Follow by Email

Monday, June 18, 2012

ROOMATE'S DRUG ACTIVITIES LEADS TO POSSIBLE DISBARMENT

Aaron Isaacson, an Illinois attorney, is facing possible disbarment for "[not] thinking anything of it [his roommate's drug activities] at the time."  His roommate, Ryan Yoselowitz, apparently dealt drugs from their shared home in Logan Square.  Isaacson apparently witnessed rug deals going down as well as using marijuana and cocaine himself.  Isaacson knew his roommate's income came only from dealing drugs. 

Isaacson worked as a Lake County prosecutor handling, occasionally, misdemeanor drug cases and traffic cases until 2009.  Yoselowitz was arrested in 2009, and Isaacson was given immunity for testifying against him.  Yoselowitz is now serving a 12 year sentence. 

Isaacson's lawyer, his uncle who is a lawyer at DLA Piper told the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee about Isaacson's great character, is asking for a significant suspension instead of disbarment. 

Friday, June 1, 2012

THREATENING ETHICS COMPLAINT LEADS TO ETHICS VIOLATION

Julia Dimick, an Indianapolis lawyer, has been publicly reprimanded after she threatened to report an opposing lawyer to the ethic's board, an act which was deemed prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

According to the stipulated facts in the discipline order, Dimick was representing a woman against the woman's former attorney over the handling of settlement funds.  Dimick sent the opposing attorney a letter alleging the opposing attorney of a conflict of interest, lack of candor, and conversion of the settlement funds.  Dimick then stated that the opposing attorney had a "window of opportunity" to solve the matter, but it required a settlement offer.  Dimick stated that if she did not receive a settlement offer soon, she would file a grievance with disciplinary commission. 

While agreeing that her conduct violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) [prohibits engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice], Dimick had some mitigating factors. Specifically, Dimick had no disciplinary history and she was cooperative with the commission.  Therefore, the commission agreed that a public reprimand was the appropriate punishment.  

The order can be found here