of the illinois attorney registrationwasson ("wasson") in a variety ofmatters, including,...
TRANSCRIPT
. i
In the Matter of:
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATIONAND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
FILED
SEP -5 2013
ATTY REG & DISC COMMCHICAGO
LAWRENCE FRANCIS PATTERSON,
No. 2153718
Attorney-Respondent.)
Commission No. 2013 PR 00059
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Now comes Attorney-Respondent, LAWRENCE FRANCIS PATTERSON
("Respondent" or "Patterson"), by and through his counsel, Thomas Brejcha of the Thomas More
Society and Joan M. Mannix of the Law Office of Joan M. Mannix, and as and for his Answer to
the Complaint of the Administrator, states as follows:
COUNT I
(Breach offiduciary duty-George Wasson)
1. On July 24, 2009, Respondent agreed to represent George Wasson ("Wasson") in avariety of matters, including Wasson's desire to petition for appointment to serve as guardian forthe person and estate of Pamela Wasson, Wasson's then-52 year-old daughter, who had beendiagnosed with schizophrenia. Their agreement provided, in part, that Respondent would becompensated at a rate of $225 per hour and that Wasson was to pay Respondent $2,500 feeadvance uponexecution of a signedagreement. Shortly thereafter, Respondent and Wasson signeda document entitled "Security Retainer Agreement", and Wasson paid Respondent $2,500 as anadvance toward Respondent's fees, as required pursuant to their agreement.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 24, 2009, he agreed to represent George
Wasson ("Wasson") in a variety of matters, including, inter alia, Wasson's desire to petition for
appointment to serve as guardian for the person and estate of Pamela Wasson, who had been
diagnosed with schizophrenia. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny
that Pamela Wasson was then 52 years old. Respondent admits that his agreement with Wasson
was that Respondent would be compensated at a rate of $225 per hour. Respondent denies that
Wasson was to pay Respondent "[a] $2,500 fee advance upon execution of a signed agreement"
and affirmatively states that the $2,500 was a security retainer and not a fee advance. Respondent
admits that, "Shortly thereafter, Respondent and Wasson signed a document entitled 'Security
Retainer Agreement.'" Respondent admits that Wasson gave Respondent $2,500, butdenies that
those funds were "paid" "as an advance toward Respondent's fees as required pursuant to their
agreement." Respondent affirmatively states that the $2,500 was a security retainer paid in
accordance with the parties' "Security Retainer Agreement."
2. As Wasson's attorney, Respondent owed fiduciary duties to Wasson, including theduty to exercise at all times the highest degree of honesty, loyalty, and good faith in his dealingswith Wasson, and to avoid putting his own interest above Wasson's.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2.
3. As of September 17, 2009, Respondent had applied $2,408.10 of the advance feepayment paid by Wasson towards fees and cost that were purportedly owed to him by Wasson.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of September 17, 2009, Respondent had applied
$2,408.10 of the $2,500 given to him by Wasson towards fees and costs that were owed to
Respondent by Wasson, but denies that that $2,500 was "an advance fee payment" and denies that
the fees and costs were "purportedly" owed to him. Respondent affirmatively states that at that
time Wasson in fact owed Respondent $2,408.10 in fees and costs.
4. As of December 8, 2010, Respondent had not filed a guardianship petition forPamela on behalf of Wasson or prepared an estate plan or funded a trust on behalf of Wasson orPamela.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4.
5. On December 8, 2010, Respondent went to Wasson's residence, removed a checkfrom Wasson's checkbook, had Wasson sign the check, and made the check payable to himself for
$5,000. Respondent deposited those funds in his client trust account. As of December 8, 2010,Respondent had not provided Wasson with an itemized bill and has not filed a petition forguardianship of Pamela.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5, with the
clarification that the funds were deposited into his IOLTA account, which is presumably what is
meant by the reference to "his client trust account." Respondent affirmatively states that he
removed a check from Wasson's checkbook and made the check payable to himself in Wasson's
presence.
6. Sometime between December 8 and December 17, 2010, Wasson terminatedRespondent as his attorney.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6. Respondent
affirmatively states that, at some point prior to December 23, 2010, Wasson indicated to
Respondent that Wasson wanted Respondent to withdraw as his attorney and that Wasson did not
want Respondent to be his attorney.
7. On December 17, 2010, Respondent filed a document entitled "755 ILCS 5/1 la-8Emergency Petition for Appointment of a Temporary & Plenary Guardian of the Person & EstateGuardian ad Litem & Adjudication of Disability" (hereinafter "petition") in the Circuit Court ofWill County, Probate Division, requesting that Wasson be adjudicated disabled and seeking tohave himself appointed Wasson's guardian. The case was captioned as Estate of George Wasson,as an alleged disabled person, case number 10 P 938.
ANSWER: Patterson admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 except the
statement that the petition "requested] that Wasson be adjudicated disabled and seeking to have
himself appointed Wasson's guardian." With respect to that statement, Respondent states that the
petition speaks for itself but admits that, among other things, the petition requested that Wasson be
adjudicated disabled and requested that Respondent be appointed temporary and plenary guardian
of Wasson's person and Estate.
8. On December 20, 2010, the Honorable Jeff Allen entered an order appointing
3
attorney Colleen Wengler as Guardian ad Litem for Wasson in case number 10 P 938. Casenumber 10 P 0938 was continued until December 23, 2010 for a hearing onRespondent's petition.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 except hedenies
that the December 20, 2010 Order continued the case to December 23, 2010 for a hearing on the
petition. Respondent affirmatively states that the December 20, 2010 Order speaks for itselfand
provides in part, "this matter is set for status on December 23, 2010 at 9:00 a.m."
9. On December 23, 2010, attorney Mark Hanson filed an appearance as counsel forWasson.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9. Respondent
affirmatively states that on December 23, 2010, attorney Mark Hanson appeared before the Court
and represented to the Court that he had been retained as counsel for Wasson but that he did not file
his appearance as counsel for Wasson until January 11, 2011.
10. On December 23, 2010, after considering testimony offered by Wengler andHanson, Judge Allen enteredan order denyingRespondent's request for emergency relief, referredto in paragraph 7, above. Judge Allen continued case number 10 P 938 for status on Respondent'spetition for guardianship of Wasson until February 28, 2011.
ANSWER: Respondent denies that, on December 23, 2010, the Court considered
"testimony" offered by Wengler and Hanson because neither Wengler nor Hanson "testified" at
the hearing. Respondent admits that, on December 23, 2010, Judge Allen entered an order
denying Respondent's request for emergency relief but denies that paragraph 7 completely and
accurately describes the emergency relief requested in the petition. Respondent affirmatively
states that Judge Allen's December 23, 2010 Order provides in part, "Emergency relief requested
in said Petition is denied." Respondent further admits that, on December 23, 2010, Judge Allen
continued case number 10 P 938 for status on Respondent's petition for guardianship of Wasson
until February 28, 2011.
Respondent additionally affirmatively states that, on December 23, 2010, Wengler and
Hanson, as well as Patterson, made statements to the Court. Wengler advised the Court she had
visited Wasson and found him to be "alert, coherent, well-groomed, well-fed." Wengler further
advised the Court that, although Wasson had been able to discuss with her "his affairs in the most
general of terms," he was "fuzzy on the details of almost everything." Wengler acknowledged
that Wasson needed assistance and should not be left alone and that arrangements had been made
for a friend to stay with Wasson around the clock. Wengler recommended that she be allowed to
obtain "a more detailed assessment of exactly what [Wasson's] current level of functioning is and
make appropriate arrangements for him" and advised the Court she was "not prepared to say a
guardianship is not necessary in this matter, just that I saw no reason to take any emergency
measures at this point."
On December 23, 2010, Patterson advised the Court that, based on the representations of
Wenglerand Hanson, Patterson agreed that there was no need for the emergency appointmentof a
temporary guardian. He indicated he had taken the steps that he felt were necessary to protect
Wasson but, since Wasson was being protected by Wengler and Hanson, Patterson was no longer
needed in that role. Patterson further indicated, without contradiction from Wengler or Hanson,
he was not withdrawing as the petitioner seeking appointment of a plenary guardian because
Wengler and Hanson did not want the petition dismissed at that time.
11. On February 28, 2011, after considering information that includedrecommendations contained in a neuropsychological evaluation of Wasson, Judge Allen enteredan order denying Respondent's petition in case number 10 P 938
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny what
information Judge Allen considered on February 28, 2011 so neither admits nor denies the
allegation as to what Judge Allen considered. Respondent admits that on February 28, 2011,
Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's petition in case number 10 P 938.
Respondent affirmatively states that the February 28, 2011 Order entered by Judge Allen
provided, in part, "the Petition for Appointment ofTemporary & Plenary Guardian of the Person &
Estate, & Adjudication of Disability is denied based on the Report of Dr. Gelbort, the testimony of
and allegations of Counsel in said Record."
12. On May 25, 2011, Wengler, on behalf of Wasson, filed a petition for a recoverycitation against Respondent in case number 10 P 938, requesting that Respondent be required toshow cause why he should not be required to remit the $7,500 in purported fees that he received,alleging that any legal services were either not rendered or were rendered without Wasson'sknowledge or consent.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 25, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for a
recovery citation against Respondent in case number 10 P 938. Respondent denies that she filed
the petition for a recovery citation "on behalf of Wasson." Respondent affirmatively states that
Wengler did not represent Wasson and lacked standing to file the petition for a recovery citation.
Respondent denies that the allegation that the petition for a recovery citation "requested] that
Respondent be required to show cause why he should not be required to remit the $7,500 in
purported fees that he received, alleging that any legal services were either not rendered or were
rendered without Wasson's knowledge or consent" constitutes an accurate or complete recitation
of the contents of the petition for a recovery citation and affirmatively states that the petition for a
recovery citation speaks for itself.
Respondent affirmatively states that the "wherefore" paragraph of the petition for recovery
citation states, "Wherefore, Petitioner, Colleen Wengler, respectfully requests that a Citation issue
upon Respondent, Lawrence F. Patterson, to show cause why he should not be ordered to deliver to
the representative the $7,500 in retainers taken or received from GEORGE WASSON for legal
services which were either not rendered or were rendered without the knowledge and consent of
Mr. WASSON."
Respondent affirmatively states that the $7,500 he received from Wasson was applied
toward fees and costs that were owed to Respondent, but that, ultimately, the Court required
Respondent to refund that amount.
13. On July 19,2011, Respondent filed a petition for fees and costs in case number 10 P938. In Respondent's fee petition, after giving Wasson credit for $4,408.10 that had been paid,Respondent claimed that Wasson owed him $28,271.63 in additional fees and costs.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13. Respondent
affirmatively states that Wasson in fact owed Respondent $28,271.63 in additional fees and costs.
Respondent additionally affirmatively states that Respondent was required by the Court to refund
to Wasson the $7,500 he had paid Respondent, and Respondent was not paid anything for any fees
or costs.
14. On July 19,2011, after considering testimony from Respondent and Wasson, JudgeAllen entered an order finding that Respondent had not "met his burden of showing by clear andconvincing evidence that he has exercised the utmost good faith and has not betrayed the trustplaced in him" by Wasson, granting Wasson's petition for recovery, and directing Respondent todeliver $7,500 to Wengler within 10 days of the order. Judge Allen ordered the funds to bedeposited by Wengler and maintained in her trust account until further order of the court. JudgeAllen scheduled case number 10 P 938 for status on August 1, 2011.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 19, 2011, Judge Allen entered an Order
granting the petition for recovery citation, but denies that the petition for recovery citation was
"Wasson's petition." Answering further, Respondents states that the July 19, 2011 Order speaks
for itself and denies that Paragraph 14 completely and accurately sets forth the contents of that
Order, even with respect to the purported quote from the July 19, 2011 Order set forth in Paragraph
14. Respondent affirmatively states that the Order provides in part, "Pursuant to the DeJarnette
case, Respondent Lawrence Patterson must show by clear and convincing evidence that he has
exercised the utmost good faith and has not betrayed the trust placed in him by his client" and
further provides, "Respondent Patterson did not me[e]t his burden in this matter...." The Order
further provides, "The GAL's Petition for Recovery Citation is granted" and "Respondent
Patterson shalldeliver$7,500.00 to the GALin this matterwithin 10daysof the entryof this order,
to be placed in the GAL's trust account to be held pending further order of court."
Respondent lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegation "after
considering testimony from Respondent and Wasson", but affirmatively states that the
Respondent's testimony and Wasson's testimony was presented at the July 19, 2011 hearing.
Respondent admits Judge Allen scheduled case number 10 P 938 for status on August 1,
2011.
15. On July 28, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for fees seeking from Respondent$3,700 for services Wengler provided to Wasson in case number 10 P 938.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 28, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for fees
but denies that said Petition sought "from Respondent $3,700 for services Wengler provided to
Wasson in case number 10 P 938."
Respondent affirmatively states that the July 28, 2011 Petition For Attorney's Fees speaks
for itself and that said petition states in part, "Petitioner was appointed by the Court to be
Guardian-ad-Litem for GEORGE WASSON, an Alleged Disabled Adult, in this case" and
"Petitioner, in the professional representation of said alleged disabled adult has expended 18.50
hours; and further, all such hours were necessary for and reasonably related to the said
representation." The "wherefore" paragraph of the July 28, 2011 Petition For Attorney's Fees,
8
states, "Wherefore, the undersigned moves that this Court award attorney's fees in the amount of
$3,700 and costs in the amount of $-0- for a total of $3,700.00."
16. On July 29, 2011, Respondent filed a motionto vacatethe order enteredon July 19,2011, described in paragraph 14, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16.
17. As of August 1, 2011, Respondent had not complied with Judge Allen's July 19,2011 order that required him to tender $7,500 to Wengler, on behalf of Wasson. On August 1,2011, Wengler filed a petition for a rule to show cause, alleging that Respondent had violated thecourt's July 19, 2011 order, referenced in paragraph 14, above, by failing to deliver $7,500 toWengler's office, and asking that Respondent be ordered to show why he should not be found indirect willful contempt for his violation of the July 19, 2011 order.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of August 1, 2011, he had not complied with
Judge Allen's July 19,2011 order that required him to tender $7,500 to Wengler but denies that the
July 19, 2011 order required him to tender the funds to Wengler "on behalf of Wasson." As set
forth supra, in the Answer to Paragraph 14, the July 19, 2011 Order directed Respondent to
"deliver $7,500.00 to the GAL in this matter [Wengler] within 10 days of the entry of this order, to
be placed in the GAL's trust account to be held pending further order of court." Respondent
admits that, on August 1, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for a rule to show cause but denies that
Paragraph 17completelyand accuratelysets forth the contents ofsaid petition and therefore denies
the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17. Respondent affirmatively states that said petition for
rule to show cause speaks for itself
Respondent additionally affirmatively states that said petition for rule to show cause
alleges, in part, "That to date, Respondent has made no payment to the office of the undersigned"
and "That accordingly, Respondent Patterson has willfully violated the Court's Order of July 19,
2011." The "wherefore" portion of the petition for rule to show cause states, "WHEREFORE, the
Guardian ad Litem in this matter, COLLEEN WENGLER, requests that this Court issue a Rule
against Lawrence Patterson ordering him to show cause why he should not be found in direct
willful contempt of court for his violation of this Court's Order of July 19, 2011 and that this Court
set the hearing date on the Rule; and that upon finding of contempt that the Court order enter [sic]
such sanctions that are just and proper under the circumstances, including an award of Petitioner's
additional reasonable attorney's fees."
18. On August 1, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's motion tovacate and granting Wengler's petition for a rule to show cause. Judge Allen further orderedRespondent to tender $2,820.90 to Wengler to be held in her trust account until further order of thecourt. Case number 10 P 938 was continued until August 23, 2011 for return of the rule to showand hearings on Respondent's and Wengler's fee petitions.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 1, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order
denying Respondent's motion to vacate and granting Wengler's petition for rule to show cause.
Respondent denies that the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18 completely and accurately set
forth the contents of the August 1, 2011 Order and therefore denies the remaining allegations of
Paragraph 18.
Respondent affirmatively states that the August 1, 2011 Order speaks for itself.
Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the August 1, 2011 Order provides, in part,
"Attorney Patterson ordered to mail $2,820.00 to GAL Wengler before 5:00 p.m. today. Said
funds to be held in the GAL's Trust account pending further order of Court, said turnover to be
without prejudice to any party" and "Hearing on attorney Patterson's Petition for Fees and GAL
Wengler's Petition for Fees set on August 23, 2011 at 1:30 p.m."
19. On August 15,2011, Respondent filed a motion to vacate the August 1,2011 rule toshow cause, referred to in paragraph 18, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19.
10
20 On August 23,2011, Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's motion tovacate the rule to show cause, holding Respondent in indirect civil contempt, but also holding thatRespondent could purge the contempt by depositing $4,679.10 with Wengler on or beforeSeptember 13, 2011. Judge Allen also approved Wengler's fee petition requesting fees in theamount of $3,700, over Respondent's objection. Case number 10 P 938 was continued untilSeptember 14, 2011 for status, consideration of Respondent's fee petition and allocation ofWengler's fees.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 23, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order
denying Respondent's motion to vacate the rule to show cause and holding Respondent in indirect
civil contempt. Respondent admits that Judge Allen approved Wengler's fee petition requesting
fees in the amount of $3,700, over Respondent's objection. Respondent denies that the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 20 completely and accurately set forth the contents of the August 23,
2011 Order and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23.
Respondent affirmatively states that the August 23, 2011 Order speaks for itself.
Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the August 23, 2011 Order provides in part,
"Attorney Patterson isgranted 21 days topurge his contempt by turning over the sum of$4,679.10
to the GAL, on or before September 13, 2011," "This matter is set for status on purge and
pleadings on September 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.," "At that time the Court will make a determination
whether to take the matter of Mr. Patterson's fees under advisement or whether to set the matter for
evidentiary hearing" and "Allocation of the GAL's Fees shall be considered by the Court on
September 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m."
21. OnAugust 23,2011, Wengler filed objections to Respondent's fee petition, referredto in paragraph 13, above, alleging, inpart, that Respondent did not perform the services for whichWasson retained him to perform.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 23, 2011, Wengler filed objections to
Respondent's fee petition [filed on July 19, 2011], but denies that Paragraph 21 completely and
11
accuratelysets forth the contents of those objectionsand therefore denies the remainingallegations
of Paragraph 21.
Respondent affirmatively states that the document referenced in Paragraph 21, the
Objections To Fee Petition Of Lawrence F. Patterson ("Objections"), speaks for itself and that said
Objections state, in part, "The uncontroverted sworn testimony in this matter offered during the
hearing on the Recovery Citation issued herein indicated that Mr. Patterson did not perform the
services he was retained to perform."
22. On September 8, 2011, Respondent sent Wengler a check for $4,679.10, whichrepresented the funds that he was required to deposit with Wengler to purge the August 23, 2011order finding Respondent in contempt, referred to in paragraph 20, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 22.
23. On September 9, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for additional fees totaling $1,800,related to her representation of Wasson.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 9, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for
additional fees totaling $1,800, but denies that Wengler represented Wasson and so denies the
remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 23.
24. On September 14, 2011, upon being advised that Respondent had delivered$4,679.10 to Wengler, Judge Allen entered an order purging the contempt finding againstRespondent and dismissing the rule to show cause. Judge Allen further ordered Respondent to paythe previouslyapproved GAL fees in the amount of $3,700 to Wengler within 30 days of the order.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 14, 2011, upon being advised that
Respondent had delivered $4,679.10 to Wengler, Judge Allen entered an order but denies that
Paragraph 24 completely and accurately sets forth the contents of that order and so denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 24.
Respondent affirmatively states that the September 14, 2011 Order speaks for itself and
12
that it provides, in part, "Being so advised [that Mr. Patterson has complied with the Court's
Order's provisions with regard to purging his contempt by delivering $4,679.10 to the GAL], the
Court finds that Mr. Patterson's indirect civil contempt of Court has been purged", "Mr. Patterson
having purged his Contempt, the Rule issued inthis matter isdismissed." and "Ms. Wengler's fees
as approved by this Court on August 23, 2011 in the amount of $3,700.00 shall be paid by Mr.
Patterson the Petitioner in the Petition for Guardianship andRespondent in the Recovery Citation,
is ordered to pay said fees within 30 days of the entry of this order."
25. On September 14, 2011, Respondent filed objections to Wengler's petition foradditional fees and a supporting memorandum of law objecting to the court's jurisdiction andWengler ongoing participation in case number 10 P 938.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 14, 2011, Respondent filed
objections to Wengler's petition for additional fees and a memorandum of law but denies that
Paragraph 25 completely and accurately describes the contents of said memorandum and so denies
the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 25.
Respondent affirmatively states that, on September 14, 2011, Respondent filed his
Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Guardian Ad Litem's Presumptive Authority To Act
Subsequent To The Court's Finding George Wasson Was Not Disabled And Dismissal Of
Petitioner's 755 ILCS 5/1 la-8 Petition Without Compliance With The Probate Act and that in said
Memorandum, Respondent, among other things, asserted, "Upon denial of the adjudication of
George Wasson's Disability and Dismissal of the Petition to adjudicate Mr. Wasson a disabled
adult and Appoint a Temporary and Plenary Guardian of the Person and Estate of George Wasson,
Attorney Colleen Wengler, Guardian ad Litem, lost standing to provide the Court an[y] additional
services; and the Court lost jurisdiction to enter any Orders against Petitioner based on any
13
Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and/or Objections filed against Petitioner in her capacity as
Guardian Ad Litem for George W. Wasson...." [Emphasis omitted.]
26. On September 22,2011, Respondent filed a motion to vacate portions of the ordersentered on August 23, 2011 and September 14, 2011. Specifically, Respondent requested thatJudge Allen vacate the portions of the August 23, 2011 order approving Wengler's fees as "usualand customary"; awarding the amount of $3,700; and granting Wengler leave to file objections toRespondent's fee petition instanter. Additionally, Respondent requested that Judge Allen vacateportions of the order entered on September 14, 2011 that provided that Respondent pay Wengler's$3,700 fee and that the payment be made with 30 days.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26.
Respondent affirmatively states that Respondent's "Motion To Vacate Portions Of The
Orders Dated August 23, 2011 And September 14, 2011" speaks for itself but acknowledges that
Paragraph 26 completely and accurately sets forth the forms of relief requested in said Motion.
27. On October 24, 2011, Wengler filed a motion for hearing on Respondent's motionto vacate and for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, alleging that Respondent'smotion to vacate had been filed solely to harass the guardian ad litem, unnecessarily delayenforcement of the judgment against Respondent, and needlessly increase the cost of litigationcost in case number 10 P 938.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27.
Respondent affirmatively states that the "Motion For Hearing On Respondent Patterson's
Motion To Vacate And For 137 Sanctions" speaks for itself but acknowledges that Paragraph 27
accurately describes certain of the allegations set forth in said Motion.
28. On November 2, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for additional fees related to herrepresentation of Wasson in case number 10 P 938, seeking an additional $2,600.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on November 2,2011, Wengler filed a petition for
additional fees seeking $2,600, but denies that Wengler represented Wasson in case number 10P
938 and so denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 28.
29. On November 2, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order denying and dismissingRespondent's objection to the court's jurisdiction and Wengler's participation incase number 10 P
14
938; striking Respondent's motion to vacate portions of the court's August 23, 2011 order becauseit wasuntimely; denying Respondent's motion to vacate the court'sSeptember 14, 2011 order; andgranting Wengler's October 24, 2011 motion for hearing and for sanctions. The court furthergranted Wengler's petitions for additional fees in the amount $1,800 and $2,600 and ordered thatWengler's fees would be assessed against Respondent. The court further found that Respondent'sactions were for purposes of delaying enforcement of the court's order. Pursuant to the court'sorder, Respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 to Wasson and was ordered to pay the balance ofWengler'sfees within 28 days of the court's order. Wenglerwas granted leave to apply $7,500 thatwas currently on deposit with her from Respondent towards her fees, leaving Respondent with abalance of $600 owed to Wengler.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on November 2, 2011, Judge Allen entered an
order but denies that Paragraph 29 completely and accurately sets forth the contents of said Order
and so denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29.
Respondent affirmatively states that the November 2, 2011 Order speaks for itself.
Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the November 2, 2011 Order provides in part,
"Patterson's objections to the GAL's standing in this matter and the Court's jurisdiction in this
matter are denied and dismissed, "Patterson's motion to vacate portions of the Court's August 23,
2011 Order is stricken as not timely filed," "Patterson's motion to vacate the Court's order of
September 14, 2011 is denied," "GAL Colleen Wengler's Petition For Additional Fees in the
amount of $1,800.00 is granted over Patterson's objection," "GAL Colleen Wengler's Petition for
Additional Fees in the amount of $2,600.00 is granted, over Patterson's objection," "GAL Colleen
Wengler granted authority to apply the $7,500.00 currently being held in her trust account toward
her total outstanding fees in this matter ; said funds belonging to George Wasson," "the GAL's
fees in the amount of $8,100.00 shall be assessed against Lawrence Patterson; $7,500.00 to be paid
to George Wasson to reimburse him for the $7,500.00 payment from GAL Wengler's Trust
Account, and $600.00 to be paid to GAL Wengler," "Said fees are to be paid by Attorney Patterson
within 28 days of the entry of this order," "Judgment entered upon this date against Lawrence
15
Patterson in favor of George Wasson in theamount of $7,500.00 and in favor of Colleen Wengler
in the amount of $600.00 for attorneys fees ordered paid pursuant to paragraph 7 of this order,
"Colleen Wengler's Motion for hearing and for sanctions for Patterson's filing of his Motion to
Vacate is granted, the Court finding that Patterson's actions herein were for purpose of delay."
Patterson additionally affirmatively states that the Court's November 2, 2011 Order also
provides, "Patterson's oral motion to withdraw his Petition for Attorney's [Fees] is granted, there
being no objection thereto."
30. On December 2, 2011, Respondent filed a notice of appeal in case number 10 P938.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30.
31. As of February 8, 2012, Respondent had not paid Wasson or Wengler, pursuant tothe court's November 2, 2011 order. On February 8, 2012, Wengler filed a petition for a rule toshow cause against Respondent in the Circuit Court of Will County, alleging that he had not paidher or Wasson, in compliance with the court's order November 2, 2011 order. Wengler requestedthat Respondent be held in indirect civil contempt of court.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of February 8, 2012, Respondent had not paid
Wasson or Wengler, pursuant to the court's November 2, 2011 Order. Respondent admits that,
on February 8, 2012, Wengler filed a petition for a rule to show cause against Respondent in the
Circuit Court of Will County, but denies that Paragraph 31 completely and accurately sets forth the
allegations of said petition and so denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 31. '
Respondent affirmatively states that the February 8, 2012 Petition For Rule To Show
Cause speaks for itself. Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that said Petition alleges,
in part, "That to date, Respondent Patterson has made no payment to the office of the undersigned
or Mr. George Wasson," and "That accordingly, Respondent Patterson has willfully violated this
Court's Order of November 2, 2011." The Petition requested that, "the Court issue a Rule against
16
Lawrence Patterson ordering him to show cause why he should not be found in direct willful
contempt of court for his violation of this Court's Order of November 2, 2011 and that this Court
set the hearing date on this Rule; and that upon a finding of contempt that the Court order enter
[sic] such sanctions that are just and proper under the circumstances, including an award of
Petitioner's additional reasonable attorney's fees."
32. On or around February 15, 2012, Respondent sent Wengler $600, representing thebalance of the fees that he owed her.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on or around February 15, 2012, Respondent sent
Wengler $600, but denies that that amount represented the balance of the fees "that he owed her."
Respondent affirmatively states that the $600.00 represented the balance of the fees that
Respondent had been ordered to pay Wengler and the balance of the judgment that had been
entered in Wengler's favor against Respondent. Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states
that the checkpaying the $600.00 reflected the notation, "Est. of George Wasson 10P 938Balance
of Fee Per Order entered 11/02/2011 Subject to Notice of Appeal filed 12/2/2012."
33. On February 29, 2012, Judge Allen entered an order scheduling a hearing onWengler's petition for a rule to show cause.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33.
34. On April 4, 2012, Respondent filed a motion seeking to have thejudgment againsthim stayed pending appeal.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 4, 2012, Respondent filed a motion
seeking to have the judgmentagainst him stayed pending appeal.
Respondent affirmatively states that said motion, entitled, "Motion For Stay Of Judgment
Pending Appeal And For Extension Of Time For Approval And Filing Of Security", speaks for
itself, andthat, in addition to requesting a stay of the enforcement of thejudgments entered against
17
him and in favor of George Wasson, said Motion requested other forms of relief.
35. On April 4, 2012, Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's motion for astay of judgment, and finding him in indirect civil contempt of court for failing to comply with theNovember 2, 2011 order by paying Wasson $7,500.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35.
Respondent affirmatively states that the April 4, 2012 Order speaks for itself and that said
Order contains provisions in addition to those paraphrased in Paragraph 35.
36. Judge Wasson further ordered that Respondent had 45 days to purge the contemptfinding by paying Wasson, through Wengler, $7,500.
ANSWER: Respondent denies that Paragraph 36 completely and accurately sets forth
the provisions of the Court's April 4, 2012 Order and so denies the allegations set forth in
Paragraph 36.
Respondent affirmatively states that the April 4, 2012 Order speaks for itself and that said
Order contains a provision which provides, "Lawrence Patterson shall have 45 days to purge his
contempt, by payment of $7,500.00 to Colleen Wengler at 181 N. Hammes Ave. Joliet, IL 60453,
said funds to be payable to George Wasson."
37. As of May 16, 2012, Respondent had not paid the $7,500 that Judge Allen hadordered him to pay Wasson, On May 16, 2012, Respondent filed a motion to reconsider andmotion for stay ofjudgment pending appeal.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of May 16, 2012, Respondent had not paid the
$7,500 that Judge Allen had ordered him to pay" but Respondent denies that Judge Allen had
ordered Respondent to pay that amount to Wasson. Respondent admits that, on May 16, 2012,
Respondent filed a motion to reconsider and motion for stay of judgment pending appeal.
38. On May 16, 2012, Judge Allen ordered Respondent to present himself in court onJuly 31, 2012 to advise the court whether he had paid Wasson the previously ordered $7,500.Judge Allen further ordered that Respondent was to be taken to the Will County Detention Centerwhere he would be incarcerated for 150 days or such lesser time if he proved that he paid Wasson.
18
ANSWER: Respondent denies that Paragraph 38 completely and accurately sets forth
the allegations of the Court's May 16, 2012 Order and so denies the allegations set forth in
Paragraph 28.
Respondent affirmatively states that the Order entered by Judge Allen on May 16, 2012
speaks for its self. He further affirmatively states that the May 16, 2012 Order provides, in part,
"Petitioner shall present himself to the Court @ 9:00 a.m. on July 31, 2012 and advise the Court
whether he has or has not paid George Wasson $7500.00; and, if not... Petitioner shall be taken to
the Will County Detention Center Facility where he shall be incarcerated for 150 Days or such
lesser time as & if he proves he has paid George Wasson said $7500.00."
39. On May 23, 2012, Respondent appealed the court's April 4, 2012 order finding himin indirect civil contempt.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 23, 2012 Respondent appealed the court's
April 4, 2012 order finding him in indirect civil contempt.
Respondent affirmatively states that the May 23, 2012 Notice Of Appeal speaks for itself
and that said Notice of Appeal did not only appeal that portion of the April 4, 2012 order finding
him in indirect civil contempt but also appealed from additional portions of the April 4, 2012
Order, as well as portions of the May 16, 2012 Order.
40. On July 31, 2012, Respondent appeared in court and tendered to Wengler a checkfor $7,500. Respondent's check represented payment of thejudgment owed to Wasson, referred toin paragraph 14, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 31, 2012, Respondent appeared in court
and tendered to Wengler a check for $7,500. Respondent denies that Respondent's check
represented payment of thejudgment owed to Wasson, referred to in Paragraph 14.
Respondent affirmatively states that the Paragraph 14 references the Order entered by the
19
Court on July 14, 2012 and that said Order did not enter ajudgment against Respondent in favor of
Wasson.
41. On August 13, 2012, the court entered an order purging and dischargingRespondent's contempt, after being advised that Respondent's check for $7,500 had been honoredby the bank.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 13, 2012, the court entered an order but
denies that Paragraph 41 completely and accurately alleges the contents of said Order and so
denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 41.
Respondent affirmatively states that the August 13, 2012 Order speaks for itself and that it
provides: "This matter comes before the Court for status on Lawrence Patterson's purge of his
contempt,GAL Wengler appears and represents that the funds tendered to Mr. Wasson pursuant to
Court Order have cleared, such that Mr. Patterson's contempt has been purged. The Rule is
discharged."
42. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:
a. breach of fiduciary duty to George Wasson;
b overreaching;
c. charging an unreasonable fee, in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);
d. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
e. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42.
20
COUNT II
(Incompetence and charging unreasonable fees-Joseph Gombash)
43. On December 10, 2007, Joseph Gombash ("Gombash") initiated proceedings to
become appointed as the guardian for Evelyn Gombash ("Evelyn"), his wife, in the Circuit Court
of Will County, Probate Division. The matter was captioned as In re the Estate of Evelyn
Gombash, 07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent denies that, on December 10, 2007, Joseph Gombash initiated
the proceedings to become appointed as guardian for Evelyn Gombash. Respondent
affirmatively states that, on December 10, 2007, a Petition For Temporary Guardian was filed by
"Attorney Daniel J. Softcheck", which requested that Joseph Gombash be appointed temporary
guardian of Evelyn Gombash, in the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County,
Illinois. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny whether Evelyn
Gombash was Joseph Gombash's wife at that time. Respondent denies that the matter was
captioned, "In re the Estateof Evelyn Gombash". Respondent affirmatively states that the matter
was captioned, "Estate of Evelyn Gombash, Alleged Disabled Person," 07 P 893.
44. On February 29, 2008, the Honorable Carmen Goodman entered an orderappointing Joseph Gombash asplenary guardian forEvelyn in case number 07 P 893. At thatsametime, Judge Goodman continued case number 07 P 893 to March 28, 2008, for the report ofinventory, a listof the estate's finances as of the dateof Gombash's appointment, in casenumber 07P893.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on February 29, 2008, the Honorable Carmen
Goodman entered an order appointing Joseph Gombash as guardian for Evelyn Gombash in case
number 07 P 893, but denies that said order indicates Joseph Gombash is appointed "plenary"
guardian for Evelyn Gombash. Respondent affirmatively states that the February 29, 2008 Order
21
appointed Joseph Gombash as "guardian for Evelyn Gombash's person and estate." of Evelyn
Gombash. Respondent admits that the February 29, 2008 Order entered by Judge Goodman
continued case number 07 P 893 to March 28, 2008. Respondent denies that the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 44 completely and accurately reflect the contents of Judge Goodman's
February 29, 2008 Orderand so Respondent denies those allegations. Respondent affirmatively
states, that Judge Goodman's February 29, 2008 Order speaks for itself and that it continued the
case for "presentation of vouchers and report on inventory."
45. On March 28, 2008, Gombash appeared pro se in court on case number 07 P 893.As of that date, no report of inventory had been filed relating to Evelyn's estate. Judge Goodmancontinued case number 07 P 893 for April 25, 2008 for status.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks personal knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 45.
Respondent affirmatively states that the court docket for March 28, 2008 reflects that, on
that date, Joseph Gombash, appeared pro se in court on case number 07 P 893 and that the matter
was continued for status to April 25, 2008.
46. On April 11, 2008, Heather CoUinet ("CoUinet"), Evelyn's and Gombash'sdaughter, contacted Respondent by telephone to discuss his possible representation of her familyrelated to the administration of Evelyn's estate in case 07 P 893. At that time, Respondent toldCoUinet that he would need to meet with her parents to discuss the guardianship proceedings.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 11, 2008, a person identifying herself as
Heather CoUinet and identify herselfas Evelyn and Gombash's daughter, contacted Respondent
by telephone todiscuss his possible representation related to the administration ofEvelyn's estate
in case 07 P 893. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny whether the
person who identified herself as Heather CoUinet was in fact Heather CoUinet or whether said
individual was in fact Evelyn and Joseph Gombash's daughter. Respondent denies that the
22
discussion related to the possible representation of Collinet's "family." Respondent affirmatively
states that the discussion related to the possible representation of Joseph Gombash as Guardian in
connection with the administration of Evelyn's estate in case 07 P 893. Respondent admits that,
at that time, Respondent told the person identifying herself as Collinet that he would need to meet
with her parents to discuss the guardianship proceedings.
47. On April 16, 2008, Respondent met with Evelyn, Gombash, Collinet, and JosephLee Gombash, Evelyn and Gombash's son, to discuss Respondent's representation of Evelyn'sestate, which was to include his filing of an inventory. At that time, Gombash agreed to payRespondent $225 per hour plus a $5,000 advance fee payment.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 16, 2008, Respondent met with Joseph
Gombash and with individuals identified as Evelyn, Gombash, Collinet, and Joseph Lee Gombash.
Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny whether said individuals were in
fact Evelyn Gombash, Collinet or Joseph Lee Gombash. Respondent also lacks sufficient
personal knowledge to admit or deny whether the individual identifying himself as Joseph Lee
Gombash was in fact Evelyn and Joseph Gombash's son. Respondent denies that the discussion
related to Respondent's representation of Evelyn's estate. Respondent affirmatively states that
the discussion related to Respondent's representation of Joseph Gombash as Guardian of Evelyn's
estate. Respondent admits that his representation was to include his filing of an inventory.
Respondent further admits that, at thattime, Gombash agreed to pay Respondent $225 perhour but
denies that he agreed to pay "a $5,000 advance fee payment." Respondent affirmatively states
that Gombash agreed to pay a $5,000 security retainer andthat the "Security Retainer Agreement"
speaks for itself.
48. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned that case number 07 P 893 had beenscheduled for a status hearing on for [sic] April 25, 2008.
23
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48.
49. On April 23, 2008, Respondent sent a letter to the Will County Clerk of the CircuitCourt requesting copies of documents from court file 07 P 893. Respondent also stated that hewould not be filing an appearance in case number 07 P 893 until he had reviewed the file, andinquired whether it would be possible to change the April 25, 2008 court date to May 9, 2008.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 23, 2008, Respondent sent a letter to the
Will County Clerk of the Circuit Court but denies that Paragraph 49 completely and accurately
sets forth the contents of that letter and so denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph
49. Respondent affirmatively states that the April 23, 2008 letter speaks for itself and that it
provided, in part, "I have elected not to file my Appearance until I have reviewed the file" and,
"Would it be possible to secure an Order from the Court resetting the Status Date to May 9, 2008
without Joseph Gombash making an appearance in Court?" the letter alsoenclosed a check in the
amount of $21.00 to pay for "1 copy of the entire Court File", "3 Certified Copies of Letters of
Office" and "1 Certified Copy of the 'Order Appointing Guardian dated 2/29/08.'"
50. On April 25, 2008, Respondent did not appear in court and case number 07 P 893was stricken from the call. At no timeprior to April 25,2008 had Respondent filed his appearanceor file[d] a motion to continue the court date in case number07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 25, 2008, Respondent did not appear in
court. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny that case number 07 P
893 wasstricken from the call on thatdaybutaffirmatively statesthat the courtdocket for thatdate
reflects, "Case is called. No one appears. On court's own motion, matter ordered stricken from
the call. No written order." Respondent admits that, at no time prior to April 25, 2008, had
Respondent filed his appearance or filed a motion to continue the court date in case number 07 P
893.
51. On April 26, 2008, Gombash signed a written agreement related to Respondent'srepresentation in connection with case number 07 P 893.
24
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 51.
52. On May 12, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a billing statement that outlinedservices Respondent purportedly provided between April 11, 2008 and May 12, 2008 relating tothe administration of Evelyn's estate. The billing statement reflected that Respondent purportedlyinvested 18.2 hours of billable time into case number 07 P 893, merely in an effort to gather fromfinancial institutions records related to the assets of Gombash and Evelyn which were largelyavailable through Gombash. Respondent claimed to beowed $4,095.00 for fees, plus an additional$87.06 for costs he claimed to have advanced.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 12, 2008, Respondent provided Joseph
Gombash with a billing statement. Respondent denies that the billing statement was "sent' and
affirmatively states that it was delivered. Respondent denies that the billing statement outlined
services Respondent "purportedly" provided between April 11, 2008 andMay 12, 2008 relating to
the administration of Evelyn's estate. Respondent affirmatively states that the billing statement
describes the services he provided between April 11, 2008 and May 12, 2008 relating to the
administration of Evelyn's estate. Respondent also denies, "The billing statement reflected that
Respondent purportedly invested 18.2 hours ofbillable time into case number 07 P 893, merely in
an effort to gather from financial institutions records related to the assets of Gombash and Evelyn
which were largely available through Gombash." Respondent denies that said allegation
completely and accurately reflects the contents ofhis billing statement and affirmatively states that
the billing statement speaks for itself. Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the billing
statement does not reflect hours "purportedly" spent inconnection with the work described therein
but describes the services he provided between April 11, 2008 and May 12, 2008 relating to the
administration of Evelyn's estate, including those services relating to his efforts to gather from
financial institutions records related to the assets of Gombash and Evelyn. Respondent denies
that those records were "largely available through Gombash." Respondent affirmatively states
25
that, when Respondent asked Joseph Gombash for financial records related to the administration
of Evelyn Gombash's Estate, Joseph Gombash stated he was in the habit of "shredding records."
Respondent denies the characterization that he "claimed' he was owed $4,095.00 fees and
affirmatively states that he was owed $4,095.00 for 18.2 hours of attorney time which he billed at
the rate of $225 per hour plus $87.06 in costs he advanced.
53. On May 17, 2008, Gombash paid Respondent $5,000 for the initial fee payment incase number 07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent denies that, on May 17, 2008, Gombash "paid Respondent
$5,000for the initial fee payment in case number 07 P 893." Respondentaffirmatively states that,
on or before May 13,2008, Gombash provided Respondent with $5,000.00 as a security retainer in
connection with case number 07 P 893, in addition to other funds in the amount of $4,182.06, all of
which Respondent deposited in his IOLTA account.
54. On May 19, 2008, Respondent filed his appearance on behalf of Gombash,individually, and as the guardian of the personand estate in case number07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54.
55. On June 3, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a billing statement that representedservices Respondent purportedly provided between May 13, 2008 andJune 3, 2008 relating to theadministration of Evelyn's estate. The billingstatement reflected that Respondent purportedly metwith the Gombashes, reviewed records related to Evelyn's estate and probate proceedings, and hadtelephone conferences regarding Evelyn's assets. According to Respondent's billing statement, heinvested an additional 12.8 hours of billable attorney time beyond the amount referred to inparagraph 52, above, plus an additional 6.4 billable hours of time purportedly invested by hisassistant at a rate of $125.00 perhour into case number 07 P 893. Respondent claimed to beowedan additional $3,680.00 for fees beyond the $5,000 he had already collected, plus an additional$191.79 for costs he claimed to have advanced, for a total balance due of $3,871.79.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, "on June 3, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a
billing statement that represented services Respondent provided between May 13, 2008 and June
3,2008 relating tothe administration ofEvelyn's estate." Respondent denies that characterization
26
that said services were "purportedly" provided.
Respondent alsodenies that Paragraph 55 completely andaccurately sets forth the contents
of the referenced billing statement and so denies the allegation, "The billing statement reflected
that Respondent purportedly met with the Gombashes, reviewed records related to Evelyn's estate
and probate proceedings, and had telephone conferences regarding Evelyn's assets."
Additionally, Respondent denies the characterization of the billing statement as reflecting work
Respondent "purportedly" did. Respondent affirmatively states that the referenced billing
statement speaks for itselfandthat it reflects the tasks performed by Respondent between May 13,
2008 and June 3, 2008.
Respondent admits that, "According to Respondent's billing statement, he invested an
additional 12.8 hours of billable attorney time beyond the amount referred to in paragraph 52,
above, plus an additional 6.4 billable hours oftime invested by his assistant ata rate of$125.00 per
hour into case number 07 P 893," but denies the characterization that the additional 6.4 billable
hours of time were "purportedly" invested by his assistant.
Respondent denies the characterization that he "claimed" to be owed an additional
$3,680.00 for fees beyond the $5,000 he had already collected, plus an additional $191.79 for
costs he "claimed" to have advanced, for a total balance due of $3,871.79. Respondent
affirmatively states that he was owed an additional $3,680.00 as a fee for services rendered, plus an
additional $191.70 for costs he had advanced, for a total balance due of $3,871.79.
56. Onor around June 4,2008, Gombash paid Respondent anadditional fee payment of$5,000.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 56.
57. On June 27,2008, Respondent sent Gombash a letter notifying him ofRespondent'sdecision to terminate his representation of Gombash and Evelyn's estate based on their
27
disagreement regarding how best to proceed in case number 07 P 893. Respondent's andGombash'sdispute related particularly to Gombash's request that Respondent file the inventory incase number 07 P 893. At that time, Respondent claimed that Gombash owed Respondent anadditional $954.13 beyond the amounts referred to in paragraphs 52 and 55, above, for legalservices and costs he claimed to have advanced.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on June 27, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a
letter but denies that the first and second sentences of Paragraph 57 completely and accurately set
forth the contents of that letter. Respondent affirmatively states that the June 27, 2008 letter
speaks for itself. Respondent admits that, at that time, Gombash owed Respondent an additional
$954.13 beyond the amounts referred to in paragraphs 52 and 55 for services he and his legal
assistant provided and costs he advanced, denies the characterization that Respondent "claimed"
that Gombash owed that amount and denies the characterization that Respondent "claimed" to
have advanced costs.
58. On July 18, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw his appearance forGombash in case number 07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 58.
59. On July 23, 2008, the Honorable Carmen Goodman entered an order grantingRespondent's motion to withdraw from representing Gombash in case number 07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 59. Answering
further, Respondent states that the July 23, 2008 Order speaks for itself.
60. As of the date of Respondent's withdrawal from case number 07 P 893, he had notfiled the inventory in the case, or otherwise provided any services that benefitted Gombash,Evelyn, or her estate.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of the date of Respondent's withdrawal from
case number 07 P 893, he had not filed the inventory in the case, but denies the allegation that he
had nototherwise provided any services that benefitted Gombash, Evelyn or herestate.
61. On July 24, 2008, attorney Edward J. Jarot, Jr. ("Jarot") filed an appearance on
28
behalf of Gombash in case number 07 P 893.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks personal knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 55. Respondent affirmatively states that the Court docket
indicates, Edward Jarot filed his appearance on that date on behalf of Gombash.
62. On August 7, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a billing statement in which heclaimed to be owed an additional $2,615.35 for fees, plus an additional $80.35 for costs forservices completed between June 3, 2008 and August 7, 2008 relating to the administration ofEvelyn's estate. The services listed on Respondent's August 7, 2008 billing statement largelyrelated to Respondent's termination of his representation of Gombash.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 7, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a
billing statement but denies that, in that billing statement, Respondent "claimed to be owed an
additional $2,615.35 for fees for services completed between June 3, 2008 and August 7, 2008."
Respondent affirmatively states that the August 7, 2008 billing statement indicated Gombash
owed Respondent anadditional $2,535.00 for fees for services completed onJune 3,2008through
and including August 7, 2008, which had not been previously billed, relating to theadministration
of Evelyn's estate. Respondent admits that the August 7, 2008 billing statement indicated
Gombash owed Respondent an additional $80.35 for costs incurred between June 3, 2008 and
August 7, 2008 relating to the administration of Evelyn's estate." Respondent denies the
characterization that Respondent "claimed" that Gombash owed those amounts. Further,
Respondent denies that the last sentence of Paragraph 62 completely and accurately reflects the
contents of the billing statement and sodenies that, "The services listed onRespondent's August 7,
2008 billing statement largely related to Respondent's termination of his representation of
Gombash. Respondent affirmatively states that the referenced billing statement speaks for itself.
63. On August 21, 2008, Jarot filed an inventory of Evelyn's property as of February29, 2008, the date that Gombash was appointed as her guardian.
29
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 63. Respondent affirmatively states that the court's docket
indicates that, on August 21, 2008 Jarot filed an inventory of Evelyn's property.
64. On August 30, 2011, as part of his continued effort to collect payment fromGombash, Respondent sent an amendment to final notice for legal services rendered in whichRespondent claimed to be owed $3,569.48 for fees, costs, and interest related to services providedin case number 07 P 849. The services listed on Respondent's August 30, 2011 billing statementlargely related to Respondent's termination of his representation of Gombash.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 30, 2011, Respondent sentGombash an
amendment to final notice of legal services rendered butdenies thatdocument indicated Gombash
owed Respondent an additional $3,569.48 for fees, costs and interest related to services provided
in case number 07 P 849. Respondent affirmatively states that the"Amendment To Final Notice
For [ ] Legal Services Rendered" indicated Gombash owed Respondent $4,572.75 for fees, costs
and interest related to services provided in case number 07 P 849. Respondent denies the
characterization that Respondent "claimed" that Gombash owed that amount. Respondent admits
that the referenced document was sent "as part of [Respondent's] continued effort to collect
payment from Gombash." Respondent denies that the last sentence ofParagraph 64 completely
and accurately reflects the contents ofthe referenced "Amendment To Final Notice For [ ] Legal
Services" and so denies, "The services listed on Respondent's August 30, 2008 billing statement
largely related to Respondent's termination of his representation of Gombash. Respondent
affirmatively states that the referenced "Amendment To Final Notice For [ ] Legal Services"
speaks for itself.
65. At no time between April 16, 2008 and July 23, 2008, the period of time thatRespondent represented Gombash, did Respondent provide services sufficient to justify the feesthat he collected and attempted to collect.
30
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 65.
66. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:
a. breach of fiduciary duty to Joseph Gombash;
b. failure to provide competent representation, in violation of Rule 1.1 of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010)
c. charging unreasonable fees, in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);
d. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice , in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
e. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation set forth in Paragraph 66.
COUNT III
(Failure toprovide competent representation-Lorraine Osterman)
67. On December 14, 2009, Respondent agreed to represent Lorraine Osterman("Osterman") in relation to her efforts recover all property in which she had [an] interest fromDavid Osterman, her son. Pursuant to the representation agreement, Osterman paid Respondent$5,000 retainer to be applied towards anticipated fees and cost[s] and agreed to pay Respondent$225 per hour as his fee for representing her.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on December 14, 2009, Respondent agreed to
represent Lorraine Osterman ("Osterman") in relation to her efforts to recover all property in
which she had an interest from David Osterman, her son and that Osterman agreed to pay
Respondent $225 per hour as his fee for representing her. Respondent denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 67. Respondent affirmatively states that, on or about December 14,
2009, Osterman and Respondent executed a "Security Retainer Agreement" relative to
Respondent's representation of Osterman, which document speaks for itself.
68. Shortly thereafter, Respondent recommended that Osterman allow Respondent to
31
file a petition to be appointed her guardian, claiming that would be the best manner in which toproceed in order to recover her assets.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 68. Respondent
affirmatively states that he recommended to Osterman that a guardianship was a possible option
that should be considered as a means of acquiring the Court's assistance in obtaining information
regarding her assets and recovering her assets.
69 In February, 2010, Respondent arranged for Osterman to have a psychologicalevaluation by Keith A. Baird, Ph.D. ("Dr. Baird") to determine whether Osterman was able tofunction independently.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, in February, 2010, Respondent arranged for
Ostermanto have a psychologicalevaluation by Keith A. Baird, Ph.D. ("Dr. Baird"). Respondent
denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 69. Respondent affirmatively states that, on
February 20 2010 he sent a letter to Dr. Baird, which letter sets forth the reasons Respondent
arranged for Osterman to have a psychological evaluation by Dr. Baird. Respondent additionally
affirmatively states that the February 20, 2010 letter speaks for itself.
70. On March 12, 2010, Dr. Baird sent Respondent a completed report of thepsychological evaluation of Osterman, which stated that Osterman had no cognitive orpsychological issues that could reasonably interfere with her managing her own affairs.Respondent received Dr. Baird's report on March 16, 2010 and reviewed it shortly thereafter.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the date
upon which Dr. Baird sent Respondent a completed report of the psychological evaluation of
Osterman. Respondent admits that Dr. Baird sent Respondent a completed report of the
psychological evaluation but denies that Respondent received Dr. Baird's report on March 16,
2010. Respondent affirmatively states that he received Dr. Baird's report on March 15, 2010.
Respondent admits that he "reviewed it shortly thereafter." Respondent denies that Paragraph 70
32
completely andaccurately setsforth thecontents of the report andstates that saidreport speaks for
itself. Respondent affirmatively states that the report is comprised of nine (9) pages and that, on
page eight (8) of said report, the following quote appears, "There were no cognitive or
psychological issues which could reasonably be expected to interfere with Mrs. Osterman being
able to manage her own affairs, including paying bills, managing bank accounts, budgeting her
money, and living autonomously."
71. On March 30, 2010, Albin M. Osterman, Osterman's husband, filed a petition fordissolution of marriage in Kankakee County. The matter was captioned as In re the Marriage ofAlbin M. Osterman v. Lorraine Osterman, case number 10 D 132.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on March 30, 2010, a petition for dissolution of
marriage was filed inKankakee County onbehalfofAlbin M. Osterman, Osterman's husband, but
Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny that Albin M. Osterman filed
that petition. Respondent admits that the matter was captioned as In re the Marriage ofAlbin M.
Osterman v. Lorraine Osterman, case number 10 D 132.
72. Shortly thereafter, Respondent hired the law firm of Elliot & McClure P.C. toappear [and] file a motion on the grounds offorum non conveniens and to seek to have casenumber 10 D 132 transferred to Will County.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 72. Respondent
affirmatively states that he arranged for the law firm of Elliot & McClure P.C. to appear on
Osterman's behalf in case number 10 D 132 and to file a motion to transfer venue to Will County.
73. On April 9, 2010, Dr. Terrence C. Moisan ("Dr. Moisan"), who had previouslyacted asOsterman's primary physician, wrote a letter at the request ofOsterman for Respondent inwhich Dr. Moisan opined that there was no reason why Osterman should not be able to makepersonal decisions and care for herself. Shortly thereafter, Respondent received and reviewed Dr.Moisan's letter.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 9, 2010, Dr. Terrence C. Moisan ("Dr.
33
Moisan"), who had previously acted as Osterman's primary physician, wrote a letter at the request
of Osterman for Respondent. Respondent also admits that, shortly thereafter, Respondent
received and reviewed Dr. Moisan's letter. Respondent denies that Paragraph 73 completely and
accurately sets forth the contents of the April 9, 2010 letter and that said letter speaks for itself.
Respondent affirmatively states that the following quote appears in Dr. Moisan's letter, "Based on
my interaction with her today, her current compliance with CPAP, and reportedly negative
medical studies by her other physician, I find no reason that she should not be able to make
personal decisions and care for herself at this time."
74. On May 4, 2010, Respondent filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Will County,Probate Division, to be appointed as the plenary guardian for Osterman, without a finding ofdisability. The matter was captioned as In re the Estate of Lorraine Osterman, case number 2010 P326.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that on May 4, 2010, Respondent filed a petition in the
Circuit Court of Will County, Probate Division to be appointed as the plenary guardian for
Osterman, but affirmatively states that the petition sought the appointment of Respondent as the
plenary guardian for Osterman's Estate only. Respondent denies the matter was captioned as "In
re the Estate of Lorraine Osterman, case number 2010 P 326," and affirmatively states the matter
was captioned as, "Estate of Lorraine Osterman", case number 2010 P 326. Respondent
affirmatively states that the Petition For Appointment Of Plenary Guardian speaks for itself.
75. At all times alleged in this complaint, Section 1la-3(b) of the Illinois ProbateAct of1975 (755 ILCS 5/1 la-3(b)), provided that:
guardianship shall be utilized only as necessary to promote the well-being of thedisabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and toencourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence.Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual'sactual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.
ANSWER: Paragraph 75 sets forth legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
34
To the extent an answer may be deemed required, Respondent admits the allegations set forth in
Paragraph 75.
76. At all times alleged in this complaint, Section 1la-2 of the Illinois Probate Act of1975 (755 ILCS 5/1 la-2) defined a disabled person as:
a person 18 years or older who (a) because of mental deterioration or physicalincapacity is not fully able to manage his person or estate, or (b) is a person withmental illness or a person with a developmental disability and who because of hismental illness or developmental disability is not fully able to manage his person orestate, or (c) because of gambling, idleness, debauchery or excessive use ofintoxicants or drugs, so spends or wastes his estate as to expose himself or hisfamily to want or suffering, or (d) is diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome or fetalalcohol effects.
ANSWER: Paragraph 76 sets forth legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
To the extent an answer may be deemed required, Respondent admits the allegations set forth in
Paragraph 76.
77. At the time that Respondent filed the petition seeking to be appointed Osterman'sguardian, based on the findings of Dr. Baird and Dr. Moisan, Osterman did not suffer from anycondition that would qualify her as a disabled person pursuant to Section 1la-2 of the Probate Actof 1975 (755 ILCS 5/1 la-2).
ANSWER: Paragraph 77 sets forth legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
To the extent an answer may be deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations set forth in
Paragraph 77.
78. On May 11, 2010, the Honorable Jeff Allen entered an order appointing EdwardJarot ("Jarot") as the guardian ad litem for Osterman in case number 2010 P 326. Case number2010 P 326 was continued until June 8, 2010.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 78.
79. On June 8, 2010, Jarot filed his report of the guardian ad litem in case number 2010P 326 stating that, in his opinion, after interviewing Respondent, Osterman, and reviewingOsterman's physician's report, the appointment of a guardian for Osterman would be "whollyinappropriate" because Osterman did not qualify as a disabled person, as defined under the ProbateAct. Jarot further opined that a suit in chancery court to recover Osterman's assets would be more
35
appropriate and efficient. Respondent attached copies of both Dr. Baird's and Dr. Moisan's writtenfindings to the petition.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on June 8, 2010, Jarot filed his report of the
guardian ad litem in case number 2010 P 326. Respondent also admits that Respondent attached
copies of both Dr. Baird's and Dr. Moisan's written findings to the petition. Respondent denies
that the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 79 completely and accurately set forth the
contents of the Report of Guardian Ad Litem and that Report speaks for itself. Respondent
affirmatively states that the following quotes appear in the Report of Guardian Ad Litem, "Given
the foregoing, in my opinion the appointment of a Guardian for Respondent is wholly
inappropriate in this case", "Even assuming Mr. Patterson isable to present evidence that her son's
abuse is sufficient to replace Mrs. Osterman's will with his own, in my opinion, that would not be
sufficient for Mrs. Osterman to qualify as a 'disabled person' as defined under the Probate Act"
and, "A suit in chancery to recover her assets seems much more appropriate and efficient in
recovering the property."
80. On July 13, 2010, Respondent filed a petition for appointment of a temporary andlimited guardian for Osterman in case number 2010 P 326.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 80.
81. On July 13, 2010, after argument, Judge Allen dismissed case number 2010 P 326for lack ofjurisdiction.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 81. Respondent
affirmatively states that the Order entered by Judge Allen on July 13, 2010 provides, in part, "The
Court Finds it[] lacks Jurisdiction to enter an Order on all Petitions filed by or on behalf of
Lorraine Osterman" and "The Court orders: 1) all said Petitions are Dismissed for Lack of
Jurisdiction..."
36
82. On August 7, 2010, Osterman, through attorney Lisa Kinser, terminatedRespondent.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 82.
83. On September 30, 2011, Respondent sent Osterman a "corrected statement" whichpurportedly reflected services that Respondent provided to Osterman between December 3, 2009and July 30, 2010. According to Respondent's billing statement, he spent 96.10 hours of billableattorney time, plus an additional 20.80 hours of time provided by Respondent's assistant at a rate of$125.00. Respondent demanded payment of $23,182.50 for fees, plus $511.66 for costs advanced.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 30,2011, Respondent sent Osterman
a "corrected statement" but denies that it which reflected services that Respondent provided to
Osterman between December 3, 2009 and July 30, 2010, and denies the characterization that the
corrected statement "purportedly" reflected the services Respondent provided to Osterman during
that time period. Respondent affirmatively states that the Corrected Statement reflected services
Respondent provided to Osterman between December 3, 2009 and September 2, 2010.
Respondent admits that, according to Respondent's billing statement, he spent 96.10 hours of
billableattorneytime, plus an additional 20.80 hours of time provided by Respondent's assistantat
a rate of $125.00. Respondent denies that he "demanded payment of $23,182.50 for fees, plus
$511.66 for costs advanced."
84. The majority of time for which Respondentbilled Osterman related to his efforts tohave himself appointed her guardian and did not serve the purpose for which Osterman retainedRespondent, which was to recover property that was being held by her son.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 84. Answering
further with respect to the allegation that, "[t]he majority of time for which Respondent billed
Osterman related to his efforts to have himself appointed her guardian", Respondent denies that
allegation completely and accurately sets forth the contents of his billing statements and
affirmatively states that his billing statements speak for themselves.
37
85. At no time between December 14,2009 and August 7,2010, the period of time thatRespondent represented Osterman, did Respondent provide services sufficient to justify the feesthat he collected and attempted to collect from her.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 85. Respondent
affirmatively states that he collected no payment at all at any time from Osterman.
86. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:
a. breach of fiduciary duty
b. overreaching
c. failure to provide competent representation, in violation of Rule 1.1 of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
d. charging an unreasonable fee, in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);
e. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
f. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 86.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COUNT I - GEORGE WASSON
1. The imposition of discipline upon Respondent would violate the requirements of
due process. Rule 1.14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is, on its face and as applied,
unconstitutionally vague.
2. Following the passage of thirty (30) days after the February 28, 2011 denial of
Respondent's 755 ILCS 5/1 la-8 Emergency Petition for Appointment of a Temporary & Plenary
Guardian of the Person & Estate Guardian ad Litem & Adjudication of Disability, the Circuit
38
Court lacked subjectmatterjurisdiction to decide the Guardian Ad Litem's Petition For Recovery
Citation and related pleadings.
3. Following the February 28, 2011 denial of Respondent's 755 ILCS 5/1 la-8
Emergency Petition for Appointment of a Temporary & Plenary Guardian of the Person & Estate
Guardian ad Litem & Adjudication of Disability, the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by the Court
lacked standing to raise any issue before the Court.
COUNT II- LORRAINE OSTERMAN
1. The imposition of discipline upon Respondent would violate the requirements of
due process. Rule 1.14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is, on its face and as applied,
unconstitutionally vague.
RULE 231 RESPONSE
A. Respondent's admissions to practice before other courts or agencies:
ANSWER: Respondent was admitted to the United States Supreme Court in 2005;
Respondent was not assigned a bar or registration number.
B. Other professional licenses orcertificates issued to Respondent:
ANSWER: Respondent has never received any other professional licenses or
certificates.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Brejcha, Jr.Thomas More Society19 South La Salle Street, Suite 604Chicago, IL.60603(312)782-1680
rfryyvtA^> 6^of the Attorneys for Attorney-Respondent
39
Joan M. Mannix
Law Office of Joan M. Mannix135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200Chicago, IL 60603-4300(312)521-5845
STATE OF ILLINOIS )) SS
COUNTY OF COOK)
Re: In the Matter of Lawrence FrancisPatterson, Commission No. 2013 PR 00059
CERTIFICATION
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned certifies that he has read the foregoing Respondent's Answer To
Complaint and that the statements set forth therein to the effect that he lacks sufficient personal
knowledge to admit or deny various allegations are true and correct.
^A VJU&Zf'LAWRENCE FRANCIS PATTERSON