Nowcomes Respondent, Elena Gallo, byherattorney, JamesA ...Plainfield, IL 60586". The invoice...

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

ELENA GALLO,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6277504.

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now comes Respondent, Elena Gallo, by her attorney, James A. Doppke, Jr., Robinson

Law Group, LLC, and for her answer to the Administrator's Complaint, states as follows:

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. Between February 8, 2016, and July 27, 2016, Respondent practiced law as a

non equity partner at the law firm SmithAmundsen LLC ("SmithAmundsen"). During that

time, she worked at SmithAmundsen's office in Chicago, Illinois.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1.

2. While Respondent was working as a partner at SmithAmundsen, she

concentrated her law practice in real estate matters.


3. On July 27, 2016, SmithAmundsen terminated Respondent's employment.


Comm. No. 2017PR00101

RaquelT

Filed - ARDC Clerk - Today's Date

COUNT I

{Allegeddishonesty and changing fees without client's knowledge -Glanville/Wright sale ofAurora property)

4. On April 4, 2016, SmithAmundsen, Crystal Glanville and Smauel [sic] Wright

agreed that SmithAmundsen would represent Glanville and Wright in the sale of Glanville's

and Wright's home located at 772 Four Seasons Road in Aurora ("the Aurora property") to

James Acevedo. Respondent handled the representation of Glanville and Wright in this

transaction as a partner of SmithAmundsen. Respondent, Glanville and Wright agreed that

SmithAmundsen's fee for legal services related to the representation of Glanville and Wright

in this transaction would be a flat fee of $875, to be collected at closing.


5. At no time between April 4,2016, and June 23,2016, the date the parties closed,

did Respondent advise Glanville or Wright that they would be responsible for any fees or

payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent, other than the $875 attorney fee. Further, at

no time between April 4,2016, and June 23, 2016, did Glanville or Wright agree to a greater

attorney fee with respect to the Aurora property transaction, other than the $875 attorney

fee.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5.

6. The parties had agreed that Citywide Title Corporation ("Citywide Title")

would serve as title insurer and would prepare closing documents for the transaction. On

June 16, 2016, Respondentsent an emaildirectingCitywide Title to add two charges in the

closing documents: $1,500 payable to SmithAmundsen as the sellers' attorney fee, and

$1,875 payable to SmithAmundsen for "reimbursements from Seller for closing and doc

prep."


7. Respondent's statement that the sellers' attorney fee was $1,500 was false,

because the fee was only $875. Respondent's statement that SmithAmundsen was to be

reimbursed $1,875 "for closing and doc prep" was false, because at no time did Respondent

or SmithAmundsen spend money on closing or document preparation related to the Aurora

property transaction that would entitle SmithAmundsen to reimbursement of $1,875. At the

time Respondent made those statements, she knew they were false.


8. On June 23, 2016, the parties closed on the sale of the Aurora property. Prior

to the closing, Respondent told Glanville and Wright that they did not need to attend the

closing but instead could execute powers of attorney authorizing Respondent to execute the

closing paperwork on their behalf. Glanville and Wright followed Respondent's suggestion,

executed powers of attorney, and did not attend the closing. At the closing, pursuant to

Respondent's direction, and unbeknownst to Glanville and Wright, Glanville and Wright

were debited $1,500 for sellers' attorney fees to SmithAmundsen, and $1,875 for

"reimbursements from Seller for closing and doc prep" to SmithAmundsen. Citywide Title

tendered to Respondent two checks payable to SmithAmundsen in the amounts of $1,500

and $1,875.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first and second

sentences of paragraph 8. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence

of paragraph 8, except for any and all allegations contained in the words "unbeknownst to

Glanville and Wright."

9. Sometime between June 23, 2016, and July 8, 2016, Respondent tendered to

SmithAmundsen the $1,875 check, but not the $1,500 check. Instead, Respondent altered the

$1,500 check payable to SmithAmundsen so that the check read, "Pay to the order of Gallo

Law Group Ltd. c/o SmithAmundsen LLC". Respondent then deposited the check into an

account at JP Morgan Chase Bank in the name of Gallo Law Group Ltd., on which Respondent

was the sole signatory.


10. Sometime between July 8, 2016, and July 18, 2016, Larry Schechtman, a

partner at SmithAmundsen, and Mari Ann Novy, SmithAmundsen's assistant general counsel,

discovered that Citywide Title issued a $1,500 check payable to SmithAmundsen which

SmithAmundsen never received. At no time prior to this did Respondent notify anyone at

SmithAmundsen about the existence of the $1,500 check.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of

paragraph 10, upon information and belief. Respondent denies the allegations contained in

the second sentence of paragraph 10 as alleged, and she specifically denies that she had any

obligation to notify anyone at SmithAmundsen about the existence of the $1,500 check.

Further answering, Respondent states that the file materials she maintained in connection

with the Glanville-Wright transaction were in the possession of SmithAmundsen, and she did

not conceal them from SmithAmundsen.

11. Respondent's conduct of altering the $1,500 check and depositing it into an

account in the name of Gallo Law Group Ltd. without notifying SmithAmundsen was

dishonest, because the check was issued to SmithAmundsen and Respondent was not

entitled to the money.Atthe time Respondent altered the $1,500 check and deposited it into

an account in the name of Gallo Law Group Ltd. without notifying SmithAmundsen, she knew

that conduct was dishonest.


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

following misconduct:

a. charging or collecting an unreasonable fee or anunreasonable amount for expenses, by conduct includingcharging and collecting from Glanville and Wright a$1,500 sellers' attorney fee, and a $1,875 fee for"reimbursements from Seller for closing and doc prep",with respect to the Aurora property transaction, inviolation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);

b. failure to communicate any changes in the basis or rateof the fee or expenses to the client, by conduct includingfailing to communicate to Crystal Glanville and SamuelWright that Respondent changed the attorney's fee forthe sale of the Aurora property from $875 to $1,500, inviolation of Rule 1.5(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, including: (1) directing CitywideTitle to include a sellers' attorney fee of $1,500 withoutGlanville's and Wright's knowledge or consent, (2)directing Citywide Title to include an additional chargeof $1,875 for "reimbursements from Seller for closingand doc prep" without Glanville's and Wright'sknowledge or consent, and (3) altering the $1,500 checkand depositing it into an account in the name of GalloLaw Group Ltd. without SmithAmundsen's knowledge orconsent, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 12 are not factual, but rather

state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extentan answer isdeemed

required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12.

COUNT II

(Alleged dishonesty and changingfees without client's knowledge -Glanville/Wright purchase ofPlainfield property)

13. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 4 through 11 of Count I, above.

ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges her answers to paragraphs 4 through

11 of Count I, above.

14. Between April 4, 2016 and April 12, 2016, SmithAmundsen, Glanville and

Wright agreed that SmithAmundsen would represent Glanville and Wright in the purchase

of a home located at 1817 Chestnut Hill Road in Plainfield ("the Plainfield property") from

Robert and Tanya Weeks. Respondent handled the representation of Glanville and Wright in

this transaction as a partner of SmithAmundsen. Respondent and Glanville and Wright

agreed that SmithAmundsen's fee for legal services related to the representation of Glanville

and Wright in this transaction would be a flat fee of $875, to be collected at closing.


15. At no time between April 4,2016, and June 23,2016, the date the parties closed,

did Respondent advise Glanville or Wright that they would be responsible for any fees or

payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent with respect to purchase of the Plainfield

property, other than the $875 attorney fee. Further, at no time between April 4, 2016, and

June 23, 2016, did Glanville or Wright agree that they would be responsible for any fees or

payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent with respect to the Plainfield property

transaction, other than the $875 attorney fee.


16. The parties had agreed that First American Title Insurance Company ("First

American Title") would serve as title insurer and would prepare closing documents for the

transaction. On June 20, 2016, Respondent sent an email directing First American Title to

include two charges in the closing documents: $1,875 payable to SmithAmundsen as the

buyers' attorney fee, and $1,025 payable to Elena Gallo for "closing documents

reimbursement".


17. Respondent's statement to First American Title that the buyers' attorney fee

was $1,875 was false, because the fee was only $875. Respondent's statement that

SmithAmundsen was to be reimbursed $1,025 closing documents reimbursement [sic] was

false, because at no time did Respondent or SmithAmundsen spend money on closing

documents related to the Plainfield property transaction that would entitle SmithAmundsen

to reimbursement of $1,025. At the time Respondent made those statements, she knew they

were false.


18. On June 21,2016, Lizzenid Cabassa ("Cabassa") of First American Title advised

Respondent via email that Glanville's and Wright's lender had requested invoices for

SmithAmundsen's attorney fee and for the "closing documents reimbursement" charge

referenced in paragraph 16, above. The same day, Respondent prepared a document entitled,

"Invoice for Legal Services and Reimbursements for the Purchase of 1817 Chestnut Hill Rd.,

Plainfield, IL 60586". The invoice stated, "Elena Gallo - Direct reimbursement for closing

documentation - Total $1025.00". Respondent then emailed the invoice to Cabassa.


19. Respondent's statement in paragraph 18,above,that she was to be reimbursed

for closing documentation was false, because at no time did Respondent spend money on

closing documents related to the Plainfield property transaction that would entitle her to

reimbursement of$1,025. At the time Respondent made the statement, she knew it was false.


20. On June 23,2016, the parties closed on the purchase of the Plainfield property.

Glanville and Wright attended the closing with Respondent. During the closing, Respondent

directed Glanville and Wright to sign numerous documents, including the closing statement

reflecting the increased buyers' attorney fee and the $1,025 for "closing documents

reimbursement." However, Respondent did not identify or explain those charges to Glanville

and Wright. Glanville and Wright signed the documents, including the closing statement,

unaware of those additional charges.


paragraph 20. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of

paragraph 20, except that she denies that she "directed" Glanville or Wright to sign any

documents. Further answering, Respondent states that she explained each document

requiring Glanville's and Wright's signatures to them, and they willingly signed the

documents. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the third and fourth sentences

of paragraph 20.

21. Pursuant to Respondent's direction, at the closing Glanville and Wrightwere

debited $1,875 for buyers' attorney fees to SmithAmundsen, and $1,025 for "closing

documents reimbursement" to Respondent. First American Title tendered two checks to

Respondent: a check payable to SmithAmundsen in the amount of $1,875, and a check

payable to Respondent in the amountof$1,025.

8

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of

paragraph 21 as alleged. Further answering, Respondent states that at Glanville's and

Wright's direction, and pursuant to the closing statement they reviewed and signed, First

American Title caused $1,875 to be disbursed via check to SmithAmundsen, and $1,025 to

be disbursed via check to Respondent. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the

second sentence of paragraph 21.

22. On or about June 24, 2016, Respondent deposited the $1,025 check into an

account at JP MorganChase Bankin the name of Gallo LawGroup Ltd., on which Respondent

was the sole signatory (Respondent's personal and business account). Respondent used this

account for personal and business purposes.




a. charging or collecting an unreasonable fee or anunreasonable amount for expenses, by conduct includingcharging and collecting from Glanville and Wright a$1,875 buyers' attorney fee and a $1,025 charge for"closingdocuments reimbursement", with respect to thePlainfield property transaction, in violation of Rule 1.5(a)of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

b. failure to communicate any changes in the basis or rateof the fee or expenses to the client, by conduct includingfailing to communicate to Crystal Glanville and SamuelWright that Respondent changed the attorney's fee forthe purchase of the Plainfield property from $875 to$1,875, in violation of Rule 1.5(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) directingFirst American Title to include a sellers' attorney fee of$1,875 without Glanville's and Wright's knowledge orconsent, (2) directing First American Title to include an

additional $1,025 charge for "closing documentsreimbursement" without Glanville's and Wright'sknowledge or consent, and (3) preparing and tenderingto First American Title an invoice with the language,"Elena Gallo - Direct reimbursement for closingdocumentation Total $1025.00", in violation of Rule 8.4(c)of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).


state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed


COUNT HI

{Alleged dishonesty regarding SmithAmundsen's investigation ofRespondent's conduct inGlanville/Wright transactions)

24. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 4 through 11 of Count I and

paragraphs 14 through 22 in Count II, above.

ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges her answers to paragraphs 4 through

11 of Count I, above, and paragraphs 14 through 22 of Count II, above.

25. On July 8, 2016, Glanville called SmithAmundsen and left a voicemail message

expressing concern about the amount of fees charged at the closings on the Aurora and

Plainfield properties. That same day, Larry Schechtman ("Schechtman"), a partner at

SmithAmundsen, received the voicemail and emailed Respondent, requesting any billing

information on Glanville's matter along with an explanation of the fees charged.

10


paragraph 25, upon information and belief. Respondent admits the allegations contained in

the second sentence of paragraph 25.

26. That same day, Respondent called Glanville and asked why Glanville contacted

another person at SmithAmundsen instead of contacting Respondent directly. During the

conversation, Respondent said she would send Glanville $2,500 to settle the matter.

Respondent also stated that she would send Schechtman an email and include Glanville as a

recipient, and told Glanville not to respond to the email or tell Schechtman about the money

Respondent was sending her.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence

paragraph 26, but denies that that statement constituted the entirety of her conversation

with Glanville. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of

paragraph 26. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of

paragraph 26 through the word "recipient,"and denies the remainder.

27. On or about July 15, 2016, Respondent sent Glanville a package via UPS

containing a bank envelope with $2,500 cash. The package contained no letter, receipt,

release, or any identifying information other than the sender's address, which is

Respondent's home address.


28. Respondent's conduct in sending $2,500 cash to Glanville, and directing

Glanville not to tell Schechtman about the $2,500 or respond to Respondent's email to

Schechtman, was deceitful because Respondent intended to conceal from Schechtman the

11

[sic] all of the charges and fees Respondent collected from the Aurora and Plainfield property

transactions. At the time Respondent engaged in this conduct, she knew it was deceitful.


29. On July 8, 2016, Respondent emailed Schechtman and included Glanville as a

recipient In the email, Respondent stated, in part:

She [Glanville] explained to me that she called because she wasconfused by some of the line item charges for fees and expensesrelated to each transaction. We reviewed the statements

together, and I provided her with detailed explanations for theline items which included title fees, transfer stamps, attorney

fees, and document preparation fees. We had reviewed thestatements prior to closings, but when she went back to look atthe statements post closing, she had questions about some of therequired and typical fees associated with a sale and a purchaseof a home.

"After reviewing all of the documents, net sheet and chargeswith Crystal, she is now comfortable with the closing statements

and the charges."


30. Respondent's statements referenced in paragraph 29 above were false,

because at no time did Respondent review the closingstatements with Glanville or provide

her with detailed explanations for the line items, and Glanville never indicated to

Respondent that she was comfortable with the closing statements and thecharges reflected

in them.Atthe time Respondentmade the statements referenced in paragraph 29 above, she

knew they were false.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegationscontained in paragraph 30.

12

31. On or about July 25, 2016, Mari Ann Novy ("Novy"), SmithAmundsen's

assistant general counsel, met with Respondent to discuss Respondent's fees in the Glanville

and Wright transactions. During the meeting, Respondent stated that the $1,025 charge from

the Plainfield property transaction was for Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses, such as

transfer stamps.


32. Respondent's statement that the $1,025 charge from the Plainfield property

transaction was for her out-of-pocket expenses was false because at no time did Respondent

spend money on expenses related to the Plainfield property transaction that would entitle

her to reimbursement of $1,025. At the time Respondent made that statement, she knew it

was false.




a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, including: (1) sending $2,500 cash toGlanville, and directing Glanville not to tell Schechtmanabout the $2,500 or to respond to Respondent's email toSchechtman, (2) stating in an email to Schechtman thatRespondent reviewed the closing statements withGlanville and provided her with detailed explanations forthe line items, and that Glanville was comfortable with

the closing statements and the charges reflected in them,and (3) telling Novy that the $1,025 charge from thePlainfield property transaction was for Respondent'sout-of-pocket expenses, such as transfer stamps, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).

13




COUNT IV

(Alleged dishonesty andchangingfees without client's knowledge - Ratner realestatematter)

34. On or about March 8, 2016, SmithAmundsen and Dalia Ratner agreed that

SmithAmundsen would represent Ratner in the sale of her condominium located at 401 N.

Wabash Avenue, #43G, in Chicago ("the condominium") to Markand Deborah Hellman ("the

Hellmans"). Respondent handled the representation of Ratner in this transaction on behalf

of SmithAmundsen. Respondent and Ratner agreed that SmithAmundsen's fee for legal

services related to the representation of Ratner in this transaction would be $875, to be

collected at closing.


35. At no time between March 8, 2016, and May 27, 2016, the date the parties

closed, did Respondent advise Ratner that Ratner would be responsible for any fees or

payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent, other than the $875 attorney fee. Further, at

no time between March 8, 2016, and May 27, 2016, did Ratner agree that she would be

responsible for any fees or payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent with respect to the

condominium transaction, other than the $875 attorney fee.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegationscontained in paragraph 35.

36. The parties had agreed that Greater Metropolitan Title Company ("Greater

Metropolitan Title") would serve as title insurer and would prepare closing documents for

the transaction. Sometime between May 9, 2016, and May 23, 2016, Respondent directed

14

Greater Metropolitan Title to include two charges in the closing documents: $1,875 payable

to SmithAmundsen as the seller's attorney fee, and $5,000 payable to Elena Gallo for

"consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence".


37. Respondent's act of directing Greater Metropolitan Title to include a seller's

attorney fee of $1,875 was dishonest, because she had previously agreed with Ratner that

the attorney fee would be a flat fee of $875, and at no time did Respondent request or obtain

authority from Ratner to increase the attorney fee. At the time Respondent directed Greater

Metropolitan Title to include a seller's attorney fee of $1,875, she knew that act was

dishonest.


38. Respondent's act ofdirectingGreaterMetropolitan Title to include a chargeof

$5,000 for "consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence" was dishonest, because at no time

did Respondent advise Ratnerabout this charge, and at no timedid Ratneragree to paythis

charge. At thetime Respondent directed Greater Metropolitan Title to include a fee of$5,000

for "consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence", she knew that act was dishonest.


39. On May 27, 2016, the parties closed on the sale of the condominium. Prior to

the closing. Respondent told Ratner that she did not need to attend the closing but instead

could execute a document authorizing Respondent to execute the closing paperwork on her

behalf. Ratner followed Respondent's suggestion and did not attend the closing. At closing,

pursuant to Respondent's direction, and unbeknownst to Ratner, Ratner was debited $1,875

for buyers' attorney fees to SmithAmundsen, and $5,000 for "consulting,

15

RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence" to Respondent. Greater Metropolitan Title tendered two

checks to Respondent: a check payable to SmithAmundsen in the amount of $1,875, and a

check payable to Respondent in the amount of $5,000.



paragraph 39, except that she denies any allegation to the effectthat Ratner not attending

the closing was Respondent's idea or suggestion. Respondent admits that Ratner did not

attend the closing, and denies any remaining allegations contained in the third sentence of

paragraph 39. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of

paragraph 39 as alleged. Further answering, Respondent states that at Ratner's direction,

and pursuant to the closing statement she reviewed and authorized, Greater Metropolitan

Title caused $1,875 to be disbursed via check to SmithAmundsen, and $5,000 to be disbursed

via check to Respondent. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the fifth sentence

of paragraph 39.



a. charging or collecting an unreasonable fee or anunreasonable amount for expenses, by conduct including

charging and collecting from Glanville and Wright a$1,875 seller's attorney fee and $5,000 charge for"consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence", withrespect to the condominium transaction, in violation ofRule 1.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010);

b. failure to communicate any changes in the basis or rate

of the fee or expenses to the client, by conduct includingfailing to communicate to Dalia Ratner that Respondent

16

changed the attorney's fee for the sale of thecondominium from $875 to $1,875, in violation of Rule

1.5(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct

(2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) directing

Greater Metropolitan Title to include a sellers' attorney

fee of $1,875 without Ratner's knowledge or consent,

and (2) directing Greater Metropolitan Title to include an

additional $5,000 charge for "consulting,RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence" without Ratner'sknowledge or consent, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).




COUNT V

(Alleged dishonesty andconversion ofproperty taxcredit - Ratner realestatematter)

41. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 34 through 39 of Count IV, above.

ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges her answers to paragraphs 34

through 39 of Count IV, above.

42. Prior to the May27, 2016 closingdate, the parties did not know the amount of

the property taxes owed on the condominium for the second half of 2015 or the first half of

2016, because the Cook CountyTreasurer's Office had not yet issued property tax bills for

those time periods. On April 8, 2016, since the parties did not expect the Treasurer's Office

to issue a property tax bill before the closing date, the parties entered into an agreement

regarding a property tax credit at closing. Specifically, the parties used a formula which

estimatedthe outstanding property taxes, which the Hellmans would receive as a credit at

17

closing. The parties agreed that if the credit for the second half of the 2015 property taxes

exceeded the actual amount owed, then the Hellmans would pay Ratner the difference.


43. At the May 27, 2016, closing on the condominium, the Hellmans received a

property tax credit of $34,091.92, pursuant to the parties' agreement described in paragraph

42, above.


44. On July 6, 2016, Mark Hellman emailed Respondent stating that he received

the condominium's property tax bill for the second half of 2015. In the email, Hellman

informed Respondent that the property tax credit at closing exceeded the actual amount

owed. Hellman stated that based upon the parties' agreement, he owed Ratner $10,978.55,

and could pay by writing a check.


45. On July 7, 2016, Respondent emailed Mark Hellman telling him to make the

check payable to "GLG LTD.", and stating, "This will go into my escrow/trust account for

Dalia."


46. On July 13,2016, Mark Hellman wrote a checkfor $10,978.55 payable to "GLG

LTD.", with the memo,"Ratner tax credit". OnJuly 15,2016, Respondent deposited the check

into her personal and business account


18

47. At no time between July 13, 2016, and the date of the filing of this complaint

did Respondent notify Ratner that Ratnerwas owed moneyfromthe property tax credit,or

that Respondent received the $10,978.55 check from Mark Hellman.


48. OnDecember 5, 2016, prior to paying any portion of the $10,978.55 to Ratner,

Respondent's personal and business account was overdrawn in the amount of-$363.19.


49. As of December 5, 2016, Respondent had used $10,978.55 of Ratner's funds

for Respondent's own business or personal purposes.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that she used the $10,978.55 for her own business

or personal purposes, but she denies that she did so without Ratner's authority, and that the

funds belonged to Ratner at the time that Respondent used them. Respondent denies any

remaining allegation contained in paragraph 49.

50. At no time did Ratner authorize Respondent to use any portion of the

$10,978.55 for Respondent's own business or personal purposes.


51. Respondent's use of the $10,978.55 without Ratner's authority constitutes

conversion of those funds.


statelegal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To theextent ananswer isdeemed


52. At the time Respondent used the $10,978.55, she knew she was using those

funds without authority.

19


53. As of the date of the filingof this complaint, Respondent has not paid any of the

$10,978.55 to Ratner.




a. failure to hold property of clients or third persons that isin a lawyer's possession in connection with a

representation separate from the lawyer's own property,

by conduct including: (1) failing to hold the $10,978.55received from Mark Hellman separate from

Respondent's own property, and (2) converting

$10,978.55 received from Mark Hellman, which

belonged to Ratner, to Respondent's own business or

personal use by causing the balance in Respondent's

client fund account to fall below the amount then

belonging to Ratner, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the

Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

b. upon receiving funds in which the client has an interest,

failure to promptly notify the client, or promptly deliverthe funds to the client, by conduct including: (1) failing to

notify Ratner that Respondent received the $10,978.55check from Mark Hellman, and (2) failing to promptly

deliver the $10,978.55 to Ratner, in violation of Rule

1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct

(2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including knowinglyconverting $10,978.55 received from Mark Hellman,which belonged to Ratner, to Respondent's own businessor personal use, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (2010).

20


state legalconclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed


COUNT VI

(Concurrent conflict ofinterest - Middletons to Paulus realestate matter)

55. On or about March 16, 2016, SmithAmundsen and Jacqueline Paulus agreed

that SmithAmundsen would represent Paulus in the purchase of a residence located at 2942

North Riverwalk Drive, in Chicago. Respondent handled the representation of Paulus in this

transaction as a partner of SmithAmundsen. Respondent and Paulus agreed that

SmithAmundsen's fee for representing Paulus in this transaction would be $875, to be



56. The purchase of the residence at 2942 North Riverwalk Drive did not occur,

and Paulus then decided to proceed with the purchase of a residence located at 1307 South

Wabash Avenue, Unit 402 and P36, in Chicago ("the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence")

from Joseph Middleton and Mary Rankin Middleton ("the Middletons"). Sometime between

March 16, 2016, and April 22, 2016, SmithAmundsen and Paulus agreed that

SmithAmundsen would represent Paulus in the purchase of the 1307 South Wabash Avenue

residence. Once again, Respondent handled the representation of Paulus in this transaction

as a partner ofSmithAmundsen. Respondent and Paulus agreed that SmithAmundsen's fee

for representingPaulus in this transactionwould be $875, to be collected at closing.


21

57. On or prior to April 22,2016, Respondent also agreed with the Middletons that

either Respondent or SmithAmundsen would represent the Middletons in the sale of the

1307 South Wabash Avenue residence to Paulus.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that she agreed to represent the Middletons in

connection with the sale of 1307 South Wabash to the Middletons. Respondent denies any

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57.

58. On April 25, 2016, Respondent sent an email to Katee Stahl, conflicts

coordinator at SmithAmundsen, advising that Respondent was representing Paulus in the

purchase of the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence, and that Respondent was also

representing the Middletons as sellers of the same property. On the same day, Stahl sent

Respondent a response email stating, in part, "Although I did not find any conflict issues in

our records for Mary Middleton or Joseph Middleton, please note that representation of

parties that are adverse to one another in a transaction is generally considered an ethical

conflict of interest."



paragraph 58, but she denies that the quoted portion of the email constituted the entirety of

the email, or the entirety of Respondent's correspondence with Stahl with respect to the

Middleton/Paulus transaction.

59. Later on April 25, 2016, Respondent met with Stahl and SmithAmundsen's

assistant general counsel, Mari Ann Novy, to discuss Respondent's representation of both

Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction. During

the meeting, Respondent stated that she would not represent the Middletons in the

22

transaction. The same day, Stahl sent an email to Respondent, stating, "Thank you for making

time to chat earlier with Mari Ann and I regarding this matter. Since you will not be

representing the sellers in this deal, I wanted to confirm that no conflict issues remain with

respect to their involvement as adverse parties in this matter."


paragraph 59. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of

paragraph 59. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of

paragraph 59.

60. As a non-equity partner of SmithAmundsen, Respondent stood in a position of

a fiduciary to SmithAmundsen that required her to exercise the utmost good faith and fair

dealing with respect to SmithAmundsen. As a fiduciary, Respondent was required to give

SmithAmundsen information relevant to the affairs entrusted to her, to obey

SmithAmundsen's reasonable directions, and not to act in SmithAmundsen's affairs except

as authorized.


state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required.

61. After Respondent told Stahl and Novy that she would not represent the

Middletons, between April 25, 2016, and June 22, 2016, the date the parties closed,

Respondent continued to represent both Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South

Wabash Avenue residence transaction. Respondent represented both Paulus and the

Middletons during the attorney review period, during which time the parties were able to

negotiate modifications to thecontract. Between May 5, 2016, andMay 10, 2016, during the

attorney review period, Respondent represented both Paulus and the Middletons in

23

negotiations with each other to make certain repairs to the 1307 South Wabash Avenue

residence.


62. At no time between April 25, 2016, and June 22,2016, did Respondent inform

Stahl, Novy, or anyone at SmithAmundsen that Respondent had continued to represent both

Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.


63. At no time did Respondent inform Paulus that Respondent was also

representing the Middletons as sellers in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence

transaction.


64. At no time did Respondent explain to Paulus the material risks of and

reasonably available alternatives to Respondent representing both Paulus and the

Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.


65. At no time did Respondent advise Paulus to seek the advice of other counsel

before agreeing to have Respondent represent both Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307

South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.


66. Sometime between April 25, 2016, and June 22, 2016, Respondent did inform

the Middletons that Respondent was also representing Paulus as buyer in the 1307 South

Wabash Avenue residence transaction. However, at no time did Respondent explain to the

Middletons the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to Respondent

24

representing both Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence

transaction.


paragraph 66. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of

paragraph 66.

67. At no time did Respondent advise the Middletons to seek the advice of other

counsel before agreeing to have Respondent represent both Paulus and the Middletons in

the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.


68. The parties had agreed that Greater Metropolitan Title would serve as title

insurer and would prepare closing documents for the transaction. On June 21, 2016,

Respondent sent an email to Greater Metropolitan Title asking, "Does the closing costs

include attorney fees for both sides?" The same day, a representative from Greater

Metropolitan Title responded to Respondent via email, answering, "Yes, please review

attached." The representative from Greater Metropolitan Title attached to the email a

settlement statement for the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction, reflecting

an $875 attorney fee to SmithAmundsen to be debited from Paulus as buyer, and a $500

attorney fee to Respondent to be debited from the Middletonsas sellers.


69. On June 22, 2016, the parties closed on the 1307 South Wabash Avenue

residence. At the closing, Paulus was debited $875 for buyer's attorney fees to

SmithAmundsen, and the Middletons were debited $500 for sellers' attorney fees to

Respondent. Greater Metropolitan Title tendered to Respondent a check payable to

25

SmithAmundsen in the amount of $875, and a check payable to Respondent in the amount of

$500.




a. representing a client when the representation involves a

concurrent conflict of interest where the representation

of one client will be directly adverse to another client, by

conduct including representing Paulus and buyer and

the Middletons as sellers in the 1307 South Wabash

Avenue residence transaction, without obtaining

informed consent from both Paulus and the Middletons,

in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of

Professional Conduct (2010);

b. representing a client when the representation involves a

concurrent conflict of interest where there is a

significant risk that the representation of one or more

clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's

responsibilities to another client, by conduct includingrepresenting Paulus and buyer and the Middletons assellers in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence

transaction, without obtaining informed consent fromboth Paulus and the Middletons, in violation of Rule

1.7(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) making amisrepresentation by omission by failing to informanyone at SmithAmundsen after April 25, 2016, thatRespondent continued to represent both Paulus and theMiddletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence

transaction, and (2) failing to inform Paulus thatRespondent was also representing the Middletons assellers in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence

26

transaction, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules

of Professional Conduct (2010).


statelegal conclusions. Therefore, noanswer is required. To the extent ananswer isdeemed

required, Respondentdenies the allegationscontained in paragraph 70.

COUNT VII

(Conversion andfailure tosafeguardfunds - Tartara real estate matter)

71. Sometime after SmithAmundsen terminated Respondent's employment on

July 27, 2016, but prior to December 9, 2016, Respondent and Christopher Tartara agreed

that Respondent would represent Tartara in the sale of his residence located at 1516 N.

Cleveland Avenue, #1, in Chicago ("the Cleveland Avenue residence") to GregoryGallagher.

Respondent and Tartara agreed that Respondent's fee for representing Tartara in this

transaction would be $750, to be collected at closing.


72. The closing on the sale of the Cleveland Avenue residence was scheduled for

January 13, 2017. On the scheduled closing date, the parties entered into a "Use and

Occupancy Agreement" that allowed the seller, Tartara, to remain at the Cleveland Avenue

residence for two days after the closing date. The agreement called for Tartara to place

$5,000 in escrow to guarantee that he would deliver possession of the Cleveland Avenue

residence byJanuary 15, 2017. Tartara and Gallagher agreed to have Respondent serve as

escrowee and hold$5,000 ofthe proceeds of the Cleveland Avenue residence sale, until the

$5,000 was distributed pursuant to the termsofthe Use andOccupancy Agreement. Tartara

and Gallagher entrusted Respondent to safeguard these funds for use towards Tartara's

post-closing possession, pursuant to the agreement ofthe parties.

27


73. On January 13,2017, the closing on the Cleveland Avenue residence took place.

At the closing, Respondent received Greater Metropolitan Title check number 88592,

payable to Gallo Law Group, Ltd., in the amount of $5,000, as the funds to be held pursuant

to the parties' Use and Occupancy Agreement, described in paragraph 72, above. The same

day, Respondent deposited the check into her personal and business account. At no time did

Respondent deposit the funds into a client trust account.


74. By January 15, 2017, Tartara had delivered possession of the Cleveland

Avenue residence to Gallagher. Pursuant to the parties' Use and Occupancy Agreement,

Tartara was entitled to the full $5,000 that the parties had entrusted Respondent to hold in

escrow. OnJanuary 17,2017, Gallagher's attorney, Cole Stremmel, sent Respondent an email

confirming that the escrowed funds may be released to Tartara.


75. On February 6, 2017, prior to any payment of funds from the Use and

Occupancy Agreement to Tartara, Respondent's personal and business account was

overdrawn in the amount of-$1,908.36.


76. As of February 6, 2017, Respondent had used the $5,000 from the Use and

Occupancy Agreement to which Tartara was entitled, for Respondent's own business or

personal purposes.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 76. Further

answering, Respondent states that she paid $5,000 to Tartara by March 8, 2017.

28

77. At no time did Tartara or Gallagher authorize Respondent to use any portion

of the funds from the Use and Occupancy Agreement for Respondent's own business or

personal purposes.


78. By using the the funds from the Use and Occupancy Agreement without

authority, Respondent engaged in conversion of those funds.


state legal conclusions. Therefore, noansweris required. To the extentan answeris deemed

required, Respondent denies the allegations containedin paragraph 78.

79. In converting the funds from the Use and Occupancy Agreement without

authority, Respondent acted with knowledge that she was converting the funds of Tartara

and, in doing so, she acted dishonestly.


statelegal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To theextent ananswer isdeemed

required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph79.

80. Between January 20,2017,and February 9,2017,Tartaraemailed Respondent

at least twice asking when he would receive a check for the $5,000 in escrow funds. On

February 9, 2017, Respondent emailed a response to Tartara stating that she had sent it to

Tartara "a while ago".

ANSWER: Respondent admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph80.

81. Respondent's statement that she had sent a check for the $5,000 in escrow

funds toTartara "awhile ago" was false, because at thetime Respondent made thestatement,

she had not sent a check to Tartara,and at no time betweenJanuary 20, 2017, and February

29

9,2017, did Respondent's personal and business account have sufficient funds to pay Tartara

$5,000.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 81, except the

allegation that her statement was "false." Answering further, Respondent admits that her

statement was incorrect.

82. At the time Respondent made the statement that she sent a check for the

$5,000 in escrow funds to Tartara "a while ago", she knew it was false.




a. failure to hold property of clients or third persons that is

in a lawyer's possession in connection with arepresentation separate from the lawyer's own property,by conduct including: (1) failing to hold escrow fundsrelated to the Use and Occupancy Agreement separate

from Respondent's own property, and (2) convertingescrow funds related to the Use and Occupancy

Agreement, which belonged to Tartara or Gallagher, toRespondent's own business or personal use by causingthe balance in her personal and business account to fallbelow the amount then belonging to clients or thirdpersons, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);

b. failure to promptly deliver to the client any funds that theclient is entitled to receive, by conduct including failingto promptly deliver the $5,000 in escrow funds thatTartara was entitled to receive, in violation of Rule

1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) knowingly

30

converting escrow funds related to the Use andOccupancy Agreement to Respondent's own business orpersonal use, without authorization, and (2) sendingTartara an email on February 9,2017, falsely stating that

she had sent him a check for the $5,000 in escrow funds

"a while ago", in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (2010).


state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required.Tothe extent an answer is deemed

required, Respondent denies the allegations containedin paragraph 83.

COUNT VIII

(Conversion andfailure tosafeguardfunds - Kramer realestatematter)

84. Sometime after SmithAmundsen terminated Respondent's employment on

July 27, 2016, but prior to February 21, 2017, Respondent and Scottand Cari Kramer ("The

Kramers") agreed that Respondent would represent the Kramers in the sale of their

residence located at 1421 South Wabash Avenue, #3W, in Chicago ("the 1421 South Wabash

Avenue residence") to Dana Currier and BakerFranke. Respondent and the Kramers agreed

that Respondent's fee for representing them in this transaction would be $750, to be


ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations containedin paragraph 84.

85. The closing on the sale of the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence was

scheduled for March 1,2017. Onor about the scheduled closing date, the parties entered into

a post-closing possession escrow agreement thatallowed thesellers, the Kramers, to remain

at the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence after the closing date until April 29, 2017. The

agreement called for $2,500 to be placed in escrow from the Kramers' proceeds atclosing, to

guarantee that they would deliver possession ofthe 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence

31

by April 29, 2017. The Kramers, Currier and Franke agreed to have Respondent serve as

escrowee and hold the $2,500 in escrow until it was distributed pursuant to the terms of the

post-closing possession escrow agreement. The Kramers, Currier and Franke entrusted

Respondent to safeguard these funds for use towards the Kramers' post-closing possession,

pursuant to the agreement of the parties.


86. Prior to closing, the Kramers, Currier and Franke agreed to an addendum to

the post-closing possession escrow agreement, which allowed the Kramers to retain

possession ofthe 1421 SouthWabash Avenue residence until May 31,2017. In consideration,

Currier and Franke were to receive a closing cost credit and additional money at closing. The

addendum did not change Respondent's duties as escrowee.


87. On March 1, 2017, the closing on the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence

took place. At the closing, Respondent received Greater Metropolitan Title check number

89806, payable to Gallo Law Group, Ltd., in the amount of $2,500, as the funds to be held

pursuantto the parties' post-closing possession escrow agreement, described in paragraphs

85 and 86, above. The same day, Respondent deposited the check into her personal and

business account. At no time did Respondent deposit the funds into a client trust account.


88. By May 31, 2017, the Kramers had delivered possession of the 1421 South

Wabash Avenue residence to Currier and Franke. Pursuant to the parties' post-closing

possession escrow agreement, the Kramers were entitled to the full $2,500 that the parties

had entrusted Respondent to hold in escrow.

32


89. On April 13, 2017, prior to any payment of funds from the post-closing

possession escrow agreement to the Kramers, Currier, or Franke, Respondent's personal and

business account was overdrawn in the amount of-$544.81.


90. As of April 13, 2017, Respondent had used the $2,500 from the post-closing

possession escrow agreement to which the Kramers, Currier, and/or Franke were entitled,

for Respondent's own business or personal purposes.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 90. Further

answering, Respondent affirmatively states that she had paid the $2,500 to the Kramers as

of DATE.

91. At no time did the Kramers, Currier, or Franke authorize Respondent to use

any portion of the funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement for

Respondent's own business or personal purposes.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegationscontained in paragraph 91.

92. By using the funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement

without authority, Respondentengaged in conversion ofthose funds.


state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer isrequired. To theextent ananswer isdeemed


93. In converting the funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement

without authority, Respondent acted with knowledge that she was converting the funds of

the Kramers, Currier, and Franke and, in doingso, she acted dishonestly.

33






a. failure to hold property of clients or third persons that isin a lawyer's possession in connection with a

representation separate from the lawyer's own property,by conduct including: (1) failing to hold escrow fundsrelated to the post-closing possession escrow agreement

separate from Respondent's own property, and (2)converting escrow funds related to the post-closingpossession escrow agreement, which belonged to theKramers, Currier and/or Franke, to Respondent's ownbusiness or personal use by causing the balance in herpersonal and business account to fall below the amountthen belonging to clients or third persons, in violation ofRule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010);

b. failure to promptly deliver to the client any funds that theclient is entitled to receive, by conduct including failing

to promptly deliver the $2,500 in escrow funds that theKramers were entitled to receive, in violation of Rule

1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and

c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including knowinglyconverting escrow funds related to the post-closingpossession escrow agreement to Respondent's ownbusiness or personal use, without authorization, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).

34




COUNT IX

(Dishonest statement regarding escrowfunds - Kramer realestatematter)

95. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 84 through 93 of Count VIII, above.

ANSWER: Respondent repeats her answers to the allegations contained in

paragraphs 84 through 93 of Count VIII, above.

96. Prior to closing, the Kramers, Currier, and Franke agreed that the Kramers

would provide Currier and Franke with a credit totaling $5,397.48 for property taxes

accrued but not yet paid by the Kramers.


97. At the March 1, 2017, closing on the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence,

pursuantto the agreement ofthe parties, Currier and Franke received a propertytax credit

totaling $5,397.48.


98. On May 9,2017, Karen Burns, an escrow officer forGreater Metropolitan Title,

emailed Respondent stating that the property taxes on the 1421 South Wabash Avenue

residence had previously been paid, and that Burns had a refund for the Kramers in the

amount of $4,305.53. The same day, Respondent emailed Burns stating that Burns could

sendthe check to Respondent, andRespondent would give the check to Cari Kramer. Also on

the same day, Greater Metropolitan issued check number 152044 in the amount of$4,305.53,

payable to the Kramers.

35


99. On or about May 31, 2017, the Kramers negotiated Greater Metropolitan Title

check number 152044.


100. On June 6,2017, Cari Kramer emailed Respondent stating that they had notyet

received a check for the escrow funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement,

referenced in Count VIII, above.


101. OnJune 9, 2017, Respondent sent the Kramers and email stating, "Here is the

check - you already cashed it. This was the Escrow return and there was an additional

amount added to it because we overpaid the taxes - so .... you are all set." Attached to

Respondent's email wasGreater Metropolitan Title check number 152044, in the amount of

$4,305.53 payable to the Kramers.


102. Respondent's statement in paragraph 101, above, was false because Greater

Metropolitan Title check number 152044 contained only the refund for the Kramers'

overpayment ofproperty taxes, and contained none ofthe escrow funds that Respondent

hadbeen entrusted to hold. As explained in Count VIII above, Greater Metropolitan Title had

disbursed the escrow funds to Respondent at the March 1, 2017, closing, and Respondent

subsequently converted themto her own business or personal use.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that her statement in paragraph 101, above, was

incorrect because Greater Metropolitan Title check number 152044 contained only the

refund for the Kramers' overpayment of property taxes, and contained none of the escrow

36

funds that Respondent had been entrusted to hold. Respondent denies any remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 102.

103. At the time Respondent made the statement in paragraph 101, above, she

knew it was false.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 103 Further

answering, Respondent affirmatively states that she paid the Kramers $2,500 by February

12,2018.



a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including sending theKramers an email falsely stating that GreaterMetropolitan Title check number 152044 contained theescrow funds to which the Kramers were entitled, in

violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).



required, Respondent denies theallegations contained inparagraph 104.

RESPONDENT'S DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231

1. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State ofIllinois on November

7, 2002. She was admitted to the General Bar of the United States District Court for the

Northern Districtof Illinois on December 19, 2002.Sheis not admitted to any other state or

federal bar.

37

2. Respondent holds no other professional licenses other than his license to

practice law.

Respectfully submitted,

Elena Gallo, Respondent

James A. Doppke, Jr.Robinson Law Group, LLC

321 S. Plymouth Ct, 14th FloorChicago, IL 60604(312) 676-9878jdoppke(5>robinsonlawillinois.com

BY: James A. Doppke, Jr.One of her attorneys

38

Date post:	27-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	15 times
Download:	0 times

Nowcomes Respondent, Elena Gallo, byherattorney, JamesA ...Plainfield, IL 60586". The invoice...

Documents