BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ANSWER

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: JUSTIN JOSEPH TEDROWE, Attorney-Respondent, Comm. No. 2014PR00091 No ANSWER COUNT I (Alleged Attempt to Defraud a Litigation Oppoent[sicj) 1. In June 2011, Kathy Molitor filed a dissolution of marriage action against her husband, Matthew Molitor, in the Circuit Court ofthe Twelfth Judicial Circuit in Will County, Illinois. The clerk of the Court docketed the matter and assigned it case number 11 D Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph In August 2011, and at all times further times alleged in this complaint, Respondent represented Matthew Molitor in case number 11 D Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph At all times alleged in this complaint, Kathy and Matthew Molitor held a Pacific Life Insurance Company Annuity bearing an account number with the last four digits "8640" ("annuity contract number 8640"). In February 2014, annuity contract number 8640 was valued at approximately $70,000. FILED x SEP ATTY RBO &DISC COMM CHICAGO

2 Respondent admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 3. Respondent admits the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 3, not based upon personal knowledge, but upon information and belief. 4. On August 22, 2013, the Hon. Robert P. Brumund ("Judge Brumund"), a judge of the Circuit Court, entered a judgment of dissolution in case number 11 D Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4. Further answering, Respondent states that at the hearing at which the judgment was proved up, Respondent asked Kathy Molitor whether the parties had agreed that she would bear $500 of the costs involved in obtaining any Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") that may have been required to be obtained by the parties in relation to annuity contract number Kathy Molitor affirmed, under oath, that that was the parties' agreement. Further answering, Respondent states that at the hearing at which the judgment was proved up, Respondent also asked Kathy Molitor whether the parties' goal was to avoid incurring the costs involved in obtaining a QDRO, including by avoiding the necessity of pursuing a QDRO. Kathy Molitor affirmed, under oath, that that was the parties' goal. 5. On February 10, 2014, after hearing a motion filed by Respondent, Judge Brumund entered an order in case number 11 D 1287 directing that the assets of annuity contract number 8640 "shall be immediately divided 50/50 with each party entitled to withdraw their share." Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5.

3 6. On February 10, 2014, pursuant to Judge Brumand's [sic] order in case number 11 D 1287, Respondent prepared a Pacific Life Insurance Company withdrawal request form, which directed the company to transfer 50 percent of the value of annuity contract number 8640 to Respondent, had Matthew Molitor sign it, and sent the form to Kathy Molitor for her signature. Respondentadmits the allegations contained in paragraph In March 2014, Kathy Molitor signed the form described in paragraph six, above, and returned it to Respondent. Respondent received the executed form shortly after it was sent. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph In March 2014, after receiving the signed withdrawal request form from Kathy Molitor, Respondent altered the percentage recited in the document so that the document purported to direct the transfer of the entire value of annuity contract number 8640 to Respondent, rather than 50 percent of the value, as Kathy Molitor had authorized and Judge Brumond [sic] had ordered. On March 11, 2014, Respondent sent the altered document to Pacific Life Insurance Company, with a letter in which Respondent falsely described the document as reflecting Kathy and Matthew Molitor's direction regarding the withdrawal. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that after receiving the signed withdrawal request form from Kathy Molitor, Respondent discussed the form, and the withdrawal, with Richard Ozols ("Ozols"), who was Kathy Molitor's independent

4 financial advisor and not an employee of Pacific Life Insurance Company. Ozols informed Respondent that in order to process the withdrawal upon the terms stated in the withdrawal request form, Respondent would be required to obtain a QDRO in case number 11 D In response to that information, and intending to avoid the further time and expense of the QDRO procedure consistent with the parties' goals as affirmed at the August 22, 2013 prove-up hearing, Respondent proposed to Ozols that the terms of the withdrawal be changed such that 100% of the value of annuity contract 8640 be transferred to Respondent's IOLTA account, with the specific intentthat Respondent would then disburse the funds to the parties in case number 11 D 1287 in accordance with Judge Brumund's February 10, 2014 order. As part of making that proposal, Respondent changed the terms on the previouslyexecuted withdrawal form, and sent the form to Ozols. In a contemporaneous telephone conversation, Respondent asked Ozols to discuss the proposal with Kathy Molitor, and to determine whether she would approve it. Respondent did not receive a response from Ozols, or from Kathy Molitor, until he received notice that Kathy Molitor had complained to the ARDC concerning his alleged conduct. Further answering, Respondent denies that Judge Brumund's February 10, 2014 order required that the proceeds of annuity contract number 8640 be withdrawn or disbursed in the exact manner originally contemplated by the parties as reflected on the signed withdrawal request form, or that the order would have prohibited Respondent from acting in conformity with his later proposal that he receive the 4

5 entire proceeds of annuity contract number 8640 into his IOLTA account and disburse them to the parties. 9. Respondent's alteration of the withdrawal request form, and his description of it to Pacific Life Insurance Company as being consistent with the wishes of Kathy Molitor, were false and were intended to cause Pacific Life Insurance Company to transfer a greater amount of funds to Respondent than Kathy Molitor had authorized or than Judge Brumond [sic] had ordered. At the time Respondent altered and sent the document, Kathy Molitor had not authorized the transfer of the entire amount of annuity contract number 8640, and R [sic] knew that Kathy Molitor had not authorized the transfer of the entire annuity amount to Respondent. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he neither intended to, nor did, act with any dishonest intent in connection with the withdrawal form, or his communications with Ozols regarding the matter. Further answering, Respondent denies that he intended to, or did, act in a manner inconsistent with Judge Brumund's order in case number 11 D 1287, which directed only that the proceeds of Pacific Life annuity contract number 8640 be distributed in equal one-half shares to Matthew Molitor and Kathy Molitor, without specifying a particular method for such distribution.

6 Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he at all times knew that his receipt and distribution of any funds relating to case number 11 D 1287 would be subject to Judge Brumund's oversight and review, and, because of that knowledge, he had no intention of engaging in any kind of improper conduct at any time. 10. On March 14, 2014, Pacific Life Insurance Company received the altered withdrawal request form from Respondent. Respondent lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same and demands strict proofthereof. Further answering, Respondent admits that he sent a copy of his proposed change to the method of withdrawal of the annuity to Ozols on or about March 14, 2014, but Ozols was not, and is not, Pacific Life Insurance Company. Ozols was, and is, an independent financial advisor who had managed Kathy Molitor's financial affairs for several years prior to the filing of case number 11 D On March 14, 2014, Richard Ozols ("Ozols"), a Pacific Life financial advisor who was responsible for annuity contract number 8640, reviewed the altered withdrawal request form, and contacted Kathy Molitor, who informed him that she had authorized withdrawal of only 50 percent of the value of the contract and that she had not authorized any alteration ofthe document. Respondent denies that Ozols was, or is, "a Pacific Life financial advisor." Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that Ozols was and is an independent financial advisor who had managed Kathy Molitor's financial affairs for

7 several years prior to the filing of case number 11 D Respondent lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11, and therefore denies the same and demands strict proofthereof. 12. Upon learning that the withdrawal request form had been altered without Kathy Molitor's knowledge or consent, Ozols declined to release any portion of the funds held by Pacific Life to Respondent Respondent admits that Ozols did not distribute any funds relating to the Pacific Life annuity on or after March 14, Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph By reason of reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by altering the Pacific Life withdrawal request signed by Kathy Molitor without her authorization, transmitting the altered request to Pacific Life, and by falsely describing it to Pacific Life as a request which had been authorized by Kathy Molitor, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and b. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by attempting to cause the transfer of funds in excess of that ordered by the Court, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). The allegations contained in paragraph 13 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 13.

8 RESPONDENTS DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE Respondent is admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois, and he is admitted to the General and Trial Bars for the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. practice law. 2. Respondent holds no other professional licenses other than his license to Respectfully submitted, Justin Joseph Tedrowe, Respondent James A. Doppke, Jr. Robinson Law Group, LLC 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 450 Chicago, IL (312) jdoppke(5)robinsonlawillinois.com BY: James A. Doppke, Jr. James A. Doppke, Jr. Attorney for Justin Joseph Tedrowe

9 :47 TEDROWE » P 1/1 BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: JUSTIN JOSEPH TEDROWE, Attorney-Respondent, No Comm. No. 2014PR00091 AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-610 Justin Joseph Tedrowe, an attorney, hereby certifies, pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/1-109 and 735 ILCS 5/2-610: 1. That he is the Attorney-Respondent named in 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 a belief as to the truth or falsity 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned, an attorney, certifies that the statements set forth in this Affidavit Pursuant To 735 ILCS 5/2-610 are true and correct. BY: ju*fmjo*etfhtedro)ve lesponaem