On Thursday, September 8, 2022, the Hearing Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission issues its report and recommendation in relation to the charges for attorney discipline against Lombard attorney David C. Thollander.

The case, titled In the Matter of: David C. Thollander, was brought by the Administrator. Case #2021PR00070.

The charges cited rules of professional conduct Rule 3.5(d), 4.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which state:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In its Complaint, the Administrator charged Respondent with engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal; using means in representing a client that has no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a person; committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent filed an Answer on October 12, 2021, in which he admitted some factual allegations and denied others, and denied all charges of misconduct.

The Hearing Board concluded that the Administrator proved that the Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d), by continuing to insist on making a record after the judge had ruled on his objection.

In finding that the Administrator failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the other remaining charges alleging violations of Rule 3.5(d), 4.4(a), or 8.4(b), the Hearing Board states among others:

“While we do not condone Respondent’s refusal to abide by her ruling, we are persuaded by the testimony of Respondent as well as Mr. Besetzny that Respondent did not intend to disrupt the proceedings. As Mr. Besetzny observed, Respondent “was trying to make a record where he felt it was necessary and proper,” and was not attempting to delay the proceedings.”

“. . . the evidence clearly establishes that Respondent’s primary purpose in continuing to object to Judge Demacopolous’ruling and insisting on making a record, notwithstanding the judge’s repeated admonitions, was to advocate for his client and protect his client from what he believed to be an incorrect evidentiary ruling.”

“We find that Respondent’s conduct prejudiced the administration of justice by causing a delay in the trial, this impact on judicial proceedings does not constitute “serious interference with the administration of justice.”

Accordingly, the Hearing Board recommends that Respondent, David C. Thollander, be reprimanded.

Mr. Thollander attended DePaul University receiving his Juris Doctor degree in 1989. He practices in Lombard, Illinois and he has been licensed in Illinois, license #6202012, as well as in Michigan. Mr. Thollander’s info can be found on the website of his law firm, Thollander Law.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.