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 can only be imposed on an attorney for conduct that violates a specific, enumerated Rule of Professional Conduct; a general breach of fiduciary duty or other personal misconduct outside of an attorney-client relationship is not independently sanctionable unless it also transgresses a specific rule.
Facts:
- On February 17, 2000, George Karavidas died after executing a will and trust documents that named his son, attorney Theodore Karavidas, as executor of his estate and successor trustee.
- The will directed that the remainder of the estate, valued at approximately $700,000, pour over into an unfunded trust which Karavidas was then to divide into a family trust and a marital trust for his mother, Lillian.
- Karavidas failed to transfer the estate assets into the trust or create the two separate trusts as required by the documents.
- Between August 2000 and July 2005, Karavidas made multiple, undocumented withdrawals from estate investment accounts for his own personal use, totaling approximately $448,000.
- Karavidas treated these withdrawals as loans and eventually repaid the principal amounts in full by October 2005, before any legal action was initiated by his family.
- Karavidas did not disclose these personal loans to the estate's beneficiaries, his mother Lillian and sister Nadine, though he did use other estate funds for their benefit.
- In 2006, Nadine discovered Karavidas was attempting to sell the family business, which prompted her to retain an attorney and investigate his handling of the estate.
Procedural Posture:
- The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) filed a one-count complaint against Theodore Karavidas.
- The ARDC Hearing Board conducted a hearing and found Karavidas breached his fiduciary duty, committed conversion, and violated Rule 8.4(a)(5) and Supreme Court Rule 770, recommending a four-month suspension.
- The Hearing Board found Karavidas did not violate Rule 8.4(a)(4) for dishonest conduct, concluding he lacked intent to deceive.
- Both the Administrator and Karavidas appealed to the ARDC Review Board.
- The Review Board, an intermediate appellate body within the disciplinary system, 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 misconduct, such as a breach of fiduciary duty committed while acting as an executor for an estate, constitute grounds for professional discipline if the conduct does not violate a specific Rule of Professional Conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Garman
No. Professional discipline may be imposed only for conduct that violates an enumerated Rule of Professional Conduct. The court found that while Karavidas's actions constituted a clear breach of his fiduciary duty as executor, this breach did not violate the specific rules with which he was charged. The court deferred to the Hearing Board's finding that Karavidas did not act with dishonest intent, thus he did not violate Rule 8.4(a)(4). His conduct also did not violate Rule 8.4(a)(5) because it did not cause actual prejudice to the administration of justice, as the misconduct occurred outside the judicial process and had no effect on it. Finally, the court clarified that Supreme Court Rule 770 is a procedural rule authorizing discipline and cannot serve as a freestanding basis for a charge; any conduct that brings the profession into disrepute must be tied to a violation of a specific substantive rule.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. An attorney may be disciplined for misconduct that is not specifically proscribed by a disciplinary rule. The dissent argued that the plain language of Supreme Court Rule 770 creates two distinct grounds for discipline: (1) violating a specific Rule of Professional Conduct, or (2) engaging in conduct that 'tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.' The majority's interpretation renders the second clause meaningless and contradicts precedent like In re Rinella. Karavidas's serious, multi-year breach of fiduciary duty as an executor is precisely the type of conduct that brings the legal profession into disrepute and should be sanctionable on that basis alone.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of attorney discipline in Illinois by requiring the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) to tie any charge to a specific violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The decision eliminates 'conduct that brings the profession into disrepute' as an independent, freestanding charge under Supreme Court Rule 770. This holding enhances due process protections for attorneys by ensuring they have clear notice of the specific rules they allegedly violated. However, it also means that some egregious personal misconduct by attorneys, if not clearly dishonest or prejudicial to the justice system, may fall outside the reach of professional discipline.
