of the illinois attorney registrationwasson ("wasson") in a variety ofmatters, including,...

. i

In the Matter of:

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATIONAND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

FILED

SEP -5 2013

ATTY REG & DISC COMMCHICAGO

LAWRENCE FRANCIS PATTERSON,

No. 2153718

Attorney-Respondent.)

Commission No. 2013 PR 00059

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Now comes Attorney-Respondent, LAWRENCE FRANCIS PATTERSON

("Respondent" or "Patterson"), by and through his counsel, Thomas Brejcha of the Thomas More

Society and Joan M. Mannix of the Law Office of Joan M. Mannix, and as and for his Answer to

the Complaint of the Administrator, states as follows:

COUNT I

(Breach offiduciary duty-George Wasson)

1. On July 24, 2009, Respondent agreed to represent George Wasson ("Wasson") in avariety of matters, including Wasson's desire to petition for appointment to serve as guardian forthe person and estate of Pamela Wasson, Wasson's then-52 year-old daughter, who had beendiagnosed with schizophrenia. Their agreement provided, in part, that Respondent would becompensated at a rate of $225 per hour and that Wasson was to pay Respondent $2,500 feeadvance uponexecution of a signedagreement. Shortly thereafter, Respondent and Wasson signeda document entitled "Security Retainer Agreement", and Wasson paid Respondent $2,500 as anadvance toward Respondent's fees, as required pursuant to their agreement.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 24, 2009, he agreed to represent George

Wasson ("Wasson") in a variety of matters, including, inter alia, Wasson's desire to petition for

appointment to serve as guardian for the person and estate of Pamela Wasson, who had been

diagnosed with schizophrenia. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny

that Pamela Wasson was then 52 years old. Respondent admits that his agreement with Wasson

was that Respondent would be compensated at a rate of $225 per hour. Respondent denies that

Wasson was to pay Respondent "[a] $2,500 fee advance upon execution of a signed agreement"

and affirmatively states that the $2,500 was a security retainer and not a fee advance. Respondent

admits that, "Shortly thereafter, Respondent and Wasson signed a document entitled 'Security

Retainer Agreement.'" Respondent admits that Wasson gave Respondent $2,500, butdenies that

those funds were "paid" "as an advance toward Respondent's fees as required pursuant to their

agreement." Respondent affirmatively states that the $2,500 was a security retainer paid in

accordance with the parties' "Security Retainer Agreement."

2. As Wasson's attorney, Respondent owed fiduciary duties to Wasson, including theduty to exercise at all times the highest degree of honesty, loyalty, and good faith in his dealingswith Wasson, and to avoid putting his own interest above Wasson's.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2.

3. As of September 17, 2009, Respondent had applied $2,408.10 of the advance feepayment paid by Wasson towards fees and cost that were purportedly owed to him by Wasson.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of September 17, 2009, Respondent had applied

$2,408.10 of the $2,500 given to him by Wasson towards fees and costs that were owed to

Respondent by Wasson, but denies that that $2,500 was "an advance fee payment" and denies that

the fees and costs were "purportedly" owed to him. Respondent affirmatively states that at that

time Wasson in fact owed Respondent $2,408.10 in fees and costs.

4. As of December 8, 2010, Respondent had not filed a guardianship petition forPamela on behalf of Wasson or prepared an estate plan or funded a trust on behalf of Wasson orPamela.


5. On December 8, 2010, Respondent went to Wasson's residence, removed a checkfrom Wasson's checkbook, had Wasson sign the check, and made the check payable to himself for

$5,000. Respondent deposited those funds in his client trust account. As of December 8, 2010,Respondent had not provided Wasson with an itemized bill and has not filed a petition forguardianship of Pamela.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5, with the

clarification that the funds were deposited into his IOLTA account, which is presumably what is

meant by the reference to "his client trust account." Respondent affirmatively states that he

removed a check from Wasson's checkbook and made the check payable to himself in Wasson's

presence.

6. Sometime between December 8 and December 17, 2010, Wasson terminatedRespondent as his attorney.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6. Respondent

affirmatively states that, at some point prior to December 23, 2010, Wasson indicated to

Respondent that Wasson wanted Respondent to withdraw as his attorney and that Wasson did not

want Respondent to be his attorney.

7. On December 17, 2010, Respondent filed a document entitled "755 ILCS 5/1 la-8Emergency Petition for Appointment of a Temporary & Plenary Guardian of the Person & EstateGuardian ad Litem & Adjudication of Disability" (hereinafter "petition") in the Circuit Court ofWill County, Probate Division, requesting that Wasson be adjudicated disabled and seeking tohave himself appointed Wasson's guardian. The case was captioned as Estate of George Wasson,as an alleged disabled person, case number 10 P 938.

ANSWER: Patterson admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 except the

statement that the petition "requested] that Wasson be adjudicated disabled and seeking to have

himself appointed Wasson's guardian." With respect to that statement, Respondent states that the

petition speaks for itself but admits that, among other things, the petition requested that Wasson be

adjudicated disabled and requested that Respondent be appointed temporary and plenary guardian

of Wasson's person and Estate.

8. On December 20, 2010, the Honorable Jeff Allen entered an order appointing

3

attorney Colleen Wengler as Guardian ad Litem for Wasson in case number 10 P 938. Casenumber 10 P 0938 was continued until December 23, 2010 for a hearing onRespondent's petition.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 except hedenies

that the December 20, 2010 Order continued the case to December 23, 2010 for a hearing on the

petition. Respondent affirmatively states that the December 20, 2010 Order speaks for itselfand

provides in part, "this matter is set for status on December 23, 2010 at 9:00 a.m."

9. On December 23, 2010, attorney Mark Hanson filed an appearance as counsel forWasson.


affirmatively states that on December 23, 2010, attorney Mark Hanson appeared before the Court

and represented to the Court that he had been retained as counsel for Wasson but that he did not file

his appearance as counsel for Wasson until January 11, 2011.

10. On December 23, 2010, after considering testimony offered by Wengler andHanson, Judge Allen enteredan order denyingRespondent's request for emergency relief, referredto in paragraph 7, above. Judge Allen continued case number 10 P 938 for status on Respondent'spetition for guardianship of Wasson until February 28, 2011.

ANSWER: Respondent denies that, on December 23, 2010, the Court considered

"testimony" offered by Wengler and Hanson because neither Wengler nor Hanson "testified" at

the hearing. Respondent admits that, on December 23, 2010, Judge Allen entered an order

denying Respondent's request for emergency relief but denies that paragraph 7 completely and

accurately describes the emergency relief requested in the petition. Respondent affirmatively

states that Judge Allen's December 23, 2010 Order provides in part, "Emergency relief requested

in said Petition is denied." Respondent further admits that, on December 23, 2010, Judge Allen

continued case number 10 P 938 for status on Respondent's petition for guardianship of Wasson

until February 28, 2011.

Respondent additionally affirmatively states that, on December 23, 2010, Wengler and

Hanson, as well as Patterson, made statements to the Court. Wengler advised the Court she had

visited Wasson and found him to be "alert, coherent, well-groomed, well-fed." Wengler further

advised the Court that, although Wasson had been able to discuss with her "his affairs in the most

general of terms," he was "fuzzy on the details of almost everything." Wengler acknowledged

that Wasson needed assistance and should not be left alone and that arrangements had been made

for a friend to stay with Wasson around the clock. Wengler recommended that she be allowed to

obtain "a more detailed assessment of exactly what [Wasson's] current level of functioning is and

make appropriate arrangements for him" and advised the Court she was "not prepared to say a

guardianship is not necessary in this matter, just that I saw no reason to take any emergency

measures at this point."

On December 23, 2010, Patterson advised the Court that, based on the representations of

Wenglerand Hanson, Patterson agreed that there was no need for the emergency appointmentof a

temporary guardian. He indicated he had taken the steps that he felt were necessary to protect

Wasson but, since Wasson was being protected by Wengler and Hanson, Patterson was no longer

needed in that role. Patterson further indicated, without contradiction from Wengler or Hanson,

he was not withdrawing as the petitioner seeking appointment of a plenary guardian because

Wengler and Hanson did not want the petition dismissed at that time.

11. On February 28, 2011, after considering information that includedrecommendations contained in a neuropsychological evaluation of Wasson, Judge Allen enteredan order denying Respondent's petition in case number 10 P 938

ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny what

information Judge Allen considered on February 28, 2011 so neither admits nor denies the

allegation as to what Judge Allen considered. Respondent admits that on February 28, 2011,

Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's petition in case number 10 P 938.

Respondent affirmatively states that the February 28, 2011 Order entered by Judge Allen

provided, in part, "the Petition for Appointment ofTemporary & Plenary Guardian of the Person &

Estate, & Adjudication of Disability is denied based on the Report of Dr. Gelbort, the testimony of

and allegations of Counsel in said Record."

12. On May 25, 2011, Wengler, on behalf of Wasson, filed a petition for a recoverycitation against Respondent in case number 10 P 938, requesting that Respondent be required toshow cause why he should not be required to remit the $7,500 in purported fees that he received,alleging that any legal services were either not rendered or were rendered without Wasson'sknowledge or consent.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 25, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for a

recovery citation against Respondent in case number 10 P 938. Respondent denies that she filed

the petition for a recovery citation "on behalf of Wasson." Respondent affirmatively states that

Wengler did not represent Wasson and lacked standing to file the petition for a recovery citation.

Respondent denies that the allegation that the petition for a recovery citation "requested] that

Respondent be required to show cause why he should not be required to remit the $7,500 in

purported fees that he received, alleging that any legal services were either not rendered or were

rendered without Wasson's knowledge or consent" constitutes an accurate or complete recitation

of the contents of the petition for a recovery citation and affirmatively states that the petition for a

recovery citation speaks for itself.

Respondent affirmatively states that the "wherefore" paragraph of the petition for recovery

citation states, "Wherefore, Petitioner, Colleen Wengler, respectfully requests that a Citation issue

upon Respondent, Lawrence F. Patterson, to show cause why he should not be ordered to deliver to

the representative the $7,500 in retainers taken or received from GEORGE WASSON for legal

services which were either not rendered or were rendered without the knowledge and consent of

Mr. WASSON."

Respondent affirmatively states that the $7,500 he received from Wasson was applied

toward fees and costs that were owed to Respondent, but that, ultimately, the Court required

Respondent to refund that amount.

13. On July 19,2011, Respondent filed a petition for fees and costs in case number 10 P938. In Respondent's fee petition, after giving Wasson credit for $4,408.10 that had been paid,Respondent claimed that Wasson owed him $28,271.63 in additional fees and costs.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13. Respondent

affirmatively states that Wasson in fact owed Respondent $28,271.63 in additional fees and costs.

Respondent additionally affirmatively states that Respondent was required by the Court to refund

to Wasson the $7,500 he had paid Respondent, and Respondent was not paid anything for any fees

or costs.

14. On July 19,2011, after considering testimony from Respondent and Wasson, JudgeAllen entered an order finding that Respondent had not "met his burden of showing by clear andconvincing evidence that he has exercised the utmost good faith and has not betrayed the trustplaced in him" by Wasson, granting Wasson's petition for recovery, and directing Respondent todeliver $7,500 to Wengler within 10 days of the order. Judge Allen ordered the funds to bedeposited by Wengler and maintained in her trust account until further order of the court. JudgeAllen scheduled case number 10 P 938 for status on August 1, 2011.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 19, 2011, Judge Allen entered an Order

granting the petition for recovery citation, but denies that the petition for recovery citation was

"Wasson's petition." Answering further, Respondents states that the July 19, 2011 Order speaks

for itself and denies that Paragraph 14 completely and accurately sets forth the contents of that

Order, even with respect to the purported quote from the July 19, 2011 Order set forth in Paragraph

14. Respondent affirmatively states that the Order provides in part, "Pursuant to the DeJarnette

case, Respondent Lawrence Patterson must show by clear and convincing evidence that he has

exercised the utmost good faith and has not betrayed the trust placed in him by his client" and

further provides, "Respondent Patterson did not me[e]t his burden in this matter...." The Order

further provides, "The GAL's Petition for Recovery Citation is granted" and "Respondent

Patterson shalldeliver$7,500.00 to the GALin this matterwithin 10daysof the entryof this order,

to be placed in the GAL's trust account to be held pending further order of court."

Respondent lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegation "after

considering testimony from Respondent and Wasson", but affirmatively states that the

Respondent's testimony and Wasson's testimony was presented at the July 19, 2011 hearing.

Respondent admits Judge Allen scheduled case number 10 P 938 for status on August 1,

2011.

15. On July 28, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for fees seeking from Respondent$3,700 for services Wengler provided to Wasson in case number 10 P 938.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 28, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for fees

but denies that said Petition sought "from Respondent $3,700 for services Wengler provided to

Wasson in case number 10 P 938."

Respondent affirmatively states that the July 28, 2011 Petition For Attorney's Fees speaks

for itself and that said petition states in part, "Petitioner was appointed by the Court to be

Guardian-ad-Litem for GEORGE WASSON, an Alleged Disabled Adult, in this case" and

"Petitioner, in the professional representation of said alleged disabled adult has expended 18.50

hours; and further, all such hours were necessary for and reasonably related to the said

representation." The "wherefore" paragraph of the July 28, 2011 Petition For Attorney's Fees,

8

states, "Wherefore, the undersigned moves that this Court award attorney's fees in the amount of

$3,700 and costs in the amount of $-0- for a total of $3,700.00."

16. On July 29, 2011, Respondent filed a motionto vacatethe order enteredon July 19,2011, described in paragraph 14, above.


17. As of August 1, 2011, Respondent had not complied with Judge Allen's July 19,2011 order that required him to tender $7,500 to Wengler, on behalf of Wasson. On August 1,2011, Wengler filed a petition for a rule to show cause, alleging that Respondent had violated thecourt's July 19, 2011 order, referenced in paragraph 14, above, by failing to deliver $7,500 toWengler's office, and asking that Respondent be ordered to show why he should not be found indirect willful contempt for his violation of the July 19, 2011 order.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of August 1, 2011, he had not complied with

Judge Allen's July 19,2011 order that required him to tender $7,500 to Wengler but denies that the

July 19, 2011 order required him to tender the funds to Wengler "on behalf of Wasson." As set

forth supra, in the Answer to Paragraph 14, the July 19, 2011 Order directed Respondent to

"deliver $7,500.00 to the GAL in this matter [Wengler] within 10 days of the entry of this order, to

be placed in the GAL's trust account to be held pending further order of court." Respondent

admits that, on August 1, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for a rule to show cause but denies that

Paragraph 17completelyand accuratelysets forth the contents ofsaid petition and therefore denies

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17. Respondent affirmatively states that said petition for

rule to show cause speaks for itself

Respondent additionally affirmatively states that said petition for rule to show cause

alleges, in part, "That to date, Respondent has made no payment to the office of the undersigned"

and "That accordingly, Respondent Patterson has willfully violated the Court's Order of July 19,

2011." The "wherefore" portion of the petition for rule to show cause states, "WHEREFORE, the

Guardian ad Litem in this matter, COLLEEN WENGLER, requests that this Court issue a Rule

against Lawrence Patterson ordering him to show cause why he should not be found in direct

willful contempt of court for his violation of this Court's Order of July 19, 2011 and that this Court

set the hearing date on the Rule; and that upon finding of contempt that the Court order enter [sic]

such sanctions that are just and proper under the circumstances, including an award of Petitioner's

additional reasonable attorney's fees."

18. On August 1, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's motion tovacate and granting Wengler's petition for a rule to show cause. Judge Allen further orderedRespondent to tender $2,820.90 to Wengler to be held in her trust account until further order of thecourt. Case number 10 P 938 was continued until August 23, 2011 for return of the rule to showand hearings on Respondent's and Wengler's fee petitions.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 1, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order

denying Respondent's motion to vacate and granting Wengler's petition for rule to show cause.

Respondent denies that the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18 completely and accurately set

forth the contents of the August 1, 2011 Order and therefore denies the remaining allegations of

Paragraph 18.

Respondent affirmatively states that the August 1, 2011 Order speaks for itself.

Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the August 1, 2011 Order provides, in part,

"Attorney Patterson ordered to mail $2,820.00 to GAL Wengler before 5:00 p.m. today. Said

funds to be held in the GAL's Trust account pending further order of Court, said turnover to be

without prejudice to any party" and "Hearing on attorney Patterson's Petition for Fees and GAL

Wengler's Petition for Fees set on August 23, 2011 at 1:30 p.m."

19. On August 15,2011, Respondent filed a motion to vacate the August 1,2011 rule toshow cause, referred to in paragraph 18, above.


10

20 On August 23,2011, Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's motion tovacate the rule to show cause, holding Respondent in indirect civil contempt, but also holding thatRespondent could purge the contempt by depositing $4,679.10 with Wengler on or beforeSeptember 13, 2011. Judge Allen also approved Wengler's fee petition requesting fees in theamount of $3,700, over Respondent's objection. Case number 10 P 938 was continued untilSeptember 14, 2011 for status, consideration of Respondent's fee petition and allocation ofWengler's fees.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 23, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order

denying Respondent's motion to vacate the rule to show cause and holding Respondent in indirect

civil contempt. Respondent admits that Judge Allen approved Wengler's fee petition requesting

fees in the amount of $3,700, over Respondent's objection. Respondent denies that the remaining

allegations of Paragraph 20 completely and accurately set forth the contents of the August 23,

2011 Order and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23.

Respondent affirmatively states that the August 23, 2011 Order speaks for itself.

Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the August 23, 2011 Order provides in part,

"Attorney Patterson isgranted 21 days topurge his contempt by turning over the sum of$4,679.10

to the GAL, on or before September 13, 2011," "This matter is set for status on purge and

pleadings on September 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.," "At that time the Court will make a determination

whether to take the matter of Mr. Patterson's fees under advisement or whether to set the matter for

evidentiary hearing" and "Allocation of the GAL's Fees shall be considered by the Court on

September 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m."

21. OnAugust 23,2011, Wengler filed objections to Respondent's fee petition, referredto in paragraph 13, above, alleging, inpart, that Respondent did not perform the services for whichWasson retained him to perform.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 23, 2011, Wengler filed objections to

Respondent's fee petition [filed on July 19, 2011], but denies that Paragraph 21 completely and

11

accuratelysets forth the contents of those objectionsand therefore denies the remainingallegations

of Paragraph 21.

Respondent affirmatively states that the document referenced in Paragraph 21, the

Objections To Fee Petition Of Lawrence F. Patterson ("Objections"), speaks for itself and that said

Objections state, in part, "The uncontroverted sworn testimony in this matter offered during the

hearing on the Recovery Citation issued herein indicated that Mr. Patterson did not perform the

services he was retained to perform."

22. On September 8, 2011, Respondent sent Wengler a check for $4,679.10, whichrepresented the funds that he was required to deposit with Wengler to purge the August 23, 2011order finding Respondent in contempt, referred to in paragraph 20, above.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 22.

23. On September 9, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for additional fees totaling $1,800,related to her representation of Wasson.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 9, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for

additional fees totaling $1,800, but denies that Wengler represented Wasson and so denies the

remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 23.

24. On September 14, 2011, upon being advised that Respondent had delivered$4,679.10 to Wengler, Judge Allen entered an order purging the contempt finding againstRespondent and dismissing the rule to show cause. Judge Allen further ordered Respondent to paythe previouslyapproved GAL fees in the amount of $3,700 to Wengler within 30 days of the order.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 14, 2011, upon being advised that

Respondent had delivered $4,679.10 to Wengler, Judge Allen entered an order but denies that

Paragraph 24 completely and accurately sets forth the contents of that order and so denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 24.

Respondent affirmatively states that the September 14, 2011 Order speaks for itself and

12

that it provides, in part, "Being so advised [that Mr. Patterson has complied with the Court's

Order's provisions with regard to purging his contempt by delivering $4,679.10 to the GAL], the

Court finds that Mr. Patterson's indirect civil contempt of Court has been purged", "Mr. Patterson

having purged his Contempt, the Rule issued inthis matter isdismissed." and "Ms. Wengler's fees

as approved by this Court on August 23, 2011 in the amount of $3,700.00 shall be paid by Mr.

Patterson the Petitioner in the Petition for Guardianship andRespondent in the Recovery Citation,

is ordered to pay said fees within 30 days of the entry of this order."

25. On September 14, 2011, Respondent filed objections to Wengler's petition foradditional fees and a supporting memorandum of law objecting to the court's jurisdiction andWengler ongoing participation in case number 10 P 938.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 14, 2011, Respondent filed

objections to Wengler's petition for additional fees and a memorandum of law but denies that

Paragraph 25 completely and accurately describes the contents of said memorandum and so denies

the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 25.

Respondent affirmatively states that, on September 14, 2011, Respondent filed his

Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Guardian Ad Litem's Presumptive Authority To Act

Subsequent To The Court's Finding George Wasson Was Not Disabled And Dismissal Of

Petitioner's 755 ILCS 5/1 la-8 Petition Without Compliance With The Probate Act and that in said

Memorandum, Respondent, among other things, asserted, "Upon denial of the adjudication of

George Wasson's Disability and Dismissal of the Petition to adjudicate Mr. Wasson a disabled

adult and Appoint a Temporary and Plenary Guardian of the Person and Estate of George Wasson,

Attorney Colleen Wengler, Guardian ad Litem, lost standing to provide the Court an[y] additional

services; and the Court lost jurisdiction to enter any Orders against Petitioner based on any

13

Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and/or Objections filed against Petitioner in her capacity as

Guardian Ad Litem for George W. Wasson...." [Emphasis omitted.]

26. On September 22,2011, Respondent filed a motion to vacate portions of the ordersentered on August 23, 2011 and September 14, 2011. Specifically, Respondent requested thatJudge Allen vacate the portions of the August 23, 2011 order approving Wengler's fees as "usualand customary"; awarding the amount of $3,700; and granting Wengler leave to file objections toRespondent's fee petition instanter. Additionally, Respondent requested that Judge Allen vacateportions of the order entered on September 14, 2011 that provided that Respondent pay Wengler's$3,700 fee and that the payment be made with 30 days.


Respondent affirmatively states that Respondent's "Motion To Vacate Portions Of The

Orders Dated August 23, 2011 And September 14, 2011" speaks for itself but acknowledges that

Paragraph 26 completely and accurately sets forth the forms of relief requested in said Motion.

27. On October 24, 2011, Wengler filed a motion for hearing on Respondent's motionto vacate and for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, alleging that Respondent'smotion to vacate had been filed solely to harass the guardian ad litem, unnecessarily delayenforcement of the judgment against Respondent, and needlessly increase the cost of litigationcost in case number 10 P 938.


Respondent affirmatively states that the "Motion For Hearing On Respondent Patterson's

Motion To Vacate And For 137 Sanctions" speaks for itself but acknowledges that Paragraph 27

accurately describes certain of the allegations set forth in said Motion.

28. On November 2, 2011, Wengler filed a petition for additional fees related to herrepresentation of Wasson in case number 10 P 938, seeking an additional $2,600.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on November 2,2011, Wengler filed a petition for

additional fees seeking $2,600, but denies that Wengler represented Wasson in case number 10P

938 and so denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 28.

29. On November 2, 2011, Judge Allen entered an order denying and dismissingRespondent's objection to the court's jurisdiction and Wengler's participation incase number 10 P

14

938; striking Respondent's motion to vacate portions of the court's August 23, 2011 order becauseit wasuntimely; denying Respondent's motion to vacate the court'sSeptember 14, 2011 order; andgranting Wengler's October 24, 2011 motion for hearing and for sanctions. The court furthergranted Wengler's petitions for additional fees in the amount $1,800 and $2,600 and ordered thatWengler's fees would be assessed against Respondent. The court further found that Respondent'sactions were for purposes of delaying enforcement of the court's order. Pursuant to the court'sorder, Respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 to Wasson and was ordered to pay the balance ofWengler'sfees within 28 days of the court's order. Wenglerwas granted leave to apply $7,500 thatwas currently on deposit with her from Respondent towards her fees, leaving Respondent with abalance of $600 owed to Wengler.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on November 2, 2011, Judge Allen entered an

order but denies that Paragraph 29 completely and accurately sets forth the contents of said Order

and so denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29.

Respondent affirmatively states that the November 2, 2011 Order speaks for itself.

Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the November 2, 2011 Order provides in part,

"Patterson's objections to the GAL's standing in this matter and the Court's jurisdiction in this

matter are denied and dismissed, "Patterson's motion to vacate portions of the Court's August 23,

2011 Order is stricken as not timely filed," "Patterson's motion to vacate the Court's order of

September 14, 2011 is denied," "GAL Colleen Wengler's Petition For Additional Fees in the

amount of $1,800.00 is granted over Patterson's objection," "GAL Colleen Wengler's Petition for

Additional Fees in the amount of $2,600.00 is granted, over Patterson's objection," "GAL Colleen

Wengler granted authority to apply the $7,500.00 currently being held in her trust account toward

her total outstanding fees in this matter ; said funds belonging to George Wasson," "the GAL's

fees in the amount of $8,100.00 shall be assessed against Lawrence Patterson; $7,500.00 to be paid

to George Wasson to reimburse him for the $7,500.00 payment from GAL Wengler's Trust

Account, and $600.00 to be paid to GAL Wengler," "Said fees are to be paid by Attorney Patterson

within 28 days of the entry of this order," "Judgment entered upon this date against Lawrence

15

Patterson in favor of George Wasson in theamount of $7,500.00 and in favor of Colleen Wengler

in the amount of $600.00 for attorneys fees ordered paid pursuant to paragraph 7 of this order,

"Colleen Wengler's Motion for hearing and for sanctions for Patterson's filing of his Motion to

Vacate is granted, the Court finding that Patterson's actions herein were for purpose of delay."

Patterson additionally affirmatively states that the Court's November 2, 2011 Order also

provides, "Patterson's oral motion to withdraw his Petition for Attorney's [Fees] is granted, there

being no objection thereto."

30. On December 2, 2011, Respondent filed a notice of appeal in case number 10 P938.


31. As of February 8, 2012, Respondent had not paid Wasson or Wengler, pursuant tothe court's November 2, 2011 order. On February 8, 2012, Wengler filed a petition for a rule toshow cause against Respondent in the Circuit Court of Will County, alleging that he had not paidher or Wasson, in compliance with the court's order November 2, 2011 order. Wengler requestedthat Respondent be held in indirect civil contempt of court.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of February 8, 2012, Respondent had not paid

Wasson or Wengler, pursuant to the court's November 2, 2011 Order. Respondent admits that,

on February 8, 2012, Wengler filed a petition for a rule to show cause against Respondent in the

Circuit Court of Will County, but denies that Paragraph 31 completely and accurately sets forth the

allegations of said petition and so denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 31. '

Respondent affirmatively states that the February 8, 2012 Petition For Rule To Show

Cause speaks for itself. Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that said Petition alleges,

in part, "That to date, Respondent Patterson has made no payment to the office of the undersigned

or Mr. George Wasson," and "That accordingly, Respondent Patterson has willfully violated this

Court's Order of November 2, 2011." The Petition requested that, "the Court issue a Rule against

16

Lawrence Patterson ordering him to show cause why he should not be found in direct willful

contempt of court for his violation of this Court's Order of November 2, 2011 and that this Court

set the hearing date on this Rule; and that upon a finding of contempt that the Court order enter

[sic] such sanctions that are just and proper under the circumstances, including an award of

Petitioner's additional reasonable attorney's fees."

32. On or around February 15, 2012, Respondent sent Wengler $600, representing thebalance of the fees that he owed her.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on or around February 15, 2012, Respondent sent

Wengler $600, but denies that that amount represented the balance of the fees "that he owed her."

Respondent affirmatively states that the $600.00 represented the balance of the fees that

Respondent had been ordered to pay Wengler and the balance of the judgment that had been

entered in Wengler's favor against Respondent. Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states

that the checkpaying the $600.00 reflected the notation, "Est. of George Wasson 10P 938Balance

of Fee Per Order entered 11/02/2011 Subject to Notice of Appeal filed 12/2/2012."

33. On February 29, 2012, Judge Allen entered an order scheduling a hearing onWengler's petition for a rule to show cause.


34. On April 4, 2012, Respondent filed a motion seeking to have thejudgment againsthim stayed pending appeal.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 4, 2012, Respondent filed a motion

seeking to have the judgmentagainst him stayed pending appeal.

Respondent affirmatively states that said motion, entitled, "Motion For Stay Of Judgment

Pending Appeal And For Extension Of Time For Approval And Filing Of Security", speaks for

itself, andthat, in addition to requesting a stay of the enforcement of thejudgments entered against

17

him and in favor of George Wasson, said Motion requested other forms of relief.

35. On April 4, 2012, Judge Allen entered an order denying Respondent's motion for astay of judgment, and finding him in indirect civil contempt of court for failing to comply with theNovember 2, 2011 order by paying Wasson $7,500.


Respondent affirmatively states that the April 4, 2012 Order speaks for itself and that said

Order contains provisions in addition to those paraphrased in Paragraph 35.

36. Judge Wasson further ordered that Respondent had 45 days to purge the contemptfinding by paying Wasson, through Wengler, $7,500.

ANSWER: Respondent denies that Paragraph 36 completely and accurately sets forth

the provisions of the Court's April 4, 2012 Order and so denies the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 36.

Respondent affirmatively states that the April 4, 2012 Order speaks for itself and that said

Order contains a provision which provides, "Lawrence Patterson shall have 45 days to purge his

contempt, by payment of $7,500.00 to Colleen Wengler at 181 N. Hammes Ave. Joliet, IL 60453,

said funds to be payable to George Wasson."

37. As of May 16, 2012, Respondent had not paid the $7,500 that Judge Allen hadordered him to pay Wasson, On May 16, 2012, Respondent filed a motion to reconsider andmotion for stay ofjudgment pending appeal.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of May 16, 2012, Respondent had not paid the

$7,500 that Judge Allen had ordered him to pay" but Respondent denies that Judge Allen had

ordered Respondent to pay that amount to Wasson. Respondent admits that, on May 16, 2012,

Respondent filed a motion to reconsider and motion for stay of judgment pending appeal.

38. On May 16, 2012, Judge Allen ordered Respondent to present himself in court onJuly 31, 2012 to advise the court whether he had paid Wasson the previously ordered $7,500.Judge Allen further ordered that Respondent was to be taken to the Will County Detention Centerwhere he would be incarcerated for 150 days or such lesser time if he proved that he paid Wasson.

18

ANSWER: Respondent denies that Paragraph 38 completely and accurately sets forth

the allegations of the Court's May 16, 2012 Order and so denies the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 28.

Respondent affirmatively states that the Order entered by Judge Allen on May 16, 2012

speaks for its self. He further affirmatively states that the May 16, 2012 Order provides, in part,

"Petitioner shall present himself to the Court @ 9:00 a.m. on July 31, 2012 and advise the Court

whether he has or has not paid George Wasson $7500.00; and, if not... Petitioner shall be taken to

the Will County Detention Center Facility where he shall be incarcerated for 150 Days or such

lesser time as & if he proves he has paid George Wasson said $7500.00."

39. On May 23, 2012, Respondent appealed the court's April 4, 2012 order finding himin indirect civil contempt.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 23, 2012 Respondent appealed the court's

April 4, 2012 order finding him in indirect civil contempt.

Respondent affirmatively states that the May 23, 2012 Notice Of Appeal speaks for itself

and that said Notice of Appeal did not only appeal that portion of the April 4, 2012 order finding

him in indirect civil contempt but also appealed from additional portions of the April 4, 2012

Order, as well as portions of the May 16, 2012 Order.

40. On July 31, 2012, Respondent appeared in court and tendered to Wengler a checkfor $7,500. Respondent's check represented payment of thejudgment owed to Wasson, referred toin paragraph 14, above.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on July 31, 2012, Respondent appeared in court

and tendered to Wengler a check for $7,500. Respondent denies that Respondent's check

represented payment of thejudgment owed to Wasson, referred to in Paragraph 14.

Respondent affirmatively states that the Paragraph 14 references the Order entered by the

19

Court on July 14, 2012 and that said Order did not enter ajudgment against Respondent in favor of

Wasson.

41. On August 13, 2012, the court entered an order purging and dischargingRespondent's contempt, after being advised that Respondent's check for $7,500 had been honoredby the bank.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 13, 2012, the court entered an order but

denies that Paragraph 41 completely and accurately alleges the contents of said Order and so

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 41.

Respondent affirmatively states that the August 13, 2012 Order speaks for itself and that it

provides: "This matter comes before the Court for status on Lawrence Patterson's purge of his

contempt,GAL Wengler appears and represents that the funds tendered to Mr. Wasson pursuant to

Court Order have cleared, such that Mr. Patterson's contempt has been purged. The Rule is

discharged."

42. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:

a. breach of fiduciary duty to George Wasson;

b overreaching;

c. charging an unreasonable fee, in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);

d. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

e. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42.

20

COUNT II

(Incompetence and charging unreasonable fees-Joseph Gombash)

43. On December 10, 2007, Joseph Gombash ("Gombash") initiated proceedings to

become appointed as the guardian for Evelyn Gombash ("Evelyn"), his wife, in the Circuit Court

of Will County, Probate Division. The matter was captioned as In re the Estate of Evelyn

Gombash, 07 P 893.

ANSWER: Respondent denies that, on December 10, 2007, Joseph Gombash initiated

the proceedings to become appointed as guardian for Evelyn Gombash. Respondent

affirmatively states that, on December 10, 2007, a Petition For Temporary Guardian was filed by

"Attorney Daniel J. Softcheck", which requested that Joseph Gombash be appointed temporary

guardian of Evelyn Gombash, in the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County,

Illinois. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny whether Evelyn

Gombash was Joseph Gombash's wife at that time. Respondent denies that the matter was

captioned, "In re the Estateof Evelyn Gombash". Respondent affirmatively states that the matter

was captioned, "Estate of Evelyn Gombash, Alleged Disabled Person," 07 P 893.

44. On February 29, 2008, the Honorable Carmen Goodman entered an orderappointing Joseph Gombash asplenary guardian forEvelyn in case number 07 P 893. At thatsametime, Judge Goodman continued case number 07 P 893 to March 28, 2008, for the report ofinventory, a listof the estate's finances as of the dateof Gombash's appointment, in casenumber 07P893.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on February 29, 2008, the Honorable Carmen

Goodman entered an order appointing Joseph Gombash as guardian for Evelyn Gombash in case

number 07 P 893, but denies that said order indicates Joseph Gombash is appointed "plenary"

guardian for Evelyn Gombash. Respondent affirmatively states that the February 29, 2008 Order

21

appointed Joseph Gombash as "guardian for Evelyn Gombash's person and estate." of Evelyn

Gombash. Respondent admits that the February 29, 2008 Order entered by Judge Goodman

continued case number 07 P 893 to March 28, 2008. Respondent denies that the remaining

allegations of Paragraph 44 completely and accurately reflect the contents of Judge Goodman's

February 29, 2008 Orderand so Respondent denies those allegations. Respondent affirmatively

states, that Judge Goodman's February 29, 2008 Order speaks for itself and that it continued the

case for "presentation of vouchers and report on inventory."

45. On March 28, 2008, Gombash appeared pro se in court on case number 07 P 893.As of that date, no report of inventory had been filed relating to Evelyn's estate. Judge Goodmancontinued case number 07 P 893 for April 25, 2008 for status.

ANSWER: Respondent lacks personal knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 45.

Respondent affirmatively states that the court docket for March 28, 2008 reflects that, on

that date, Joseph Gombash, appeared pro se in court on case number 07 P 893 and that the matter

was continued for status to April 25, 2008.

46. On April 11, 2008, Heather CoUinet ("CoUinet"), Evelyn's and Gombash'sdaughter, contacted Respondent by telephone to discuss his possible representation of her familyrelated to the administration of Evelyn's estate in case 07 P 893. At that time, Respondent toldCoUinet that he would need to meet with her parents to discuss the guardianship proceedings.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 11, 2008, a person identifying herself as

Heather CoUinet and identify herselfas Evelyn and Gombash's daughter, contacted Respondent

by telephone todiscuss his possible representation related to the administration ofEvelyn's estate

in case 07 P 893. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny whether the

person who identified herself as Heather CoUinet was in fact Heather CoUinet or whether said

individual was in fact Evelyn and Joseph Gombash's daughter. Respondent denies that the

22

discussion related to the possible representation of Collinet's "family." Respondent affirmatively

states that the discussion related to the possible representation of Joseph Gombash as Guardian in

connection with the administration of Evelyn's estate in case 07 P 893. Respondent admits that,

at that time, Respondent told the person identifying herself as Collinet that he would need to meet

with her parents to discuss the guardianship proceedings.

47. On April 16, 2008, Respondent met with Evelyn, Gombash, Collinet, and JosephLee Gombash, Evelyn and Gombash's son, to discuss Respondent's representation of Evelyn'sestate, which was to include his filing of an inventory. At that time, Gombash agreed to payRespondent $225 per hour plus a $5,000 advance fee payment.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 16, 2008, Respondent met with Joseph

Gombash and with individuals identified as Evelyn, Gombash, Collinet, and Joseph Lee Gombash.

Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny whether said individuals were in

fact Evelyn Gombash, Collinet or Joseph Lee Gombash. Respondent also lacks sufficient

personal knowledge to admit or deny whether the individual identifying himself as Joseph Lee

Gombash was in fact Evelyn and Joseph Gombash's son. Respondent denies that the discussion

related to Respondent's representation of Evelyn's estate. Respondent affirmatively states that

the discussion related to Respondent's representation of Joseph Gombash as Guardian of Evelyn's

estate. Respondent admits that his representation was to include his filing of an inventory.

Respondent further admits that, at thattime, Gombash agreed to pay Respondent $225 perhour but

denies that he agreed to pay "a $5,000 advance fee payment." Respondent affirmatively states

that Gombash agreed to pay a $5,000 security retainer andthat the "Security Retainer Agreement"

speaks for itself.

48. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned that case number 07 P 893 had beenscheduled for a status hearing on for [sic] April 25, 2008.

23


49. On April 23, 2008, Respondent sent a letter to the Will County Clerk of the CircuitCourt requesting copies of documents from court file 07 P 893. Respondent also stated that hewould not be filing an appearance in case number 07 P 893 until he had reviewed the file, andinquired whether it would be possible to change the April 25, 2008 court date to May 9, 2008.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 23, 2008, Respondent sent a letter to the

Will County Clerk of the Circuit Court but denies that Paragraph 49 completely and accurately

sets forth the contents of that letter and so denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph

49. Respondent affirmatively states that the April 23, 2008 letter speaks for itself and that it

provided, in part, "I have elected not to file my Appearance until I have reviewed the file" and,

"Would it be possible to secure an Order from the Court resetting the Status Date to May 9, 2008

without Joseph Gombash making an appearance in Court?" the letter alsoenclosed a check in the

amount of $21.00 to pay for "1 copy of the entire Court File", "3 Certified Copies of Letters of

Office" and "1 Certified Copy of the 'Order Appointing Guardian dated 2/29/08.'"

50. On April 25, 2008, Respondent did not appear in court and case number 07 P 893was stricken from the call. At no timeprior to April 25,2008 had Respondent filed his appearanceor file[d] a motion to continue the court date in case number07 P 893.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 25, 2008, Respondent did not appear in

court. Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny that case number 07 P

893 wasstricken from the call on thatdaybutaffirmatively statesthat the courtdocket for thatdate

reflects, "Case is called. No one appears. On court's own motion, matter ordered stricken from

the call. No written order." Respondent admits that, at no time prior to April 25, 2008, had

Respondent filed his appearance or filed a motion to continue the court date in case number 07 P

893.

51. On April 26, 2008, Gombash signed a written agreement related to Respondent'srepresentation in connection with case number 07 P 893.

24

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 51.

52. On May 12, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a billing statement that outlinedservices Respondent purportedly provided between April 11, 2008 and May 12, 2008 relating tothe administration of Evelyn's estate. The billing statement reflected that Respondent purportedlyinvested 18.2 hours of billable time into case number 07 P 893, merely in an effort to gather fromfinancial institutions records related to the assets of Gombash and Evelyn which were largelyavailable through Gombash. Respondent claimed to beowed $4,095.00 for fees, plus an additional$87.06 for costs he claimed to have advanced.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 12, 2008, Respondent provided Joseph

Gombash with a billing statement. Respondent denies that the billing statement was "sent' and

affirmatively states that it was delivered. Respondent denies that the billing statement outlined

services Respondent "purportedly" provided between April 11, 2008 andMay 12, 2008 relating to

the administration of Evelyn's estate. Respondent affirmatively states that the billing statement

describes the services he provided between April 11, 2008 and May 12, 2008 relating to the

administration of Evelyn's estate. Respondent also denies, "The billing statement reflected that

Respondent purportedly invested 18.2 hours ofbillable time into case number 07 P 893, merely in

an effort to gather from financial institutions records related to the assets of Gombash and Evelyn

which were largely available through Gombash." Respondent denies that said allegation

completely and accurately reflects the contents ofhis billing statement and affirmatively states that

the billing statement speaks for itself. Additionally, Respondent affirmatively states that the billing

statement does not reflect hours "purportedly" spent inconnection with the work described therein

but describes the services he provided between April 11, 2008 and May 12, 2008 relating to the

administration of Evelyn's estate, including those services relating to his efforts to gather from

financial institutions records related to the assets of Gombash and Evelyn. Respondent denies

that those records were "largely available through Gombash." Respondent affirmatively states

25

that, when Respondent asked Joseph Gombash for financial records related to the administration

of Evelyn Gombash's Estate, Joseph Gombash stated he was in the habit of "shredding records."

Respondent denies the characterization that he "claimed' he was owed $4,095.00 fees and

affirmatively states that he was owed $4,095.00 for 18.2 hours of attorney time which he billed at

the rate of $225 per hour plus $87.06 in costs he advanced.

53. On May 17, 2008, Gombash paid Respondent $5,000 for the initial fee payment incase number 07 P 893.

ANSWER: Respondent denies that, on May 17, 2008, Gombash "paid Respondent

$5,000for the initial fee payment in case number 07 P 893." Respondentaffirmatively states that,

on or before May 13,2008, Gombash provided Respondent with $5,000.00 as a security retainer in

connection with case number 07 P 893, in addition to other funds in the amount of $4,182.06, all of

which Respondent deposited in his IOLTA account.

54. On May 19, 2008, Respondent filed his appearance on behalf of Gombash,individually, and as the guardian of the personand estate in case number07 P 893.


55. On June 3, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a billing statement that representedservices Respondent purportedly provided between May 13, 2008 andJune 3, 2008 relating to theadministration of Evelyn's estate. The billingstatement reflected that Respondent purportedly metwith the Gombashes, reviewed records related to Evelyn's estate and probate proceedings, and hadtelephone conferences regarding Evelyn's assets. According to Respondent's billing statement, heinvested an additional 12.8 hours of billable attorney time beyond the amount referred to inparagraph 52, above, plus an additional 6.4 billable hours of time purportedly invested by hisassistant at a rate of $125.00 perhour into case number 07 P 893. Respondent claimed to beowedan additional $3,680.00 for fees beyond the $5,000 he had already collected, plus an additional$191.79 for costs he claimed to have advanced, for a total balance due of $3,871.79.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, "on June 3, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a

billing statement that represented services Respondent provided between May 13, 2008 and June

3,2008 relating tothe administration ofEvelyn's estate." Respondent denies that characterization

26

that said services were "purportedly" provided.

Respondent alsodenies that Paragraph 55 completely andaccurately sets forth the contents

of the referenced billing statement and so denies the allegation, "The billing statement reflected

that Respondent purportedly met with the Gombashes, reviewed records related to Evelyn's estate

and probate proceedings, and had telephone conferences regarding Evelyn's assets."

Additionally, Respondent denies the characterization of the billing statement as reflecting work

Respondent "purportedly" did. Respondent affirmatively states that the referenced billing

statement speaks for itselfandthat it reflects the tasks performed by Respondent between May 13,

2008 and June 3, 2008.

Respondent admits that, "According to Respondent's billing statement, he invested an

additional 12.8 hours of billable attorney time beyond the amount referred to in paragraph 52,

above, plus an additional 6.4 billable hours oftime invested by his assistant ata rate of$125.00 per

hour into case number 07 P 893," but denies the characterization that the additional 6.4 billable

hours of time were "purportedly" invested by his assistant.

Respondent denies the characterization that he "claimed" to be owed an additional

$3,680.00 for fees beyond the $5,000 he had already collected, plus an additional $191.79 for

costs he "claimed" to have advanced, for a total balance due of $3,871.79. Respondent

affirmatively states that he was owed an additional $3,680.00 as a fee for services rendered, plus an

additional $191.70 for costs he had advanced, for a total balance due of $3,871.79.

56. Onor around June 4,2008, Gombash paid Respondent anadditional fee payment of$5,000.


57. On June 27,2008, Respondent sent Gombash a letter notifying him ofRespondent'sdecision to terminate his representation of Gombash and Evelyn's estate based on their

27

disagreement regarding how best to proceed in case number 07 P 893. Respondent's andGombash'sdispute related particularly to Gombash's request that Respondent file the inventory incase number 07 P 893. At that time, Respondent claimed that Gombash owed Respondent anadditional $954.13 beyond the amounts referred to in paragraphs 52 and 55, above, for legalservices and costs he claimed to have advanced.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on June 27, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a

letter but denies that the first and second sentences of Paragraph 57 completely and accurately set

forth the contents of that letter. Respondent affirmatively states that the June 27, 2008 letter

speaks for itself. Respondent admits that, at that time, Gombash owed Respondent an additional

$954.13 beyond the amounts referred to in paragraphs 52 and 55 for services he and his legal

assistant provided and costs he advanced, denies the characterization that Respondent "claimed"

that Gombash owed that amount and denies the characterization that Respondent "claimed" to

have advanced costs.

58. On July 18, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw his appearance forGombash in case number 07 P 893.


59. On July 23, 2008, the Honorable Carmen Goodman entered an order grantingRespondent's motion to withdraw from representing Gombash in case number 07 P 893.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 59. Answering

further, Respondent states that the July 23, 2008 Order speaks for itself.

60. As of the date of Respondent's withdrawal from case number 07 P 893, he had notfiled the inventory in the case, or otherwise provided any services that benefitted Gombash,Evelyn, or her estate.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, as of the date of Respondent's withdrawal from

case number 07 P 893, he had not filed the inventory in the case, but denies the allegation that he

had nototherwise provided any services that benefitted Gombash, Evelyn or herestate.

61. On July 24, 2008, attorney Edward J. Jarot, Jr. ("Jarot") filed an appearance on

28

behalf of Gombash in case number 07 P 893.

ANSWER: Respondent lacks personal knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 55. Respondent affirmatively states that the Court docket

indicates, Edward Jarot filed his appearance on that date on behalf of Gombash.

62. On August 7, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a billing statement in which heclaimed to be owed an additional $2,615.35 for fees, plus an additional $80.35 for costs forservices completed between June 3, 2008 and August 7, 2008 relating to the administration ofEvelyn's estate. The services listed on Respondent's August 7, 2008 billing statement largelyrelated to Respondent's termination of his representation of Gombash.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 7, 2008, Respondent sent Gombash a

billing statement but denies that, in that billing statement, Respondent "claimed to be owed an

additional $2,615.35 for fees for services completed between June 3, 2008 and August 7, 2008."

Respondent affirmatively states that the August 7, 2008 billing statement indicated Gombash

owed Respondent anadditional $2,535.00 for fees for services completed onJune 3,2008through

and including August 7, 2008, which had not been previously billed, relating to theadministration

of Evelyn's estate. Respondent admits that the August 7, 2008 billing statement indicated

Gombash owed Respondent an additional $80.35 for costs incurred between June 3, 2008 and

August 7, 2008 relating to the administration of Evelyn's estate." Respondent denies the

characterization that Respondent "claimed" that Gombash owed those amounts. Further,

Respondent denies that the last sentence of Paragraph 62 completely and accurately reflects the

contents of the billing statement and sodenies that, "The services listed onRespondent's August 7,

2008 billing statement largely related to Respondent's termination of his representation of

Gombash. Respondent affirmatively states that the referenced billing statement speaks for itself.

63. On August 21, 2008, Jarot filed an inventory of Evelyn's property as of February29, 2008, the date that Gombash was appointed as her guardian.

29

ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 63. Respondent affirmatively states that the court's docket

indicates that, on August 21, 2008 Jarot filed an inventory of Evelyn's property.

64. On August 30, 2011, as part of his continued effort to collect payment fromGombash, Respondent sent an amendment to final notice for legal services rendered in whichRespondent claimed to be owed $3,569.48 for fees, costs, and interest related to services providedin case number 07 P 849. The services listed on Respondent's August 30, 2011 billing statementlargely related to Respondent's termination of his representation of Gombash.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on August 30, 2011, Respondent sentGombash an

amendment to final notice of legal services rendered butdenies thatdocument indicated Gombash

owed Respondent an additional $3,569.48 for fees, costs and interest related to services provided

in case number 07 P 849. Respondent affirmatively states that the"Amendment To Final Notice

For [ ] Legal Services Rendered" indicated Gombash owed Respondent $4,572.75 for fees, costs

and interest related to services provided in case number 07 P 849. Respondent denies the

characterization that Respondent "claimed" that Gombash owed that amount. Respondent admits

that the referenced document was sent "as part of [Respondent's] continued effort to collect

payment from Gombash." Respondent denies that the last sentence ofParagraph 64 completely

and accurately reflects the contents ofthe referenced "Amendment To Final Notice For [ ] Legal

Services" and so denies, "The services listed on Respondent's August 30, 2008 billing statement

largely related to Respondent's termination of his representation of Gombash. Respondent

affirmatively states that the referenced "Amendment To Final Notice For [ ] Legal Services"

speaks for itself.

65. At no time between April 16, 2008 and July 23, 2008, the period of time thatRespondent represented Gombash, did Respondent provide services sufficient to justify the feesthat he collected and attempted to collect.

30



a. breach of fiduciary duty to Joseph Gombash;

b. failure to provide competent representation, in violation of Rule 1.1 of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010)

c. charging unreasonable fees, in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);

d. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice , in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

e. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation set forth in Paragraph 66.

COUNT III

(Failure toprovide competent representation-Lorraine Osterman)

67. On December 14, 2009, Respondent agreed to represent Lorraine Osterman("Osterman") in relation to her efforts recover all property in which she had [an] interest fromDavid Osterman, her son. Pursuant to the representation agreement, Osterman paid Respondent$5,000 retainer to be applied towards anticipated fees and cost[s] and agreed to pay Respondent$225 per hour as his fee for representing her.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on December 14, 2009, Respondent agreed to

represent Lorraine Osterman ("Osterman") in relation to her efforts to recover all property in

which she had an interest from David Osterman, her son and that Osterman agreed to pay

Respondent $225 per hour as his fee for representing her. Respondent denies the remaining

allegations of Paragraph 67. Respondent affirmatively states that, on or about December 14,

2009, Osterman and Respondent executed a "Security Retainer Agreement" relative to

Respondent's representation of Osterman, which document speaks for itself.

68. Shortly thereafter, Respondent recommended that Osterman allow Respondent to

31

file a petition to be appointed her guardian, claiming that would be the best manner in which toproceed in order to recover her assets.


affirmatively states that he recommended to Osterman that a guardianship was a possible option

that should be considered as a means of acquiring the Court's assistance in obtaining information

regarding her assets and recovering her assets.

69 In February, 2010, Respondent arranged for Osterman to have a psychologicalevaluation by Keith A. Baird, Ph.D. ("Dr. Baird") to determine whether Osterman was able tofunction independently.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, in February, 2010, Respondent arranged for

Ostermanto have a psychologicalevaluation by Keith A. Baird, Ph.D. ("Dr. Baird"). Respondent

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 69. Respondent affirmatively states that, on

February 20 2010 he sent a letter to Dr. Baird, which letter sets forth the reasons Respondent

arranged for Osterman to have a psychological evaluation by Dr. Baird. Respondent additionally

affirmatively states that the February 20, 2010 letter speaks for itself.

70. On March 12, 2010, Dr. Baird sent Respondent a completed report of thepsychological evaluation of Osterman, which stated that Osterman had no cognitive orpsychological issues that could reasonably interfere with her managing her own affairs.Respondent received Dr. Baird's report on March 16, 2010 and reviewed it shortly thereafter.

ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny the date

upon which Dr. Baird sent Respondent a completed report of the psychological evaluation of

Osterman. Respondent admits that Dr. Baird sent Respondent a completed report of the

psychological evaluation but denies that Respondent received Dr. Baird's report on March 16,

2010. Respondent affirmatively states that he received Dr. Baird's report on March 15, 2010.

Respondent admits that he "reviewed it shortly thereafter." Respondent denies that Paragraph 70

32

completely andaccurately setsforth thecontents of the report andstates that saidreport speaks for

itself. Respondent affirmatively states that the report is comprised of nine (9) pages and that, on

page eight (8) of said report, the following quote appears, "There were no cognitive or

psychological issues which could reasonably be expected to interfere with Mrs. Osterman being

able to manage her own affairs, including paying bills, managing bank accounts, budgeting her

money, and living autonomously."

71. On March 30, 2010, Albin M. Osterman, Osterman's husband, filed a petition fordissolution of marriage in Kankakee County. The matter was captioned as In re the Marriage ofAlbin M. Osterman v. Lorraine Osterman, case number 10 D 132.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on March 30, 2010, a petition for dissolution of

marriage was filed inKankakee County onbehalfofAlbin M. Osterman, Osterman's husband, but

Respondent lacks sufficient personal knowledge to admit or deny that Albin M. Osterman filed

that petition. Respondent admits that the matter was captioned as In re the Marriage ofAlbin M.

Osterman v. Lorraine Osterman, case number 10 D 132.

72. Shortly thereafter, Respondent hired the law firm of Elliot & McClure P.C. toappear [and] file a motion on the grounds offorum non conveniens and to seek to have casenumber 10 D 132 transferred to Will County.


affirmatively states that he arranged for the law firm of Elliot & McClure P.C. to appear on

Osterman's behalf in case number 10 D 132 and to file a motion to transfer venue to Will County.

73. On April 9, 2010, Dr. Terrence C. Moisan ("Dr. Moisan"), who had previouslyacted asOsterman's primary physician, wrote a letter at the request ofOsterman for Respondent inwhich Dr. Moisan opined that there was no reason why Osterman should not be able to makepersonal decisions and care for herself. Shortly thereafter, Respondent received and reviewed Dr.Moisan's letter.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on April 9, 2010, Dr. Terrence C. Moisan ("Dr.

33

Moisan"), who had previously acted as Osterman's primary physician, wrote a letter at the request

of Osterman for Respondent. Respondent also admits that, shortly thereafter, Respondent

received and reviewed Dr. Moisan's letter. Respondent denies that Paragraph 73 completely and

accurately sets forth the contents of the April 9, 2010 letter and that said letter speaks for itself.

Respondent affirmatively states that the following quote appears in Dr. Moisan's letter, "Based on

my interaction with her today, her current compliance with CPAP, and reportedly negative

medical studies by her other physician, I find no reason that she should not be able to make

personal decisions and care for herself at this time."

74. On May 4, 2010, Respondent filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Will County,Probate Division, to be appointed as the plenary guardian for Osterman, without a finding ofdisability. The matter was captioned as In re the Estate of Lorraine Osterman, case number 2010 P326.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that on May 4, 2010, Respondent filed a petition in the

Circuit Court of Will County, Probate Division to be appointed as the plenary guardian for

Osterman, but affirmatively states that the petition sought the appointment of Respondent as the

plenary guardian for Osterman's Estate only. Respondent denies the matter was captioned as "In

re the Estate of Lorraine Osterman, case number 2010 P 326," and affirmatively states the matter

was captioned as, "Estate of Lorraine Osterman", case number 2010 P 326. Respondent

affirmatively states that the Petition For Appointment Of Plenary Guardian speaks for itself.

75. At all times alleged in this complaint, Section 1la-3(b) of the Illinois ProbateAct of1975 (755 ILCS 5/1 la-3(b)), provided that:

guardianship shall be utilized only as necessary to promote the well-being of thedisabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and toencourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence.Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual'sactual mental, physical, and adaptive limitations.

ANSWER: Paragraph 75 sets forth legal conclusions to which no answer is required.

34

To the extent an answer may be deemed required, Respondent admits the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 75.

76. At all times alleged in this complaint, Section 1la-2 of the Illinois Probate Act of1975 (755 ILCS 5/1 la-2) defined a disabled person as:

a person 18 years or older who (a) because of mental deterioration or physicalincapacity is not fully able to manage his person or estate, or (b) is a person withmental illness or a person with a developmental disability and who because of hismental illness or developmental disability is not fully able to manage his person orestate, or (c) because of gambling, idleness, debauchery or excessive use ofintoxicants or drugs, so spends or wastes his estate as to expose himself or hisfamily to want or suffering, or (d) is diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome or fetalalcohol effects.


To the extent an answer may be deemed required, Respondent admits the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 76.

77. At the time that Respondent filed the petition seeking to be appointed Osterman'sguardian, based on the findings of Dr. Baird and Dr. Moisan, Osterman did not suffer from anycondition that would qualify her as a disabled person pursuant to Section 1la-2 of the Probate Actof 1975 (755 ILCS 5/1 la-2).


To the extent an answer may be deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations set forth in

Paragraph 77.

78. On May 11, 2010, the Honorable Jeff Allen entered an order appointing EdwardJarot ("Jarot") as the guardian ad litem for Osterman in case number 2010 P 326. Case number2010 P 326 was continued until June 8, 2010.


79. On June 8, 2010, Jarot filed his report of the guardian ad litem in case number 2010P 326 stating that, in his opinion, after interviewing Respondent, Osterman, and reviewingOsterman's physician's report, the appointment of a guardian for Osterman would be "whollyinappropriate" because Osterman did not qualify as a disabled person, as defined under the ProbateAct. Jarot further opined that a suit in chancery court to recover Osterman's assets would be more

35

appropriate and efficient. Respondent attached copies of both Dr. Baird's and Dr. Moisan's writtenfindings to the petition.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on June 8, 2010, Jarot filed his report of the

guardian ad litem in case number 2010 P 326. Respondent also admits that Respondent attached

copies of both Dr. Baird's and Dr. Moisan's written findings to the petition. Respondent denies

that the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 79 completely and accurately set forth the

contents of the Report of Guardian Ad Litem and that Report speaks for itself. Respondent

affirmatively states that the following quotes appear in the Report of Guardian Ad Litem, "Given

the foregoing, in my opinion the appointment of a Guardian for Respondent is wholly

inappropriate in this case", "Even assuming Mr. Patterson isable to present evidence that her son's

abuse is sufficient to replace Mrs. Osterman's will with his own, in my opinion, that would not be

sufficient for Mrs. Osterman to qualify as a 'disabled person' as defined under the Probate Act"

and, "A suit in chancery to recover her assets seems much more appropriate and efficient in

recovering the property."

80. On July 13, 2010, Respondent filed a petition for appointment of a temporary andlimited guardian for Osterman in case number 2010 P 326.


81. On July 13, 2010, after argument, Judge Allen dismissed case number 2010 P 326for lack ofjurisdiction.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 81. Respondent

affirmatively states that the Order entered by Judge Allen on July 13, 2010 provides, in part, "The

Court Finds it[] lacks Jurisdiction to enter an Order on all Petitions filed by or on behalf of

Lorraine Osterman" and "The Court orders: 1) all said Petitions are Dismissed for Lack of

Jurisdiction..."

36

82. On August 7, 2010, Osterman, through attorney Lisa Kinser, terminatedRespondent.


83. On September 30, 2011, Respondent sent Osterman a "corrected statement" whichpurportedly reflected services that Respondent provided to Osterman between December 3, 2009and July 30, 2010. According to Respondent's billing statement, he spent 96.10 hours of billableattorney time, plus an additional 20.80 hours of time provided by Respondent's assistant at a rate of$125.00. Respondent demanded payment of $23,182.50 for fees, plus $511.66 for costs advanced.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 30,2011, Respondent sent Osterman

a "corrected statement" but denies that it which reflected services that Respondent provided to

Osterman between December 3, 2009 and July 30, 2010, and denies the characterization that the

corrected statement "purportedly" reflected the services Respondent provided to Osterman during

that time period. Respondent affirmatively states that the Corrected Statement reflected services

Respondent provided to Osterman between December 3, 2009 and September 2, 2010.

Respondent admits that, according to Respondent's billing statement, he spent 96.10 hours of

billableattorneytime, plus an additional 20.80 hours of time provided by Respondent's assistantat

a rate of $125.00. Respondent denies that he "demanded payment of $23,182.50 for fees, plus

$511.66 for costs advanced."

84. The majority of time for which Respondentbilled Osterman related to his efforts tohave himself appointed her guardian and did not serve the purpose for which Osterman retainedRespondent, which was to recover property that was being held by her son.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 84. Answering

further with respect to the allegation that, "[t]he majority of time for which Respondent billed

Osterman related to his efforts to have himself appointed her guardian", Respondent denies that

allegation completely and accurately sets forth the contents of his billing statements and

affirmatively states that his billing statements speak for themselves.

37

85. At no time between December 14,2009 and August 7,2010, the period of time thatRespondent represented Osterman, did Respondent provide services sufficient to justify the feesthat he collected and attempted to collect from her.


affirmatively states that he collected no payment at all at any time from Osterman.


a. breach of fiduciary duty

b. overreaching

c. failure to provide competent representation, in violation of Rule 1.1 of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

d. charging an unreasonable fee, in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);

e. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation ofRule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

f. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring thecourts or the legal profession into disrepute.


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COUNT I - GEORGE WASSON

1. The imposition of discipline upon Respondent would violate the requirements of

due process. Rule 1.14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is, on its face and as applied,

unconstitutionally vague.

2. Following the passage of thirty (30) days after the February 28, 2011 denial of

Respondent's 755 ILCS 5/1 la-8 Emergency Petition for Appointment of a Temporary & Plenary

Guardian of the Person & Estate Guardian ad Litem & Adjudication of Disability, the Circuit

38

Court lacked subjectmatterjurisdiction to decide the Guardian Ad Litem's Petition For Recovery

Citation and related pleadings.

3. Following the February 28, 2011 denial of Respondent's 755 ILCS 5/1 la-8

Emergency Petition for Appointment of a Temporary & Plenary Guardian of the Person & Estate

Guardian ad Litem & Adjudication of Disability, the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by the Court

lacked standing to raise any issue before the Court.

COUNT II- LORRAINE OSTERMAN

1. The imposition of discipline upon Respondent would violate the requirements of

due process. Rule 1.14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is, on its face and as applied,

unconstitutionally vague.

RULE 231 RESPONSE

A. Respondent's admissions to practice before other courts or agencies:

ANSWER: Respondent was admitted to the United States Supreme Court in 2005;

Respondent was not assigned a bar or registration number.

B. Other professional licenses orcertificates issued to Respondent:

ANSWER: Respondent has never received any other professional licenses or

certificates.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas L. Brejcha, Jr.Thomas More Society19 South La Salle Street, Suite 604Chicago, IL.60603(312)782-1680

rfryyvtA^> 6^of the Attorneys for Attorney-Respondent

39

Joan M. Mannix

Law Office of Joan M. Mannix135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200Chicago, IL 60603-4300(312)521-5845

STATE OF ILLINOIS )) SS

COUNTY OF COOK)

Re: In the Matter of Lawrence FrancisPatterson, Commission No. 2013 PR 00059

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, the undersigned certifies that he has read the foregoing Respondent's Answer To

Complaint and that the statements set forth therein to the effect that he lacks sufficient personal

knowledge to admit or deny various allegations are true and correct.

^A VJU&Zf'LAWRENCE FRANCIS PATTERSON

of the illinois attorney registrationwasson ("wasson") in a variety ofmatters, including,...

Documents