538 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. 1989), 66226, In re Altman

Docket Nº:66226.
Citation:538 N.E.2d 1105, 128 Ill.2d 206, 131 Ill.Dec. 549
Party Name:In re Glenn Abram ALTMAN, Attorney, Respondent.
Case Date:March 22, 1989
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 1105

538 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. 1989)

128 Ill.2d 206, 131 Ill.Dec. 549

In re Glenn Abram ALTMAN, Attorney, Respondent.

No. 66226.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 22, 1989.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1989.

[128 Ill.2d 207] Daniel Drake, Springfield, for Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Jerold H. Goldenhersh, Belleville, for respondent.

Justice WARD delivered the opinion of the court:

After a hearing, a panel of the Hearing Board of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission recommended that Glenn Abram Altman, who was admitted to the bar of Illinois in 1974, be suspended from the practice of law for two years. The Review Board concurred with the panel's findings and recommendation of suspension. One member of the Review Board recommended a suspension for one year.

The complaint of two counts charged the respondent with a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1-102 (107 Ill.2d R. 1-102), alleging dishonesty, deceit and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and a violation of Canon 9, Rule 9-102 (107 Ill.2d R. 9-102), which requires a lawyer to promptly notify a client of the receipt of money to which the client is entitled.

Representing Barbara Kirchoff, the respondent filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Industrial[128 Ill.2d 208] Commission and subsequently secured a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, at the attorney's request Kirchoff executed settlement contracts for $12,670.70 in March 1984. In April 1984 in response to her inquiry regarding the settlement proceeds, the respondent advised that the settlement had to be approved by the Commission. Kirchoff testified that she phoned the respondent three times in May and four times in June regarding the settlement and on June 21, she said, he stated that the Industrial Commission was backlogged. On June 29 the respondent informed her that the settlement had not yet been approved. Kirchoff was phoned on July 15 and was advised that the attorney had just gotten the settlement check and was mailing it to her. On July 17 he told Kirchoff the check was in the mail, and when she told him on July 20 it had not been received, he said he would stop payment and send a new check. On July 21 she did receive a check for $10,000, which was $136.56 short of her share of the settlement. The next week he mailed her a check for the balance. In response...

To continue reading