ARDC Files Complaint Alleging that lawyer practiced law in years when he failed to register with the ARDC

1. Respondent was admitted to practice law on January 7, 1992.
2. At all times alleged in this complaint, Supreme Court Rule 756(a) required that every attorney admitted to practice law in Illinois, with stated exceptions that do not apply to Respondent, register and pay an annual registration fee to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“the Commission”) on or before the first day of January of each year. 3. At all times alleged in this complaint, Supreme Court Rule 756(h) provided that the Administrator, on or after February 1 of each year, remove from the master roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois the name of any attorney who had not registered for that year, as required by Supreme Court Rule 756(a). Rule 756(h) further stated that any person whose name was not on the master roll and who practiced law or held himself out as being authorized to practice law pursuant to an Illinois license, had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
4. Between 2003 and 2011, Respondent had not registered with the Commission by January 1^st of each year in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011, and had been removed from the master roll for a period of time during those years. Sometime after receiving notice from the ARDC of his removal, Respondent registered and paid whatever fees and penalties were due and was restored to active status.

5. As of March 10, 2015, Respondent had not registered with the Commission or paid the annual fee that had been due since January 1, 2015, and on that date the Administrator removed Respondent’s name from the master roll of attorneys authorized to practice law pursuant to an Illinois license.