balance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, as hedrew checks on the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal orbusiness obligations.



of Paragraph 63.

64. At no time did Williams authorize Respondent to use any portion of Williams'$14,241.84 for Respondent's own purposes.

ANSWER: Admit.

65. At the time Respondent used Williams' funds, Respondent knew he was usingfunds belonging to his client.

ANSWER: Deny.

66. Respondent's use of the funds described above constitutes conversion of fundsreceived in connection with the representation of a client. As a result, as of October 8, 2014,Respondent had converted $14,241.84, of the funds he should have been holding onWilliams' behalf.

ANSWER: Deny. Stating further that Williams presented Respondent's check

number 2696 in the amount of $14,241.84 on November 12, 2014, and the check was paid

as of that date.


15

a. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to aclient or a third person, and to hold the funds separate from thelawyer's own property, by conduct including conversion of funds to hisown personal or business use, received by Respondent in settlement ofWilliams' claims by causing the balance in his client trust account to fallbelow the amounts due and owing to Williams, in violation of Rule1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byhis conversion of least $14,241.84 of Williams' funds for his own


ANSWER: Deny.

COUNT VI

(Conversion of $1,563.60 in client funds in the Campbell matter)

68. On July 9, 2014, Ashanta Campbell ("Campbell") was involved in work-relatedincident while employed by the Peterson Park Healthcare Clinic ("Peterson"). As a result ofthe incident, Campbell sustained injuries to her right hand and incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

69. Shortly after July 9, 2014, Respondent and Campbell agreed that Respondentwould represent Campbell in matters relating to the incident referred to in paragraph 54[sic], above. Respondent and Campbell agreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would becontingent upon Respondent recovering a settlement or award on behalf of Campbell, andthat Respondent would receive an amount equal to forty percent of any such recovery in apersonal injury case and twenty percent of any such recovery in a worker's compensationcase.

ANSWER: Admit.

70. On July 22, 2014, Respondent filed an "Application for Adjustment of Claim" withthe Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission on behalf of Campbell relating to the July9,2013 incident. The Clerk of the Industrial Commission docketed the matter as AshantaCampbell v. Peterson Park Healthcare Clinic, and assigned it case number 14 WC 024607.

ANSWER: Admit.

71. On or about September 11, 2014, Respondent and Campbell agreed to accept$2,029.50 from the Diamond Insurance Group ("Diamond"), Peterson's insurer, as full and

16

final settlement of Campbell claims against Peterson. From those proceeds, and pursuant tohis fee agreement with Campbell, Respondent was entitled to receive $405.90 as hisattorney's fee, plus $60 in costs he expended on the matter. Campbell was entitled to receive$1,563.60.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $2,029.50 from the Diamond

Insurance Group, and state further that the decision to accept the settlement was Campbell's.

Admit all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 71.

72. On or about September 30, 2014, Diamond sent Respondent check number228286 in the amount of $2,029.50, which had been payable to "Ashanta Campbell & WilliamBuddy Meyers & Associates." Respondent received the check shortly after it was sent.

ANSWER: Admit.

73. On or about October 3, 2014, Respondent deposited the $2,029.50 check in histrust account ending in the four digits 8971.


as alleged.

74. As of October 8, 2014, Respondent had not yet paid Campbell any portion of hersettlement, and should have been holding $1,563.60 in his trust account on behalf ofCampbell, but Respondent caused the balance in his trust account to fall to -$27,190.70, ashe drew checks on the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal or




of Paragraph 74.

75. At no time did Campbell authorize Respondent to use any portion of Campbell's$1,563.60 for Respondent's own purposes.

ANSWER: Admit.

76. At the time Respondent used Campbell's funds, Respondent knew he was usingfunds belonging to his client.

17

ANSWER: Deny.

77. Respondent's use of the funds described above constitutes conversion of fundsreceived in connection with the representation of a client. As a result, as of October 8, 2014,Respondent had converted $1,563.60, of the funds he should have been holding onCampbell's behalf.

ANSWER: Deny. Stating further that Campbell presented Respondent's check

number 2747 in the amount of $1563.60 on December 9, 2014, and the check was paid as of

that date.


a. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to aclient or a third person, and to hold the funds separate from thelawyer's own property, by conduct including conversion of funds to hisown personal or business use, received by Respondent in settlement of

Campbell's claims by causing the balance in his client trust account tofall below the amounts due and owing to Campbell, in violation of Rule1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byhis conversion of least $1,563.60 of Campbell's funds for his ownpersonal or business purposes, thereby converting that property to hisown use, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

COUNT VII

(Misrepresentation in connection with a disciplinary matter)

79. In April 2015, Babicz, Respondent's associate from 2008 until February 2015, sentthe Administrator a letter concerning a check she received from Respondent's trust accountthat had been returned due to insufficient funds, as described above, in paragraphs 10 and18 of Count I,above. In her letter, Babicz also alleged that that medical providers in five clientmatters had not been paid, months after the clients' case had been settled, as follows:

Medical Provider Amount Outstanding Client Matter Settlement Date

Quest PhysicalTherapy $2,200 Jadwiga Jastrzebska July 2014

18

Quest Physical Therapy $1,500

Selective Physical Therapy $1,110.10



ANSWER: Admit.

Bohdan Oliynyk

Bozena Baraniak

Barbara Kasprzyk

Kinga Rojek

March 2014

June 2014

August 2011

January 2014

80. The Administrator initiated an inquiry into Respondent's alleged misconduct,based on Babicz's allegations. On May 20, 2015, the Administrator sent Respondent a letterrequesting that Respondent respond to the allegations.

ANSWER: Admit.

81. On June 23, 3015, in response to the Administrator's May 20, 2015 request forinformation, Respondent's counsel sent the Administrator a letter containing a verificationsigned by Respondent that stated that Respondent had looked into the five alleged instancesof unpaid medical providers and had determined that the five checks to the providers hadeither not been sent or had not been cashed. Respondent further stated that he had issuedand sent "replacement" checks to each provider. Respondent sent the Administrator, alongwith his response letter, copies of the five "replacement" checks, which were signed byRespondent and dated June 23, 2015.

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first and third sentences of Paragraph 81.

Deny the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 81. Stating further, Respondent

did issue all five replacement checks, but did not send them because he believed that Ms.

Babicz had colluded with the providers (who were owned and operated by friends of hers)

to cause him harm. Respondent did not believe that the providers had not actually received

payment, and he wanted to investigate further. Respondent did not sufficientlycommunicate

that intent to his counsel.

82. Respondent's statements described in paragraph 81, above, related to an issuethat was material to the Administrator's inquiry, which was whether Respondent had paidmedical providers in cases he had previously settled.

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny the legal conclusions pled in paragraph 82..

19

83. Respondent's statements in his June 23, 2015 letter to the Administrator werefalse because he did not, at any point prior to, or after June 23, 2015, send the medicalproviders the "replacement" checks described in paragraph 81.

ANSWER: Deny.

84. Respondent knew his statements described in paragraph 81, above, were false atthe time that he made them, and he made the statements in order to mislead the ARDC.

ANSWER: Deny.


a. knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in connectionwith a disciplinary matter, by misrepresenting that he had sentreplacement checks to medical providers, in violation of Rule 8.1(a) ofthe Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, byknowingly misrepresenting that he had sent replacement checks tomedical providers, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

COUNT VIII

(Failure to maintain complete records for client trust account)

86. Starting on August 1, 1990, and continuing through December 31, 2009, Rule1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990) required all Illinois attorneys toprepare and maintain complete records relating to their handling of funds maintained inconnection with the representation of clients.

ANSWER: Admit.

87. In or about June 2002, in connection with a disciplinary matter involvingRespondent's handling of his client trust account, Respondent advised the Administratorthat Respondent's trust account practices were in compliance with Rule 1.15 of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (1990). Respondent stated, in or about March 2002, that hehad installed computerized procedures in his office that allowed him to reconcile the trustaccount on a monthly basis and that he had begun to do so. Respondent further stated thatas part of his new bookkeeping practices, he created and maintained client ledgers that

20

detailed deposits and disbursements for each client, and hired an accountant to monitor histrust account.

ANSWER: Respondent lacks present recollection of making the statements as

alleged in Paragraph 87, and therefore, denies the same.

88. Starting on January 1, 2010, and at all further times alleged in this complaint, Rule1.15(a)(1) through (8) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010) required allIllinois attorneys to prepare and maintain records relating to their handling of fundsmaintained in connection with the representation of clients, including receipt anddisbursement journals, contemporaneous ledger records, client trust account checkbookregisters, check stubs, bank statements, records of deposit, and checks or other records ofdebits, and conciliation reports.

ANSWER: Admit.

89. At no time between 2002 and 2015 did Respondent reconcile his trust account onat least a quarterly basis, or prepare and maintain journals, ledgers, accountings, quarterlyreconciliations, and other records of his client trust account ending in 8971 as required byRule 1.15(a).

ANSWER: Deny.

90. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010,Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. failing to prepare and maintain records of a client trust account, inviolation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(1990).

ANSWER: Deny.

91. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred after January 1, 2010,Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. failing to prepare and maintain records of a client trust account,specifically, the records required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4)and (a)(7) of Rule 1.15(a) for trust account ending in the four digits8971, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

21

COUNT IX

(Conversion of$21,238.24 ofRzepka SettlementProceeds)

92. On July 16, 2010, Wieslaw Rzepka ("Rzepka") injured his groin while cleaningand lifting boxes at a factory where he was employed by Universal Building Products, Inc.As a result of the injury, Rsepka incurred medical expenses.

ANSWER: Admit.

93. Sometime after July 16, 2010, Respondent and Rzepka agreed that Respondentwould represent Rzepka in pursuing a workers' compensation claim against UniversalBuilding Products before the Workers' Compensation Commission. Respondent and Rzepkaagreed that Respondent's receipt of a fee would be contingent upon Respondent recoveringa settlement or award on Rzepka's behalf, and that Respondent would receive an amountequal to twenty percent of any such recovery.

ANSWER: Admit

94. Respondent later filed an application for adjustment of claim on Rzepka's behalfwith the Workers' Compensation Commission, which docketed the matter as claim number10 WC 038492, Rzepka v. Universal Building Products. On or about January 10, 2011,Respondent and Rzepka agreed to accept $26,434.40 from Universal Building Products'insurer, the Commerce & Industry Insurance Company, as full and final settlement ofRzepka's claims. From those proceeds, and pursuant to his fee agreement with Rzepka,Respondent was entitled to receive $5,367.16 as his attorney's fee, and an additional$230.08 as reimbursement for the cost of various medical records. Rzepka was entitled toreceive $21,238.54, the balance of the settlement amount. An order approving thesettlement was entered by the Workers' Compensation Commission shortly thereafter.

ANSWER: Deny that Respondent agreed to accept $26,434.40 from Universal

Building Products' insurer, and state further that the decision to accept the settlement was

Rzepka's. Admit all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 94.

95. On January 14, 2011, the Commerce & Industry Insurance Company sentRespondent its check number 16145528, which had been made payable to Rzepka andRespondent in the amount of $26,434.30. Check number 16145528 represented theproceeds ofthe settlement in claim number 10 WC 038492. Respondent received the checkshortly after it was sent, and deposited it into a Citibank IOLTA trust account ending in thefour digits 3766 on January 19, 2011.

22

ANSWER: Admit that Respondent or someone in his employ deposited check

number 16145528 as alleged, and admit all remaining allegations contained in paragraph

95.

96. As of July 5, 2011, Respondent had not yet paid Rzepka any portion of theproceeds from the settlement of claim number 10 WC 038492, and should have beenholding $21,238.54 in his IOLTA account for Rzepka's benefit. As of that date, Respondenthad overdrawn the Citibank IOLTA account ending in the four digits 3766 by -$17,570.57,as he drew checks on the account or made other withdrawals in payment of his personal orbusiness obligations.

ANSWER: Respondent has no independent recollection of the matters alleged in

paragraph 96, and cannot locate his file for the Rzepka representation. Admit that records

for Citibank IOLTA Account ending in the four digits 3766 reveal that no check in the

amount of $21,238.54 was paid through that account prior to July 5, 2011, and that the

account was overdrawn in the amount of $17,570.57 as of that date. Deny that Respondent

made withdrawals or drew checks on the IOLTA account in payment of his personal or


97. Respondent did not have authority from Rzepka, his heirs or assigns, or anyoneelse authorized to act on his behalf, to use Rzepka's portion of the settlement proceeds forRespondent's own purposes. Respondent's use if those proceeds constitutes conversion ofthose funds.

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first sentence of paragraph 97. Deny all

remaining allegations.


c. failure to maintain and appropriately safeguard funds belonging to a clientor a third person, and to hold those funds separate from the lawyer's ownproperty, by conduct including conversion of funds received in settlement ofRzepka's claims by causing the balance in his IOLTA trust account to fallbelow the amounts due and owing to Rzepka, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) ofthe Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

23

d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by hisconversion of least $21,238.54 of Rzepka's funds for his own personal orbusiness purposes, thereby converting that property to his own use, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Profession Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Deny

COUNT X

(Conversion ofAdditional Funds From CitiAccount, Delivery ofNSP Checks)

99. In connection with his handling of the Citibank IOLTA client trust account endingin the four digits 8971, identified in paragraph two, above, Respondent engaged in thefollowing transactions:

a. On October 7, 2014, Respondent deposited $7,098.31 into the account that hehad received in connection with the representation of a client namedMatthew Garcia. From that amount. Respondent agreed to pay a lienholder(OAD Orthopedics, Ltd.) a total of $2,232.43. Prior to doing so, the accountwas overdrawn, as Respondent used funds in the account to pay personal orbusiness expenses, without authority, thereby converting those funds;

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 99 a. Deny the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 99 a.

b. As of January 16, 2015, Respondent had deposited two checks totaling$54,057.77 into the Citi IOLTA account that he had received in connectionwith the presentation of a client named Victoria Young. From that amount,Respondent agreed to pay Ms. Young $19,205.13. On January 16, 2015, theCiti IOLTA account was overdrawn by $3,638.44, as Respondent hadwithdrawn funds from the account to pay personal or business expenses,without authority, thereby converting those funds;

ANSWER: Admit that as of January 16, 2015, Respondent deposited funds

received in connection with the representation of Victoria Young and that Respondent paid

Victoria Young the amount owed to her from that deposit. Deny all remaining allegations of

Paragraph 99 b.

24

c. As ofDecember 8, 2014, Respondent had deposited $174,106.40 into the CitiIOLTA accountthat he had received in connection with the representation ofa client named Wayman Hubbard. On January 16, 2015, the date thatRespondent drew check number 2785 on the account payable to Mr.Hubbard in the amount of $138,495.12, the account was overdrawn, asRespondent had withdrawn funds from the account to pay personal orbusiness expenses, without authority, thereby converting those funds. Checknumber 2785 was dishonored when presented for payment because therewere not sufficient funds in the Citi IOLTA account to pay it;

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 99 c. Admit that

on January 16, 2015, check no. 2785 in the amount of$138,495.12 was presented, admit that

on that date,the account was overdrawnand the check was dishonored. Deny the remaining

allegations of Paragraph 99 c. Stating further. Respondent gave Mr. Hubbard check no. 2900

in the amount of $138,495.12, which was presented and paid on January 26, 2015.

d. On January 5, 2015, Respondent deposited $37,378.54 into the Citi IOLTAaccount that he received in connection with the representation of a clientnamed Latasha Smith. From that amount, Respondent agreed to pay Smith$10,584.38, and he drew a check (number 2848) on the account in thatamount. On January 16, 2015, prior to the payment of check number 2848,Respondent had overdrawn the Citi IOLTA account by withdrawing funds forbusiness or personal purposed, without authority, thereby converting thosefunds;

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 99 d. Admit

that Respondent issued check no. 2848 in the amount of $10,584.38, and admit that before

that check was presented, the account was overdrawn. Deny the remaining allegations of

Paragraph 99 d. Stating further, check no. 2848 was paid when presented on January 20,

2015.

e. On January 12, 2015, Respondent deposited $15,818.61 into the Citi IOLTAaccount that he had received in connection with the representation of a clientnamed Adrena Delitz. As of January 16, 2015, Respondent had not made anypayments to or on behalf of Delitz, and Respondent had overdrawn the

25

account by using business or personal purposes, thereby converting asunknown amount of money due Delitz;

ANSWER: Admit the first sentence of Paragraph 99 e. Admit that payments made

on behalf of Ms. Delitz had not been presented as of January 16, 2015, and that the account

was overdrawn on that date. Deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 99 e. Stating

further, payment to Ms. Delitz was honored when presented.

f. On January 15, 2015, Respondent deposited $41,463.28 into the Citi IOLTAaccount that he had received in connection with the representation of a clientnamed Bernard Meeks. As of January 16, 2015, Respondent had not madeany payments to or on behalf of Meeks, and Respondent had overdrawn theaccount by using business or personal purposes, thereby converting asunknown amount of money due Meeks; and

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 99 e. Admit

that payments made on behalf of Mr. Meeks had not been presented as of January 16, 2015,

and that the account was overdrawn on that date. Deny the remaining allegations of

Paragraph 99 e. Stating further, payment to Mr. Meeks was honored when presented.

g. On October 21, 2014, Respondent deposited $350,000 into the Citi IOLTAaccount that he had received in connection with the representation of a clientnamed Diana Garza. Respondent agreed to pay Ms. Garza $239,598.73 fromrecovery. As of November 20, 2014, Respondent had not paid Ms. Garza anyportion of that amount, and on that date the balance in the account fell to$216,944.15 as Respondent withdrew funds from the account to pay hisbusiness and personal expenses, without authority, thereby converting$22,654.58 of funds due Ms. Garza.

ANSWER: Admit the allegations of the first two sentences of Paragraph 99 f.

Admit that as of November 20, 2014, the account balance was $216,944.15. Admit that any

payments made to Ms. Garza had not been presented as of November 20, 2014. Deny the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 99 f. Stating further, all payments made to Ms. Garza

were honored when presented.

26

100. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the

following misconduct:

a. failure to maintainand appropriately safeguardfunds belonging to clientsorthird persons, and to hold those funds separate from the lawyer's ownproperty, by conduct including conversions of funds received in connectionwith the client matters identified above, by causing the balance in his IOLTAtrust account to fall below the amounts due and owing to those clients orthird persons, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010); and

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by hisconversion various clients' funds for his own personal or business purposes,thereby converting that property to his own use, plus his delivery of an NSFcheck to Mr. Hubbard, in violation of Rule 8.4© of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Deny.

RESPONDENTS DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231

1. Respondent has not been admitted to practice in any other state jurisdiction.

He is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Illinois.

2. Respondent does not have other professional licenses.

Robinson Law Group, LLC321 S. Plymouth Ct., 14th FloorChicago, IL 60604Telephone: (312) [email protected]

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Robinson, Counsel for Respondent

27

Documents

Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission - signatory on an … · 2018. 5. 21. · ANSWER: Admit COUNT I (Conversion of$13,085.42 inclient and third-partyfunds intheCzapla