On Friday, June 23, 2023, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint against attorney Louis L. Bertrand for lack of diligence, false statements to a client, and other misconduct

The case is entitled “In the matter of Louis L. Bertrand” with case no. 2023PR00043.

The charges cited Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(c), and 8.4(c) which states:

Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

Failing to promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent.

Failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.

Failing to enter into a written fee agreement with Covone in his lawsuit against Godke.

Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

Bertrand allegedly failed to act diligently in representing a client, Robert Covone, in a personal injury case against another party. Bertrand did not issue a summons to the defendant, failed to appear for multiple court hearings, and did not file a timely petition to reinstate the case after it was dismissed. Furthermore, Bertrand made false statements to Covone, claiming that the case was still pending when he knew it had been dismissed. The complaint includes allegations of professional misconduct, such as lack of diligence, failure to keep the client informed, failure to enter into a written fee agreement, and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The filing states:

“On December 11, 2017, the Respondent did not appear for the status hearing that was scheduled for case number 2017L1007. The court continued the matter for a case management conference on February 28, 2018. On February 28, 2018, Respondent did not appear for the case management conference that was scheduled for case number 2017L1007. The court continued the matter for a status hearing on May 2, 2018. 8. On May 2, 2018, the Respondent did not appear for the status hearing that was scheduled for case number 2017L1007. The court continued the matter for a status hearing on June 13, 2018, and directed the Circuit Clerk to send a copy of the court’s order to the Respondent. On May 4, 2018, the Circuit Clerk mailed a copy of the court’s order to the Respondent’s law office. “

The filing states:

“On September 20, 2018, the Respondent did not appear for the status hearing that was scheduled for case number 2017L1007. The court entered an order that directed Respondent to appear in court on October 25, 2018, for a status report and directed the Circuit Clerk to send a copy of the court’s order to Respondent. On September 25, 2018, the Circuit Clerk mailed a copy of the court’s order to the Respondent’s law office. The respondent received the court’s September 20, 2018 order. Respondent did not appear in court on October 25, 2018, for case number 2017L1007, as directed by the court. The court continued the matter for a status hearing on November 29, 2018.”

The filing continues:

“At no time after February 7, 2019, did Respondent file a motion to vacate the court’s February 7, 2019 order? As a result of the Respondent’s failure to file a motion to vacate the court’s February 7, 2019 order, Covone’s cause of action against Godke is barred. At no time after February 7, 2019, did Respondent inform Covone that the court had entered an order dismissing case number 2017L1007 for want of prosecution. Between February 7, 2019, and July 2020, Respondent and Covone communicated on numerous occasions about the status of case number 2017L1007. During those communications, Respondent informed Covone that case number 2017L1007 was still pending. Respondent’s statements to Covone that case number 2017L1007 was still pending were false because the court entered an order on February 7, 2019, dismissing the matter for want of prosecution, and Respondent failed to file a timely petition to vacate the court’s February 7, 2019 order.”

The Administrator is requesting a hearing, findings, conclusions, and a disciplinary recommendation from the Hearing Board panel.

The Disposition states:

“WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and the panel makes findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.”

Mr. Bertrand practices in La Salle, Illinois. He is licensed in Illinois. His info can be found on avvo.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.