Tag: Creepy Behavior

ARDC Charges Lawyer With Videotaping His Colleague At Law Firm

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD:

Please note: these are allegations and have not been proven.

The ARDC filed a complaint against a lawyer accusing him of surreptitiously videotaping a colleague who would sometimes change clothes in his office. The lawyer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized videotaping.  See 720 ILCS Act 5 Section 26-4(a).

The allegations:

1. Between June 2010 and September 30, 2016, Respondent was employed as an associate at the law firm of “John Doe” LLC (hereinafter, “the firm”). From August, 2011 to the present, J. T. was also an associate at the firm.
2. Prior to the time that J.T. started his employment at the firm, Respondent and J.T. knew each other through mutual friends. In fact, Respondent introduced J.T. to the firm’s hiring partner, John Doe, for possible employment at the firm.
3. The firm’s practice is concentrated in the area of commercial litigation but the firm’s dress code is casual, allowing for the attorneys to often wear casual clothing to the office. However, when an attorney is meeting with a client, attending a deposition or handling a court appearance, appropriate professional attire is required.
4. As a result of the firm’s causal dress code practices, attorneys employed at the firm often have a change of clothes that is appropriate courtroom attire in their offices, and they change clothes in their offices before leaving for court, a deposition or a client meeting.
5. Between June and September 2016, on at least 20 different occasions, when Respondent knew that J.T. would be changing clothes in his office, Respondent placed a usb video flash drive in a hidden location in J.T.’s office without J.T.’s knowledge or consent. Using the usb flash drive, Respondent videotaped J.T. in various states of undress while J.T. was changing clothes. On each of these occasions, Respondent subsequently retrieved the device, and watched the videos for his own sexual and emotional gratification. Whenever Respondent knew J.T. had a reason to be changing clothes in his office, he would then replace the usb video flash drive into J.T.’s office.
6. At no time between June and September 2016, did J.T. know or consent to this videotaping of him changing clothes in his office. J.T. however, did notice that Respondent was spending an unusual amount of time in and around J.T.’s office and became concerned about it.
7. On September 27, 2016, J.T. found the hidden camera USB video flash drive located in the inbox in his office behind his desk.
8. On September 27, 2016, J.T. placed the device in his computer to view its contents. The next day, J.T. located videos sequenced 11-28 on the usb video flash drive. The videos were typically a half-hour long showing J.T. in states of undress and changing his clothes.
9. On September 30, 2016, J.T. informed John Doe of the above incidents and unauthorized videotaping. John Doe talked to Respondent, who then resigned from the firm.
10. On November 30, 2016, the Cook County State’s attorney’s office indicted Respondent on 2 counts of felony unauthorized videotaping, in violation of 720 ILCS Act 5, Section 26-4(a). People of the State of Illinois v. Michael Herbst, 16CR17557.
11. At all times alleged in this complaint it was a crime for “any person to knowingly make a video record or transmit live video of another person without that person’s consent in a changing room…” 720 ILCS Act 5 Section 26-4(a).
12. On May 4, 2017, Respondent pled guilty to one count of unauthorized videotaping, reduced from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.
13. On May 4, 2016, Respondent was sentenced to reporting probation for two years with a scheduled termination date of May 4, 2019, with 40 hours of community service, a no-contact order with J.T., and restitution to the firm in the sum of $6095.50.
14. As a result of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, by conduct including unauthorized videotaping of J.T. without J.T.’s knowledge or consent while J.T. was changing clothes in his law office between June 2016 and September 2016 in violation of ILCS 720 Act 5 section 26-4(a) in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

‘via Blog this’

ARDC Alleges that Attorney Made False Match.com Profile of Another Attorney

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD:

An attorney is alleged to have created a false match.com profile for an opposing attorney.  The allegations have not been proven, but are shocking:

1. At all times alleged in this Complaint, Respondent practiced law as a partner at Thomson & Weintraub law firm located in Bloomington, Illinois until February 10, 2017 when he was terminated.

2. Jane Doe (“Doe”) is a licensed Illinois attorney and partner in a law firm located in Bloomington, Illinois.
3. Respondent and Doe appeared as opposing counsel in 17 proceedings in McLean County. Respondent and Doe appeared as opposing counsel in seven proceedings between June 2016 and February 2017.
4. In September 2016, Respondent accessed the Match.com online dating website from his office computer (“desktop”) at Thomson & Weintraub and created a false online dating profile (“Match.com profile”) in Doe’s name.
5. In establishing the Match.com profile, Respondent created an online account in Doe’s name. Respondent associated a user name, password and email address with the Match.com profile.
6. The Match.com profile included the following false representations:
Doe was separated from her husband;
Doe’s children sometimes live with her;
Doe smokes but is trying to quit;
Doe regularly drinks alcohol;
Doe is agnostic;
Doe is 56 years old;
Doe does not exercise and enjoys auto racing and motor cross;
Doe has cats; and
Doe’s favorite hot spots are the grocery store, all restaurants, the Pizza Ranch, all buffets and NASCAR.
7. Respondent knew the representations in paragraph 6 above were false at the time he made them.
8. In September 2016, Respondent used his desktop to download several photos of Doe from her firm website and then uploaded those photos to the Match.com profile he created in Doe’s name.
9. In September 2016, Respondent uploaded the Match.com profile to the Match.com website so that it could be viewed by the general public.
10. At the time Respondent created and posted/uploaded the Match.com profile in Doe’s name, Respondent knew that the profile was false.
11. At no time did Doe authorize Respondent to create and post/upload a Match.com account in Doe’s name.
12. At no time did Doe authorize Respondent to create a user name, password and email address that Respondent associated with the Match.com profile.
13. At no time did Doe authorize Respondent to create and post/upload a Match.com profile in Doe’s name.
14. At no time did Doe authorize Respondent to upload the Match.com profile to the Match.com website.
15. On or around October 5, 2016, Doe became aware of the Match.com profile Respondent had created.
16. Doe filed an action in the Circuit Court of McLean County under case number 16-MR-1081 asking the court to direct Match.com to provide Doe with the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address associated with the Match.com profile.
17. On December 9, 2016, Match.com provided Doe with the IP address associated with the Match.com profile.
18. On January 20, 2017, Comcast, the internet provider for Respondent’s firm, provided written notice to the firm that the firm’s IP address was used to create the Match.com profile.
19. On or about January 20, 2017, Terrence Kelly (hereinafter “Kelly”), a partner at Thomson & Weintraub informed the firm employees that the firm’s IP address was used to create a false Match.com profile for Doe.
20. On or about January 20, 2017, Kelly asked Respondent whether he had created the false profile. Respondent denied creating the false Match.com profile for Doe.
21. Respondent’s statement to Kelly was false because, in fact, Respondent had created the false profile.
22. At the time Respondent made this statement to Kelly, he knew that his statement was false.
23. On or about January 20, 2017, Kelly announced that the firm would be hiring a computer expert to examine all of the firm computers. Kelly also asked firm employees to provide their personal devices to the computer experts.
24. On February 10, 2017, a search of the firm’s desktop computer assigned to Respondent revealed that a user of the computer had accessed the set-up pages of the Match.com website and had downloaded Doe’s photo from her firm’s website and uploaded that photo to the Match.com profile.
25. On February 10, 2017, when Kelly confronted Respondent with the findings of the computer expert, Respondent admitted that he created the false Match.com profile for Doe. Respondent was immediately terminated.

26. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by accessing the Match.com online dating website and creating an account and a false online profile in Doe’s name that included false representations about Doe’s marital status, children, religion, personal habits and interests, uploading the false profile to the Match.com website to be viewed by the general public, and denying that he created the false profile in Doe’s name when initially asked by a partner in his firm, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
    COUNT II
    (Dishonesty-registration for the Obesity Action Coalition)27. On or about July 2016, Respondent completed an online registration in Doe’s name for an organization entitled Obesity Action Coalition (“OAC”), so that Doe would become a member of OAC and receive materials from the organization.
    28. The OAC is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping individuals affected by obesity improve their health through education, advocacy and support. Members receive daily emails and a yearly print subscription to OAC’s Your Weight Matters magazine.
    29. In registering Doe for OAC, Respondent provided OAC with Doe’s name, email and business address.
    30. Respondent’s provision of registration in the name of Doe was false in that the registration was not that of Doe as she had not authorized Respondent to complete the registration in her name.
    31. At the time Respondent submitted the registration in Doe’s name, Respondent knew that the registration was false.
    32. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Doe began receiving daily emails from the OAC, and emails from Apollo Endo-surgery. Doe also received a lap-band kit in the mail at her business address.
    33. At no time did Doe authorize Respondent to complete an online registration in Doe’s name for OAC.
    34. At no time did Doe authorize Respondent to provide her name and contact information to OAC, its agents or assigns.
    35. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

    1. engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by completing an online registration in Doe’s name for OAC when Respondent knew that his provision of registration was false in that the registration was not that of Doe and Doe did not authorize Respondent to complete the online registration in her name, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).



There are further counts and allegations.



Ed Clinton, Jr.

‘via Blog this’