of the and disciplinary commission · entitled attorney engagement letter memorializing a new...

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

STEVEN G. SCHOCHETMAN

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6304401.

Commission No. 2013PR00094

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO ADMINISTRATOR'S COMPLAINT

Respondent, Steven G. Schochetman, by his attorney, Stephanie Stewart-Page, hereby

denies the allegation in the opening paragraph that he engaged in conduct which tends to defeat

the administration of justice, or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute, and which

subjects him to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770, and hereby answers the

complaint as follows:

RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231

A. Respondent was admitted in Florida, but his license is currently inactive.

B. Respondent is licensed as a certified public accountant in Illinois. Respondent

previously held Series 7 and 63 licenses, but theyhavesince lapsed.

COUNT I

(False statements to a tribunal)

1. On or about May 21, 2011, Rebecca Dalvesco-Keener ("Rebecca") met

Respondent, both ofwhom had resided inthe same condominium, and spoke with him regarding

FILED

OCT 18 2013

ATTY REG & DISC COfVIMCHICAGO

her pending divorce matter in the Circuit Court of Cook County, entitled In re the marriage of

David Keener and Rebecca Dalvesco-Keener, case number 201 l-D-005001.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph One.

2. On or about May 21, 2011, Respondent agreed to assist Rebecca in her divorce at

an hourly rate of $100.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that his initial fee agreement was for $100 per hour

plus a 20% contingency fee. Respondent, a newly licensed and inexperienced attorney, did

not realize that his fee agreement could not include a contingency component. When he

later realized his mistake, he discussed the matter with Rebecca and they agreed that

Respondent would be paid $175 per hour with no contingency fee instead and that the $175

rate would be retroactive to the beginning of the representation.

3. On or about May 23, 2011, Respondent gave Rebecca an invoice numbered

"RDK 1" dated May 23, 2011 reflecting Rebecca's payment of $500 on May 21, 2011.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Three.

4. Respondent's invoice numbered "RDK 1" billed Rebecca as follows:

Hours Description HourlyRate

Line

Total

1.00 Research related to the prove-up hearing scheduled 5/23/11 $100.00 $100.00

1.00 In court: Strike prove-up scheduled $100.00 $100.00

3.00 Potential criminal charges. Domestic Violence Advocatecounseling for client. Preparing Emergency Order of Protection.

$100.00 300.00

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Four.

5. On or about May 23, 2011, Respondent gave Rebecca a receipt numbered "RDK

2" reflecting Rebecca's $600 payment to Respondent on May 23, 2011.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Five.

6. From May 23, 2011 through June 22, 2011, Rebecca paid Respondent an

additional $2,000, which totaled $3,100 paid to Respondent for attorney fees and costs.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Six.

7. On or about July 21, 2011, Respondent filed on behalf of Rebecca a motion for

temporary relief with the court, attaching a memorandum in support for interim attorney fees and

costs ("memorandum"). The memorandum billed for 46 hours at $175 per hour.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Seven.

8. Respondent's statements in the memorandum that Rebecca had paid a total of

$2,600 in attorney fees and costs was false and Respondent knew it was false because as of June

22, 2011, Rebecca paid Respondent a total of $3,100 for attorney fees and costs.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that the memorandum mistakenly indicated that

Rebecca had paid a total of $2,600 in attorney fees and costs and that as of June 22, 2011,

Rebecca paid Respondent a total of $3,100 for attorney fees and costs. The remainder of

Paragraph Eight is denied.

9. Respondent attached several exhibits to the memorandum, in particular, attached

an exhibit "J" entitled "timekeeping records" dated July 20, 2011 listing Respondent's activities,

hours, hourly rate, and unpaid balance of legal fees. Respondent's exhibit J stated that

Respondent's hourly rate was $175 for all activities performed on May 23, 2011 through July 21,

2011. Respondent's statement in exhibit J that his hourly rate was $175 on May 23, 2011

through July 21, 2011 was false and Respondent knew it was false because his hourly rate was

only $100.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the first and second sentences of Paragraph Nine.

Respondent denies the third sentence of Paragraph Nine.

10. Respondent, in the exhibit J timekeeping record described in paragraph 9, above,

did not include Rebecca's May 21, 2011 $500 payment to Respondent. Respondent's failure to

include the May 21, 2011 $500 payment was false and Respondent knew it was false because

Respondent received the $500 on May 21, 2011 and provided Rebecca the invoice "RDK 1" as

proof of payment.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph Ten and that the

exhibit mistakenly omitted the $500 payment. Respondent denies the second sentence of

Paragraph Ten.

11. Respondent, in the exhibit J timekeeping record described in paragraph 9, above,

stated the following for the May 23,2011 entries:

Date Activity Time Rate Cost

5/23/2011 In court: Strike prove-up scheduled 1.5 $175 $263

5/23/2011 Potential criminal charges. Domestic ViolenceAdvocate counseling for client. Preparing EmergencyOrder of Protection.

4 $175 $700

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Eleven.

12. Respondent's time listed in the exhibit J timekeeping entry described in paragraph

11, above, was false and Respondent knew it was false because the time spent on "In court:

Strike prove-up scheduled" was listed as one hour in the May 23, 2011 invoice "RDK 1", and

Respondent had already been paid for the May 23, 2011 entry described in this paragraph.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Twelve.

13. Respondent's time listed in the exhibit J timekeeping entry described in paragraph

11, above, was false and Respondent knew it was false because the time spent on "Potential

criminal charges; Domestic Violence Advocate counseling for client; Preparing Emergency

Order of Protection" was listed as three hours in the May 23, 2011 invoice "RDK 1", and

Respondent had already beenpaid for the May23, 2011 entrydescribed in this paragraph.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Thirteen.

14. As a result of Respondent's increased hourly rate and duplicative time entries in

two of the May 23, 2011 activities, Respondent provided an incorrect timekeeping record to the

tribunal stating that Rebecca has an unpaid attorney fee balance of $5,450.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Fourteen.

15. Respondent provided the inflated records as described in paragraph 11, above, in

order to attempt to obtain more interim fees from the opposing party.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Fifteen.

16. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the

following misconduct:

a. offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, in violation ofRule 3.3(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);

b. engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, ormisrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);

c. engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, inviolation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010); and

d. engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration ofjustice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute.

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations of

Paragraph Sixteen, subparagraphs a through d, inclusive, as said allegations are not

factual but state conclusions of law. To the extent an answer is deemed required,

the allegations are denied.

COUNT II

(False documents to ARDC and Rebecca Dahesco-Keener)

17. On or about July 21, 2011, Respondent requested Rebecca to sign a document

entitled attorney engagement letter memorializing a new hourly rate of $175 effective on or

about July 21, 2011. Respondent provided the third page of the three page attorney engagement

letter, and Rebecca signed the document. At no time did Respondent provide Rebecca the entire

attorney engagement letter to read or review before signing.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that on or about July 21, 2011, Respondent

requested that Rebecca sign a document entitled attorney engagement letter memorializing

their agreement to a fee of $175 per hour and that the rate would apply retroactively to the

beginning of the representation. The remainder of Paragraph Seventeen is denied.

18. Respondent dated the attorney engagement letter described in paragraph 17,

above, as May 23, 2011. Respondent knew the May 23, 2011 date on the attorney engagement

letter was false because the document was signed on or about July 21, 2011 and the hourly rate

from May 23, 2011 to July 21, 2011 was $100, and Respondent knew it was not $175.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph Eighteen. The

remainder of Paragraph Eighteen is denied.

19. On or about January 27, 2012, Respondent presented the May 23, 2011 attorney

engagement letter described in paragraph 17, above, to the Attorney Registration and

Disciplinary Commission ("ARDC") to support his statements that the hourly rate had always

been $175. Respondent knew the May 23, 2011 attorney engagement letter was falsely dated

because the letter was signed on or about July 21, 2011. Respondent also knew that the hourly

rate was false because the hourly rate from May 23, 2011 through July 21, 2011 was $100 per

hour.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Nineteen.

20. On or about August 3, 2011, Respondent provided Rebecca a false timekeeping

record dated August 3, 2011 with the hourly rate of $175 for all activities performed by

Respondent from May 23, 2011 through August 3, 2011. Respondent's August 3, 2011

timekeeping record was false and Respondent knew it was false as the hourly rate for activities

performed from May 23, 2011 through July 21, 2011 was $100. Also, Respondent knowingly

excluded the $500 payment made by Rebecca on or about May 21, 2011. As a result,

Respondent's timekeeping record stated an unpaid attorney fee balance of $6,238.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Twenty.

21. On or about September 15, 2011, Respondent sent a 14 page facsimile to the

ARDC, which included a timekeeping record with the same date of August 3, 2011 as described

in paragraph 20, above. Respondent's August 3, 2011 timekeeping record provided to the

ARDC stated the hourly rate for activities performed on May 23, 2011 through June 25, 2011 as

$100, and activities performed on July 6, 2011 through August 2, 2011 as $175. Respondent's

timekeeping record provided to the ARDC was false and Respondent knew it was false as the

hourly rates stated in the timekeeping record was false. Respondent, in the timekeeping record

given to the ARDC, included the $500 payment made by Rebecca on or about May 21, 2011.

The unpaidattorney fee balanceof this timekeeping record was $3,750.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Twenty-one.

22. Respondent's timekeeping records provided to the ARDC and Rebecca were false

and Respondent knew they were false, because the hourly rates in both documents were false.

Also, Respondent's timekeeping record provided to Rebecca was false and Respondent knew it

was false because Respondent did not account for Rebecca's $500 May 21, 2011 payment and

the correct hourly rate.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph Twenty-two.



a. knowingly making false states in connection with a disciplinarymatter, in violation of Rule 8.1 of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010);

b. engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, ormisrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);

c. engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, inviolation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010); and

d. engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration ofjustice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute.


Paragraph Twenty-three, subparagraphs a through d, inclusive, as said allegations

are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the extent an answer is deemed

required, the allegations are denied.

COUNT III

(False communication concerning Respondent's admissions in Federal courts)

24. Respondent was admitted to the Florida Bar on November 24, 2008. Respondent

is currently not authorized to practice law in the state of Florida as he is inactive.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Twenty-four.

25. Any member of the public through the internet has the ability to access the Florida

Bar website (www.floridabar.org) and enter a name in the "Find a Lawyer" directory to obtain

information about an attorney licensed in the state of Florida. When a member of the public

enters a name and looks up the information of an attorney, the attorney's profile lists basic

information, as well as information entered by the attorney. The Florida Bar website provides, in

pertinent part, the following information regarding the directory:

The Find A Lawyer directory provides limited basic information about attorneyslicensed to practice in Florida and is provided as a public service by The FloridaBar...Much of the info is provided by the attorney and it is the attorney'sresponsibility to review and update the information.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Twenty-five, except

that Respondent denies that the last sentence of Paragraph Twenty-five contains an exact

quote of the language that currently appears on the website.

26. Respondent entered the following information in his profile on the Florida Bar

website (www.floridabar.org) regarding his admission to practice in the following federal courts:

U.S. Tax Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; U.S. District Court, Middle

10

District of Florida; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida; U.S. District Court Southern

District of Florida; U.S. District Court Central District of Illinois; U.S. District Court Northern

District of Illinois; U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois; Florida Middle District

Bankruptcy Court; Florida Northern District Bankruptcy Court; Florida Southern District

Bankruptcy Court; Illinois Central District Bankruptcy Court; Illinois Northern District

Bankruptcy Court; and the Illinois Southern District Bankruptcy Court.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph Twenty-six.

27. Respondent's statements regarding his admission to practice in federal courts

described in paragraph 26, above, are false and Respondent knows they are false because

Respondent has not been admitted to practice in any of the listed federal courts.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that he has not been admitted to practice in any of

the listed federal courts. Respondent denies the remainder of Paragraph Twenty-seven



a. making a false or misleading communication about his admissionsto practice in certain federal courts, in violation of Rule 7.1 of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

b. engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, ormisrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010); and

c. engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration ofjustice or bring the courtsor legalprofession into disrepute.

11


Paragraph Twenty-eight, subparagraphs a through c, inclusive, as said allegations

are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the extent an answer is deemed

required, the allegations are denied.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Steven G. Schochetman, respectfully requests that the

complaint be dismissed and for any other relief the Panel deems just.

Respectfully Submitted,

Stephanie Stewart-PageGLOOR LAW GROUP, LLC.225 West Wacker Drive

Suite 1800

Chicago, Illinois 60606-1274312/752-3700

312/752-3701 Fax#6862822

By:

12

c^~Q

^

ifiknitephanie Stewart-Page

of the and disciplinary commission · entitled attorney engagement letter memorializing a new...

Documents