Ethics corner: Discipline of public sector attorneys: some recent dispositions of interest from Illinois and other states

In re Bourgeois, Ill. Sup. Ct. No. M.R. 19087 (January 20, 2004)

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered a two-month suspension of an associate judge's license to practice law, on the basis of false statements that he made in answering questions on his application for a judgeship. The attorney had denied being in default on an educational loan, although the Student Assistance Commission had an uncollected judgment against him; he had falsely stated that he had never been held in contempt by a court, although he had been held in contempt in the student loan case and in a child support matter; he had denied being the subject of any complaint to the ARDC, although the ARDC had received six complaints against him, two of which were pending on the date that his application was filed; and he had reported that he had been a party to only one litigation matter, his divorce case, although he had been a named defendant in three other lawsuits.

In re Gambino, Ill. Sup. Ct. No. M.R. 18878 (September 24, 2003)

The Illinois Supreme Court ordered this attorney suspended for one year, with the suspension stayed after 90 days by a one-year period of probation. While Gambino was an assistant federal defender, she represented Jorge Ramos-Gonzales in a criminal matter, in which he was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after conviction of an aggravated felony. After he served his prison time, Gonzalez was deported, and he later reentered the United States illegally. Respondent then began a personal relationship with him, during which she helped him remain in the country illegally.

In re Guzman, Ill. Sup. Ct. No. M.R. 18943 (November 14, 2003)

An Assistant State's Attorney in Rock Island County was censured for sending a letter, on official letterhead, to two residents involved in a neighborhood dispute about excessive noise, when the letter contained statements of fact or law that she knew or reasonably should have known were false; she told the letter's recipients that if further complaints were received against them, criminal charges would be filed, DCFS would take away their children, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be contacted regarding their right to remain in the country.

In re Cain, Ill. A.R.D.C. Hearing Board, No. 02 SH 19 (reprimand administered, September 26, 2002).

While he was an Assistant State's Attorney for Macoupin County, the attorney left a bar, after drinking about six beers on a Friday night, drove off in his SUV, hit an 18-year-old woman who was walking on the road, and left the scene without providing assistance. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury, a Class A misdemeanor.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gansler, 835 A.2d 548 (Md. 2003)

The Maryland Court of Appeals, in what it described as a case of first impression construing that state's ethical rule regarding trial publicity, reprimanded the State's Attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland, for making certain extra-judicial statements regarding a confession, a plea offer, and his opinion of certain defendants' guilt of charged crimes.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Goodman, 850 A.2d 1157 (Md. 2004)

The Maryland Court of Appeals ordered the disbarment of an assistant public defender who used another attorney's name, without permission, under which he filed and attempted to settle a private civil lawsuit on behalf of a charitable enterprise that he ran and financed; the attorney had believed that he would not be allowed to engage in the civil litigation due to his position with the public defender's office and that the civil matter would be settled without a court appearance.

People v. Mucklow, 35 P.3d 527 (Colo. 2000)

A relatively inexperienced deputy district attorney was censured for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence in two cases; she withheld evidence in one case that the alleged victim of a domestic assault had recanted her story, and she failed to disclose, in the other case, that the 11-year-old victim in a sexual abuse case had changed her version of the sexual contact that she had previously described.