ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT -82015 DISCIPLINARY … · ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT...

In the Matter of:

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD "*"

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT - 8 2015AND ATn/Bc/% &

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION "<" »«®«DI§CCOMMCHICAGO

TIMOTHY JOHN COFFEY,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6224686.

No.2015PR82

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Now comes the Respondent, Timothy John Coffey, by and through his attorneys,

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and for his Answer to Complaint, states:

COUNT I

(Conviction-Driving Under the Influence, Jo Davies County, Illinois)

1. On September 29, 2012, Respondent was vacationing at Eagle Ridge Resortoutside of Galena, Illinois. Respondent had several alcoholic drinks at that resort and then droveinto Galena for dinner. Respondent shared a bottle of wine at dinner and then had at leastanotheralcoholic drink after dinner at a bar in Galena.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on September 29, 2012, he was vacationing atEagle Ridge Resort outside of Galena, Illinois, that he drove into Galena for dinner, that heshared a bottle of wine at dinner and then had one alcoholic drink after dinner. Respondentdenies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1. Further answering, Respondent states that hehad a couple of beers before dinner.

2. After departing the bar in Galena, Respondent attempted to drive back to theEagle Ridge Resort. In the process of driving out of Galena, Respondent struck an object oranother automobile and did not stop. Law enforcement received a report identifyingRespondent's automobile by its license number as the vehicle involved inthat incident.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, after departing the bar in Galena, he attempted todrive back to the Eagle Ridge Resort and that in the process of driving out of Galena,Respondent struck apole. Respondent denies any allegation that, in the process or driving out of

19077663v1 131

Galena, he struck another automobile and did not stop. Respondent is without sufficientknowledge as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2 and thereforeneither admits nor denies those allegations, but leaves the Administrator to his burden of proof.

3. As Respondent was driving between Galena and Eagle Ridge Resort, Jo DaviesCounty Sheriffs Deputy Scott Wernet identified Respondent's car as the vehicle involved in theincident referred to in paragraph 2, above. In observing the vehicle, Deputy Wernet noted thatRespondent had no taillights and was swerving and crossing the center line on the road. DeputyWernet turned on his flashing lights and Respondent pulled over to the side of the road.

ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of theallegation contained in Paragraph 3 that, as he was driving between Galena and Eagle RidgeResort, Jo Davies County Sheriffs Deputy Scott Wernet identified Respondent's car as thevehicle involved in the incident referred to in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, or that, in observingthe vehicle, Deputy Wernet noted that Respondent had no taillights and was swerving andcrossing the center line on the road, and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations, butleaves the Administrator to his burden of proof. Respondent admits that Deputy Wernet turnedon his flashing lights and that Respondent pulled over to the side of the road.

4. Deputy Wernet approached Respondent's car, he smelled alcohol, saw thatRespondent's eyes were glassy and watery, observed that Respondent fumbled with his walletwhen asked for identification, and heard Respondent's slurred speech. Respondent twicedemanded that Deputy Wernet inform Respondent why he had been stopped and Deputy Wernetinformed him that he was stopped for no tail lights, improper lane usage and a possible hit-and-run accident. Deputy Wernet requested that Respondent comply with a field sobriety test.Sergeant Craig Ketelsen and Deputy Joe Duerr were also present. At various times during thefield sobriety test, Respondent either failed to fully comply with or declined Deputy Wernet'srequests and said repeatedly that the requests were "ridiculous." Deputy Wernet then askedRespondent to comply with a breathalyzer test, which Respondent also declined. Deputy Wernetarrested Respondent for driving under the influence.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations that Deputy Wernet approachedRespondent's car, that Respondent asked why he had been stopped, thatDeputy Wernet informedRespondent that he was stopped for no tail lights, improper lane usage and a possible hit-and-run accident, that Deputy Wernet requested that Respondent comply with a field sobriety test,that Sergeant Craig Ketelsen and Deputy Joe Duerr were also present, that at various timesduring the field sobriety test, Respondent either failed to fully comply with or declined DeputyWernet's requests and said that he believed the stated reasons for the pull-over were not true andthat the requested field sobriety tests were not necessary, that Deputy Wernet asked Respondentto take with a breathalyzer test, which Respondent declined to take, and that Deputy Wernetarrested Respondent for driving under the influence. Respondent denies the remainingallegations of Paragraph 4, including the allegations that Deputy Wernet smelled alcohol, sawthat Respondent's eyes were glassy and watery, observed that Respondent fumbled with hiswallet when asked for identification, and heard Respondent's slurred speech; that Respondenttwice "demanded" anything of Deputy Wernet and that Respondent repeatedly said that therequests were "ridiculous." Further answering, Respondent had difficulty performing one or

19077663vl 1311

more tests because his knee was in pain and his eyes were dry and tired from driving for manyhours that day.

5. During the arrest, Respondent told the three officers repeatedly that they were"assholes." Respondent made the statement "I'm from the south side. I know people and we willfind you." Sgt. Ketelsen asked Respondent if that was a threat and Respondent answered that itwas "a fucking promise." Respondent informed Deputy Wernet that he was an attorney.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that he said that he was from the South Side, that hewas an attorney, and that he knew people, by which he was referring to numerous attorneys,some of whom practiced criminal law. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 5, including the allegations that, during the arrest, he told the three officers repeatedlythat they were "assholes," that he said that "we will find you," that Sgt. Ketelsen askedRespondent if that was a threat and Respondent answered that it was "a fucking promise."Further answering, Respondent states that, when the police officers were removing the EagleRidge room key from his pocket as he sat handcuffed in the back of the squad car, one of theofficers remarked that they would drive Respondent's girlfriend back to the hotel where shewould be "all alone" in the room, and that they would take care of her, which Respondentinterpreted as lewd and threatening.

6. Deputy Wernet proceeded to transport Respondent to the Jo Davies County jail.During the transport, which was videotaped, Respondent repeatedly stated that there was noprobable cause for his arrest and that it was unjust. Respondent again stated thathe was from thesouth side and above the law. Respondent stated "you hurt me, I will hurt you," and "If you wanta war, we will go to war."

ANSWER: Respondent admits that Deputy Wernet proceeded to transport Respondentto the Jo Davies County jail, that during the transport, which was videotaped, Respondentrepeatedly stated that there was no probable cause for his arrest and that it was unjust, that hestated that he was from the South Side, which was intended as a reference to the fact that heknew criminal defense attorneys who could represent him in defending against any criminalcharges and in asserting possible civil claims, and that he stated "you hurt me, I will hurt you,"and "Ifyou want a war, we will go to war," which comments were intended to refer to his use ofany and all legal means to defend himself and to bring any motions or civil actions that may bewarranted and available to him under the law. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 6, includingthat he said that he was above the law.

7. On September 30, 2012, upon arrival at the Jo Davies County jail, during thebooking, which was also videotaped, Respondent repeatedly pleaded with the officers to releasehim. Respondent also made the following statements during his booking:

Respondent: That's a bunch of fucking asses.

Sgt. Ketelsen: Put your hands up on the lockers.

Respondent: And I'm going to fucking completely fucking annihilate this wholefucking department.

19077663v1 1311

Sgt. Ketelsen: Alright. Go ahead and put your hands on the lockers.Respondent:And I'm an attorney. I can do it.

Respondent: You will fucking ... yeah, you better get some God damnprotection at your God damn house. Yes, you better ... why are you doing this?

Respondent: This is ... swerving (inaudible) traffic. This is what it is, right. Andspeeding a little bit to move (inaudible) traffic. Good case. Rock solid. It's rocksolid. I long to see you fucking (inaudible) and I will (inaudible) mother fuckerand where's my girlfriend, asshole'? What'd you do to my girlfriend, asshole? Doyou have a wife ... do you have a wife, asshole? You're going to fucking seesomething going on. (Inaudible) does she ever go out because I'll go with her.Fucker. You mother fucker. No deal mother fucker.

*******

Respondent: My wife. I don't have a wife anymore but you can go after her ifyou want. Do you have a wife because I'm going to go after her.

Sgt. Ketelsen: (Inaudible)

Respondent: Awesome. Does she ... is she cute at all? Maybe not. Damn it. I tell you,I'm going to hurt you as a fucking civilian can hurt you.

ANSWER: ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 7. Furtheranswering, Respondent states that the statements attributed to him in Paragraph 7 were madeafter Respondent heard the police officer make the lewd and threatening remarks about hisgirlfriend described in the answer to Paragraph 5, and after it had become apparent toRespondent that the officers were not going to allow him to leave the jail that night or the nextmorning, contrary to their earlier representations to Respondent during the booking process thathe would be allowed to pay bond with his credit card and leave that evening orthe next morning.Further answering, Respondent states that, immediately before he made the statements attributedto him in Paragraph 7, one of the officers said, "... [sjounds like there is acab out front waitingfor you so we'll get you through this here and then ..." Respondent was devastated by what hereasonably believed was a baseless charge being made against him and by the prospect offacinga day or maybe more in jail.

8. On September 30, 2012, the following citations and complaints were filed againstRespondent: case number 12 DT 82, for driving under the intlucnce ofalcohol, in violation of625 ILCS 5/IJ-50J(a)(2); case number 12 TR 3142, for failure to have working taillights, inviolation of 625 ILCS 5112-201; and case number 12 TR 3141, for improper lane usage. A copyof the citation and complaint relating to the DUI are attached as Exhibit One.

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8.

19077663vl 1311

9. On October 1, 2012, an information was filed against Respondent in the CircuitCourt of Jo Davies County, case number 12 CF 74, People of the State ofIllinois v. Timothy J.Coffrey, charging Respondent with intimidation by making threats to Deputy Wernet and Sgt.Ketelsen, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-6(a)( I).


10. On or about October 11, 2012, Respondent received notice that his license wassuspended effectiveNovember 15, 2012, for a minimum of 12 months pursuant to Sect. 11-501.1of the Illinois Vehicle Code, due to Respondent's refusal to comply with Jo Davies officers'requests that he submit to a breathalyzer test.


11. On April 11,2013, Respondent was found guilty of count one of the indictment incase no. 12 DT 82, charging him with drivingunder the influence of alcohol, in violation of 625TLCS 5/11-50 I (a)(2). The other charges against Respondent, relating to intimidation, failure tohave working tail lights and improper lane usage were dismissed by the State. On April 11, 2013,Respondent was sentenced to 12 months of probation, ordered to perform 240 hours ofcommunity service, ordered not to consume alcohol or illicit drugs during the period ofprobation, ordered to wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet for 90 days, ordered to submit torandom urine screens, complete a drug/alcohol evaluation and pay fines and costs. A copy of thesentencing order is attached as Exhibit Two.


12. On April 25, 2013, Respondent's driving privileges were revoked pursuant to theconviction for driving under the influence.


13. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:

a. engaging in a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct, by virtue of having committed a criminal act of felony drivingunder the influence of alcohol, in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (a)(l );

b. engaging in a criminal act that rellects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct, by virtue of having committed a criminal act of intimidation of theofficers involved in his arrest and booking, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-6(a)(l).

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 13, and each and every ofthem, including sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).

19077663vl 1311

COUNT II

(Conviction—Driving on a Revoked or Suspended Driver's Licensein Kendall County, Illinois)

14. The Administrator realleges the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-12 of Count Iabove.

ANSWER: As his answer to Paragraph 14, Respondent restates his answers toParagraphs 1 through 13 of Count I, above.

15. On May 30, 2014, while Respondent's license was still revoked, Respondent wasdriving his automobile exiting Walmart in Oswego near Fifth and Route 34, when he was pulledover by an officer of the Oswego Police Department. The officer determined that Respondent'sdriver's license had been revoked due to his prior driving under the influence of alcoholconviction.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on May 30, 2014, while Respondent's license wasstill revoked, Respondent was driving his automobile in Oswego near Fifth and Route 34, whenhe was pulled over by an officer of the Oswego Police Department. Respondent is withoutsufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 15 that the officerdetermined that Respondent's driver's license had been revoked due to his prior driving under theinfluence of alcohol conviction, and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations, butleaves the Administrator to his burden of proof. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 15, including the allegation that he was exiting Walmart at the time he was driving.

Further answering the allegations of Paragraph 15, Respondent states that he was goinginto White Castle to get something to eat after leaving the home of his girlfriend (who at thattime lived in Oswego), and was entering a White Castle parking lot at the time the officer pulledhim over and that no alcohol was involved. The officer asked Respondent several times whetherhe had anything to drink and took him out of the car and field-tested him briefly. The officerasked why Respondent would be going into White Castle if he had not beendrinking, apparentlyimplying that only persons who had been drinking would eat at White Castle. Respondentreplied that he grewup on the Southside of Chicago and that he actually ate at White Castle fromtime to time with zero alcohol involved.

16. On that same date, Respondent was arrested and charged with operating anuninsured vehicle in violation of 625 ILCS 5/3-707 and driving on a revoked or suspendeddriver's license in violation of 625 ILCS 5/6-303. The matters were docketed in the Circuit Courtof Kendall County as case numbers 14 TR 3716 and 14 TR 3717, People v. Timothy Coffey.


17. On July 23, 2014, Respondent pled guilty to driving on a revoked or suspendeddriver's license in case number 14 TR 3716 and was sentenced to court supervision and 24months of probation, until July 20, 2016. Respondent was required to perform 240 hours ofcommunity service, among other conditions. Case number 14 TR 3717 was nolle prossed

19077663v1 131

because Respondent established insurance compliance. A copy of the sentencing order isattached as Exhibit Three.


18. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in thefollowing misconduct:

a. engaging in a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct, by virtue of having committed a criminal act of driving on arevoked or suspended driver's license in violation or 635 ILCS 5/6-303.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 18, and each and every ofthem, including sub-paragraph (a).

COUNT III

(Commingling of Client Funds-Tolson)

19. On October 24. 2011, the City of Chicago terminated the employment of ValerieTolson ("Tolson"), whose title at the City of Chicago was Senior Budget Analyst.


20. On or about November 8, 2011, attorney Lonny Ben Ogus filed a Victims'Economic Safety and Security Act (VESSA) claim on behalf of Tolson against the City ofChicago with the Illinois Department of Labor. The matter was assigned IDOL file number 2011VS 151, entitled Valerie Tolson v. City of Chicago.

ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of theallegation contained in Paragraph 20 that on or about November 8, 2011, attorney Lonny BenOgus filed a Victims' Economic Safety and Security Act (VESSA) claim on behalf of ValerieTolson against the City of Chicago with the Illinois Department of Labor, and therefore neitheradmits nor denies those allegations, but leaves the Administrator to his burden of proof.Respondent admits the allegation in Paragraph 20 that a matter was assigned IDOL file number2011 VS 151, entitled Valerie Tolson v. City of Chicago.

21. Prior to March 6, 2012, attorney Ogus referred Tolson to Respondent, andsuggested that Respondent substitute for as counsel on behalfof Tolson.

ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of theallegation contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations,but leaves the Administrator to his burden of proof.

22. On or about March 6, 2012, Respondent and Tolson agreed that Respondentwould represent Tolson in 2011 VS 151, and on March 6, 2012, Respondent and Ogus filed asubstitution of counsel.

19077663v1 1311


23. On or about March 12, 2012, Respondent and Tolson entered into, a writtencontingency fee agreement that provided that Respondent would receive as his fee in the matterone-third of any recovery, including back pay, front pay, attorney fees, and Tolson's first yearsalary i r her employment was reinstated. Respondent also requested a $500 consultation feefrom Tolson, which Tolson paid by check dated March 6, 2012.


24. On July 30 and 31, 2012, Respondent represented Tolson at a hearing in casenumber 2011 VS 151.


25. On December 21, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Claudia Manley issued a finalfinding of fact, opinion and recommendation, which was affirmed and adopted by IDOL DirectorJoseph Costigan in his Final Decision and Order on July 23, 2013, which ordered that the City ofChicago reinstate Tolson with back pay if her position existed, or back pay and one year of frontpay if the position no longer existed, with no break in employment.


26. Prior to September 4, 2013, Tolson agreed to accept an offer from the City ofChicago to pay her two years back pay and one year front pay, orthe sum of$221,616. The Cityagreed to make a separate payment to Tolson representing interest in the amount of$14,900.24,which was not factored into the calculation of Respondent's fees. The after-tax amount ofTolson's settlement was $121,365.23.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, prior to September 4, 2013, Tolson agreed toaccept an offer from the City of Chicago to pay her two years back pay and one year front pay,or the sum of $221,616. Respondent denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26, includingthe allegations that the City agreed to make a separate payment to Tolson representing interest inthe amount of $14,900.24, which was not factored into the calculation of Respondent's fees, andthat the after-tax amount of Tolson's settlement was $121,365.23.

27. Based upon the contingency fee agreement that Tolson entered into withRespondent, as described in paragraph 23, above, Respondent's portion of the settlement fundswas one-third of the pre-tax value of Tolson's settlement, or $73,798.13. Tolson's portion of hersettlement was $47,493.23.

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 27.

Further answering, Respondent states that, pursuant to the parties' written and fullyexecuted attorney fee agreement, Ms. Tolson agreed to, and Respondent was entitled to, acontingency fee "equal to forty percent (40%) of any and all recovery obtained for client(including reinstatement, monetary damages and attorneys' fees)," and that '"[rjeinstatment' shallbe quantified for the fee award as 33 and 1/3 percent of one year's compensation, including

819077663vl 1311

salary or wages, bonuses, fringe benefits, and commissions or other forms of remuneration incash or kind that are projected to be received at the time of reinstatement, discounted to presentvalue at the rate of 6 percent."

28. On or about August 30, 2013, Tolson received City of Chicago check number93157988, payable to "Valerie Tolson or IDOL" in the amount of $14,900.24, as the interest towhich Tolson was entitled.


Further answering, Respondent states that, on September 3 or 4, 2013, Respondentreceived a letter from the IDOL enclosing two checks from the City of Chicago and an August30, 2013, cover letter from Chicago attorney Jeffrey Brown to IDOL Executive Director JoeCostigan. Respondent had no notice that the checks or letter were delivered to the IDOL, or thatthe City intended to deliver the checks to the IDOL. The City did not consult with Respondentregarding the timing of the payments, to whom the payee or payee would be, or the number oramounts of checks that would be issued.

29. Prior to September 4, 2013, Respondent received City of Chicago check number70205036, payable to "The Coffey Law Office" in the amountof $121,365.23.


Further answering, Respondent states that, on September 3 or 4, 2013, Respondentreceived a letter from the IDOL enclosing two checks from the City of Chicago and an August30, 2013, cover letter from Chicago attorney Jeffrey Brown to IDOL Executive Director JoeCostigan. Respondent had no notice that the checks or letter were delivered to the IDOL, or thatthe City intended to deliver the checks to the IDOL. The City did not consult with Respondentregarding the timing of the payments, to whom the payee or payee would be, or the number oramounts of checks that would be issued.

30. On September 4, 2013, Respondent gave Tolson his check number 2546, drawnon his Chase account ending in 6079. Respondent's Chase account ending in 6079 was entitled"The Coffey LawOffice PC" andwas nota separate and identifiable client fund account, butwasused by Respondent for business and personal purposes. Tolson attempted to negotiateRespondent's check number 6079, but she was informed by the bank that the funds were notavailable.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that on September 4, 2013, Respondent gave Tolsoncheck number 2546, drawn on his law firm's Chase account ending in 6079, which was entitled"The Coffey Law Office PC," which was not a separate and identifiable client fund account, butwas used by Respondent's law firm for business purposes. Respondent is without sufficientknowledge as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 30 that Tolson attempted tonegotiate Respondent's check number 6079 but was informed by the bank that the funds were notavailable, and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations, but leaves the Administratorto his burden of proof. Respondent denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30, includingthe allegations that check number 2546 was "his" check, that it was drawn on "his" Chaseaccount ending in 6079, and that the account was used by Respondent for personal purposes.

919077663v1 1311

Further answering, Respondent states that the account ending in 6079 was the account ofhis law firm, "The Coffey Law Office, P.C.," a professional corporation in good standing, wasnot Respondent's personal account or held in Respondent's name individually, and was not usedby Respondent for personal purposes.

31. On September 4, 2013, Respondent deposited check number 70205036 into hisChase account ending in 6079, and Tolson negotiated Respondent's check number 6079.


Further answering, Respondent states that

a. Ms. Tolson's portion of the settlement funds were in her possession, custody andcontrol by the end of September 4, 2013, and therefore were not in the Coffey Law Officebusiness checking acct 6079 overnight;

b. Respondent made a mistake in early September 2013 by depositing the lost wagescheck into the Coffey Law Office business checking account ending in 6079, and not into theCoffey Law Office client trust account, but will never make that mistake again. The check wasin fact deposited on September 4, 2013, and the check to Ms. Tolson for her share of thesettlement proceeds was cashed that same day. Respondent is not aware, and the Complaint doesnot allege, that Ms. Tolson suffered any economic loss resulting from that mistake. TheComplaint also does not allege that Respondent acted intentionally to cause harm or loss to Ms.Tolson, or to in anyway benefit from that error. In fact, Respondent did not intentionally act tocause harm to Ms. Tolson or to benefit himself or his law firm in any way from that error.

c. Respondent's law practice operates by representing plaintiffs in small employmentlaw cases, where 99% of the law firm's income is received only after a case settles pursuant tonegotiated and written settlement agreement, whereby the Coffey Law Office receives attorneyfees and costs payment directly from the former employer/respondent/defendant made payableonly to the Coffey Law Office. Over the last 15 years, Respondent has never had a check madejointly payable to the Coffey Law Office and the client.

32. On January 8, 2013, Respondent filed a petition for attorneys' fees and costs fromthe City of Chicago in IDOL case 2011 CV VS 151, seeking a total of $47,916 in fees, forhimself and his associate, Thomas Padgett. That amount was based on Respondent's hourly rateof $330 and Padgett's hourly rateof $200, and also included $167.10 in costs.


33. By order dated October 21, 2013, IDOL Director Joseph Costigan grantedRespondent's petition for attorneys' fees and costs and ordered the City to pay Respondent$40,901 in fees and $167.10 in costs.


34. On or about February 18, 2014, Respondent received City of Chicago checknumber 31823691, payable to "The Coffey Law Office" in the amount of$41,068.10.

1019077663vl 1311

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on February 26, 2014, Respondent's law firmreceived by hand delivery City of Chicago check number 31823691, payable to "The CoffeyLaw Office" in the amount of $41,068.10. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 34, including the date of the receipt of the check and that Respondent personallyreceived the check in his individual capacity.

Further answering, Respondent states that he had no notice that the City cut the check orintended to deliver it to the Coffey Law Office, and that the City did not consult with Respondentregarding the timing or delivery of the payment, or the identity of the payee or payees.

35. On March 3, 2014, Respondent gave Tolson a check in the amount of $27,379.10,drawn on his Chase account ending in 6079, and payable to Tolson in the amount of $27,379.10,as her portion of City of Chicago check number 41823691. Respondent's Chase account endingin 6079 was entitled "The Coffey Law Office PC" and was not a separate and identifiable clientfund account, but was used by Respondent for business and personal purposes. On March 3,2014, Tolson deposited Respondent's check into her checking account at Chase, and she wrotetwo checks out of those funds.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that on March 3, 2014, he gave Tolson a check payableto Tolson as her portion of the proceeds of City of Chicago check number 41823691 in theamount of $27,379.10, drawn on his law firm's Chase account ending in 6079, which wasentitled "The Coffey Law Office PC," which was not a separate and identifiable client fundaccount, but was used by Respondent's law firm for business purposes. Respondent is withoutsufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, that on March3, 2014, Tolson deposited Respondent's check into her checking account at Chase, and wrote twochecks out of those funds, and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations, but leavesthe Administrator to his burden of proof. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 35, including the allegations that the check given to Tolson was "his" check, that itwas drawn on "his" Chase account ending in 6079, and that the account was used by Respondentfor personal purposes.


36. On March 4, 2014, Respondent deposited check number 41823691 into his Chaseaccount ending in 6079. On March 5, 2015, Chase notified Tolson it had dishonoredRespondent's check in the amount of $27,379.10 due to insufficient funds.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that on March 4, 2014, he deposited check number41823691 into his Chase account ending in 6079. Respondent is without sufficientknowledge asto the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36, that on March 5, 2015, Chase notifiedTolson it had dishonored Respondent's check in the amount of $27,379.10 due to insufficientfunds, and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations, but leaves the Administrator tohis burden of proof.

1119077663V1 1311

Further answering, Respondent states that, as soon as Respondent became aware of apossible insufficient finds issue, he contacted Chase and worked with Chase and Ms. Tolson tomake sure any fees initially charged to Ms. Tolson were reversed and/or charged to The CoffeyLaw Office.

37. On March 7, 2014, Respondent gave Tolson his check number 2607 as areplacement check for his previous check which had been returned as unpaid by Chase.Respondent's check number 2607 was drawn on his Chase account ending in 6079.

ANSWER: Respondent admits that, on March 7, 2014, he gave Tolson check number2607 as a replacement check for the previous check which had been returned as unpaid byChase, and that check number 2607 was drawn on the Chase account ending in 6079, which wasan account of The Coffey Law Office. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 37, including the allegations that the check given to Tolson was "his" check, that itwas a replacement for "his" previous check, that it was drawn on "his" Chase account ending in6079, and that the account was used by Respondent for personal purposes.


38. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged m thefollowing misconduct:

a. failure to deposit the check for Tolson's settlement funds orthe check for attorney's fees, a portion of which Tolson wasentitled to, into a separate and identifiable IOLTA account, inviolation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010); and

b. commingling Respondent's business and personal fundswith Tolson's funds, in violation of Rule 1.15(b) of the IllinoisRules of Professional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 38, and each and every ofthem, including sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).

WHEREFORE, Respondent, TIMOTHY JOHN COFFEY, requests that this Complaintagainst him bedismissed, that no discipline be imposed against him, and for such further relief asmay be just and equitable.

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Commission Rule 231, Respondent states that he was licensed to practice lawin the State of Illinois on November 10, 1994, in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, November 1997; United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 2001;United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, July 2010; United States

1219077663v1 1311

District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Jan 2012; United States District Court for theSouthern District of Illinois, 2010 (pro hac vice only).

Respondent was issued a CPA certificate on September 14, 1989, by the Board ofTrustees of the University of Illinois, under the name, Timothy John Coffey.

Matthew R. Henderson

Thomas P. Sukowicz

Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLPCounsel for the Respondent222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300Chicago, Illinois 60601Telephone: (312) 704-3000

Respectfully submitted,

TIMOTHY JOHN COFFEY, Respondent

By: ^//(J,One of his attorneys

1319077663v1 1311

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT -82015 DISCIPLINARY … · ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT...

Documents

Transcript of ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT -82015 DISCIPLINARY … · ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION OCT...