Thursday, September 09, 2010
ARDC Complaint Against Bob Bless
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
| In the Matter of:
| Commission No. 2010PR00133 FILED - AUGUST 30, 2010 |
COMPLAINT
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Lea S. Black, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Robert Bless, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on May 6, 2004, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:
COUNT I
(Conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to Kathleen Scott)
(Conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to Kathleen Scott)
1. On May 22, 2003, Stanley Scott ("Stanley"), a home inspector for Sherlock Homes Inspections, fell off of a ladder and was injured during the course of a home inspection that he was conducting at 1358 Nightingale Lane in Bartlett, Illinois. On May 28, 2003, Stanley died from the severe head trauma he sustained as a result of his May 22, 2003 fall.
2. On July 2, 2003, Stanley's widow, Kathleen Scott, through her attorney, Robert Clifford ("Clifford"), filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the owner of the Nightingale property, the gutter manufacturer and distributor, and the builder of the Nightingale property, based upon the incident described in paragraph one, above. The Clerk docketed the matter as Kathleen L. Scott, Special Administrator of the Estate of Stanley Scott, Deceased v. John Marson, et al. and assigned the matter docket number 03 L 007982.
3. On August 1, 2005, Scott entered into an agreement with Respondent's law firm, Bless & Associates, for Bless & Associates and Sam Amirante ("Amirante") to substitute as counsel for Clifford in the wrongful death matter, and that the fees would be contingent upon the outcome of the matter. Ronald Justin ("Justin"), a contractual attorney at Bless & Associates, and Amirante were initially assigned primary responsibility for the case.
4. On June 30, 2005, Amirante filed a substitution of attorneys in case number 03 L 007982, and on that same date, Justin filed an additional appearance on behalf of Bless and Associates.
5. In or about January 2006, Justin left Bless & Associates and Respondent assumed responsibility for case number 03 L 007982 on behalf of Bless & Associates along with Amirante.
6. As of January 2006 or before, as a consequence of Respondent's agreement to represent Scott in relation to her husband's wrongful death matter, Respondent owed Scott certain fiduciary duties, such as the duties of honesty, loyalty, and fair dealing, and which required that he not abuse his position of authority and trust, and that he place the best interests of Scott above his own self-interests. As a result of his work on the legal matter, at all times relevant to this complaint, Scott had a reasonable belief that Respondent was her attorney.
7. During the course of representing Scott, Respondent learned certain information about her emotional state and her finances that he otherwise would not have known, such as the effect of her husband's death on Scott and Scott's children, Scott's inheritance of her father's condominium upon the father's death in 2005, and Scott's inheritance of $500,000 pursuant to Stanley's life insurance policy.
8. On or about January 25, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to voluntarily non-suit case number 03 L 007982.
9. In or about April 2006, Respondent contacted Scott Barber ("Barber") regarding Scott's wrongful death claim. Respondent and Barber agreed that Respondent and Barber would represent Scott in relation to pursuing a wrongful death claim based upon the incidents described in paragraph one, above.
10. On or about April 1, 2006, Respondent met with Barber to determine the corporate identity of the builder of the Nightingale property at the time the house was built and at the time of the accident, to determine the pleading and causes of action against each defendant named prior to the non-suit.
11. On or about May 20, 2006, Respondent, Barber, and Scott met to discuss re-filing a complaint on behalf of Scott. During that meeting, Respondent agreed to draft the complaint on behalf of Scott.
12. Between May 2006 and November 2006, Respondent or someone at his direction, drafted a complaint on behalf of Scott. That complaint named Respondent's firm as one of Scott's attorneys. On November 28, 2006, Barber filed the complaint on behalf of Scott. The Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court docketed the matter as Kathleen L. Scott, Special Administrator of the Estate of Stanley W. Scott, Deceased v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc. D.R. Horton, Inc. and R.J. Brown, Inc. and assigned it docket number 06 L 012406.
13. In Fall 2006, Respondent began a sexual relationship with Scott which continued throughout his representation of Scott in relation to case number 06 L 012406.
14. Respondent's sexual relationship with Scott was improper, for reasons including that it could have impacted the amount of damages offered to Scott by the defendants in relation to case number 06 L 012406, could have impacted Respondent's independent professional judgment, and could have impacted the preservation of attorney-client confidences.
15. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
COUNT II
(Conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to Kathleen Scott)
(Conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to Kathleen Scott)
16. The Administrator realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 14, above.
17. On or about December 11, 2006, Respondent represented Scott and Maloney in relation to the purchase of real property located at 7742 W. Peterson in Chicago, Illinois. Scott and Maloney paid Respondent $400 to represent them in relation to the purchase of that property.
18. On or about June 15, 2007, Respondent represented Scott and her mother, Patricia Maloney, in relation to the sale of their jointly owned real property located at 5947 N. McCook in Chicago, Illinois. Scott and Maloney paid Respondent $450 to represent them in relation to that sale. Respondent also acted as the title agent in relation to that real estate transaction.
19. On or about June 13, 2008, Respondent represented Scott in relation to the purchase of real property located at 484 New Castle Drive in Cary, Illinois.
20. On or about June 30, 2008, Respondent represented Scott in relation to the sale of real property located at 5810 W. Palatine Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.
21. Between July 18, 2007 and December 3, 2008, while Respondent continued to act as Scott's attorney in relation to case number 06 L 012406, and while Respondent acted as Scott's attorney in relation to the real estate transactions described in paragraphs 19 and 20, above, Respondent received monies totaling at least $108,960.71 from Scott on the following dates as loans for the following reasons:
| DATE | AMOUNT | PURPOSE OF LOAN | COLLATERAL SPECIFIED IN PROMISSORY NOTE | INTEREST |
| July 18, 2007 | $25,000 | Purchase of BMW convertible car for Respondent | Respondent's BMW Convertible | 5% per annum |
| January 13, 2008 | $50,000 | Personal Loan for Respondent | 10% interest in property owned by Bless & partners at 640 E. Northwest Hwy. | 5% per annum |
| February 20, 2008 | $2,000 | Personal Loan for Respondent | Guaranteed by Bless & Associates | 0% |
| April 9, 2008 | $12,268.23 | Taxes of commercial property owned by Respondent and his business partners | Loan not documented by promissory note | |
| April 22, 2008 | $2,500 | Mortgage Loan for commercial property owned by Respondent and his business partners | Guaranteed by Bless & Associates | 0% |
| September 9, 2008 | $574.30 | Repairs to Respondent's BMW | Guaranteed by Bless & Associates | 0% |
| October 7, 2008 | $3,843.45 | Payment for Respondent's Florida BarBri Course | Guaranteed by Bless & Associates | 0% |
| October 28, 2008 | $2,774.73 | Postage for Respondent's campaign for McHenry County Board Member | Guaranteed by Bless & Associates | 0% |
| December 3, 2008 | $10,000 | Personal Loan for Respondent | Guaranteed by Bless & Associates | 0% |
22. The loans described in paragraph 21, above, were made at Respondent's request. At no time did Respondent advise Scott to seek the advice of independent counsel with regard to the loans described in paragraph 21, above.
23. Between December 21, 2007 and February 16, 2009, while Respondent continued to act as Scott's attorney in relation to case number 06 L 012406, Respondent received monies totaling at least $15,766.65 from Scott as loans to cover costs associated with various Bless & Associates matters relating to other clients:
| DATE | AMOUNT | CLIENT | PURPOSE | REPAYMENT AMOUNT DUE AT CONCLUSION OF CASE |
| December 21, 2007 | $3,500 | Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039 | Expert Witness | $5,000 |
| July 16, 2008 | $1,500 | Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039 | Expert Witness | $2,000 |
| August 6, 2008 | $1,000 | Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039 | Expert Witness | $1,500 |
| August 27, 2008 | $1,066.65 | Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039 | Deposition Transcript | $1,500 |
| February 16, 2009 | $7,000 | Marion D. Feeley 13-A381-078 | Expenses and Airline Tickets | $8,300 |
| February 16, 2009 | $1,700 | Cordero v. Viren 2007 L0 00039 | Expert Witness | $2,100 |
24. The loans described in paragraph 23, above, were made at Respondent's request. At no time did Respondent advise Scott to seek the advice of independent counsel with regard to the loans described in paragraph 23, above.
25. In or about June 2008, Respondent approached Scott about a business transaction relating to 640 E. Northwest Highway in Palatine, Illinois ("Northwest Highway Property") that Respondent owned with his father, Anton Bless ("Anton"), and his law partner, Amy Ho ("Ho"). In June 2008, Respondent requested and Scott agreed to pay $15,000 to Ho to buy out Ho's portion of the property. In September, 2008 Respondent requested and Scott agreed to pay $42,500 to Anton to buy a portion of his share of the property. Scott also agreed to discharge the $50,000 she loaned to Respondent on January 13, 2008, the $12,568.23 she loaned to Respondent on April 9, 2008, and the $2,500 she loaned to Respondent on April 22, 2008 as described in paragraph 21, above, to cover the remainder of the purchase price for her share of the property. After those payments, Scott owned 49.5% of the property, Anton owned 49.5% of the property, and Respondent owned 1% of the property.
26. On April 8, 2009, Respondent caused the Northwest Highway Property to be transferred solely into Anton's name without Scott's knowledge or consent.
27. On June 10, 2009, Respondent repaid $47,417.75 of the loans made to him by Scott as described in paragraphs 21 and 23, above. At no time has Respondent repaid the balance of the $108,960.71 loaned to him by Scott.
28. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
COUNT III
(Attempting to influence a witness)
(Attempting to influence a witness)
29. The Administrator realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 27, above.
30. On or about July 21, 2008, Barber met with Scott and her children in preparation for their deposition in relation to case number 06 L 012406. During the course of the meeting, Barber questioned Scott about the nature of her relationship with Respondent.
31. Scott called Respondent and informed him that Barber had asked her questions about the nature of their relationship. Based upon the information that Scott gave Respondent about her conversation with Barber, Respondent sent Scott a text message that said:
U [sic] need 2 [sic] deny anything other than we r [sic] good friends nothing more I could lose my license
32. Respondent's text message to Scott as described in paragraph 31, above, was intended to induce Scott to conceal the sexual and personal nature of her relationship with Respondent.
33. As a result of Respondent having instructed her to deny the truth about their relationship, Scott called Barber and falsely informed him that she and Respondent did not have a sexual relationship and that their relationship was platonic.
34. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
COUNT IV
(Dishonesty in relation to an ARDC disciplinary matter)
(Dishonesty in relation to an ARDC disciplinary matter)
35. On July 27, 2009, the Administrator received correspondence from Kathleen Scott stating that Respondent had entered into a sexual relationship with her, had borrowed money from her, and had entered into a business transaction with her with respect to the Northwest Highway Property.
36. After reviewing Scott's allegations, the Administrator initiated investigation number 09 CI 3203.
37. On August 4, 2009, the Administrator sent Respondent a letter requesting that he submit a written response to Scott's allegations. Respondent received the request shortly thereafter.
38. On September 16, 2009, the Administrator received Respondent's written response to Scott's allegations. In Respondent's written response he stated, in part, that:
I would like to first make absolutely clear to the Commission that I never represented Ms. Scott in any legal capacity whatsoever. Our relationship was based purely on friendship. We never formed an attorney-client bond.
39. Respondent's statements regarding the nature of his relationship with Scott, as described in paragraph 38, above, were false, because Respondent represented Scott in relation to her husband's wrongful death lawsuit, case number 03 L 007982, the refiled lawsuit in case number 06 L 12406, and in relation to the four real estate closings described in paragraphs 17 through 20 of Count II, above. Respondent knew that he represented Scott.
40. Respondent knew that his statement regarding having never represented Scott in any legal capacity whatsoever as described in paragraph 38, above, was false.
41. On April 2, 2010, Respondent gave sworn testimony in relation in investigation number 09 CI 3203. During that sworn statement, counsel for the Administrator asked the following questions and Respondent gave the following answers:
Q. Okay, but other than seeing her, did you have any involvement in her case?A. No, I didn't have any involvement, personally, in her case.Q. Did you have any discussions with her regarding her case?A. No. no. I mean, she was - she was happy, and she thought I was wonderful for finding her Scott Barber to take her case.Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Barber about her case?A. Other than - as to the case itself?Q. Other than the initial call that you said you made wherein you, you know, told - asked him to handle the case, did you have any discussions with him regarding the case?A. No, I just would ask him how things were going.Q. Did you have any discussions with any witnesses regarding her case?A. Besides the gutter people?Q. Yes.A. I don't - I don't know. I don't think so.Q. Did you have any discussions with opposing counsel in relation to her case?A. I never spoke to opposing counsel.Q. Did you prepare any pleadings or any other documents --A. No.Q. -- in relation to her case?
42. Respondent's testimony described in paragraph 41, above, was false, and Respondent knew it was false because: Respondent had verbal communications with Scott regarding her case; Respondent had verbal communications with opposing counsel regarding Scott's case; Respondent sent a letter to opposing counsel on August 2, 2005; and Respondent, or someone at his direction, also prepared and signed pleadings in relation to Scott's case on September 2, 2005 and January 20, 2006.
43. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.
Lea S. Black
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
Telephone: (312) 565-2600
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
Telephone: (312) 565-2600
# posted by Cal Skinner : 5:00 PM
