Post on 24-Jan-2021
»**
In the Matter of:
BYRON LEE LANDAU,
Respondent,
No. 3121895.
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Comm. No. 2014PR00174
ANSWER
COUNT I
(Allegedfailure to communicate, allegedfailure to supervise, and allegedfailure to safeguardclientfunds in relation to the operation ofCredence Law Group)
1. Sometime prior to December 11, 2012, Respondent responded to an attorney
job posting on Craigslist, a classified advertisements website. As a result, Respondent came
into contact with nonlawyers Scott Murikami and Ariyo Mackay, who told him about an
available attorney position at Credence Law Group ("Credence").
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1.
2. Murikami and/or Mackay represented to Respondent that Credence was an
existing law firm that helped distressed homeowners by assisting in obtaining loan
modifications from their mortgage lenders. Murikami and/or Mackay told Respondent that
Credence had lost its prior attorney and that they needed an attorney to keep Credence in
business.
FILED
JAN 23 2015
ATTY REG &DISC COMMCHICAGO
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2. Further
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that Murakami and Mackay told him that they
had operated Credence as a law firm, with another attorney, for 4-5 years prior to their
conversations with Respondent. Respondent further states that Murakami and Mackay told
him that the prior attorney left in order to pursue other legal work.
3. Prior to Respondent's involvement, Credence was an existing entity
incorporated in California under the name "Credence Professional Group, Inc." by a
California attorney named Vincent S. Ammirato.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 3.
4. Respondent entered into an agreement with nonlawyers Murikami and/or
Mackay to serve as attorney for Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4. Further
answering, Respondent affirmatively states that shortly before he entered into
the agreement described in paragraph 4, he was introduced to Israel Aguila, a
bank officer at Bank of America who was involved in providing financing to
Credence. Aguila represented that he (as a representative of Bank of America)
dealt with Murakami and Mackay on a daily basis, and that based on his
knowledge of them through those interactions, he knew them to be honest,
above-board, and successful in the operation of Credence. Respondent further
states that Aguila strongly recommended that Respondent replace Credence's
prior attorney as Murakami and Mackay had requested. Respondent further
states that Aguila's statements influenced him to enter into the agreement
described in paragraph 4.
5. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay to incorporate
Credence in Illinois and open trust accounts in Credence's name.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5.
6. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay that Credence would
advertise for, solicit, and contact individuals it determined may be in danger of foreclosure
or otherwise needed assistance in modifying the terms of their home mortgages. Respondent
agreed that Credence would offer these individuals assistance in avoiding foreclosure and
obtaining loan modifications from mortgage lenders.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 6.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 6.
7. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay that nonlawyer
employees of Credence would take calls from individuals responding to Credence
solicitations and advertisements. Respondent further agreed that the nonlawyer Credence
employees would explain Credence's loan modification program and have the individuals
execute agreements to retain Credence to represent them.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7, except that he
denies any allegation to the effect that Credence had any "employees" at any
time.
8. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay that Respondent would
serve as attorney for Credence's clients.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8. Further
answering, Respondent states that he agreed with Murakami and Mackay that
he would serve as an overseeing attorney, with a local counsel who had loan
modification experience, on each case.
9. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay that new clients would
provide Credence with information and documents regarding the clients' finances and
mortgages. Respondent further agreed that nonlawyer Credence employees would contact
clients' mortgage lenders and prepare an application for loan modification with supporting
documentation.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 9, and further
answering, states that his agreement with Murakami and Mackay further
provided that the new clients would provide information to local counsel
selected and designated by Credence.
10. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay that Respondent would
analyze and approve all submissions to mortgage lenders on behalf of Credence's clients.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10, and further
answering, states that his agreement with Murakami and Mackay further
provided that additional analysis and approval of the submissions to the
mortgage lenders would be provided by local counsel selected and designated
by Credence.
4
11. Pursuant to Respondent's agreement with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay,
Respondent would not consult with clients or potential clients.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11.
12. Respondent agreed with Murkami [sic] and/or Mackay that Respondent would
receive a fixed monthly fee as compensation for all of his work for Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12.
13. On or about December 11,2012, Respondent opened four separate client fund
accounts ("Credence client fund accounts") ending in the four digits 9812, 9841, 9839, and
6592, at Bank of America. Each account was entitled, "California IOLTA Trust Accounts,
Credence Law Group, TRTEE".
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13.
14. Between December 11, 2012, and November 30, 2014, Respondent was the
only signatory on any of Respondent's client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15. On or about January 14,2013, Respondent incorporated Credence Law Group,
Inc., in Illinois. Respondent listed himself as the registered agent and listed his street address
as 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago, Illinois.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
16. Between January 2013 and February 2014, Credence listed its office address
on its website (http://credencelawgroup.com) and marketing materials as 180 North
Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago, Illinois.
5
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16.
17. Between January 2013 and February 2014, the office space located at 180
North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago, Illinois, belonged to Regus, PLC, a vendor of
executive and virtual office space.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 17.
18. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent work at
the office located at 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago, Illinois.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that he was not physically present at the office located at
180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago, Illinois. Respondent denies
any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 18. Further answering,
Respondent states that a receptionist provided by Regus, PLC frequently
provided Respondent with information, at Respondent's request, concerning
the operation of the office located at 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500,
Chicago, Illinois.
19. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did any Credence
employee work at the office located at 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago,
Illinois.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that no persons performing work for or on behalf of
Credence, except for the receptionist provided by Regus, PLC,were present at
the office located at 180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3500, Chicago, Illinois
between January 2013 and February 2014. Respondent denies any remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 19, including, but not limited to, any
allegation to the effect that Credence had any "employees" at any time.
20. At all times between January 2013 and February 2014, Respondent resided in
Nevada and did not have a residence in Illinois.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 20.
21. As of June 2013, the Credence website had a webpage called "Attorneys". The
webpage listed Respondent as "Owner/Lead Attorney" and contained a summary of
Respondent's professional experience. Respondent was the only attorney listed on the
"Attorneys" webpage. At the bottom of the page was a section entitled, "Network ofAttorneys
We Work With:". It is unclear whether any attorneys were listed in the "Network ofAttorneys
We Work With:" section.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 21.
22. Between January 2013 and February 2014, Respondent also referred to
himself as the "Managing Attorney" of Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 22.
23. At all times between January 2013 and February 2014, Respondent was the
only attorney employed at Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent admits, upon information and belief, that between January 2013
and February 2014, he was the only attorney performing legal work for, or on
behalf of, Credence. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained
in paragraph 23, including, but not limited to, any allegation to the effect that
Credence had any "employees" at any time.
24. Between January 2013 and February 2014, nonlawyer employees of Credence
took calls from individuals responding to Credence solicitations and advertisements. During
those calls, the nonlawyer Credence employees explained Credence's loan modification
program and the terms of Credence's legal representation to the potential clients.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 24, except any
allegation to the effect that Credence had any "employees" at any time.
25. Between January 2013 and February 2014, nonlawyer employees of Credence
had new clients execute engagement agreements. The top of the engagement agreements
routinely contained the language, "PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION,"
referred to Credence as a "law firm" providing "legal services", and contained language about
"the scope of the attorney-client relationship".
ANSWER: Respondent admits that between January 2013 and February 2014,
nonlawyers performing work for, or on behalf of, Credence entered into
engagement agreements with clients. Respondent denies any allegation
contained in paragraph 25 to the effect that Credence had any "employees" at
any time. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an
admission or denial of any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25.
26. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent did
consult with any client or potential client about the engagement letter or its terms.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26.
8
27. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent
personally consult with any clients about the means by which the clients' objectives were to
be accomplished.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27.
28. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent
routinely work in the same physical office space as Credence employees or monitor the
telephone conversations between Credence employees and clients or potential clients.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28, including any
allegation to the effect that Credence had any "employees" at any time.
29. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent
personally explain a matter to any client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding Credence's representation.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29.
30. Between January 2013 and February 2014, clients from at least eight different
states (California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania) retained Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 30, except the
allegation that any clients from or residing in California retained Credence.
Respondent denies that allegation, based on information and belief.
31. Between January 2013 and February 2014, the engagement agreements
routinely contained language stating, "Our Standard hourly attorney rate is $450 per hour
for Partners and $350 per hour for Associates," conveying the impression to new clients that
multiple attorneys were employed at Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 31.
32. Between January 2013 and February 2014, the engagement agreements
routinely contained a three-tiered fee structure. The first tier involved Credence
prequalifying and interviewing the client and, if the lender had issued a notice of default or
foreclosure, contacting the lender to postpone any date for sale of the client's home. The
second tier involved Credence compiling and submitting a loan modification package to the
lender as well as conducting preliminary negotiations with the lender. The third tier involved
Credence negotiating with the client's lender and obtaining approval for a loan modification.
According to the engagement agreements, Credence would be paid a specified amount upon
completion of each tier.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 32.
33. Between January 2013 and February 2014, the engagement agreements
routinely contained language stating, "We do not accept advance fees for our services."
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 33.
34. Between January 2013 and February 2014, nonlawyer Credence employees
routinely demanded up-front fees and advised clients that no further work would be done
on a file unless additional fees were paid in advance.
10
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34, including any
allegation that Credence had any "employees" at any time.
35. Between January 2013 and February 2014, fees from Credence clients were
deposited into the Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 35.
36. Between January 2013 and February 2014, client fees were withdrawn or
transferred from the Credence client fund accounts before the fees were earned.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36.
37. Between January 2013 and February 2014, more than $6,000,000 was
deposited into the Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 37.
38. Between January 2013 and February 2014, more than $5,970,000 was
withdrawn or transferred from the Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 38.
39. Between January 2013 and February 2014, more than $400,000 was debited
from the Credence client fund accounts to an American Express account in Ariyo Mackay's
name.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 39.
11
40. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent monitor
the deposits, withdrawals, and transfers of any of the Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 40.
41. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent prepare
or maintain receipt and disbursement journals for any Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 41.
42. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent prepare
or maintain contemporaneous ledger records for any Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 42.
43. At no time between January 2013 and February 2014 did Respondent prepare
or maintain reconciliation reports of any Credence client fund accounts.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 43.
44. Between January 2013 and February 2014, Respondent was paid at least
$64,274.48 by Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 44 upon
information and belief. Further answering, Respondent states that he also
received reimbursement, in amounts presently unknown to him, of travel and
health care expenses, as well as reimbursements for amounts expended on
shipping charges, photocopying documents, and faxing documents.
12
45. On or about May 2, 2014, Respondent was transferred to inactive status with
the ARDC.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 45. Further
answering, Respondent states that he voluntarily transferred to inactive
status, after discussing the matter with a representative of the ARDC.
46. On or about June 3, 2014, Credence Law Group, Inc., was involuntarily
dissolved by the Illinois Secretary of State.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 46.
47. Between May and December 2014, a website with the address
www.credencelawgroup.net contained the following message:
Credence Law Group is no longer accepting any NEW client files.For all of our clients still in the process, DO NOT WORRY, we arecontinuing to process each and every file 'til we have aresolution for you. If you have any questions, please contactyour assigned processor. Ifyou are unable to reach them, pleasecontact our customer care #: 1-888-502-3121. Thank youvery much and we look forward to the completion of your file!
(emphasis in original).
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 47.
48. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failing to consult with the client as to the means by whichthe objectives of representation are to be pursued, in
violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010), by conduct including
failing to consult with clients about the terms of
13
Credence's engagement and failing to consult with
clients at any time;
failing to reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(2) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to consult with clients about the termsof Credence's engagement and failing to consult with
clients at any time;
failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonablynecessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation, in violation of
Rule 1.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010), by conduct including failing to personally explain
a matter to any client to the extent reasonably necessary
to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding Credence's representation;
failing to prepare and maintain complete records of aclient trust account, in violation of Rules 1.15(a)(1)
through 1.15(a)(8) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
conduct (2010), by conduct including failing to maintain
complete records of any Credence client trust account;
failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that
Credence had in effect measures giving reasonable
assurance that the conduct of Credence's nonlawyer
employees was compatible with Respondent's
professional obligations, in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to ensure that Credence had measuresin effect to: (1) have an attorney consult with clients asto the means by which the objectives of representation
are to be pursued, (2) explain matters to the extentreasonably necessary to permit clients to make informed
decisions regarding the representation, (3) supervise the
14
handling and record-keeping of Credence client fund
accounts; and
f. assisting another in practicing law in a jurisdiction in
violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including permitting a nonlawyer Credence employee to
discuss with clients the objectives of representation and
to consult with the clients as to the means by which the
objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
48, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 48.
COUNT II
{Allegedfailure to communicate, allegedfailure to supervise, alleged assisting in theunauthorized practice oflaw - Omar & Delfina Buenrostro)
49. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges his answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 47.
50. On or about January 9, 2013, a nonlawyer representative at Credence spoke
with Omar & Delfina Buenrostro ("the Buenrostros") about obtaining a loan modification of
the Buenrostros' home mortgage. The Buenrostros and the nonlawyer Credence
representative agreed that Credence would represent the Buenrostros in negotiating a loan
modification of their home mortgage. The nonlawyer representative discussed with the
15
Buenrostros the objectives of representation and consulted with the Buenrostros as to the
means by which the objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 50.
51. Between January and March 2013, the Buenrostros paid Credence $3,241 for
Credence's representation and tendered documents and information related to their home
mortgage to Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 51.
52. At no time between January 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent discuss
with the Buenrostros the objectives of representation or consult with the Buenrostros as to
the means by which the objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 52. Further answering,
Respondent states that he responded, or attempted to respond, to all clients
who asked to speak with him, called him, or emailed him.
53. Between March and June 2013, the Buenrostros left messages with Credence
representatives via email, voicemail and facsimile, requesting information regarding the
status of their matter.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 53.
16
54. Between March 2013 and December 15,2014, neither Respondent nor anyone
at Credence provided the Buenrostros with any information about the status of Buenrostros'
matter.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 54.
55. Neither Respondent nor anyone at Credence obtained a loan modification for
the Buenrostros.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 55.
56. In May 2013, Respondent or someone on Credence's behalf advised the
Buenrostros' mortgage lender, Bank of America, that Credence no longer represented the
Buenrostros.
ANSWER: Respondent denies that he advised Bank of America that Credence no longer
represented the Buenrostros. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon
which to base an admission or denial of any remaining allegations contained
in paragraph 56.
57. At no time between January 2013 and November 30,2014, did Respondent or
anyone on Credence's behalf advise the Buenrostros that Credence ceased representing
them.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 57.
17
58. At no time between January 2013 and November 30,2014, did Respondent or
anyone on Credence's behalf advise the Buenrostros that Credence was unable to obtain a
loan modification for them.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 58.
59. Between May and September 2013, the Buenrostros left telephone messages
with Credence requesting a refund of the $3,241 fee they paid.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 59.
60. At no time between January 2013 and November 30, 2014, did Respondent or
anyone on Credence's behalf refund any portion of the $3,241 fee to the Buenrostros.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that he did not refund any fees to the Buenrostros.
Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 60.
61. At no time between January 2013 and November 30, 2014, did Respondent or
anyone at Credence do sufficient legal work to justify retaining the $3,241 fee.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
61, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 61.
62. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
18
failing to consult with the client as to the means by which
the objectives of representation are to be pursued, in
violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct including
failing to consult with the Buenrostros at any time;
failing to promptly inform the client of any decision or
circumstance with respect to which the client's informed
consent is required, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(1) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to notify the Buenrostros that he ceased
representing them;
failing to reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(2) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to consult with the Buenrostros at any
time;
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to notify the Buenrostros that he ceased
representing them and failing to respond to the
Buenrostros' telephone calls, emails, and faxes
requesting information about the status of their matter;
failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information from a client, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by
conduct including failing to respond to the Buenrostros'
telephone calls, emails, and faxes requesting information
about the status of their matter;
failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation, in violation of
Rule 1.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
19
(2010), by conduct including failing to have any direct
communication with the Buenrostros at any time;
g. failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
to protect a client's interests, in violation of Rule 1.16(d)
of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by
conduct including failing to give reasonable notice to the
Buenrostros of his withdrawal;
h. failing to promptly refund any part of a fee paid in
advance that has not been earned, in violation of Rule
1.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010), by conduct including failing to promptly refund
any unearned portion of the $3,241 fee the Buenrostrospaid;
i. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that
Credence had in effect measures giving reasonable
assurance that the conduct of Credence's nonlawyer
employees was compatible with Respondent's
professional obligations, in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to ensure that Credence had measures
in effect to: (1) have an attorney consult with the client
as to the means by which the objectives of representation
are to be pursued, (2) respond to the Buenrostros
requests for information about their matter, (3)
promptly notify the Buenrostros that Respondent had
ceased representing them, and (4) promptly refund any
part of the fee paid by the Buenrostros; and
j. assisting another in practicing law in a jurisdiction inviolation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including: (1) permitting a nonlawyer Credence
employee to discuss with the Buenrostros the objectivesof Respondent's representation, (2) permitting a
nonlawyer Credence employee and to consult with the
20
Buenrostros as to the means by which the objectives of
representation were to be pursued, and (3) failing to
have any direct communication with the Buenrostros at
any time during Credence's representation.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
62, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 62.
COUNT III
{Allegedfailure to communicate, allegedfailure to supervise, alleged assisting in theunauthorized practice oflaw - Lenora & Tommy Browder)
63. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges his answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 47, above.
64. On or about April 2, 2013, a nonlawyer representative at Credence spoke with
Lenora and Tommy Browder ("the Browders") about obtaining a loan modification of the
Browders' home mortgage with Bank of America. The Browders and the nonlawyer
Credence representative agreed that Credence would represent the Browders in negotiating
a loan modification of their home mortgage. The nonlawyer representative discussed with
the Browders the objectives of representation and consulted with the Browders as to the
means by which the objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 64.
21
65. Between April and June 2013, the Browders paid Credence $3,951 for
Credence representation and provided a Credence employee with information relating to
their home mortgage,
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 65.
66. At no time between April 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent discuss
with the Browders the objectives of representation or consult with the Browders as to the
means by which the objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 66.
67. Between June and October 2013, the Browders called Credence repeatedly to
speak directly with Respondent about their matter.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 67.
68. At no time between April 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent ever
speak with the Browders or otherwise have any direct communication with the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 68.
69. On or about October 21, 2013, the Browders called Credence and inquired
about the status of their matter. Someone at Credence advised that a woman named Laura
Lopez from Credence would call the Browders back regarding their matter.
22
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 69.
70. At no time between October 22,2013 and December 20,2013, did Respondent,
Ms. Lopez, or anyone else at Credence communicate with the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 70.
71. On or about October 30, 2013, the Browders submitted a grievance with the
ARDCagainst Respondent.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 71.
72. On November 4, 2013, counsel for the Administrator sent Respondent a copy
of the Browders' grievance along with a letter requesting information and records
concerning Respondent's representation of the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained within paragraph 72.
73. On November 22, 2013, Respondent sent counsel for the Administrator an
email concerning this matter which stated in part, "The client paid a total flat rate of $3,951,
which per the agreement $2,634 was for services that could not be rendered. A release of
liability is going out to the client so [sic] sign and acknowledge the refund and closing for
[sic] their file."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained within paragraph 73.
74. On or about December 20,2013, Respondent or someone on Credence's behalf
sent the Browders correspondence entitled "URGENT NOTICE". The letter begins, "This
23
letter is to inform you that we have made numerous attempts to reach you via the contact
information provided on your application to our office without any success."
ANSWER: Respondent denies that he sent the notice referred to in paragraph 74 to the
Browders. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an
admission or denial of any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 74.
75. The statement in the letter described in paragraph 74 above was false because
between October 21, 2013, when the Browders called to inquire about their matter, and
December 20, 2013, neither Respondent nor anyone on Credence's behalf attempted to
communicate with the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent denies that he made any false statements as alleged in paragraph
75. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission
or denial of any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 75.
76. Between April 2013 and November 2014, the Browders resided at the same
home address and maintained the same home telephone number they provided to Credence
when they initially agreed to have Credence represent them.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 76.
77. On or about January 13, 2014, Respondent or someone on Credence's behalf
sent the Browders correspondence entitled "Cancellation Letter". The letter states that the
Browders' loan modification has been canceled and their file has been closed. The letter also
states, "We also made several attempts to get a hold of you with no success." The
"Cancellation Letter" makes no reference to unearned fees or a refund.
24
ANSWER: Respondent denies that he sent the correspondence referred to in paragraph
77 to the Browders. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to
base an admission or denial of any remaining allegations contained in
paragraph 77.
78. Other than the "URGENT NOTICE" dated December 20, 2013, and the
"Cancellation Letter" dated January 13, 2014, neither Respondent nor anyone on Credence's
behalf attempted to communicate with the Browders after the Browders called to inquire
about their matter on October 21, 2013.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 78.
79. At no time between April 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent or anyone
on Credence's behalf refund any portion of the $3,951 fee to the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 79.
80. At no time did Respondent or anyone at Credence do sufficient legal work to
justify retaining the $3,951 fee paid by the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
80, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 80.
81. As of November 2014, neither Respondent nor anyone on Credence's behalf
has sent the Browders a release of liability or any other document to facilitate a refund.
25
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 81.
82. Neither Respondent nor anyone at Credence obtained a loan modification for
the Browders.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 82.
83. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failing to consult with the client as to the means by which
the objectives of representation are to be pursued, in
violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct including
failing to consult with the Browders at any time;
b. failing to reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(2) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to consult with the Browders at any
time;
c. failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to inform the Browders of the status oftheir matter when they called Credence;
d. failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information from a client, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by
conduct including failing to inform the Browders of thestatus of their matter when they called Credence;
26
e. failing to promptly refund any part of a fee paid in
advance that has not been earned, in violation of Rule
1.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010);
f. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that
Credence had in effect measures giving reasonable
assurance that the conduct of Credence's nonlawyer
employees was compatible with Respondent's
professional obligations, in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to ensure that Credence had measures
in effect to: (1) have an attorney consult with the
Browders as to the means by which the objectives of
representation are to be pursued, (2) keep the Browders
reasonably informed about the status of their matter, (3)
promptly comply with the Browders' reasonable
requests for information, and (4) promptly refund the
unearned part of the fee the Browders paid; and
g. assisting another in practicing law in a jurisdiction in
violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including: (1) permitting a nonlawyer Credence
representative to discuss with the Browders the
objectives of Respondent's representation, (2)
permitting a nonlawyer Credence representative to
consult with the Browders as to the means by which the
objectives of representation were to be pursued, and (3)
failing to have direct communication with the Browders
at any time.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
83, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
27
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 83.
COUNT IV
(Allegedfailure to return unearned fees, allegedfailure to supervise - Gary Diggs)
84. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges his answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 47, above.
85. On or about April 17, 2013, a representative at Credence spoke with Gary
Diggs about obtaining a loan modification of Diggs's home mortgage. Diggs and the Credence
representative agreed that Credence would represent Diggs in negotiating a loan
modification of Diggs's home mortgage.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 85.
86. On or about April 17, 2013, Diggs paid $1,217 to Credence as partial payment
for Credence's representation.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 86.
87. The same day, Diggs decided to terminate Credence's representation and seek
a refund of the $1,127 he paid to Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 87.
28
88. Between April 17,2013, and April 25, 2013, Diggs contacted Credence at least
seven times via email and telephone to advise of his decision to terminate Credence's
representation and obtain a refund. Diggs left multiple messages advising that he longer
wished to do business with Credence and requesting a refund.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 88.
89. On or about April 19, 2013, someone on Credence's behalf told Diggs that
Diggswould be contacted shortly about obtaining a refund.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 89.
90. At no time between April 19, 2013, and November 30, 2014 did Respondent
or anyone on Credence's behalf contact Diggs about obtaining a refund.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 90.
91. At no time between April 19, 2013, and November 30, 2014 did Respondent
or anyone on Credence's behalf refund any portion of the $1,127 fee to Diggs.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 91.
92. At no time did Respondent or anyone at Credence do sufficient legal work to
justify retaining the $1,127 fee paid by Diggs.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
92, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
29
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 92.
93. Neither Respondent nor anyone at Credence obtained a loan modification for
Diggs.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 93.
94. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to promptly refund the unearned
portion of the fees Diggs paid;
b. failing to promptly refund any part of a fee paid in
advance that has not been earned, in violation of Rule
1.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010), by conduct including failing to refund any of the
$1,127 fee to Diggs; and
c. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that
Credence had in effect measures giving reasonable
assurance that the conduct of Credence's nonlawyer
employees was compatible with Respondent's
professional obligations, in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to ensure that Credence had measures
in effect to promptly refund the unearned part of the fee
the Diggs paid.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
92, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
30
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 92.
COUNTV
(Allegedfailure to return unearnedfees, allegedfailure tosupervise - Melinda Gilbert)
95. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges his answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 47, above.
96. Sometime prior to June 12 2013, a representative from a company called
National Housing Advocates spoke with Melinda Gilbert ("Gilbert") about obtaining a loan
modification of the Gilbert's home mortgage. The representative from National Housing
Advocates referred Gilbert to Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 96.
97. On or about June 12, 2013, Gilbert and a nonlawyer representative from
Credence agreed that Credence would represent Gilbert in negotiating a loan modification of
her home mortgage. The nonlawyer representative discussed with Gilbert the objectives of
representation and consulted with Gilbert as to the means by which the objectives of
representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 97.
31
98. Between June 2013 and July 2013, Gilbert paid Credence $1,492.50 for
Credence's representation and tendered documents and information related to her home
mortgage to a Credence representative.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 98.
99. At no time between June 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent discuss
with Gilbert the objectives of representation or consult with Gilbert as to the means by which
the objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 99.
100. At no time between June 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent, anyone
on his behalf, or anyone at Credence have any communication with Gilbert's mortgage
lender, United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), about Gilbert's mortgage.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 100.
101. Between July and September 2013, a representative of the USDA informed
Gilbert telephonically that it did not engage in loan modifications.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 101.
102. Between August and September 2013, Gilbert received a correspondence from
Credence in which it informed Gilbert that her loan modification had been canceled.
32
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 102.
103. Between August and November 2013, Gilbert repeatedly called and emailed
National Housing Advocates and Credence requesting a full or partial refund of the $1,492.50
fee she had paid Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 103.
104. At no time between August 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent, anyone
on his behalf, any Credence employee or agent, or any National Housing Advocates employee
or agent respond to Gilbert's requests for a refund.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 104.
105. Neither Respondent nor anyone at Credence obtained a loan modification for
Gilbert.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 105.
106. At no time between June 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent or anyone
on Credence's behalf refund any portion of the $1,492.50 fee to Gilbert.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 106.
107. At no time between June 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent or anyone
at Credence do sufficient legal work to justify retaining the $1,492.50 fee.
33
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
107, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 107.
108. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failing to consult with the client as to the means by which
the objectives of representation are to be pursued, in
violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct including
failing to consult with Gilbert at any time;
b. failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to have any communication with the
USDA and failing to promptly refund the unearned
portion of the fees Gilbert paid;
c. failing to reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(2) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to consult with Gilbert at any time;
d. failing to promptly refund any part of a fee paid in
advance that has not been earned, in violation of Rule
1.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
(2010), by conduct including failing to refund any of the$1,492.50 fee to Gilbert;
e. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that
Credence had in effect measures giving reasonable
assurance that the conduct of Credence's nonlawyer
34
employees was compatible with Respondent's
professional obligations, in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to ensure that Credence had measures
in effect to: (1) have an attorney consult with Gilbert as
to the means by which the objectives of representation
are to be pursued, and (2) promptly refund the unearned
part of the fee the Gilbert paid; and
f. assisting another in practicing law in a jurisdiction in
violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including: (1) permitting a nonlawyer Credence
employee to discuss with Gilbert the objectives of
Respondent's representation, (2) permitting a
nonlawyer Credence employee to consult with Gilbert as
to the means by which the objectives of representation
were to be pursued, and (3) failing to have direct
communication with Gilbert at any time.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
108, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 108.
COUNT VI
(Allegedfailure to communicate, allegedfailure to supervise, alleged assisting in theunauthorized practice oflaw -Jill Myersand Darwin Myers, Jr.)
109. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges his answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 47, above.
35
110. On or about September 10, 2013, someone named Andrew Craig who
identified himself as being with "Client Services" spoke with Jill Myers and Darwin Myers, Jr.
("the Myerses") about obtaining a loan modification of the Myerses' home mortgage. Craig
referred the Myerses to Credence.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 110.
111. On or about September 10,2013, the Myerses and a nonlawyer representative
from Credence agreed that Credence would represent the Myerses in negotiating a loan
modification of their home mortgage. The nonlawyer representative discussed with the
Myerses the objectives of representation and consulted with the Myerses as to the means by
which the objectives of representation were to be pursued.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 111.
112. On or about September 12, 2013, the Myerses paid Credence $1,500 for
Credence's representation and tendered documents and information related to their home
mortgage to a Credence representative.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 112.
113. On or about September 16, 2013, the Myerses advised Andrew Craig via email
that they received a letter from their local sheriffs office stating that the Myers' property
was sold at a public sale and that the Myerses needed to vacate the property.
36
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 113.
114. On or about September 16, 2013, Andrew Craig emailed the Myerses, stating
he put their communication in the file.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 114.
115. Between September 16, 2013, and October 2, 2013, the Myerses left repeated
messages with both Credence and Andrew Craig via email and voicemail, requesting
immediate assistance and providing additional information from the sheriffs office. Craig
responded by stating, "We will get to work on this right away."
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 115.
116. At no time between September 16,2013 and October 1,2013, did Respondent,
anyone on his behalf, or any Credence representative respond to the Myerses.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 116.
117. On or about October 2, 2013, a Credence representative named Natalie Velez
emailed the Myerses advising that she was just assigned their file that week and will contact
their lender once she is authorized on the account.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 117.
37
118. On or about November 21, 2013, a Credence representative sent an email to
the Myerses stating, "Wells Fargo denied our request, the sale is official."
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 118.
119. Between November 25, 2013, and January 8, 2014, the Myerses repeatedly
emailed Credence requesting an itemized copy of all work performed on their case, all
documents submitted to the Myerses' lender, any research done, and dates and times for all
phone calls Credence made to the Myerses' lender. A Credence representative advised that
the request was being sent to management.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 119.
120. At no time between November 25, 2013, and November 30, 2014, did
Respondent, anyone on his behalf, or any representative of Credence provide the Myerses
with an itemized copy of all work performed on their case, all documents submitted to the
Myerses' lender, any research done, and dates and time for all phone calls Credence made to
the Myerses' lender.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 120.
121. Neither Respondent nor anyone on his behalf obtained a loan modification for
the Myerses.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 121.
38
122. Sometime after November 2013, the Myerses lost their home.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 122.
123. At no time between September 2013 and November 2014 did Respondent
have any direct communication with the Myerses.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 123.
124. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failing to consult with the client as to the means by which
the objectives of representation are to be pursued, in
violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct including
failing to consult with the Myerses at any time;
b. failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to communicate directly with the
Myerses when they received notice that their home was
sold;
c. failing to reasonably consult with the client about the
means by which the client's objectives are to be
accomplished, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(2) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to consult with the Myerses at any time;
d. failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests forinformation, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to comply with the Myerses' requests
39
for an itemized copy of all work performed on their case,all documents submitted to the Myerses' lender, any
research done, and dates and time for all phone calls
Credence made to the Myerses' lender;
e. failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that
Credence had in effect measures giving reasonable
assurance that the conduct of Credence's nonlawyer
employees was compatible with Respondent's
professional obligations, in violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including failing to ensure that Credence had measures
in effect to: (1) have an attorney consult with the
Myerses as to the means by which the objectives of
representation are to be pursued, and (2) have an
attorney consult with the Myerses when they received
notice that their home was sold; and
f. assisting another in practicing law in a jurisdiction in
violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (2010), by conduct
including: (1) permitting a nonlawyer Credence
employee to discuss with the Myerses the objectives of
Respondent's representation, (2) permitting a
nonlawyer Credence employee to consult with the
Myerses as to the means by which the objectives of
representation were to be pursued, (3) permitting a
nonlawyer Credence employee to consult with the
Myerses after the Myerses discovered their home was
being sold, and (4) failing to have direct communication
with the Myerses at any time.
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
124, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
40
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 124.
COUNT VII
(Allegedfailure to safeguardfunds, allegedfailure to maintain complete records ofclientfund accounts)
125. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1 through 123 above.
ANSWER: Respondent repeats and realleges his answers to the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 123, above.
126. On or about April 17, 2013, at the direction of a representative at Credence,
Gary Diggs transferred $1,217 for legal fees into the Credence client fund account ending in
the four digits 9812.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 126.
127. Between June and July 2013, Respondent or someone at his direction
deposited $1,492.60 paid by Melinda Gilbert for legal fees into the Credence client fund
account ending in the four digits 9841.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 127.
128. At no time between January 2013 and November 2014, did Respondent do
sufficient legal work to justify retaining the full amounts of fees that Gary Diggs or Melinda
Gilbert paid, as referenced in paragraphs 126 and 127 above.
41
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
128, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 128.
129. On or about January 13, 2014, the balances on the Credence trust accounts
were as follows:
Account No. Balance
9812 $(998.10)
9841 $480.00
9839 $ 500.00
6592 $-
Total: $(18.10)
Thus on or about January 13, 2014, the Credence trust accounts were overdrawn by
a combined $18.10.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 129.
42
130. On or about January 21, 2014, the balances on the Credence trust accounts
were as follows:
Account No. Balance
9812 $(6637.71)
9841 $ 6005.00
9839 $411.23
6592 $-
Total: $(221.48)
Thus on or about January 21, 2014, the Credence trust accounts were overdrawn by
a combined $221.48.
ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge upon which to base an admission or
denial of the allegations contained within paragraph 130.
131. As a result, the unearned portion of the funds referenced in paragraphs 126
and 127 was converted and Respondent is responsible for that conversion.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 131.
132. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failing to prepare and maintain complete records of aclient trust account, in violation of Rules 1.15(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
43
b. causing the conversion of the unearned portion of thefees paid by Gary Diggs and Melinda Gilbert, in violation
of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010).
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
132, as those allegations are not factual but state conclusions of law. To the
extent an answer is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations
contained in paragraph 132.
RESPONDENT'S DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231
1. Respondent was licensed to practice law in the State of California on June 14,
1995, and he was assigned bar number 177247. That license has been inactive since
November^ 2014.
2. Respondent does not hold any other professional licenses or certificates.
Respectfully submitted,
ByroiyLee^Latidau, Respondent
Mary Robinson
Robinson Law Group, LLC
333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 450
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 676-9875
mrobinson@robinsonlawillinois.com
44
BY: 1 Majry RobinsonAttorney for Byron Lee Landau
\lSl/J7/2015 10:48 702—436-7387 FEDEX OFFICE 4157
In the Matter of:
BYRON LEE LANDAU,
Respondent,
No. 3121895.
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
Comm.No.2(D14PR00174
PAGE 02
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 735ILCS 5/2-610
Byron Lee Landau hereby certifies, pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure,
735 ILCS 5/1-109 and 735 ILCS S/2-610:
1. That he Is the Respondent named fn the above-captioned matter.
2. That his Answer to the Administrator's Complaint, to which the instant
Affidavit is attached, contains certain statements of insufficient knowledge on which to
base an admission or denial of the allegations contained in the complaint.
3. That those allegations of insufficient knowledge are true and correct.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOUGHT.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned, an attorney, certifies that Misstatements set fort
Affidavit Purs/ant To/fas ILCS 5/2-610 are true and,
DATE: x!fyron Lee LandauRespondent