The ARDC Hearing Board recently decided the case of Thomas Gordon Maag, 2023 PR 00054. The case began as a claim that the lawyer had failed to diligently represent a client, to comply with requests for information and to surrender client files when requested. After he was contacted by the ARDC, the lawyer allegedly “knowingly fabricated[ed] and backdat[ed] a letter to client which falsely represented that he sent client the client files on December 20, 2022.”
The clients retained the lawyer in 2019 to handle three different matters. The clients provided a retainer but the lawyer never filed suit. The Hearing Board found the the lawyer violated Rules 1.4 (communication) and 1.3 (diligence) because he did not file any lawsuits or advance the client matters to conclusion and failed to communicate with his clients. The Hearing Board also found that the lawyer failed to take measures to return the client files to the Ambroses under Rule 1.16(d).
The more serious charge is that the lawyer engaged in dishonest conduct. The Hearing Board found as follows:
“We find that the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct by knowingly backdating the client letter that the [Clients] found in their mailbox in January 2023, falsely stating in the letter that he had included Client’s entire client files, making the letter appear to have been damaged and delivered by the U.S. Postal Service, and falsely stating to the Administrator that he mailed Client his entire client files. We find that Respondent’s conduct violated Rules 8.4(c) and 8.1(a).” Rule 8.1 prohibits an attorney from making a false statement in a disciplinary matter.
The Hearing Board recommended a suspension of two years and until further order of court. The panel’s opinion contains this paragraph: “Finally, Respondent was dishonest with the Hearing Board. He gave false testimony, including claiming that he sent a demand letter to the hot tub company in early 2020, denying that he received most of the Ambroses’ communications in 2020 to 2022, fabricating the April 28, 2022, conversation with Michael, and asserting that he did not backdate the December 20, 2022, closing letter. He also presented two false exhibits: the fabricated Memo to File, and an email which was admitted and later stricken because Respondent’s version was missing 11 words, despite his insistence that it was a true and correct copy.”
Comments: in the digital age attorney regulators are becoming more capable of detecting fabricated evidence submitted by lawyers to avoid discipline. Obviously, if you make a mistake, you must own up to it and admit it honestly and truthfully.
Update: the ARDC Review Board upheld the findings of the Hearing Board and its recommended discipline. Here is a summary of the Review Board’s opinion.
In re Thomas Gordon Maag — Review Board Report and Recommendation (Commission No. 2023PR00054, filed April 9, 2026)
Disposition: The Review Board affirmed all of the Hearing Board’s misconduct findings and evidentiary/procedural rulings, and recommended that Maag be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order of the Court (“UFO”).
Background
The Administrator brought a three-count disciplinary complaint against Thomas Gordon Maag, an Illinois attorney (admitted 2000, also licensed in Missouri) who runs the Maag Law Firm in Wood River, Illinois. Maag had one prior discipline: a 60-day suspension in 2019 for taking a client’s house as payment without disclosing the conflict of interest, then suing that same client for eviction while still representing her in other matters. He represented himself pro se through the Hearing Board proceedings, then retained appellate counsel for the Review Board appeal.
The underlying complaint arose from Maag’s representation of Michael and Laura Ambrose, whom he agreed in 2019 to represent in three unrelated matters: a dispute over a faulty hot tub, a dispute over the appraised value of a diamond engagement ring, and a dispute with an insurance company over a life insurance policy. For roughly three years (2020–2022), Maag did essentially no work on any of the three matters — he never filed suit or sent demand letters — while failing to keep the Ambroses reasonably informed.
The three counts
Count I (neglect and failure to communicate) charged violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3)-(4), and 1.16(d): failing to diligently pursue the three matters, failing to communicate with the clients, and failing to surrender their files. Maag admitted this misconduct on appeal.
Count II (dishonesty) charged that Maag tried to cover up his neglect through a series of fabrications, in violation of Rules 8.4(c) and 8.1(a). Specifically: he falsely told Michael Ambrose he had filed three lawsuits when he had filed none; he created a backdated “Memo to File” purporting to document an April 28, 2022 phone call that the Hearing Board found never happened; and, most strikingly, he sent the Ambroses a cover letter dated December 20, 2022 falsely stating he was returning their complete legal files, then staged a torn, unmarked, unpostmarked manila envelope in their mailbox weeks later — containing only the letter and no actual files — to make it look like the files had been lost in the mail. A postal inspector testified the envelope had never actually been processed by USPS (no cancelled stamps, no barcode), and the regular mail carrier testified she never delivered it. Maag also falsely told the ARDC he had mailed the complete files to the Ambroses.
Count III (failure to comply with a subpoena) charged a violation of Rule 8.1(b): Maag never produced his computer in response to a May 12, 2023 subpoena duces tecum seeking documents relating to the Ambroses, instead unilaterally asserting attorney-client privilege as to other, unrelated clients and producing only a limited “jump drive” that the Administrator’s forensic expert testified was insufficient for any meaningful forensic analysis.
The Hearing Board found all charged misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence, based substantially on adverse credibility findings against Maag (it found his testimony false, deceptive, and untruthful in more than twenty instances) and credited testimony from the Ambroses, the mail carrier, and the postal inspector.
Issues on appeal
Maag argued (1) the Hearing Board erred on Counts II and III, warranting reversal and remand; (2) the Hearing Board Chair abused her discretion and violated his due process rights through a series of discovery, procedural, and evidentiary rulings (denying continuances, barring his proposed computer expert Robert Dorman as unqualified, excluding a late-obtained report from a second expert, excluding the Administrator’s Requests-to-Admit responses as “judicial admissions,” etc.); and (3) any suspension should be capped at one year with no UFO provision.
On the privilege issue central to Count III, Maag argued Rule 1.6(a) barred him from producing his computer absent a court order. The Review Board rejected this, relying on In re Zisook, 88 Ill. 2d 321 (1981): an attorney cannot unilaterally refuse to comply with a subpoena based on an asserted privilege — he must produce the material and then contest privilege before a court (e.g., by moving to quash under Supreme Court Rule 754(e)), which Maag never did. The Board also held that Rule 1.6(b)(5) affirmatively permitted him to disclose the Ambrose-related material to defend against the misconduct allegations, and that the subpoena and forensic process were narrowly limited to Ambrose-related documents, so no other client’s confidences were actually at risk.
The Review Board rejected each procedural/due-process argument in turn, generally finding the challenged rulings were within the Chair’s discretion, that many of Maag’s arguments had been forfeited for not being raised below (citing the O’Shaughnessy line of cases), and that his two oversized briefs (99 pages, citing over 125 cases) raised numerous new issues never presented to the Hearing Board.
Sanction
The Review Board conducted a de novo review of the sanction and adopted the Hearing Board’s recommendation of a two-year suspension, until further order of the Court. In aggravation, it emphasized: Maag’s false and misleading hearing testimony; his lack of genuine remorse or acceptance of responsibility (he told the Hearing Board “I did not lie to anybody” and asked that all charges be dismissed); his disclosure of confidential information about four unrelated clients during the proceeding; unprofessional conduct toward the Administrator’s counsel and the Hearing Board; the harm caused to the Ambroses; and his prior discipline, which had taken effect just days before he undertook this representation. In mitigation, the Board considered his 17 years of otherwise unblemished practice and personal hardships (his father’s death, his mother’s and daughter’s medical issues, and the pandemic), but found these insufficient to offset the aggravating factors. The Board found the case comparable to In re Houdek, 113 Ill. 2d 323 (1986), and In re Trigo (2004) — both two-year UFO suspensions involving neglect covered up by fabricated evidence and false testimony — and distinguished the shorter-suspension cases Maag cited as involving far less egregious or less prolonged misconduct, more credible testimony, and stronger mitigation.
Comment: This was a simple matter of neglect of a client matter by an attorney. It was a matter of negligence. What sent this matter off the rails was the deceptive actions of the attorney.
