In re Karavidas
2013 IL 115767, 999 N.E.2d 296 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Professional discipline may only be imposed upon an attorney for conduct that violates a specific, enumerated Rule of Professional Conduct. Misconduct committed in a personal capacity, such as a breach of fiduciary duty as an executor, is not grounds for discipline unless it also constitutes a violation of one of the Rules.
Facts:
- George Karavidas died, leaving a will and trust documents that named his son, attorney Theodore George Karavidas, as executor and successor trustee.
- The will directed the residue of the estate to pour over into a trust, which Karavidas was then to divide into a marital trust for his wife, Lillian, and a family trust.
- As executor, Karavidas failed to transfer the estate assets (valued at approximately $700,000) into the trust or create the two separate trusts as directed.
- Between August 2000 and July 2005, Karavidas withdrew approximately $448,000 from the estate's investment accounts for his own personal use, treating the withdrawals as undocumented loans.
- During this period, Karavidas repaid the funds he took, with the largest outstanding deficit at any time being $152,104.
- Karavidas also used estate funds for the benefit of his mother (Lillian), his sister (Nadine), and the family business, Marie's Pizza.
- In 2006, Nadine discovered Karavidas was attempting to sell the family business without her or her mother's knowledge, which prompted her to take legal action regarding the estate's administration.
Procedural Posture:
- The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) filed a one-count complaint against respondent, Theodore George Karavidas.
- The ARDC Hearing Board found Karavidas breached his fiduciary duty and converted estate funds, recommending a four-month suspension from the practice of law.
- Both the Administrator and Karavidas appealed to the ARDC Review Board.
- The Review Board reversed the Hearing Board's decision and recommended that all charges be dismissed.
- The Administrator filed a petition for leave to file exceptions with the Supreme Court of Illinois, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's breach of fiduciary duty as the executor of an estate, where the attorney is not acting in a legal capacity for the estate, constitute professional misconduct subject to discipline in the absence of a violation of a specific Rule of Professional Conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Garman
No, an attorney's breach of fiduciary duty while acting in a personal capacity does not constitute professional misconduct unless the conduct violates a specific Rule of Professional Conduct. The court found that while Karavidas clearly breached his fiduciary duty as executor by failing to fund the trust, making unauthorized and undocumented loans to himself, and failing to disclose these actions, this conduct did not violate a specific Rule. The Hearing Board's finding that he lacked dishonest intent, precluding a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4), was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Furthermore, his actions did not prejudice the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(a)(5) because they occurred before any court proceedings were initiated and did not undermine the judicial process. The court clarified that Supreme Court Rule 770, which describes conduct that brings the profession into disrepute, is a procedural rule governing types of discipline and cannot serve as a standalone basis for a charge.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes, an attorney's breach of fiduciary duty as executor can constitute professional misconduct subject to discipline because such conduct brings the legal profession into disrepute, which is an independent basis for discipline under Supreme Court Rule 770. The majority's interpretation effectively reads the 'disrepute' clause out of Rule 770 and wrongly overturns precedent, such as In re Rinella, which held that misconduct is sanctionable even if not proscribed by a specific rule. Karavidas's actions over five years, treating a $700,000 estate as his personal line of credit, undermines public trust in lawyers. Given the close connection between estate administration and the legal process, this conduct brings the profession into disrepute and warrants the four-month suspension recommended by the Hearing Board.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of attorney discipline in Illinois by establishing a bright-line rule that any sanctionable misconduct must be tied to a specific violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It curtails the ARDC's ability to charge attorneys for general 'conduct that brings the profession into disrepute' as a standalone violation, effectively rejecting a theory of inherent disciplinary power for any unethical acts. The ruling clarifies that Supreme Court Rule 770 is procedural, not substantive, forcing the Administrator to be more precise in its charging documents. This holding will require disciplinary bodies to link all alleged misconduct directly to an enumerated rule, potentially shielding attorneys from discipline for personal or financial misdeeds that, while improper, do not fit squarely within the existing professional code.
