On Friday, September 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of Illinois censured attorney Daniel Olen Barham following reciprocal disciplinary action stemming from a public censure he received in Tennessee.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Daniel Olen Barham,” with case no. M.R.032723.
The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) petitioned the court to impose reciprocal discipline, citing Barham’s censure by the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Disciplinary District III, on March 20, 2025.
The Tennessee disciplinary case arose from Barham’s representation of defendants in a breach of contract lawsuit related to the manufacturing and sale of COVID-19 test kits. In that case, a court order mandated the defendants to surrender any profits derived from the test kits to a court-appointed custodian. However, Barham failed to notify the court, the custodian, or opposing counsel when his clients received $700,000 in settlement proceeds connected to 80,000 test kits. He also did not seek court authorization to deposit these funds into his law firm’s trust account.
The Tennessee Board determined that Barham’s actions violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4, which prohibits knowingly disobeying obligations under tribunal rules, and 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In Illinois, the ARDC argued that Barham’s conduct was comparable to violations of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(d), which mirror the Tennessee rules. The ARDC’s petition referenced several similar Illinois cases where attorneys were censured for disobeying court orders or mishandling funds, including In re Ginzkey, In re Niew, In re Ripplinger, and In re Williams.
Barham reported the Tennessee censure to the ARDC as required by Illinois Rule 8.3(d). He subsequently requested that the Illinois Supreme Court refrain from imposing any public discipline against him. The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, allowed the ARDC’s petition for reciprocal discipline and issued the censure.
Barham’s motion and request for a hearing on the Administrator’s petition for reciprocal discipline were denied by the court.
The Disposition states:
“Petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to the Supreme Court Rule 763(a)(1). Allowed. Respondent Daniel Olen Barham, who has been disciplined in the State of Tennessee, is censured in the State of Illinois.”
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Barham is a foreclosure attorney in Lancaster, Ohio. He attended Vanderbilt University. He acquired his law license in Illinois in 2015.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
