In Re Mitan
387 N.E.2d 278, 25 Ill. Dec. 622, 75 Ill. 2d 118 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's deliberate and material false statements on an application for admission to the bar, particularly the concealment of a felony conviction, constitute a fraud upon the court and are grounds for disbarment.
Facts:
- W. Jason Mitan's birth name was Walter James Mitan, which he changed by court order on May 1, 1972.
- Mitan's actual birth date is May 18, 1938.
- Mitan had previously been married and divorced, attended John Marshall Law School as an 'auditor,' and applied for admission to the bar of Pennsylvania.
- Mitan had been involved in several civil lawsuits, had been arrested three times, and had been convicted of a felony confidence game.
- On July 14, 1972, Mitan submitted a sworn application for admission to the Illinois bar.
- In his application, Mitan falsely stated his birthday was in 1943, and failed to disclose his prior name, marriage, divorce, law school attendance, other bar application, previous employers, and his history of civil and criminal proceedings.
- On April 9, 1974, Mitan submitted a supplemental questionnaire, reaffirming his previous false statements and omissions by indicating there were 'no changes'.
Procedural Posture:
- The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint against respondent W. Jason Mitan on February 4, 1976.
- A hearing was set for May 19, 1976, which was 103 days after service of the complaint.
- Mitan moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the hearing was not commenced within the 90-day period required by Commission Rule 8.1.
- On May 18, 1976, the hearing panel granted the motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
- The Administrator filed an identical complaint on May 20, 1976, which was not voted on by the Inquiry Board.
- The hearing panel overruled Mitan's procedural objections to the second complaint and deemed the allegations admitted after Mitan failed to properly respond to a Request to Admit Facts.
- Following a hearing, the hearing panel recommended that Mitan be disbarred.
- The Review Board affirmed the hearing panel's findings and also recommended disbarment, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court of Illinois for a final decision.
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 pattern of making numerous material false statements and omissions on his bar application, including the concealment of a felony conviction, warrant disbarment?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, J.
Yes. An attorney's pattern of making numerous material false statements and omissions on his bar application warrants disbarment. The court found that the respondent's numerous falsehoods and omissions presented evidence of a calculated effort to frustrate the Committee on Character and Fitness's investigation. While individual falsehoods might seem minor, taken together they demonstrate a lack of fitness to practice law. The court held that the concealment of a prior felony conviction constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is conduct of such a serious nature as to warrant disbarment, consistent with precedent. The respondent's procedural objections were dismissed because the court has inherent power to discipline attorneys, and the procedural rules of its disciplinary commission are advisory and not a limitation on the court's authority.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the Illinois Supreme Court's inherent and ultimate authority over attorney discipline, establishing that procedural rules of its disciplinary commissions are directory, not mandatory jurisdictional limitations. The decision strongly emphasizes the paramount duty of absolute candor for bar applicants, treating a pattern of deceit as a 'fraud upon the court.' It sets a clear precedent that technical procedural errors by the disciplinary body will not shield an attorney from substantive review and that concealing a felony conviction on a bar application is an offense that typically merits the most severe sanction of disbarment.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Mitan