We all know the ARDC dismisses scores of perfectly valid complaints about probate court and mortgage fraud. They stand idly by the Probate Court on the 18th floor targets, isolates, guardianizes and lets others steal estates (Estates of Sykes-$3 million; Alice Gore-millions; Mary Teichert-$2 million, etc.) They have the lawyers stacked in Probate guardianship court to do as they please with impunity. (Stern, Farenga, Martin, etc.)
Apparently another method to cover up employed by Jerome Larkin and James Grogin is to discipline a lawyer lightly that steals and then make the records difficult or impossible to find.
From a client, take a look at the “Lawyer Search” on http://www.iardc.org of “Arthur Engelland”
The Lawyer Search says no problems, as of today:
LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY’S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of March 5, 2018 at 1:13:00 PM:
Full Licensed Name: Arthur E. Engelland, Jr. Full Former name(s): None Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court:November 29, 1955 Registered Business Address: Arthur E Engelland Attorney At Law
19 South LaSalle Street Suite 507
Chicago, IL 60603-1456Registered Business Phone: (312) 345-7500 Illinois Registration Status: Active and authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 2018 Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information)In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.)
|
|
However, when you click on “rules and decisions” and search you find the following:
DECISION FROM DISCIPLINARY REPORTS AND DECISIONS SEARCH
| Filed January 5, 2015
In re Arthur E. Engelland, Jr. Commission No. 2013PR00099 Synopsis of Hearing Board Report and Recommendation Respondent represented a client who trained racehorses after six of his horses tested positive for an unauthorized substance. After several months of litigation including the filing of a TRO and appeal, Respondent applied the client’s costs credit to his outstanding balance for attorney’s fees. The client maintained he never authorized this and asked for a refund of the unused costs. The Administrator’s one-count First Amended Complaint charged Respondent with failing to promptly deliver funds to a client, in violation of 1.15(d), and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 8.4(c). The Hearing Panel found the Administrator failed to prove Respondent violated 8.4(c) and failed to prove Respondent failed to promptly deliver funds to the client. However, the Hearing Panel did find Respondent failed to provide a prompt and appropriate accounting to the client in violation of Rule 1.15(d). Given Respondent’s disordered office management, particularly with respect to his financial accounts, and his poor client communication, the Hearing Panel recommended Respondent be suspended for ninety days, stayed in its entirety, by a one-year period of probation with conditions.
|
From the decision, it further seems if you are a “friend” of the ARDC and the ARDC wants to do you a favor and cover up tracks, you don’t need an Attorney Trust or IOLTA account:
At the outset, we note Respondent was not charged with failing to hold Mr. Canani’s funds separately from his own, in violation of Rule 1.15(a). This is especially curious given that the Administrator presented evidence that Mr. Canani’s funds were at all times held in Respondent’s business account and argued they should have been held in an IOLTA account. There was also some disagreement as to whether Respondent even maintained an IOLTA account. In addition, the Administrator argued the language of the initial and supplemental
PAGE 12:
retainer agreements indicated the funds received from Mr. Canani were arguably a security retainer, and therefore should have been held in a client trust account pursuant to Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc., 226 Ill. 2d 277, 875 N.E.2d 1012 (2007). Nevertheless, we will not consider such evidence in our findings as there is no charge pursuant to Rule 1.15(a).
It seems that some $23,000 went into Engelland’s business account and never came out, and the accounting and billing was sloppy or non-existent.
For that, the attorney was suspended 3 months and put on probate, and Larkin and the aRDC being animal lovers, at least at the race track, made sure this discipline does not appear on the law search tab, but only on Rules and Decisions page because no one would know to look there.
Or would they?
I will send this for comment to Larkin and Company but I bet I receive no response, just as I received no response on his home property records. I would like to see just who is paying his mortgage off for him. Please provide the deposit records Mr. Larkin, so I can publish.
Cc: Jerome Larkin and James Grogin, for comment via fax. Comments will be published, as received, don’t hold your breath.
As a followup today, the ARDC fax at 312 565 2320 is not working, I have faxed this post several times, so I drop it in the mail tonight. Sometimes they block my fax or maybe they don’t any more grievances by fax.
I just send my fax through Fax Zero and it went through after numerous times from my fax number on my business cards. Apparently the ARDC has bloccked my fax! If they aren’t going to do their job, then it seems to be no one at the ARDC should be getting paid.
MaryGSykes.com 
Reblogged this on Justice for Everyone Blog.