Nowcomes Respondent, Elena Gallo, byherattorney, JamesA ...Plainfield, IL 60586". The invoice...
Transcript of Nowcomes Respondent, Elena Gallo, byherattorney, JamesA ...Plainfield, IL 60586". The invoice...
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
ELENA GALLO,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 6277504.
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Now comes Respondent, Elena Gallo, by her attorney, James A. Doppke, Jr., Robinson
Law Group, LLC, and for her answer to the Administrator's Complaint, states as follows:
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1. Between February 8, 2016, and July 27, 2016, Respondent practiced law as a
non equity partner at the law firm SmithAmundsen LLC ("SmithAmundsen"). During that
time, she worked at SmithAmundsen's office in Chicago, Illinois.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1.
2. While Respondent was working as a partner at SmithAmundsen, she
concentrated her law practice in real estate matters.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
3. On July 27, 2016, SmithAmundsen terminated Respondent's employment.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3.
Comm. No. 2017PR00101
COUNT I
{Allegeddishonesty and changing fees without client's knowledge -Glanville/Wright sale ofAurora property)
4. On April 4, 2016, SmithAmundsen, Crystal Glanville and Smauel [sic] Wright
agreed that SmithAmundsen would represent Glanville and Wright in the sale of Glanville's
and Wright's home located at 772 Four Seasons Road in Aurora ("the Aurora property") to
James Acevedo. Respondent handled the representation of Glanville and Wright in this
transaction as a partner of SmithAmundsen. Respondent, Glanville and Wright agreed that
SmithAmundsen's fee for legal services related to the representation of Glanville and Wright
in this transaction would be a flat fee of $875, to be collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4.
5. At no time between April 4,2016, and June 23,2016, the date the parties closed,
did Respondent advise Glanville or Wright that they would be responsible for any fees or
payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent, other than the $875 attorney fee. Further, at
no time between April 4,2016, and June 23, 2016, did Glanville or Wright agree to a greater
attorney fee with respect to the Aurora property transaction, other than the $875 attorney
fee.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5.
6. The parties had agreed that Citywide Title Corporation ("Citywide Title")
would serve as title insurer and would prepare closing documents for the transaction. On
June 16, 2016, Respondentsent an emaildirectingCitywide Title to add two charges in the
closing documents: $1,500 payable to SmithAmundsen as the sellers' attorney fee, and
$1,875 payable to SmithAmundsen for "reimbursements from Seller for closing and doc
prep."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6.
7. Respondent's statement that the sellers' attorney fee was $1,500 was false,
because the fee was only $875. Respondent's statement that SmithAmundsen was to be
reimbursed $1,875 "for closing and doc prep" was false, because at no time did Respondent
or SmithAmundsen spend money on closing or document preparation related to the Aurora
property transaction that would entitle SmithAmundsen to reimbursement of $1,875. At the
time Respondent made those statements, she knew they were false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7.
8. On June 23, 2016, the parties closed on the sale of the Aurora property. Prior
to the closing, Respondent told Glanville and Wright that they did not need to attend the
closing but instead could execute powers of attorney authorizing Respondent to execute the
closing paperwork on their behalf. Glanville and Wright followed Respondent's suggestion,
executed powers of attorney, and did not attend the closing. At the closing, pursuant to
Respondent's direction, and unbeknownst to Glanville and Wright, Glanville and Wright
were debited $1,500 for sellers' attorney fees to SmithAmundsen, and $1,875 for
"reimbursements from Seller for closing and doc prep" to SmithAmundsen. Citywide Title
tendered to Respondent two checks payable to SmithAmundsen in the amounts of $1,500
and $1,875.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first and second
sentences of paragraph 8. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence
of paragraph 8, except for any and all allegations contained in the words "unbeknownst to
Glanville and Wright."
9. Sometime between June 23, 2016, and July 8, 2016, Respondent tendered to
SmithAmundsen the $1,875 check, but not the $1,500 check. Instead, Respondent altered the
$1,500 check payable to SmithAmundsen so that the check read, "Pay to the order of Gallo
Law Group Ltd. c/o SmithAmundsen LLC". Respondent then deposited the check into an
account at JP Morgan Chase Bank in the name of Gallo Law Group Ltd., on which Respondent
was the sole signatory.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 9.
10. Sometime between July 8, 2016, and July 18, 2016, Larry Schechtman, a
partner at SmithAmundsen, and Mari Ann Novy, SmithAmundsen's assistant general counsel,
discovered that Citywide Title issued a $1,500 check payable to SmithAmundsen which
SmithAmundsen never received. At no time prior to this did Respondent notify anyone at
SmithAmundsen about the existence of the $1,500 check.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 10, upon information and belief. Respondent denies the allegations contained in
the second sentence of paragraph 10 as alleged, and she specifically denies that she had any
obligation to notify anyone at SmithAmundsen about the existence of the $1,500 check.
Further answering, Respondent states that the file materials she maintained in connection
with the Glanville-Wright transaction were in the possession of SmithAmundsen, and she did
not conceal them from SmithAmundsen.
11. Respondent's conduct of altering the $1,500 check and depositing it into an
account in the name of Gallo Law Group Ltd. without notifying SmithAmundsen was
dishonest, because the check was issued to SmithAmundsen and Respondent was not
entitled to the money.Atthe time Respondent altered the $1,500 check and deposited it into
an account in the name of Gallo Law Group Ltd. without notifying SmithAmundsen, she knew
that conduct was dishonest.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11.
12. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. charging or collecting an unreasonable fee or anunreasonable amount for expenses, by conduct includingcharging and collecting from Glanville and Wright a$1,500 sellers' attorney fee, and a $1,875 fee for"reimbursements from Seller for closing and doc prep",with respect to the Aurora property transaction, inviolation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);
b. failure to communicate any changes in the basis or rateof the fee or expenses to the client, by conduct includingfailing to communicate to Crystal Glanville and SamuelWright that Respondent changed the attorney's fee forthe sale of the Aurora property from $875 to $1,500, inviolation of Rule 1.5(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, including: (1) directing CitywideTitle to include a sellers' attorney fee of $1,500 withoutGlanville's and Wright's knowledge or consent, (2)directing Citywide Title to include an additional chargeof $1,875 for "reimbursements from Seller for closingand doc prep" without Glanville's and Wright'sknowledge or consent, and (3) altering the $1,500 checkand depositing it into an account in the name of GalloLaw Group Ltd. without SmithAmundsen's knowledge orconsent, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 12 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extentan answer isdeemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12.
COUNT II
(Alleged dishonesty and changingfees without client's knowledge -Glanville/Wright purchase ofPlainfield property)
13. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 4 through 11 of Count I, above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges her answers to paragraphs 4 through
11 of Count I, above.
14. Between April 4, 2016 and April 12, 2016, SmithAmundsen, Glanville and
Wright agreed that SmithAmundsen would represent Glanville and Wright in the purchase
of a home located at 1817 Chestnut Hill Road in Plainfield ("the Plainfield property") from
Robert and Tanya Weeks. Respondent handled the representation of Glanville and Wright in
this transaction as a partner of SmithAmundsen. Respondent and Glanville and Wright
agreed that SmithAmundsen's fee for legal services related to the representation of Glanville
and Wright in this transaction would be a flat fee of $875, to be collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15. At no time between April 4,2016, and June 23,2016, the date the parties closed,
did Respondent advise Glanville or Wright that they would be responsible for any fees or
payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent with respect to purchase of the Plainfield
property, other than the $875 attorney fee. Further, at no time between April 4, 2016, and
June 23, 2016, did Glanville or Wright agree that they would be responsible for any fees or
payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent with respect to the Plainfield property
transaction, other than the $875 attorney fee.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
16. The parties had agreed that First American Title Insurance Company ("First
American Title") would serve as title insurer and would prepare closing documents for the
transaction. On June 20, 2016, Respondent sent an email directing First American Title to
include two charges in the closing documents: $1,875 payable to SmithAmundsen as the
buyers' attorney fee, and $1,025 payable to Elena Gallo for "closing documents
reimbursement".
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16.
17. Respondent's statement to First American Title that the buyers' attorney fee
was $1,875 was false, because the fee was only $875. Respondent's statement that
SmithAmundsen was to be reimbursed $1,025 closing documents reimbursement [sic] was
false, because at no time did Respondent or SmithAmundsen spend money on closing
documents related to the Plainfield property transaction that would entitle SmithAmundsen
to reimbursement of $1,025. At the time Respondent made those statements, she knew they
were false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17.
18. On June 21,2016, Lizzenid Cabassa ("Cabassa") of First American Title advised
Respondent via email that Glanville's and Wright's lender had requested invoices for
SmithAmundsen's attorney fee and for the "closing documents reimbursement" charge
referenced in paragraph 16, above. The same day, Respondent prepared a document entitled,
"Invoice for Legal Services and Reimbursements for the Purchase of 1817 Chestnut Hill Rd.,
Plainfield, IL 60586". The invoice stated, "Elena Gallo - Direct reimbursement for closing
documentation - Total $1025.00". Respondent then emailed the invoice to Cabassa.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 18.
19. Respondent's statement in paragraph 18,above,that she was to be reimbursed
for closing documentation was false, because at no time did Respondent spend money on
closing documents related to the Plainfield property transaction that would entitle her to
reimbursement of$1,025. At the time Respondent made the statement, she knew it was false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18.
20. On June 23,2016, the parties closed on the purchase of the Plainfield property.
Glanville and Wright attended the closing with Respondent. During the closing, Respondent
directed Glanville and Wright to sign numerous documents, including the closing statement
reflecting the increased buyers' attorney fee and the $1,025 for "closing documents
reimbursement." However, Respondent did not identify or explain those charges to Glanville
and Wright. Glanville and Wright signed the documents, including the closing statement,
unaware of those additional charges.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 20. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 20, except that she denies that she "directed" Glanville or Wright to sign any
documents. Further answering, Respondent states that she explained each document
requiring Glanville's and Wright's signatures to them, and they willingly signed the
documents. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the third and fourth sentences
of paragraph 20.
21. Pursuant to Respondent's direction, at the closing Glanville and Wrightwere
debited $1,875 for buyers' attorney fees to SmithAmundsen, and $1,025 for "closing
documents reimbursement" to Respondent. First American Title tendered two checks to
Respondent: a check payable to SmithAmundsen in the amount of $1,875, and a check
payable to Respondent in the amountof$1,025.
8
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 21 as alleged. Further answering, Respondent states that at Glanville's and
Wright's direction, and pursuant to the closing statement they reviewed and signed, First
American Title caused $1,875 to be disbursed via check to SmithAmundsen, and $1,025 to
be disbursed via check to Respondent. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the
second sentence of paragraph 21.
22. On or about June 24, 2016, Respondent deposited the $1,025 check into an
account at JP MorganChase Bankin the name of Gallo LawGroup Ltd., on which Respondent
was the sole signatory (Respondent's personal and business account). Respondent used this
account for personal and business purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 22.
23. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. charging or collecting an unreasonable fee or anunreasonable amount for expenses, by conduct includingcharging and collecting from Glanville and Wright a$1,875 buyers' attorney fee and a $1,025 charge for"closingdocuments reimbursement", with respect to thePlainfield property transaction, in violation of Rule 1.5(a)of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. failure to communicate any changes in the basis or rateof the fee or expenses to the client, by conduct includingfailing to communicate to Crystal Glanville and SamuelWright that Respondent changed the attorney's fee forthe purchase of the Plainfield property from $875 to$1,875, in violation of Rule 1.5(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) directingFirst American Title to include a sellers' attorney fee of$1,875 without Glanville's and Wright's knowledge orconsent, (2) directing First American Title to include an
additional $1,025 charge for "closing documentsreimbursement" without Glanville's and Wright'sknowledge or consent, and (3) preparing and tenderingto First American Title an invoice with the language,"Elena Gallo - Direct reimbursement for closingdocumentation Total $1025.00", in violation of Rule 8.4(c)of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 23 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23.
COUNT HI
{Alleged dishonesty regarding SmithAmundsen's investigation ofRespondent's conduct inGlanville/Wright transactions)
24. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 4 through 11 of Count I and
paragraphs 14 through 22 in Count II, above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges her answers to paragraphs 4 through
11 of Count I, above, and paragraphs 14 through 22 of Count II, above.
25. On July 8, 2016, Glanville called SmithAmundsen and left a voicemail message
expressing concern about the amount of fees charged at the closings on the Aurora and
Plainfield properties. That same day, Larry Schechtman ("Schechtman"), a partner at
SmithAmundsen, received the voicemail and emailed Respondent, requesting any billing
information on Glanville's matter along with an explanation of the fees charged.
10
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 25, upon information and belief. Respondent admits the allegations contained in
the second sentence of paragraph 25.
26. That same day, Respondent called Glanville and asked why Glanville contacted
another person at SmithAmundsen instead of contacting Respondent directly. During the
conversation, Respondent said she would send Glanville $2,500 to settle the matter.
Respondent also stated that she would send Schechtman an email and include Glanville as a
recipient, and told Glanville not to respond to the email or tell Schechtman about the money
Respondent was sending her.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence
paragraph 26, but denies that that statement constituted the entirety of her conversation
with Glanville. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 26. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of
paragraph 26 through the word "recipient,"and denies the remainder.
27. On or about July 15, 2016, Respondent sent Glanville a package via UPS
containing a bank envelope with $2,500 cash. The package contained no letter, receipt,
release, or any identifying information other than the sender's address, which is
Respondent's home address.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 27.
28. Respondent's conduct in sending $2,500 cash to Glanville, and directing
Glanville not to tell Schechtman about the $2,500 or respond to Respondent's email to
Schechtman, was deceitful because Respondent intended to conceal from Schechtman the
11
[sic] all of the charges and fees Respondent collected from the Aurora and Plainfield property
transactions. At the time Respondent engaged in this conduct, she knew it was deceitful.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28.
29. On July 8, 2016, Respondent emailed Schechtman and included Glanville as a
recipient In the email, Respondent stated, in part:
She [Glanville] explained to me that she called because she wasconfused by some of the line item charges for fees and expensesrelated to each transaction. We reviewed the statements
together, and I provided her with detailed explanations for theline items which included title fees, transfer stamps, attorney
fees, and document preparation fees. We had reviewed thestatements prior to closings, but when she went back to look atthe statements post closing, she had questions about some of therequired and typical fees associated with a sale and a purchaseof a home.
"After reviewing all of the documents, net sheet and chargeswith Crystal, she is now comfortable with the closing statements
and the charges."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 29.
30. Respondent's statements referenced in paragraph 29 above were false,
because at no time did Respondent review the closingstatements with Glanville or provide
her with detailed explanations for the line items, and Glanville never indicated to
Respondent that she was comfortable with the closing statements and thecharges reflected
in them.Atthe time Respondentmade the statements referenced in paragraph 29 above, she
knew they were false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegationscontained in paragraph 30.
12
31. On or about July 25, 2016, Mari Ann Novy ("Novy"), SmithAmundsen's
assistant general counsel, met with Respondent to discuss Respondent's fees in the Glanville
and Wright transactions. During the meeting, Respondent stated that the $1,025 charge from
the Plainfield property transaction was for Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses, such as
transfer stamps.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 31.
32. Respondent's statement that the $1,025 charge from the Plainfield property
transaction was for her out-of-pocket expenses was false because at no time did Respondent
spend money on expenses related to the Plainfield property transaction that would entitle
her to reimbursement of $1,025. At the time Respondent made that statement, she knew it
was false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32.
33. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, including: (1) sending $2,500 cash toGlanville, and directing Glanville not to tell Schechtmanabout the $2,500 or to respond to Respondent's email toSchechtman, (2) stating in an email to Schechtman thatRespondent reviewed the closing statements withGlanville and provided her with detailed explanations forthe line items, and that Glanville was comfortable with
the closing statements and the charges reflected in them,and (3) telling Novy that the $1,025 charge from thePlainfield property transaction was for Respondent'sout-of-pocket expenses, such as transfer stamps, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).
13
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 33 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33.
COUNT IV
(Alleged dishonesty andchangingfees without client's knowledge - Ratner realestatematter)
34. On or about March 8, 2016, SmithAmundsen and Dalia Ratner agreed that
SmithAmundsen would represent Ratner in the sale of her condominium located at 401 N.
Wabash Avenue, #43G, in Chicago ("the condominium") to Markand Deborah Hellman ("the
Hellmans"). Respondent handled the representation of Ratner in this transaction on behalf
of SmithAmundsen. Respondent and Ratner agreed that SmithAmundsen's fee for legal
services related to the representation of Ratner in this transaction would be $875, to be
collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 34.
35. At no time between March 8, 2016, and May 27, 2016, the date the parties
closed, did Respondent advise Ratner that Ratner would be responsible for any fees or
payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent, other than the $875 attorney fee. Further, at
no time between March 8, 2016, and May 27, 2016, did Ratner agree that she would be
responsible for any fees or payments to SmithAmundsen or Respondent with respect to the
condominium transaction, other than the $875 attorney fee.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegationscontained in paragraph 35.
36. The parties had agreed that Greater Metropolitan Title Company ("Greater
Metropolitan Title") would serve as title insurer and would prepare closing documents for
the transaction. Sometime between May 9, 2016, and May 23, 2016, Respondent directed
14
Greater Metropolitan Title to include two charges in the closing documents: $1,875 payable
to SmithAmundsen as the seller's attorney fee, and $5,000 payable to Elena Gallo for
"consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence".
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 36.
37. Respondent's act of directing Greater Metropolitan Title to include a seller's
attorney fee of $1,875 was dishonest, because she had previously agreed with Ratner that
the attorney fee would be a flat fee of $875, and at no time did Respondent request or obtain
authority from Ratner to increase the attorney fee. At the time Respondent directed Greater
Metropolitan Title to include a seller's attorney fee of $1,875, she knew that act was
dishonest.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37.
38. Respondent's act ofdirectingGreaterMetropolitan Title to include a chargeof
$5,000 for "consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence" was dishonest, because at no time
did Respondent advise Ratnerabout this charge, and at no timedid Ratneragree to paythis
charge. At thetime Respondent directed Greater Metropolitan Title to include a fee of$5,000
for "consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence", she knew that act was dishonest.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38.
39. On May 27, 2016, the parties closed on the sale of the condominium. Prior to
the closing. Respondent told Ratner that she did not need to attend the closing but instead
could execute a document authorizing Respondent to execute the closing paperwork on her
behalf. Ratner followed Respondent's suggestion and did not attend the closing. At closing,
pursuant to Respondent's direction, and unbeknownst to Ratner, Ratner was debited $1,875
for buyers' attorney fees to SmithAmundsen, and $5,000 for "consulting,
15
RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence" to Respondent. Greater Metropolitan Title tendered two
checks to Respondent: a check payable to SmithAmundsen in the amount of $1,875, and a
check payable to Respondent in the amount of $5,000.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 39. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 39, except that she denies any allegation to the effectthat Ratner not attending
the closing was Respondent's idea or suggestion. Respondent admits that Ratner did not
attend the closing, and denies any remaining allegations contained in the third sentence of
paragraph 39. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of
paragraph 39 as alleged. Further answering, Respondent states that at Ratner's direction,
and pursuant to the closing statement she reviewed and authorized, Greater Metropolitan
Title caused $1,875 to be disbursed via check to SmithAmundsen, and $5,000 to be disbursed
via check to Respondent. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the fifth sentence
of paragraph 39.
40. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. charging or collecting an unreasonable fee or anunreasonable amount for expenses, by conduct including
charging and collecting from Glanville and Wright a$1,875 seller's attorney fee and $5,000 charge for"consulting, RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence", withrespect to the condominium transaction, in violation ofRule 1.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010);
b. failure to communicate any changes in the basis or rate
of the fee or expenses to the client, by conduct includingfailing to communicate to Dalia Ratner that Respondent
16
changed the attorney's fee for the sale of thecondominium from $875 to $1,875, in violation of Rule
1.5(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) directing
Greater Metropolitan Title to include a sellers' attorney
fee of $1,875 without Ratner's knowledge or consent,
and (2) directing Greater Metropolitan Title to include an
additional $5,000 charge for "consulting,RE/Leasing/Title/Due Diligence" without Ratner'sknowledge or consent, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 40 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40.
COUNT V
(Alleged dishonesty andconversion ofproperty taxcredit - Ratner realestatematter)
41. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 34 through 39 of Count IV, above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges her answers to paragraphs 34
through 39 of Count IV, above.
42. Prior to the May27, 2016 closingdate, the parties did not know the amount of
the property taxes owed on the condominium for the second half of 2015 or the first half of
2016, because the Cook CountyTreasurer's Office had not yet issued property tax bills for
those time periods. On April 8, 2016, since the parties did not expect the Treasurer's Office
to issue a property tax bill before the closing date, the parties entered into an agreement
regarding a property tax credit at closing. Specifically, the parties used a formula which
estimatedthe outstanding property taxes, which the Hellmans would receive as a credit at
17
closing. The parties agreed that if the credit for the second half of the 2015 property taxes
exceeded the actual amount owed, then the Hellmans would pay Ratner the difference.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 42.
43. At the May 27, 2016, closing on the condominium, the Hellmans received a
property tax credit of $34,091.92, pursuant to the parties' agreement described in paragraph
42, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 43.
44. On July 6, 2016, Mark Hellman emailed Respondent stating that he received
the condominium's property tax bill for the second half of 2015. In the email, Hellman
informed Respondent that the property tax credit at closing exceeded the actual amount
owed. Hellman stated that based upon the parties' agreement, he owed Ratner $10,978.55,
and could pay by writing a check.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 44.
45. On July 7, 2016, Respondent emailed Mark Hellman telling him to make the
check payable to "GLG LTD.", and stating, "This will go into my escrow/trust account for
Dalia."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 45.
46. On July 13,2016, Mark Hellman wrote a checkfor $10,978.55 payable to "GLG
LTD.", with the memo,"Ratner tax credit". OnJuly 15,2016, Respondent deposited the check
into her personal and business account
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 46.
18
47. At no time between July 13, 2016, and the date of the filing of this complaint
did Respondent notify Ratner that Ratnerwas owed moneyfromthe property tax credit,or
that Respondent received the $10,978.55 check from Mark Hellman.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47.
48. OnDecember 5, 2016, prior to paying any portion of the $10,978.55 to Ratner,
Respondent's personal and business account was overdrawn in the amount of-$363.19.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 48.
49. As of December 5, 2016, Respondent had used $10,978.55 of Ratner's funds
for Respondent's own business or personal purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that she used the $10,978.55 for her own business
or personal purposes, but she denies that she did so without Ratner's authority, and that the
funds belonged to Ratner at the time that Respondent used them. Respondent denies any
remaining allegation contained in paragraph 49.
50. At no time did Ratner authorize Respondent to use any portion of the
$10,978.55 for Respondent's own business or personal purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50.
51. Respondent's use of the $10,978.55 without Ratner's authority constitutes
conversion of those funds.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 51 are not factual, but rather
statelegal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To theextent ananswer isdeemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51.
52. At the time Respondent used the $10,978.55, she knew she was using those
funds without authority.
19
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52.
53. As of the date of the filingof this complaint, Respondent has not paid any of the
$10,978.55 to Ratner.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 53.
54. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failure to hold property of clients or third persons that isin a lawyer's possession in connection with a
representation separate from the lawyer's own property,
by conduct including: (1) failing to hold the $10,978.55received from Mark Hellman separate from
Respondent's own property, and (2) converting
$10,978.55 received from Mark Hellman, which
belonged to Ratner, to Respondent's own business or
personal use by causing the balance in Respondent's
client fund account to fall below the amount then
belonging to Ratner, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. upon receiving funds in which the client has an interest,
failure to promptly notify the client, or promptly deliverthe funds to the client, by conduct including: (1) failing to
notify Ratner that Respondent received the $10,978.55check from Mark Hellman, and (2) failing to promptly
deliver the $10,978.55 to Ratner, in violation of Rule
1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including knowinglyconverting $10,978.55 received from Mark Hellman,which belonged to Ratner, to Respondent's own businessor personal use, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (2010).
20
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 54 are not factual, but rather
state legalconclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54.
COUNT VI
(Concurrent conflict ofinterest - Middletons to Paulus realestate matter)
55. On or about March 16, 2016, SmithAmundsen and Jacqueline Paulus agreed
that SmithAmundsen would represent Paulus in the purchase of a residence located at 2942
North Riverwalk Drive, in Chicago. Respondent handled the representation of Paulus in this
transaction as a partner of SmithAmundsen. Respondent and Paulus agreed that
SmithAmundsen's fee for representing Paulus in this transaction would be $875, to be
collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 55.
56. The purchase of the residence at 2942 North Riverwalk Drive did not occur,
and Paulus then decided to proceed with the purchase of a residence located at 1307 South
Wabash Avenue, Unit 402 and P36, in Chicago ("the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence")
from Joseph Middleton and Mary Rankin Middleton ("the Middletons"). Sometime between
March 16, 2016, and April 22, 2016, SmithAmundsen and Paulus agreed that
SmithAmundsen would represent Paulus in the purchase of the 1307 South Wabash Avenue
residence. Once again, Respondent handled the representation of Paulus in this transaction
as a partner ofSmithAmundsen. Respondent and Paulus agreed that SmithAmundsen's fee
for representingPaulus in this transactionwould be $875, to be collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 56.
21
57. On or prior to April 22,2016, Respondent also agreed with the Middletons that
either Respondent or SmithAmundsen would represent the Middletons in the sale of the
1307 South Wabash Avenue residence to Paulus.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that she agreed to represent the Middletons in
connection with the sale of 1307 South Wabash to the Middletons. Respondent denies any
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57.
58. On April 25, 2016, Respondent sent an email to Katee Stahl, conflicts
coordinator at SmithAmundsen, advising that Respondent was representing Paulus in the
purchase of the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence, and that Respondent was also
representing the Middletons as sellers of the same property. On the same day, Stahl sent
Respondent a response email stating, in part, "Although I did not find any conflict issues in
our records for Mary Middleton or Joseph Middleton, please note that representation of
parties that are adverse to one another in a transaction is generally considered an ethical
conflict of interest."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 58. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 58, but she denies that the quoted portion of the email constituted the entirety of
the email, or the entirety of Respondent's correspondence with Stahl with respect to the
Middleton/Paulus transaction.
59. Later on April 25, 2016, Respondent met with Stahl and SmithAmundsen's
assistant general counsel, Mari Ann Novy, to discuss Respondent's representation of both
Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction. During
the meeting, Respondent stated that she would not represent the Middletons in the
22
transaction. The same day, Stahl sent an email to Respondent, stating, "Thank you for making
time to chat earlier with Mari Ann and I regarding this matter. Since you will not be
representing the sellers in this deal, I wanted to confirm that no conflict issues remain with
respect to their involvement as adverse parties in this matter."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 59. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 59. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the third sentence of
paragraph 59.
60. As a non-equity partner of SmithAmundsen, Respondent stood in a position of
a fiduciary to SmithAmundsen that required her to exercise the utmost good faith and fair
dealing with respect to SmithAmundsen. As a fiduciary, Respondent was required to give
SmithAmundsen information relevant to the affairs entrusted to her, to obey
SmithAmundsen's reasonable directions, and not to act in SmithAmundsen's affairs except
as authorized.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 60 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required.
61. After Respondent told Stahl and Novy that she would not represent the
Middletons, between April 25, 2016, and June 22, 2016, the date the parties closed,
Respondent continued to represent both Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South
Wabash Avenue residence transaction. Respondent represented both Paulus and the
Middletons during the attorney review period, during which time the parties were able to
negotiate modifications to thecontract. Between May 5, 2016, andMay 10, 2016, during the
attorney review period, Respondent represented both Paulus and the Middletons in
23
negotiations with each other to make certain repairs to the 1307 South Wabash Avenue
residence.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 61.
62. At no time between April 25, 2016, and June 22,2016, did Respondent inform
Stahl, Novy, or anyone at SmithAmundsen that Respondent had continued to represent both
Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 62.
63. At no time did Respondent inform Paulus that Respondent was also
representing the Middletons as sellers in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence
transaction.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 63.
64. At no time did Respondent explain to Paulus the material risks of and
reasonably available alternatives to Respondent representing both Paulus and the
Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 64.
65. At no time did Respondent advise Paulus to seek the advice of other counsel
before agreeing to have Respondent represent both Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307
South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 65.
66. Sometime between April 25, 2016, and June 22, 2016, Respondent did inform
the Middletons that Respondent was also representing Paulus as buyer in the 1307 South
Wabash Avenue residence transaction. However, at no time did Respondent explain to the
Middletons the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to Respondent
24
representing both Paulus and the Middletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence
transaction.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 66. Respondent denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 66.
67. At no time did Respondent advise the Middletons to seek the advice of other
counsel before agreeing to have Respondent represent both Paulus and the Middletons in
the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 67.
68. The parties had agreed that Greater Metropolitan Title would serve as title
insurer and would prepare closing documents for the transaction. On June 21, 2016,
Respondent sent an email to Greater Metropolitan Title asking, "Does the closing costs
include attorney fees for both sides?" The same day, a representative from Greater
Metropolitan Title responded to Respondent via email, answering, "Yes, please review
attached." The representative from Greater Metropolitan Title attached to the email a
settlement statement for the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence transaction, reflecting
an $875 attorney fee to SmithAmundsen to be debited from Paulus as buyer, and a $500
attorney fee to Respondent to be debited from the Middletonsas sellers.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 68.
69. On June 22, 2016, the parties closed on the 1307 South Wabash Avenue
residence. At the closing, Paulus was debited $875 for buyer's attorney fees to
SmithAmundsen, and the Middletons were debited $500 for sellers' attorney fees to
Respondent. Greater Metropolitan Title tendered to Respondent a check payable to
25
SmithAmundsen in the amount of $875, and a check payable to Respondent in the amount of
$500.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 69.
70. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. representing a client when the representation involves a
concurrent conflict of interest where the representation
of one client will be directly adverse to another client, by
conduct including representing Paulus and buyer and
the Middletons as sellers in the 1307 South Wabash
Avenue residence transaction, without obtaining
informed consent from both Paulus and the Middletons,
in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010);
b. representing a client when the representation involves a
concurrent conflict of interest where there is a
significant risk that the representation of one or more
clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's
responsibilities to another client, by conduct includingrepresenting Paulus and buyer and the Middletons assellers in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence
transaction, without obtaining informed consent fromboth Paulus and the Middletons, in violation of Rule
1.7(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) making amisrepresentation by omission by failing to informanyone at SmithAmundsen after April 25, 2016, thatRespondent continued to represent both Paulus and theMiddletons in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence
transaction, and (2) failing to inform Paulus thatRespondent was also representing the Middletons assellers in the 1307 South Wabash Avenue residence
26
transaction, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 70 are not factual, but rather
statelegal conclusions. Therefore, noanswer is required. To the extent ananswer isdeemed
required, Respondentdenies the allegationscontained in paragraph 70.
COUNT VII
(Conversion andfailure tosafeguardfunds - Tartara real estate matter)
71. Sometime after SmithAmundsen terminated Respondent's employment on
July 27, 2016, but prior to December 9, 2016, Respondent and Christopher Tartara agreed
that Respondent would represent Tartara in the sale of his residence located at 1516 N.
Cleveland Avenue, #1, in Chicago ("the Cleveland Avenue residence") to GregoryGallagher.
Respondent and Tartara agreed that Respondent's fee for representing Tartara in this
transaction would be $750, to be collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 71.
72. The closing on the sale of the Cleveland Avenue residence was scheduled for
January 13, 2017. On the scheduled closing date, the parties entered into a "Use and
Occupancy Agreement" that allowed the seller, Tartara, to remain at the Cleveland Avenue
residence for two days after the closing date. The agreement called for Tartara to place
$5,000 in escrow to guarantee that he would deliver possession of the Cleveland Avenue
residence byJanuary 15, 2017. Tartara and Gallagher agreed to have Respondent serve as
escrowee and hold$5,000 ofthe proceeds of the Cleveland Avenue residence sale, until the
$5,000 was distributed pursuant to the termsofthe Use andOccupancy Agreement. Tartara
and Gallagher entrusted Respondent to safeguard these funds for use towards Tartara's
post-closing possession, pursuant to the agreement ofthe parties.
27
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 72.
73. On January 13,2017, the closing on the Cleveland Avenue residence took place.
At the closing, Respondent received Greater Metropolitan Title check number 88592,
payable to Gallo Law Group, Ltd., in the amount of $5,000, as the funds to be held pursuant
to the parties' Use and Occupancy Agreement, described in paragraph 72, above. The same
day, Respondent deposited the check into her personal and business account. At no time did
Respondent deposit the funds into a client trust account.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 73.
74. By January 15, 2017, Tartara had delivered possession of the Cleveland
Avenue residence to Gallagher. Pursuant to the parties' Use and Occupancy Agreement,
Tartara was entitled to the full $5,000 that the parties had entrusted Respondent to hold in
escrow. OnJanuary 17,2017, Gallagher's attorney, Cole Stremmel, sent Respondent an email
confirming that the escrowed funds may be released to Tartara.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 74.
75. On February 6, 2017, prior to any payment of funds from the Use and
Occupancy Agreement to Tartara, Respondent's personal and business account was
overdrawn in the amount of-$1,908.36.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 75.
76. As of February 6, 2017, Respondent had used the $5,000 from the Use and
Occupancy Agreement to which Tartara was entitled, for Respondent's own business or
personal purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 76. Further
answering, Respondent states that she paid $5,000 to Tartara by March 8, 2017.
28
77. At no time did Tartara or Gallagher authorize Respondent to use any portion
of the funds from the Use and Occupancy Agreement for Respondent's own business or
personal purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 77.
78. By using the the funds from the Use and Occupancy Agreement without
authority, Respondent engaged in conversion of those funds.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 78 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, noansweris required. To the extentan answeris deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations containedin paragraph 78.
79. In converting the funds from the Use and Occupancy Agreement without
authority, Respondent acted with knowledge that she was converting the funds of Tartara
and, in doing so, she acted dishonestly.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 79 are not factual, but rather
statelegal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To theextent ananswer isdeemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph79.
80. Between January 20,2017,and February 9,2017,Tartaraemailed Respondent
at least twice asking when he would receive a check for the $5,000 in escrow funds. On
February 9, 2017, Respondent emailed a response to Tartara stating that she had sent it to
Tartara "a while ago".
ANSWER: Respondent admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph80.
81. Respondent's statement that she had sent a check for the $5,000 in escrow
funds toTartara "awhile ago" was false, because at thetime Respondent made thestatement,
she had not sent a check to Tartara,and at no time betweenJanuary 20, 2017, and February
29
9,2017, did Respondent's personal and business account have sufficient funds to pay Tartara
$5,000.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 81, except the
allegation that her statement was "false." Answering further, Respondent admits that her
statement was incorrect.
82. At the time Respondent made the statement that she sent a check for the
$5,000 in escrow funds to Tartara "a while ago", she knew it was false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 82.
83. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failure to hold property of clients or third persons that is
in a lawyer's possession in connection with arepresentation separate from the lawyer's own property,by conduct including: (1) failing to hold escrow fundsrelated to the Use and Occupancy Agreement separate
from Respondent's own property, and (2) convertingescrow funds related to the Use and Occupancy
Agreement, which belonged to Tartara or Gallagher, toRespondent's own business or personal use by causingthe balance in her personal and business account to fallbelow the amount then belonging to clients or thirdpersons, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);
b. failure to promptly deliver to the client any funds that theclient is entitled to receive, by conduct including failingto promptly deliver the $5,000 in escrow funds thatTartara was entitled to receive, in violation of Rule
1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including: (1) knowingly
30
converting escrow funds related to the Use andOccupancy Agreement to Respondent's own business orpersonal use, without authorization, and (2) sendingTartara an email on February 9,2017, falsely stating that
she had sent him a check for the $5,000 in escrow funds
"a while ago", in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 83 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required.Tothe extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations containedin paragraph 83.
COUNT VIII
(Conversion andfailure tosafeguardfunds - Kramer realestatematter)
84. Sometime after SmithAmundsen terminated Respondent's employment on
July 27, 2016, but prior to February 21, 2017, Respondent and Scottand Cari Kramer ("The
Kramers") agreed that Respondent would represent the Kramers in the sale of their
residence located at 1421 South Wabash Avenue, #3W, in Chicago ("the 1421 South Wabash
Avenue residence") to Dana Currier and BakerFranke. Respondent and the Kramers agreed
that Respondent's fee for representing them in this transaction would be $750, to be
collected at closing.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations containedin paragraph 84.
85. The closing on the sale of the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence was
scheduled for March 1,2017. Onor about the scheduled closing date, the parties entered into
a post-closing possession escrow agreement thatallowed thesellers, the Kramers, to remain
at the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence after the closing date until April 29, 2017. The
agreement called for $2,500 to be placed in escrow from the Kramers' proceeds atclosing, to
guarantee that they would deliver possession ofthe 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence
31
by April 29, 2017. The Kramers, Currier and Franke agreed to have Respondent serve as
escrowee and hold the $2,500 in escrow until it was distributed pursuant to the terms of the
post-closing possession escrow agreement. The Kramers, Currier and Franke entrusted
Respondent to safeguard these funds for use towards the Kramers' post-closing possession,
pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 85.
86. Prior to closing, the Kramers, Currier and Franke agreed to an addendum to
the post-closing possession escrow agreement, which allowed the Kramers to retain
possession ofthe 1421 SouthWabash Avenue residence until May 31,2017. In consideration,
Currier and Franke were to receive a closing cost credit and additional money at closing. The
addendum did not change Respondent's duties as escrowee.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 86.
87. On March 1, 2017, the closing on the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence
took place. At the closing, Respondent received Greater Metropolitan Title check number
89806, payable to Gallo Law Group, Ltd., in the amount of $2,500, as the funds to be held
pursuantto the parties' post-closing possession escrow agreement, described in paragraphs
85 and 86, above. The same day, Respondent deposited the check into her personal and
business account. At no time did Respondent deposit the funds into a client trust account.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 87.
88. By May 31, 2017, the Kramers had delivered possession of the 1421 South
Wabash Avenue residence to Currier and Franke. Pursuant to the parties' post-closing
possession escrow agreement, the Kramers were entitled to the full $2,500 that the parties
had entrusted Respondent to hold in escrow.
32
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 88.
89. On April 13, 2017, prior to any payment of funds from the post-closing
possession escrow agreement to the Kramers, Currier, or Franke, Respondent's personal and
business account was overdrawn in the amount of-$544.81.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 89.
90. As of April 13, 2017, Respondent had used the $2,500 from the post-closing
possession escrow agreement to which the Kramers, Currier, and/or Franke were entitled,
for Respondent's own business or personal purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 90. Further
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that she had paid the $2,500 to the Kramers as
of DATE.
91. At no time did the Kramers, Currier, or Franke authorize Respondent to use
any portion of the funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement for
Respondent's own business or personal purposes.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegationscontained in paragraph 91.
92. By using the funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement
without authority, Respondentengaged in conversion ofthose funds.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 92 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer isrequired. To theextent ananswer isdeemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 92.
93. In converting the funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement
without authority, Respondent acted with knowledge that she was converting the funds of
the Kramers, Currier, and Franke and, in doingso, she acted dishonestly.
33
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 93 are not factual, but rather
state legalconclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 93.
94. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failure to hold property of clients or third persons that isin a lawyer's possession in connection with a
representation separate from the lawyer's own property,by conduct including: (1) failing to hold escrow fundsrelated to the post-closing possession escrow agreement
separate from Respondent's own property, and (2)converting escrow funds related to the post-closingpossession escrow agreement, which belonged to theKramers, Currier and/or Franke, to Respondent's ownbusiness or personal use by causing the balance in herpersonal and business account to fall below the amountthen belonging to clients or third persons, in violation ofRule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010);
b. failure to promptly deliver to the client any funds that theclient is entitled to receive, by conduct including failing
to promptly deliver the $2,500 in escrow funds that theKramers were entitled to receive, in violation of Rule
1.15(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including knowinglyconverting escrow funds related to the post-closingpossession escrow agreement to Respondent's ownbusiness or personal use, without authorization, inviolation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).
34
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 94 are not factual, but rather
state legalconclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 94.
COUNT IX
(Dishonest statement regarding escrowfunds - Kramer realestatematter)
95. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 84 through 93 of Count VIII, above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats her answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 84 through 93 of Count VIII, above.
96. Prior to closing, the Kramers, Currier, and Franke agreed that the Kramers
would provide Currier and Franke with a credit totaling $5,397.48 for property taxes
accrued but not yet paid by the Kramers.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 96.
97. At the March 1, 2017, closing on the 1421 South Wabash Avenue residence,
pursuantto the agreement ofthe parties, Currier and Franke received a propertytax credit
totaling $5,397.48.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 97.
98. On May 9,2017, Karen Burns, an escrow officer forGreater Metropolitan Title,
emailed Respondent stating that the property taxes on the 1421 South Wabash Avenue
residence had previously been paid, and that Burns had a refund for the Kramers in the
amount of $4,305.53. The same day, Respondent emailed Burns stating that Burns could
sendthe check to Respondent, andRespondent would give the check to Cari Kramer. Also on
the same day, Greater Metropolitan issued check number 152044 in the amount of$4,305.53,
payable to the Kramers.
35
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 98.
99. On or about May 31, 2017, the Kramers negotiated Greater Metropolitan Title
check number 152044.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 99.
100. On June 6,2017, Cari Kramer emailed Respondent stating that they had notyet
received a check for the escrow funds from the post-closing possession escrow agreement,
referenced in Count VIII, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 100.
101. OnJune 9, 2017, Respondent sent the Kramers and email stating, "Here is the
check - you already cashed it. This was the Escrow return and there was an additional
amount added to it because we overpaid the taxes - so .... you are all set." Attached to
Respondent's email wasGreater Metropolitan Title check number 152044, in the amount of
$4,305.53 payable to the Kramers.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 101.
102. Respondent's statement in paragraph 101, above, was false because Greater
Metropolitan Title check number 152044 contained only the refund for the Kramers'
overpayment ofproperty taxes, and contained none ofthe escrow funds that Respondent
hadbeen entrusted to hold. As explained in Count VIII above, Greater Metropolitan Title had
disbursed the escrow funds to Respondent at the March 1, 2017, closing, and Respondent
subsequently converted themto her own business or personal use.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that her statement in paragraph 101, above, was
incorrect because Greater Metropolitan Title check number 152044 contained only the
refund for the Kramers' overpayment of property taxes, and contained none of the escrow
36
funds that Respondent had been entrusted to hold. Respondent denies any remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 102.
103. At the time Respondent made the statement in paragraph 101, above, she
knew it was false.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 103 Further
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that she paid the Kramers $2,500 by February
12,2018.
104. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, by conduct including sending theKramers an email falsely stating that GreaterMetropolitan Title check number 152044 contained theescrow funds to which the Kramers were entitled, in
violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 104 are not factual, but rather
state legal conclusions. Therefore, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed
required, Respondent denies theallegations contained inparagraph 104.
RESPONDENT'S DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231
1. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State ofIllinois on November
7, 2002. She was admitted to the General Bar of the United States District Court for the
Northern Districtof Illinois on December 19, 2002.Sheis not admitted to any other state or
federal bar.
37
2. Respondent holds no other professional licenses other than his license to
practice law.
Respectfully submitted,
Elena Gallo, Respondent
James A. Doppke, Jr.Robinson Law Group, LLC
321 S. Plymouth Ct, 14th FloorChicago, IL 60604(312) 676-9878jdoppke(5>robinsonlawillinois.com
BY: James A. Doppke, Jr.One of her attorneys
38