Lexplug logoLexplug

In Re Winthrop

Illinois Supreme Court
219 Ill. 2d 526, 302 Ill. Dec. 397, 848 N.E.2d 961 (2006)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by making a false statement of material fact to a third person which the attorney knows to be false. The ultimate effect of the falsehood on the third person's conduct is inconsequential to finding a violation.


Facts:

  • Attorney Peter Deforest Winthrop had a prior professional relationship with Farouq Nobani, having represented him on traffic matters.
  • In July 2001, at Nobani's request, Winthrop agreed to prepare a will for Nobani's 92-year-old neighbor, Corrine Rice.
  • During his meetings with Rice, Winthrop also drafted a power of attorney at Rice's request, which appointed Nobani to manage her financial affairs.
  • At Nobani's insistence, Winthrop added a clause to the power of attorney stating Nobani would do his 'very best' but did not 'guarantee the outcome of any matter.'
  • On August 4, 2001, Winthrop accompanied Nobani to Advance Bank, where Winthrop was present as Nobani used the power of attorney to close one of Rice's CD accounts, receiving a cashier's check for approximately $87,000 payable to Nobani himself.
  • Nobani subsequently deposited the funds into a personal account and began using the money for his own expenses, including paying off a car loan.
  • On August 13, 2001, before a probate court hearing initiated by the PLOWS Council on Aging to freeze Rice's assets, Winthrop spoke by phone with Janna Dutton, the attorney for PLOWS.
  • During the call, Winthrop told Dutton that the banks 'didn't give us any money anyway,' despite knowing that Nobani had withdrawn approximately $87,000 from Rice's account.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) filed a complaint against respondent, Peter Deforest Winthrop, before the ARDC Hearing Board.
  • The Hearing Board conducted a hearing and recommended that all charges against Winthrop be dismissed.
  • The Administrator filed exceptions, appealing the decision to the ARDC Review Board.
  • The Review Board reversed the Hearing Board's decision, found Winthrop had committed several violations, and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
  • Winthrop filed exceptions with the Supreme Court of Illinois, challenging the Review Board's findings. The Administrator cross-appealed, seeking disbarment or a three-year suspension.

Locked

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 violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly making a false statement of material fact to another attorney regarding a client's assets, even if that statement does not ultimately prevent the other attorney from taking protective action?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Fitzgerald

Yes. An attorney violates Rule 4.1(a) by knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a third person, and whether the falsehood ultimately affects the third person's conduct is inconsequential. The court found that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Winthrop made a false statement to attorney Janna Dutton when he claimed Nobani had not received any of Rice's money. Winthrop knew this statement was false because he was physically present when Nobani withdrew approximately $87,000 from Rice's bank account. The statement was material because it directly related to the purpose of the upcoming probate hearing, which was to protect Rice's assets from Nobani. The court explicitly rejected the Hearing Board's reasoning that discipline was unwarranted because Dutton was not ultimately deterred from seeking the asset freeze. The court reversed the Hearing Board's findings on this count while upholding the Hearing Board's dismissal of other charges, including breach of fiduciary duty and conflict of interest, finding the evidence on those points was conflicting and the fact-finder's conclusions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a strict standard of truthfulness for attorneys under Rule 4.1(a), making clear that the act of making a knowing, material misrepresentation is a sanctionable offense in itself. The court's holding separates the misconduct from its outcome, meaning a lawyer cannot escape discipline for a lie by arguing that it ultimately caused no harm or failed to deceive. The ruling also highlights the deference appellate bodies give to a hearing board's credibility determinations on contested factual issues, such as the existence of an attorney-client relationship, which was key to the dismissal of the conflict of interest and failure-to-disclose-to-a-tribunal charges.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Winthrop (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"