On Tuesday, March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of Illinois granted the petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose discipline on consent against Peoria attorney Richard Lane Steagall.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Richard Lane Steagall,” with case no. 2022PR00043.

The charges cited Rules 1.1, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(b), 1.16(d), 5.5(a), and 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits:

Failing to provide competent representation to a client;

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

Failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation;

Failing to return an unearned fee;

Practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; and

Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

In a Complaint filed on May 10, 2022, the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) alleged that Mr. Steagall violated several rules of professional conduct by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The ARDC also stated that Mr. Steagall failed to communicate, lied to a client, and kept a $2,500 unearned fee.

The filing states:

“For more than a year, Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct that exhibits incompetence and a lack of communication with his clients. After filing six motions requesting an extension of time to respond to a motion for summary judgment, Respondent filed a response that failed to address the opposing party’s arguments or to cite any statutes, case law, or evidence in the record. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and admonished Respondent for his response.”

The filing continues:

“In another matter, Respondent repeatedly told his client that he would file an Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct (“ERISA”) action on the client’s behalf and charged him an additional $2,500 fee to file the action. A year after the client paid Respondent the additional fee, Respondent told the client there was no basis for a cause of action and did not refund any portion of the $2,500 fee that he received from the client, despite agreeing to do so.”

The filing further alleges:

“Additionally, Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he met with a client and negotiated and accepted a fee, all while suspended from the practice of law in both state and federal court.”

Thereafter, the Administrator and Mr. Steagall filed a petition asking the Court to impose a two-year suspension.

Accordingly, the Court upon consideration of the matter deemed it appropriate to enter an order ruling in favor of the petition and suspending Mr. Steagall on consent.

The Disposition states:

“Petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b). Allowed. Respondent Richard Lane Steagall is suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and until further order of the Court.”

Prior to the suspension, Mr. Steagall maintained his law practice in Peoria. He attended the University of Georgia School of Law. He has been licensed in Illinois, license no. 2711257, as well as in Florida and Indiana. His info can be found on Avvo.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.