In re Robert Kent Gray, Jr. (No. 2025PR00035)
Gray, a licensed Illinois attorney since 2002, was removed from the master roll on December 1, 2024 for failing to complete his mandatory CLE hours — earning only 4 of the required 30 credits by the initial deadline and none during the grace period. He was reinstated on January 8, 2025 at 4:00 p.m., after finally completing his hours and paying a $400 reinstatement fee.
Misconduct
During the period of removal, Gray engaged in multiple violations:
- Unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5(a)) — On January 7, he caused three trial subpoenas to be issued and emailed exhibits to opposing counsel. On January 8, he appeared in court on behalf of clients, including a corporate defendant that legally required licensed counsel.
- False statement to a tribunal (Rule 3.3(a)) — When Judge Wright asked whether he was authorized to practice, Gray stated he believed he was and that his credentials were “just waiting for something to process.” The Board found this knowingly false, given that he had checked his MyMCLE account 23 times in the prior days and knew reinstatement required both transcript reporting and fee payment — neither of which had occurred by 10:30 a.m. that day.
- Criminal act (Rule 8.4(b)) — Judge Wright found Gray guilty of direct criminal contempt and fined him $200. Gray admitted this in his Answer, making it conclusive evidence of the violation.
- Dishonest conduct (Rule 8.4(c)) — Flowing directly from the Rule 3.3(a) violation.
- Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)) — His improper appearance delayed his clients’ potentially dispositive motion to dismiss by nearly a month and caused the court to expend needless resources on a contempt proceeding.
Mitigation & Aggravation
Mitigation: None. Gray’s unsworn statements about his father’s death and diligence in completing CLE credits were not presented as testimony and, in any event, would not have constituted legal mitigation given that he missed both the initial and grace period deadlines by wide margins.
Aggravation (substantial):
- Experienced attorney (licensed since 2002; subject to CLE requirements for nearly 20 years)
- Received at least 16 MCLE notices before removal; ignored them
- Knowingly engaged in an irresponsible course of conduct, not a momentary lapse
- Risk of harm to clients from delayed proceedings
- No remorse; refused to acknowledge wrongdoing
- Blamed CLE providers, the MCLE Board, and the ARDC for delays of his own making
- Filed meritless pleadings and made unsubstantiated misconduct charges against Administrator’s counsel
- Failed to fully cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding
- Prior discipline: One-year suspension in 2018 for strikingly similar violations — unauthorized practice while removed from the master roll, false statements to a tribunal, dishonesty, and prejudicing the administration of justice
Recommendation
Majority (Nair, Edmond): The Board recommended a one-year suspension. The Board distinguished three factually analogous cases (James, Witt, Wiley) that each resulted in six-month suspensions, finding Gray’s misconduct more egregious due to his express dishonesty to the judge, the criminal contempt finding, and his significant recidivism. The majority declined to add an “until further order” (UFO) provision, noting Gray attended his hearing and showed marginally more cooperation than in his prior proceeding.
Dissent (Shiffman): 18-month suspension. The prior one-year suspension demonstrably failed to deter Gray’s recidivism, and a longer suspension is both justified and appropriate.
Comment: this is an experienced lawyer who failed to complete the 30 hours of continuing legal education that Illinois requires every two years and failed certify that he had completed his continuing legal education coursework. In my opinion, he made his situation much worse by failing to inform a judge that he was not, in fact, licensed to practice law. Attending CLE is time-consuming, but you have to follow the rules to remain licensed.
