Hearing Board Report and Recommendation

In the Matter of:

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

FILEDJUN - 3 2014

ATTY REG &DISC COMMCHICAGO

JOHN EDWARD FARRELL,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 775231.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD

DEFAULT PROCEEDING

The hearing in this matter was held on May 6, 2014 at the Chicago offices of the

Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), before a Hearing Board Panel

consisting of William E. Hornsby, Jr. Chair, Fredrick H. Bates and Peter B. Kupferberg.

Wendy J. Muchman and Tara Korthals appeared on behalf of the Administrator. Respondent

was not present, and no counsel appeared on his behalf. At the conclusion of the Administrator's

presentation, counsel for the Administrator recommended that Respondent be suspended for

three years and until further order of the Court.

We have considered the Administrator's five-count Complaint,1 a copy of which is

attached as Exhibit 1, the Order entered on March 26, 2014, deeming the allegations of the

Complaint admitted, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2, and the evidence presented by the

Administrator at the hearing. The Administrator submitted a certification from the Registrar of

the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) documenting Respondent's

failure to register with the ARDC. (Adm. Ex. 1). Respondent has no priordiscipline.

Commission No. 2013PR00121

Accordingly,

1. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Respondent, service of the

Administrator's Complaint was made on Respondent by mail, pursuant to

Commission Rule 214(b). Copies of the Proof of Service and supporting Amended

Affidavit are attached as Exhibit 3.

2. This Panel finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in the

acts alleged and committed the misconduct charged in the Complaint.

3. Given Respondent's misconduct, the aggravating evidence and the relevant case law

submitted by the Administrator, we recommend that Respondent, John Edward

Farrell, be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.

4. The Panel has concluded that this form will adequately communicate its

recommendation to the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

William E. Hornsby, Jr.Fredrick H. Bates

Peter B. Kupferberg

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commissionof the Supreme Court of Illinois and keeper of the records, hereby certifies that the foregoing is atrue copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board, approved by each Panelmember, entered in the above entitled cause of record filed in my office on June 3, 2014.

fttMAvdi ^-Q&uJLKenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the

Attorney Registration and DisciplinaryCommission of the Supreme Court of Illinois

MAINLIB #512721 vl

1At the hearing, on the Administrator's oral motion, the Complaint was amended to strike fromthe introductory paragraph the language alleging that Respondent engaged in conduct which

tends to defeat the administration of justice or which brings the courts or legal profession intodisrepute, pursuant to In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767 (Nov. 15, 2013). The removal of thatlanguage does not affect the validity of the order deeming the allegations of the Complaintadmitted, nor does it affect our findings and recommendation.

Exhibit 1


OF THE


AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:



No. 775231.

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

by his attorney, Wendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b) complains of

Respondent, John Farrell, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November

23, 1976, that he engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of

justice or which brings the courts or legal profession into disrepute and subjects Respondent to

discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:

BACKGROUND COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. Between 2005 and 2009, Respondent was the Chief Civil Assistant at DeKalb

County State's Attorney's Office. In June 2009, the DeKalb County Board appointed

Respondent as Interim Acting DeKalb County State's Attorney, as the State's Attorney was

appointed to a judgeship. Respondent served as Acting DeKalb County State's Attorney until

December 2010. After December 2010, the elected State's Attorney, Clay Campbell,

reappointed Respondent, Chief of the DeKalb State's Attorney's Civil division, a position

Respondent held until he resigned onOctober 12, 2012.

FILED

oct ?:< ?m

ATTY REG &DISC COMMCHICAGO

Commission No. _ „ _ .2013PR00121

COUNT I

{Neglect and Misrepresentation)

2. On or about April 18, 2007, the DeKalb County Board passed a resolution

authorizing the office of the State's Attorney of DeKalb County to obtaincertain property owned

by A. Anderson by eminent domain in order to enable widening of a county highway ("Anderson

eminent domain matter.").

3. On or about April 18, 2007, in his capacity in the DeKalb State's Attorney's

Office, Respondent was responsible for pursuing the Anderson eminent domain matter onbehalf

of the County.

4. At no time between April 18, 2007, when Respondent agreed to pursue the

Anderson eminent domain matter, and October 12, 2012, the date of his resignation, did

Respondent take any action to initiate or pursue the Anderson eminent domain matter.

5. Between June 11, 2008, and March 9, 2009, Respondent repeatedly and falsely

stated to William Lorence, then DeKalb County Engineer, and/or Wayne Davey, Support

Services Engineer at the Highway Department) that he had filed the Anderson eminent domain

matter and also gave status updates by e-mail, as set forth in the subparagraphs below.

a. June 11,2008, Respondent to Wayne Davey:

Just want to let you and bill [sic] know we have a discovery cut-off on oureminent domain case with the "unknown owners" ofJuly 30th and a court date onAugust 14. I am hopeful we will have a judgment in our favor by then or shortlythereafter.

b. November 13, 2008, Respondent to William Lorence andWayne Davey:

I answered ready to proceed on the eminent domain case today. Defense counselasked for a continuance to obtain updated comps, and Judge Klein granted themotion over our objection. They are to provide those to me no later thanDecember 22, and the case is now set for hearing on January 8. The wheels ofjustice grind ever so slowly.

c. January 9,2009, Respondent to William Lorence and Wayne Davey:

I just got word from Judge Klein's secretary that the eminent domain trial on theAnderson property scheduled for Jan. 13 is not going due to the fact that therearetwo speedy criminal trial term cases that must go next week. He is taking one andJudge Stuckert the other. I have tried to stress the importance of getting adetermination on this case, but criminal cases apparently take precedence. I willtry to getas shorta dateas possible and call you withthe newtrial date.

d. March 9, 2009, Respondent to Wayne Davey:

...I am meeting with Jim Stoddard on the Anderson/eminent domain or easementabout an easement and payment on the 23rd. Looks like we will avoid a trialwhich was scheduled for the 16th. I have serious issues with Judge Klein rulingsrecently and this would certainly be a better route to go. I will keep you and Billpsoted [sic].

6. Between September 9, 2011, and August 28, 2012, Respondent and DeKalb

County Engineer, Nathan Schwartz, exchanged e-mails regarding the status of the Anderson

eminent domain action, as follows:

a. September 8, 2011, from Schwartz to Respondent:

I have on my calendar that today there should be a ruling on the Andersonproperty. When you find out/get a copy of the decision, please send a copy myway.

b. September 9, 2011, from Respondent to Schwartz:

We did not get the ruling yet. Apparently Judge Klein is keeping the case and ison a road trip/vacation. I have asked his secretary to advise me when she thinkshe will issue a ruling, and I'm waiting to hear back from her...I will keep youposted...

c. August 28, 2012, from Schwartz to Respondent:

I don't think I've asked in awhile...Was the Anderson property ever ruled upon?I think something happened right about the time the Keslinger Road bridgebecame active and so the Anderson property fell to the side. What can you tellme?

d. September 9,2011, from Respondent to Schwartz:

The case has been transferred to Judge Brady. I am noticing it up so we can getmoving.

7. All of Respondent's emails and representations to Lorence, Davey and Schwartz,

as set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6 above regarding the status the Anderson eminent domain

action, were false and Respondent knew they were false when he made them. In fact,

Respondent never filed or otherswise pursued any eminent domain action relating to the

Anderson property.

8. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010,

Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness inrepresenting a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (1990);

b. failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the statusof a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requestsfor information, in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (1990);

c. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonablynecessary to permit the client to make informed decisionsregarding the representation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) ofthe Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

d. conduct prejudicial of the administration of justice, inviolation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (1990);

9. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1,

2010, Respondent hasengaged in the following misconduct:

a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness inrepresenting a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the 2010Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

b. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about thestatus of the matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

c. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonablynecessary to permit the client to make informed decisionsregarding the representation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) ofthe 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

e. conduct prejudicial of the administration of justice, inviolation of Rule 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct.

COUNT II

(Misrepresentation to Opposing Counsel andthe Court)

10. As of November 17, 2011, in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's

Attorneys' office, Respondent was responsible for representation of the County in a matter then

pending in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County as case number 11 TX 72, entitled Hayden

Investments v. DeKalb County Collector.

11. On or about November 8,2011, Judge Kurt Klein seta court date for case number

11 TX 72 for November 17,2011.

12. On or before November 17, 2011, Respondent telephoned DeKalb County State's

Attorney, Clay Campbell, and told Campbell that he would be unable to appear in court on

November 17, 2011, because his wife, Katherine Kamka Farrell, was dying and "receiving last

rites." Campbell telephoned Kevin Drendel, opposing counsel in 11 TX 72, to convey the

information provided by Respondent.

13. On November 17, 2011, Respondent did not appear in 11 TX 72. Drendel

appeared before Judge Klein and informed the court that Respondent's wife was receiving last

rites.

14. As ofJanuary 31,2012, Respondent in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's

Attorney's office, was responsible for representation of the County in another matter then

pending in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County as case number 09 L 03, Luke v. Brittany Branch

and the County ofDeKalb.

15. On January 31, 2012, Respondent appeared before Judge Kurt Klein in case

number 09 L 03. At that court appearance, Respondent made the following statement on the

record:

Mr. Farrell: This is an automobile accident that occurred at Glidden Road andBethany and we're here today for a settlement conference. I informed counsel,and I apologized to them as I apologize to the court, I hoped we wouldn't wastethe court's time today and I think I probably have because of my wife's illnessand my wife's passing has had, you know, an issue of communication with thesetwo gentlemen.

16. Both statements, the one made by Respondent directly to the court, set forth in

paragraph 15 above, and via Mr. Campbell, set forth in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, were false.

Respondent's wife had not received last rites on November 17, 2011, nor had she died as of

January 31, 2012.

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

following misconduct:

a. knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, inviolation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010);

b. failing to correct a false statement of material fact or lawpreviously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, in violation ofRule3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

c. making a false statement of material fact to a third person inviolation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010);

d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010);

e. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, inviolation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010).

COUNT III

(Neglect and Misrepresentation)

18. As of September 2011, in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's Attorneys'

Office, Respondent was responsible for representation of the County in a matter pending in the

Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Panel Built, Inc. v. DeKalb County, DeKalb County Public

Buildings andAggressive Industrial Structures, etal, 11 CH459.

19. On December 22, 2011, an agreed turnover order was entered in case number 11

CH 459, which required the County to turn over $7,100 to the plaintiff. Respondent told Gary

Hansen, the DeKalb County Administrator, andRespondent's contact withrespect to case 11 CH

459, that the payment constituted a settlement of all claims by the plaintiff.

20. Respondent's statement that the $7,100 payment concluded the matter was false

and Respondent knew it was false because he knew that the majority of the plaintiffs claim

against the county was outstanding and that the lawsuit had not been dismissed.

21. In May 2012, Respondent and counsel for the plaintiff, Tina Paries, engaged in

settlement discussions. In June 2012, Respondent made an initial offer on behalf of the County

in the amount of $15,000, which was rejected by the plaintiff, as were several subsequent

settlement offers.

22. On October 9,2012, Respondent sent ane-mail to Paries stating the following:

I just want you to know that at my request, the Public Building Commission hasscheduled a special meeting to discuss this litigation in this matter for tomorrowevening at 6:30. It will be in be in executive session. I intend to lay everythingout and attempt to get to the $50,000 we discussed. I will call you first thingThursday morning to discuss the results.

23. On October 11, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Paries, informing her that he

had received authorization to settle for $45,000.

24. Respondent's statements to Paries, as set forth in 23 above, that the DeKalb

County Public Building Commission had met pursuant to Respondent's request to discuss

settlement in case number 11 CH 459, and that the Committee had given approval for a

settlement of $45,000, were false and Respondent knew they were false. In fact, the

Commission did not meet on October 10, 2012, did not discuss any possible settlement and did

not approve a settlement of $45,000, or of any amount.



a. failure to abide by a client's decision whether to settle a civilmatter in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the 2010 Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct;

b. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness inrepresenting a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the 2010 IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct;

c. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status ofthe matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the 2010 Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct;

d. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary topermit the client to make informed decisions regarding therepresentation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of the 2010 IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct;

e. making a false statement of material fact to a third person inviolation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010).

f. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct;

g. conduct prejudicial ofthe administration ofjustice, in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct.

8

COUNT IV

(Misrepresentations to Opposing Counsel andto the Court)

26. As of September 2011, in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's Attorney's

Office, Respondent was responsible for representation of the County in the matter then pending

in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County as case number 08 MR 280, entitled National Bank and

Trust v. County ofDeKalb. Respondent's contact in that matter was Paul Miller, DeKalb County

Planning Director.

27. On September 6, 2011, the court entered a judgment and order in favor of the

plaintiff in case number 08 MR 280. Both Respondent and counsel for plaintiff, Richard

Schmack, were present in courton September 6, 2011.

28. On or about September 6, 2011, Respondent and Miller discussed the court's

decision in case number 08 MR 280 and Miller directed Respondent to proceed with an appeal of

the court's decision. Respondentagreed to do so.

29. On or about September 19, 2011, plaintiffs counsel Schmack sent an e-mail to

Respondent offering aproposed settlement in case number 08 MR 280: ifDeKalb County would

agree to forego an appeal of the court's September 6, 2011, decision, the plaintiff would agree to

entry of an order modifying the terms of the court's decision.

30. Respondent did not convey the terms ofthe plaintiffs settlement offer to Miller

and did not seek authorization from Miller or any other county official to any settlement.

31. On September 29, 2011, falsely advised Schmack in case number 08 MR 280 that

DeKalb County had agreed to the proposed settlement and would not appeal the case.

32. Respondent's statements to Schmack were false and Respondent knew they were

false because Respondent had not discussed the settlement offer with any County Official.

33. On or about October 7, 2011, Schmack sent a proposed agreed order to

Respondent and on that date, Respondent and Schmack spoke by telephone approving the agreed

order and agreed to present the order to the court in case number 08 MR 280 on October 12,

2011, after the time allowed for an appeal had elapsed (30 days.)

34. On October 12, 2011, an agreed order was entered in case number 08 MR 280

modifying the September 6,2011, order.

35. Respondent did not inform Miller of the entry of the October 12, 2011, agreed

order in case number 08 MR 280.

36. Between September 2011 and September 2012, Miller spoke with Respondent on

several occasions to ask the status of the County's appeal in in case number 08 MR 280. On

each occasion, Respondent advised Miller that the appeal was pending. In September 2012,

Respondent told Miller that the appeal was delayed because Mr. Schmack was running for

State's Attorney of DeKalb County.

37. Respondent's statements to Miller were false and Respondent knew they were

false when he made them, because Respondent knew that case number 08 MR 280 had been

concluded by agreed order on October 12, 2011.

38. On October 10, 2012, Miller happened to speak to Schmack about a matter

unrelated to case number 08 MR 280, and mentioned his beliefthat the appeal of the decision in

case number 08 MR 280 was pending. Schmack informed Miller that case number 08 MR 280

had been resolved by agreed order inOctober 2011 and that no appeal had ever been filed.

39. Shortly after his conversation with Schmack on October 10, 2012, Miller

telephoned Respondent to discuss Schmack's statements regarding case number 08 MR 280.

Respondent expressed surprise to Miller and stated that in fact, Respondent had been working on

10

the appeal of the September 2011 decision in case number 08 MR 280 for many months.

Respondent told Miller that he would "try to figure out what was going on" and call Miller back.

40. After Miller's telephone call with Respondent, Miller contacted Schmack, who e-

mailed Miller with a screen-capture of a record of case number 08 MR 280 from the Clerk of the

Circuit Court of DeKalb County, which concluded with the October 12, 2011, agreed order.

41. Miller forwarded Schmack's e-mail to Respondent and then telephoned

Respondent shortly thereafter asking for an explanation. Respondent stated that he had left a

message with Mr. Schmack requesting an explanation. Respondent told Miller that he had never

seen the agreed order, knew nothing about it, and that it had been entered at a time when

Respondent was dealing with his wife's cancer, from which she eventually died. Miller

informed Respondent that he had heard that Respondent's wife was, in fact, alive. Respondent

told Miller that he had "heard this rumor before" and that "it breaks my heart." Respondent told

Miller that "my wife died in January" and "this is the kind of thing that makes me want to resign

and walk away." Miller apologized to Respondent for his comments and Respondent advised

Miller thathe mayhaveto file a motion for reconsideration in case number 08 MR 280.

42. Respondent's statement that he had left a voice mail for Schmack, that he knew

nothing ofthe October 10, 2011, agreed order and that he was dealing with his wife's cancer in

October of 2011, were all false andRespondent knew they were false when he made them.

43. On October 12, 2012, Schmack sent a letter to then DeKalb County State's

Attorney Clay Campbell setting forth the circumstances ofthe settlement ofcase number 08 MR

280 and his recent communications with Miller.

11

44. On October 12. 2012, Campbell met with Respondent and confronted him with

Schmack's letter. Respondent acknowledged to Campbell that he had lied to Miller about filing

an appeal in case number 08 MR 280 and resigned his position as assistant State's Attorney.



a. failure to abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter inviolation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct;

b. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness inrepresenting a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the 2010 IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct;

c. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status ofthe matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the 2010 Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct;

d. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary topermit the client to make informed decisions regarding therepresentation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of the 2010 IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct;

e. making a false statement of material fact to a third person inviolation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010).

f. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct;

g. conduct prejudicial of the administration ofjustice, inviolation ofRule 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

12

COUNTV

(Misrepresentations to theARDC)

46. At all times alleged in this complaint, 720 ILCS 5/17-3 was in effect. The statute

provides:

A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, heknowingly makes makes a false document or alters any documentto make it false and that document is apparently capable ofdefrauding another; or issues or delivers such document knowing itto have been thus made or altered.

47. On or about August 15, 2012, Judge Klein reported Respondent's statements to

the court in the above matters to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, and

stated that he had been informed that Respondent's wife was, in fact, still living. The ARDC

opened investigation number 2012IN04141 as a result.

48. On August 22, 2012, counsel for the Administrator, Wendy Muchman, sent a

letter to Respondent asking Respondent to provide a written response to the charge of Judge

Klein.

49. By letter dated October 3, 2012, Respondent responded in writing. Respondent's

letter set forth the purported history his wife had with cancer, beginning in 2008. Respondent

stated the following:

During the latter part of2010 through 2011, Katherine's condition stabilized for atime and then became increasingly difficult. Finally, in October of 2011, it wasdetermined medically that Katherine was not going to recover. She made thedecision that she no longer wished to stay in Sycamore, but wanted to go back toArizona. I agreed and moved her. For the next two months or so, I spentsignificant time away with Katherine. Sadly, that ended without me being presentwhen she passed. I lost my best friend and soulmate. Katherine was a veryspiritual person who always told me towalk inawareness.

50. Respondent attached a "certification of cause of death" for Katherine Louise

Farrell from the state of Arizona with his October 3, 2012, response, purportedly signed by

13

registered nurse practitioner Julianne J. Bendale, reflecting a date of death of January 4, 2012,

and cause of death as cardiac arrest due to lung cancer, as a consequence of cervical cancer.

51. The certification of cause of death produced by Respondent together with his

response was fabricated by Respondent or someone acting at his direction. Respondent knew

that the certificate of death was false when he sent it to the ARDC.

52. On October 16, 2012, Judge Robbin Stuckert submitted correspondence to the

Administrator alleging that Respondent made misrepresentations to his client in case number 08

MR 280.

53. On or about November 15, 2012,DeKalbCounty State's Attorney Clay Campbell

submitted correspondence to the Administrator alleging that Respondent made

misrepresentations to a county official, also in case number 08 MR 280.

54. On or about December 18, 2012, counsel for the Administrator wrote to

Respondent to inform Respondent of the additional charges submitted by Clay Campbell and

Judge Stuckert and requesting that Respondent submit a written response to those charges.

55. By letter dated January 2, 2013, Respondent requested anextension, stating:

Beginning December 17, 2012 and through January 1, 2013, I have been caringfor my very ill sister in Iowa. Upon my return to Chicago, I discovered yourletter...1 therefore respectfully request30 days to respond...

56. Respondent's statement in his January 2, 2013, letter was false. Respondent has

one sister, who has not seen Respondent in approximately 8 years.

57. By letter dated February 1, 2013, Respondent submitted a written response to the

charges ofJudge Stuckert and Clay Campbell. In his response, Respondent stated:

During the months leading up to trial [in September 2011], I was going throughan extremely stressful time with an illness in my family. I was torn between myduties and responsibilities in the office and in my personal situation.. .1 simply did

14

not get the notice filed in a timely fashion in the days that followed, most ofwhich I was absent from the Office dealing with things as best I could.

58. Respondent's statement about an illness in his family as set forth in his February

1, 2013, response was false. Respondent was not dealing with an illness in his family.

59. On December 3, 2012, DeKalb County State's Attorney Clay Campbell was

replaced by Richard Schmack.

60. On April 1, 2013, Schmack filed a request for investigation with the ARDC

regarding Respondent's conduct with respect to the Anderson eminent domain matter, set forth

in count I, above. The Administrator opened investigation number 2013IN01823 as a result.

61. On May 15, 2013, counsel for the Administrator sent a letter to Respondent

requesting that Respondent respond in writing to Schmack's charge.

62. On May 28, 2013, Respondent sent a letter to counsel for the Administrator. In

his letter, Respondent requested an extension of time to respond, stating:

I have attempted to schedule to meet with my counsel but due to his schedule andMemorial Day plans and my taking care of an ill sister, I have not yet had theopportunity to meetwith himto discuss the matter and response thereto.

63. Respondent did not provide a name of counsel with whom he purported he was

consulting. Respondent's statement that he was caring for an ill sister was false, and Respondent

knew it was false as Respondent has only one sister whom he has not seen since approximately

2005.

64. On June 28, 2013, Respondent submitted a written response to the charge of

Schmack.

65. On July 22, 2013, counsel for the Administrator sent a letter and subpoena to

Respondent at his registered business address compelling his appearance at Chicago Commission

offices on September 11, 2013. The letter and subpoena were returned as unclaimed and on

15

August 20, 2013, a second letter and subpoena were mailed to Respondent at his registered home

address.

66. By letter dated September 6, 2013, Respondent stated as follows:

On August 10, 2013, I traveled with my daughter to help her move back tocollege for her senior year. I became seriously ill while there and was admitted toUniversity Hospitals in Iowa City, where I underwent emergency stomach/colonsurgery and was diagnosed with advanced stage cancer. I was released from thehospital on September 5, but I am too weak to travel back to Chicago and mustundergo follow-up exams and chemotherapy for the next 30 to 60 days. My sonand daughter are helping meto get to mysister's home where I will be staying forthe time being under their loving care and watchful eye.

Respondent provided an address for his sister in the letter, but did not provide a telephone

number, nor did Respondent provide any document, name of a doctor, or any other means to

verify his purported illness.

67. Respondent's statement in his September 6, 2013, letter regarding residing with

his sister was false and Respondent knew it was false. The address provided by Respondent was

a former address for his sister and Respondent has not seen his only sister since approximately

2005.



a. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer'shonesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer by committing thecrime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation ofRule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);

b. making a statement of material fact known by the lawyer to befalse, in connection with a lawyer disciplinary matter, in violationofRule 8.1(a) ofthe Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010);

16

d. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, inviolation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010); and

WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of

the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions

of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.

Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, AdministratorAttorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission

Wendy J. MuchmanCounsel for the Administrator

One Prudential Plaza

130 East Randolph Drive, Suite, 1500Chicago, Illinois 60601Telephone: (312) 565-2600MAINLIB #479585 vl

17

U\fJX^

Exhibit 2


OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATIONAND


In the Matter of:



No. 775231.

ORDER

Apre-hearing conference was held in this matter on March 26, 2014, at 9:45 a.m. by

telephone. Participating were William E. Hornsby, Jr., Chair and Wendy J. Muchman, Counselfor the Administrator. The Clerk ofthe Commission attempted to contact Respondent, but was

unsuccessful and Respondent did not participate. Counsel for the Administrator advised the

Chair as to the status of the matter. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Administrator's Motion to Deem the Allegations of the Complaint Admitted

Pursuant to Commission Rule 236 and Bar Respondent from Presenting Witnesses at Hearing

Pursuant to Commission Rule 253 is entered and continued;

2. Ahearing in this matter is scheduled for May 6, 2014, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the

Chicago offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, located at One

Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 800; and

3. Each party shall appear at the hearing with 5(five) copies of all documentary exhibits

prepared in conformance with Commission Rule 276.

PILEDMAR I 62014

AnYREO&DJSCCOMMCHICAGO


CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commissionof the Supreme Court of Illinois and keeperof the records, hereby certifies that the foregoing is atrue copy of the order, approved by the Hearing Board Chair, entered in the above entitled causeof record filed in my office on March 26, 2014.

Kenneth G. Jabldhski, Clerk of theAttorney Registration and Disciplinary

Commission of the Supreme Court of IllinoisMAINLIB #500721 vl

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Andrea L. Watson, on oath state that I served a copy of this Order on the Attorney-Respondent listed at the addresses shown below by regular mail by depositing it with properpostage prepaid, by causing the same to be deposited in the U.S. Mailbox at One PrudentialPlaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601 on March 26, 2014, at or before 5:00p.m. At the same time, a copyof this Order was delivered to Counsel for the Administrator.

John Edward Farrell

Attorney-RespondentLaw Office of John Farrell

1439 S. ProspectPark Ridge, IL 60068-5346

Subscribed and sworn to before methis 26th day ofMarch, 2014.

Notary Public

•OFFICIAL SEAL"MICHELLETHOME

♦

♦

i,jssrsE&i

John Edward Farrell

Attorney-Respondent6458 N. Northwest HighwayChicago, IL 60631-1412

Andrea L. Watson

Exhibit 3


OF THE


AND


M I Ln Cm &Jr

JAN 2 3 2014

In the Matter of:

ATTY REG & DISC COMMCHICAGO



No. 6194460.

ADMINISTRATOR'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 214(b)

I, Denise N. Manolis, state under oath that I personally mailed copies of the Complaint,

Notice of Complaint, Order Assigning the Chairperson of the Hearing Panel, Rules of the

Supreme Court of Illinois, a letter pursuant to Commission Rule 260 and a Memorandum

Regarding Pre-Hearing Conference Procedures by ordinary mail, postage fully prepaid, and

certified mail, postage fully prepaid and return receipt requested, directed to Respondent, John

Edward Farrell, at his address shown on the Master Roll, 1439 South Prospect, Park Ridge, IL

60068-5346 and 6458 N. Northwest Highway, Apt. 3, Chicago, IL 60631-1412, by causing the

same to be deposited in the United States mailbox located at 130 East Randolph,^Chicago,

Illinois, on January 22, 2014, at or before 5:00 p.mT

Subscribed and sworn to before methis 23rd day of January, 2014.

C/rfdnA /T /r^OTARY PUBLIC

►♦«♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦$•OFFICIAL SEAL" *

* JOHN R.KELLY ♦;; Notary Public.SWeoflUJnote^•mssssssassBxat


BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD _ „ f-° f-\OF THE F I L C U

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION BAND JAN 2 3 2014

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION d

i ti. « f ^ ATTY REG &DISC COMMIn the matter of: ) «" CHICAGO

John Edward Farrell,


No. 775231.


AMMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANT CHERYL BAUER

PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 214(b)

I, CHERYL BAUER ("Affiant"), being first duly sworn, hereby state:

1. Affiant possesses firsthand knowledge of the facts presented in this affidavit and,

if called as a witness, Affiant will testify to the truth of the facts as presented in this Affidavit.

2. Affiant is an Investigative Assistant for the Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois ('"the Commission") and, as such, is

authorized to make personal service of process pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 765(a) and

Commission Rule 215(1).

3. As set forth below, despite Affiant's good faith efforts and repeated attempts to

personally serve John Edward Farrell ("Respondent") with documents related to this matter,

service remains unsuccessful.

Affiant's Attempts to Serve Respondent with the Complaint.

4. On October 23, 2013, Affiant wasrequested to personally serve Respondent with

a Copy of Complaint 2013 PR 121, Notice ofComplaint, Order Assigning Chairperson of the

Hearing Panel, Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Memorandum regarding Pre-hearing

Conference Procedures, and a letter pursuant to Commission Rule 260 ("Complaint Packet").

MAINJ.IH_#4'Jl(i4.V_vl

5. On October 23, 2013, Affiant confirmed on the Commission's Master Roll

the Respondent had last registered with the Commission in the year 2013.

6. On October 23, 2013, Affiant checked the Commission's Master Roll and located

the Respondent's last known business address at 1439 S. Prospect Ave. Park Ridge, Illinois

60068.

7. On October 29, 2013, Affiant ran an Accurint report and located another possible

address for Respondent at 6458 N. Northwest Highway Apt. 3., Chicago, Illinois 60631.

8. On October 29, 2013, at or around 4:45pm, Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect

Ave. in Park Ridge, Illinois, the Respondent's last registered business address. 1439 S. Prospect

Ave is a single-family home residence. Affiant rang the doorbell and knocked numerous times,

but there was no answer. Affiant left a business card in the front door and left the premises.

9. On October 29, 2013, at or around 5:15pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest

Highway in Chicago, Illinois. 6458 N. Northwest Highway is a condo complex. Affiant was able

to get in the initial front door; however there is a second door and buzzer box in order to be let in

to the condos. The buzzer box was on the left hand side and mailboxes for residences were on

the right. The Respondent's name was on the buzzer box as well as a mailbox. Affiant buzzed

Respondent's name numerous times, but there was no answer. Affiant left a business card by the

Respondent's mailbox and left the premises.

10. On November 1, 2013, after not hearing from Respondent, at or around 1:20pm,

Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant's card was still in the

door from the previous attempt. Affiant knocked and rang the doorbell multiple times, but there

was no answer. Affiant left another businesscard in the front door and left the premises.

11. On November 1, 2013, at or around 1:35pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest

Highway in Chicago, Illinois. After ringing the Respondent's buzzer box without a response,

MA1NI.IH #4';iMVvl

Affiant knocked on the main door. A neighbor answered the door and recalled the Respondent's

name, but stated that he was not home if he did not answer. The neighbor gave the Affiant a

better time to reach the Respondent. Affiant noticed that the first business card left was gone

from the mailbox, so Affiant left another one and left the premises.

12. On November 4, 2013, after not hearing from Respondent, at or around 7:20pm,

Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant noticed the cards from

the previous two attempts were gone. After numerous times of ringing the doorbell and knocking

without an answer, Affiant left another business card in the front door and left the premises.

13. On November 4, 2013, Affiant spoke with a neighbor at 1435 S. Prospect Ave in

Park Ridge, Illinois. The neighbor did not recall the Respondent living at that address; he never

saw Respondent there, only a woman and children.

14. On November 4, 2013, at or around 7:45pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest

Highway in Chicago, Illinois. Affiant rang the bell in relation to Respondent, however there was

no answer. Affiant then rang a different bell and a gentleman came out. When asked about

Respondent, the neighbor said he did not know of an individual by that name living at the

complex. Affiant left another business card for Respondent by the mailbox and left the premises.

15. On November 5, 2013, Affiant checked the Commission's Master Roll for the

Respondent's last known business phone number. Affiant called Respondent at 847-692-3703.

The phone number was disconnected.

16. On November 5, 2013, Affiant located the Respondent's last known home phone

number according to Law Manager at 773-304-8070. That number was disconnected.

17. On November 5, 2013, Affiant called the number associated with the address at

6458 N. Northwest Highway from the Accurint report and left a voicemail.

MAINI.IB_#4yi643_vl

18. On November 5, 2013, through prior knowledge obtained during the ARDC

investigation, Affiant confirmed the phone number 815-985-7164 listed for Respondent was for

the State's Attorney's Office. Affiant confirmed the Respondent has not been at that location for

over a year.

19. On November 6, 2013, after not hearing from Respondent, at or around 7:30am,

Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant again noticed that the

cards from the previous attempts were gone. After no answer at the door, Affiant left another

business card in the door and left the premises.

20. On November 6, 2013, at or around 7:50am, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest

Highway in Chicago, Illinois. Affiant's card was gone from the previous attempt. Affiant left

another business card by the mailbox after no response at the door. Affiant noticed a realty sign

outside the door and noted the information before leaving the premises.

21. On November 6, 2013, Affiant called the realtor, Mark Davey at 773-412-5386 in

relation to the 6458 N. Northwest Highway property and left a voicemail.

22. On November 7, 2013, after not hearing back from Mr. Davey, Affiant emailed

him at mdavey(a)Rubloff.com requesting he contact Affiant.

23. On November 12, 2013, Affiant had received a voicemail from Mr. Davey.

Affiant called Mr. Davey back and asked about Respondent. Mr. Davey said he never dealt with

the Respondent.

24. On November 14, 2013, Affiant accessed the Cook County Treasure's website

and obtained the property identification number for Respondent. According to the website, the

address of 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge Illinois is still registered to the Respondent.

25. On November 14, 2013, Affiant received instruction from Wendy Muchman, the

attorney assigned to this matter, to attempt service one more time.

MAINI.IB_#4'J164S_vl

26. On November 15, 2013, at or around 6:35am, Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect

Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Again, there was no answer at the door. Affiant spoke with a

neighbor across the street at 1501 Granville about Respondent. The neighbor recalled the last

name, but not for the Respondent. The neighbor stated only knowing the last name for a woman

and children. Affiant left another business card and left the premises.

27. On November 15, 2013 Affiant requested an attorney case listing for the

Respondent.

28. On November 15, 2013, Affiant confirmed with registration that the Respondent

had most recently changed his address on the Master Roll of attorneys to 1439 S. Prospect Ave

Park Ridge Illinois on August 8, 2013.

29. On November 18, 2013, Affiant received an email stating that there was no

attorney case listing available for Respondent.

30. On November 19, 2013 Affiant confirmed on the Cook County Treasure's

website that the residence at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge Illinois is listed under the

Respondent's name and the taxes were paid on February 16, 2013 and July 16, 2013.

31. As of present, Affiant has not received any communication from Respondent.

Affiant's Service of the Complaint Pursuant to Commission Rule 214(b).

32. As set forth above, upon due inquiry, Respondent cannot be located, and to

Affiant's best information and belief, Respondent has concealed himselfwithin the state so that

process cannot be served upon him.

33. In the original affidavit, it was represented that Affiant provided Respondent with

proper service of the complaint packet in the above-referenced matter, which requires mailing

the complaint to Respondent at his last known address on the Master Roll.

34. On January 15, 2014, it was determined that by mistake, the complaint had not

MAINI.IB #49K>4.VvI

been mailed to Respondent.

35. As a result of the failure to mail the complaint to Respondent, John R. Kelly,

Senior Investigator, requested Affiant make several additional attempts at personal service of

Respondent.

36. Accordingly, on January 15, 2014 at or around 4:00pm, Affiant arrived at 1439 S.

Prospect Avenue in Park Ridge, Illinois to attempt proper service upon Respondent. There was

no answer at the door; Affiant left her business card and left the premises.

37. On January 15, 2014 at or around 4:20pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest

Highway in Chicago, Illinois. Affiant noticed that Respondent's name was still on the buzzer

box; however it was no longer on the mailbox. Affiant rang the bell in correlation to

Respondent's name and a gentleman came out. Affiant asked about Respondent and the

gentleman said that unit is currently empty and no one lives there. Affiant thanked him for his

time and left the premises.

38. On January 16, 2014 at or around 7:45am, Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect

Avenue in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant noticed that her card from the previous day was still in

the door and the mail had not yet been checked. After ten minutes, Affiant left another business

card and left the premises.

39. As of present, Affiant has not received any communication from Respondent.

40. As of the date of filing thisaffidavit, a copy of the complaint is being mailed to

Respondent to the address on the Master Roll of 1439 S. Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, Illinois

60068 as well as 6458 N. Northwest Highway Apt. 3., Chicago, Illinois 60631.

41. Further Affiant sayeth not.

MAINUH_#4!>H>43_v1

Subscribed and sworn to before me

on this 23rd day ofJanuary, 2014.

'tfUs PNOTARY PUBLIC

\ -OFFICIAL SEAL" \I JOHN R.KELLY ♦X Nor^fn»Wic.StateoflUinois ♦

♦MyCommisston ExpiresJJgJgDlo^

MAINl.IB_#491fi43_vl

Cheryl BauerInvestigative Assistant

Date post:	19-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daily-chronicle
View:	4,056 times
Download:	0 times

Hearing Board Report and Recommendation

Documents