Court Opinion

ID: 9721618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:03:31.971031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.722013
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court: The respondent, Michele Elaine Chandler, was admitted to the Illinois bar on April 26, 1988. On March 8, 1991, the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filed a five-count complaint against respondent. Counts I through IV of the complaint charged respondent with falsifying information regarding her income, employment history, and social security number on a residential loan application, and with preparing and submitting false documents in connection with the loan application, in violation of Rule 1 — 102(a)(4) of the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) (107 Ill. 2d R. 1 — 102(a)(4)) and of Supreme Court Rule 771 (107 Ill. 2d R. 771). Count V charged respondent with providing false information concerning her social security number and name at birth on her application for admission to the bar of this State, in violation of Rules 1 — 101 and 1 — 102(a)(4) of the Code (107 Ill. 2d Rules 1 — 101, 1 — 102(a)(4)) and of Supreme Court Rule 771 (107 Ill. 2d R. 771). Both the Hearing Board and the Review Board found that respondent had committed substantially all the misconduct alleged by the Administrator, and both Boards recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a six-month period. The Administrator has filed exceptions with this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(e) (134 Ill. 2d R. 753(e)), seeking imposition of a more severe sanction. In her answer to the complaint, respondent admitted essentially all of the Administrator’s allegations, and the facts in this case are not in dispute. The parties presented testimony and documentary exhibits before the Hearing Board on November 5, 1991. Respondent did not testify on that occasion, but a sworn statement she had previously made and her testimony before the Inquiry Board were both introduced into evidence at that time. In addition, the parties stipulated to certain other evidence. The evidence in this case shows that in August 1987, respondent submitted a mortgage loan application to Mid-America Mortgage Company for the purchase of a house in Chicago. Respondent was seeking a loan of $84,550 and was prepared to make a down payment of $5,000. On the application, respondent stated that her gross monthly income was $4,000 and that she had been employed as an attorney by another lawyer, Nathaniel Howse, for more than five years. Sometime between August and October 1987, respondent prepared and submitted to Mid-America W-2 withholding statements and Federal and State income tax returns representing that she had earned $42,000 in 1985 and $46,000 in 1986 and that the source of her income for each year was her employment with Howse. The employment history described by respondent on her loan application and the supporting documentation she submitted to the lender were false, however. Through a stipulation entered into by the parties, Howse explained that the W-2 withholding statements in question had not been prepared by his office and were not accurate. Howse stated that he did not employ respondent at all in 1985 and that he employed her for only a short time in 1986; Howse said that he paid respondent in cash, and he was unable to recall the amount of her compensation. Respondent, in her own testimony before the Inquiry Board, stated that she did some work for Howse from late in 1986 until October 1987, and that she earned about $1,000 for this work. Respondent also submitted to Mid-America an employment verification form bearing the purported signature of Howse. The form stated that respondent was currently employed by Howse, that she earned $46,000 in 1986 from that employment, and that her base pay was $48,000 in 1987. By stipulation, Howse stated that the signature was not authentic and that the verification form did not reflect respondent’s employment history. An application for commitment for title insurance submitted by respondent to Mid-America incorporated the same false information regarding respondent’s employment and income. Respondent’s loan application also contained an incorrect social security number. Respondent attributed this discrepancy to a clerical error by the lender. Respondent used a different social security number on other documents she prepared in connection with the loan application. Respondent’s loan was subsequently approved, and she took possession of the property on October 28, 1987. On the same day, Mid-America discovered respondent’s fraud. Soon after that, an officer of Mid-America told respondent of the lender’s intention to exercise its option to declare the full amount of the loan immediately due and payable, though the lender was also willing to refinance the loan if respondent provided a larger down payment. When respondent was unable to tender a satisfactory sum, Mid-America instituted foreclosure proceedings. Judgment in the foreclosure action was entered against respondent on September 6, 1988. The record contains no evidence of the extent of the loss, if any, incurred by Mid-America as a consequence of respondent’s actions. The Administrator’s complaint also charged respondent with making false statements on her bar application concerning her name at birth and her social security number. On the application, respondent stated that her name at birth was Michele Elaine Chandler. The name actually appearing on respondent’s birth certificate, however, was Michele Elaine Dickerson. By stipulation, respondent explained that she had never used her father’s name, Dickerson, and had instead used her mother’s maiden name, Chandler, from the time of her birth. Respondent also gave an incorrect social security number on her bar application. After inquiry by the Committee on Character and Fitness, she amended her application and provided a different number. Before the Inquiry Board, respondent explained that she had lost track of her original social security number sometime in the 1970s, had reapplied for the number, and had then been issued another number. Respondent used the latter number on the loan application and her original number on the bar application. In mitigation, the respondent offered evidence of her disadvantaged background. Respondent was born in 1955 and grew up on the west side of Chicago. She had her first child when she was 14 years old. Respondent married in 1971, at the age of 15, and began working to support her family. She had a second child soon after that. Respondent and her husband were separated in 1974 and divorced in 1981. Respondent enrolled at the University of Illinois in Chicago in 1977 and received her bachelor’s degree, with honors, in 1980. Respondent then entered law school at New York University, and she was graduated in 1983. She received her license to practice law in New York the following year. Upon her graduation, respondent worked first as a law clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and later as an attorney for a law firm in New York. She also did work for the National Council of Black Lawyers. There is some dispute in the record concerning the circumstances under which respondent left her employment with the appeals court. In answer to an inquiry by the Committee on Character and Fitness, a supervisor there stated that respondent was asked to resign; respondent maintained that she left the position voluntarily.1  Respondent returned to Chicago in 1986, and she passed the Illinois bar examination given in February 1987. Respondent initially worked as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union; at the time of the hearing, she was employed as an assistant public defender in Cook County. Respondent was admitted to the Illinois bar in April 1988. Before the Hearing Board, respondent presented favorable testimony from four character witnesses. Weyman Edwards, assistant dean of students at the University of Illinois in Chicago, stated that respondent tutored minority students while she was an undergraduate and that her academic integrity was beyond reproach. Edwards also testified that, prior to the hearing, he was not aware that respondent had submitted false tax documents in support of her mortgage application. Respondent’s uncle, Thomas Chandler, a tactical sergeant with the Chicago police department, also testified in respondent’s behalf at the hearing. He stated that respondent has a good reputation for honesty and integrity, has been involved in community service, is a role model for members of her family and for persons in the community, and has expressed remorse for her misconduct. Two judges of the circuit court of Cook County, Shelvin Singer and Preston Bowie, also testified in respondent’s behalf at the hearing. Appearing pursuant to subpoenas issued by respondent, the witnesses stated that respondent, who had practiced in their courtrooms as an assistant public defender, was an able attorney and enjoyed a good reputation for honesty and integrity. Judge Singer described respondent as "the best all around public defender who has been in my courtroom.” Prior to the hearing, neither witness was aware that respondent had submitted false tax documents to the mortgage lender. As further evidence in mitigation, respondent introduced evaluation forms prepared by her supervisor in March and September 1991 concerning her work as an assistant public defender. The evaluations ranged from "Adequate” to "Very Good,” and her ethics and integrity were rated as "Outstanding” on both forms. The Hearing Board filed its report and recommendation on February 10, 1992. The Board found that respondent’s preparation and submission of false documents with respect to the mortgage application were intentional and were designed to deceive the mortgage lender into making the loan. The Hearing Board also found that respondent, on her bar application, made materially false statements concerning her social security number and name at birth. In mitigation, the Hearing Board noted that respondent had a good reputation for honesty and integrity in the community and was well regarded as an assistant public defender. The Hearing Board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. The Hearing Board had earlier refused to allow the Administrator either to amend the original complaint against respondent or to file an additional one. The Administrator had sought to bring further charges against respondent involving her failure to reveal to the Committee on Character and Fitness both the foreclosure action and her misconduct in obtaining the loan. In its order, the Hearing Board made no findings regarding these additional allegations against respondent. The Administrator filed exceptions to the Hearing Board’s report, and the matter was submitted to the Review Board on July 10, 1992. The parties specifically agreed that the Review Board, in determining a recommended sanction, could consider the Administrator’s additional allegations of wrongdoing by respondent. The Review Board filed its report and recommendation on May 14, 1993. The Review Board affirmed the factual findings of the Hearing Board, though the Review Board did not find significant respondent’s failure to disclose on her bar application her correct name at birth. Despite the parties’ agreement, the Review Board, in formulating a recommended sanction, declined to consider the respondent’s failure to apprise the Committee on Character and Fitness of the foreclosure action or her misconduct in obtaining the loan. Like the Hearing Board, the Review Board recommended a six-month suspension. The Review Board concluded alternatively that even if the additional violations had been considered, it would not have recommended any greater sanction, for the same type of misconduct had been proved under the original complaint. At the outset, we agree with the Review Board that respondent’s failure on her bar application to accurately state the surname she received at birth was not significant under the evidence presented here. The evidence shows that respondent had never lived with her father, Dickerson, and had used her mother’s maiden name, Chandler, since birth. On this record, we conclude that respondent’s omission of her father’s surname from the bar application was not material. We do not agree, however, with the Review Board’s conclusion that the present disciplinary proceeding may not take account of the additional misconduct committed by respondent in failing to update her bar application with information about the foreclosure action and the circumstances under which she obtained her loan. Although the parties expressly agreed that the Review Board should consider respondent’s further misconduct when imposing discipline, the Review Board declined to do so, believing that the additional charges were not properly before it. The Review Board noted that the Hearing Board did not take evidence of those charges, that respondent did not formally admit the allegations, and that respondent successfully moved for dismissal of the Administrator’s second complaint, which charged respondent with the additional misconduct. The Review Board also concluded that the present record lacked sufficient evidence regarding respondent’s state of mind when she failed to disclose to the committee the pendency of the foreclosure action and the misrepresentations on her loan application. We share, of course, the Review Board’s concern that attorneys receive notice of the charges against them in disciplinary proceedings and have an opportunity to defend against those charges. Generally, an attorney may not be disciplined for instances of uncharged misconduct; to do so would violate the respondent’s right to procedural due process and our own notions of candor and fairness. (In re Doyle (1991), 144 Ill. 2d 451, 470-71; see also In re Ruffalo (1968), 390 U.S. 544, 20 L. Ed. 2d 117, 88 S. Ct. 1222.) To that end, Supreme Court Rule 753(b) provides that a complaint in a disciplinary matter "shall reasonably inform the attorney of the acts of misconduct he is alleged to have committed.” (134 Ill. 2d R. 753(b).) In the present case, however, respondent has admitted that she had both notice of the additional charges and an opportunity to defend against them, and the parties have agreed that these further instances of misconduct may be considered in the imposition of a disciplinary sanction. The additional charges are directly related to the allegations in the initial complaint concerning respondent’s mortgage loan application and bar application. Respondent submitted her bar application to the State Board of Law Examiners on November 28, 1986. The application was still pending before the Committee on Character and Fitness when, during the period from August to October 1987, respondent was providing the mortgage lender with false information regarding her income and employment history. One of Mid-America’s officers confronted respondent with this fraud in November 1987, and respondent was served with summons in the foreclosure action no later than March 27, 1988. Not until April 11, 1988, did an inquiry panel of the committee recommend respondent’s certification, and she was admitted to the Illinois bar on April 26, 1988. The bar application required respondent to "immediately disclose to the Character and Fitness Committee circumstances and events occurring after the date of the submission of [the application] which may have any substantive bearing on Applicant’s character and fitness.” Thus, respondent was under a continuing duty to provide the committee with further relevant information as it became available. Although respondent was in contact with the committee in January 1988 and again early in April 1988 because of other inquiries relating to her fitness, at no time did she report to the committee either her misconduct in connection with the loan application or the ensuing foreclosure action.2 As we have stated, the parties agree that these additional acts of misconduct may be considered in the imposition of a sanction. We .must now determine the appropriate sanction in this case. Attorney disciplinary proceedings are intended to safeguard the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. (In re Lenz (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 445, 450-51; In re Lamberis (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 222, 227.) Predictability and fairness require consistency in the sanctions imposed for similar acts of misconduct (In re Timpone (1993), 157 Ill. 2d 178, 197; In re Saladino (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 263, 275), although each case must necessarily be resolved on the facts and circumstances peculiar to it (In re Joyce (1989), 133 Ill. 2d 16, 31; In re Ushijima (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 51, 57). The Administrator argues that respondent’s misconduct warrants disbarment or, failing that, a lengthy suspension from the practice of law. Respondent contends that the six-month suspension recommended by both the Review Board and the Hearing Board is appropriate. Although we give deference to the sanctions recommended by the Review and Hearing Boards, their recommendations are only advisory (In re D’Angelo (1988), 126 Ill. 2d 45, 52-53; In re Hopper (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 318, 323), for the final responsibility for imposing discipline upon an attorney rests with us (In re Williams (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 105, 115). With respect to respondent’s actions in obtaining her loan, we note that sanctions imposed in cases involving misrepresentations by attorneys have ranged, depending on the circumstances of the case, from censure (see In re Stern (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 310 (respondent responsible for preparation of falsely dated letter but stopped short of using letter to own advantage)), to suspension (see Williams (respondent convicted on three counts of mail fraud in connection with scheme to defraud insurance company)), to disbarment (see In re Bell (1992), 147 Ill. 2d 15 (among other acts of misconduct, respondent filed five false loan applications with banks, testified falsely before Administrator, and submitted false affidavit to Supreme Court of Tennessee)). Moreover, acts of intentional fraud are sufficient grounds for disbarment. (In re Vavrik (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 408, 413; In re Braner (1987), 115 Ill. 2d 384, 394; Saladino, 71 Ill. 2d at 276.) That the present fraud concerns an attorney’s personal life rather than professional affairs is of no moment here. The fraudulent act of an attorney acting in his own behalf in which he seeks personal gain, directly or indirectly, to the detriment of honesty, is no less reprehensible than when he acts on behalf of his client. (Williams, 111 Ill. 2d at 117.) It is our duty to supervise the professional conduct of lawyers practicing in Illinois, and the fulfillment of that duty necessarily requires inquiry into the private conduct of attorneys to the extent that such conduct relates to professional competence or the dignity of the legal profession. Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2d at 227. At the same time, an applicant for admission to the bar of this State has a duty to respond fully and accurately to all questions asked on the bar application. (In re Ascher (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 485, 499; In re Mitan (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 118, 127.) The absence of candor or completeness exemplifies a lack of concern for the truth and can only frustrate the application process. (In re DeBartolo (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 1, 6.) The failure of an applicant to fully and truthfully respond to these inquiries has been held to be a fraud upon the court, warranting severe disciplinary sanctions. (Ascher, 81 Ill. 2d at 499; Mitan, 75 Ill. 2d at 127.) Accordingly, an attorney may be disbarred (In re Jordan (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 162) or suspended from the practice of law (In re Connor (1993), M.R. 8711 (unpublished order)) for false statements made on his or her bar application even though no evidence is adduced concerning any further unprofessional or unethical conduct occurring since the person’s admission to the bar. Of course, the duty of candor does not end once the application is submitted; as noted, an applicant has a corresponding obligation to disclose pertinent information to the Committee on Character and Fitness while the application is pending. Turning now to the respondent’s specific instances of misconduct, we conclude that a lengthy period of suspension from the practice of law is both necessary and appropriate in the case at bar. For personal gain, respondent developed and carried out an elaborate scheme intended to induce Mid-America to lend her nearly $85,000 when she was not financially qualified to receive a loan of that size on the terms originally agreed upon. Toward that end, respondent grossly misrepresented to Mid-America her income and employment history. In addition, respondent submitted to the lender false W-2 withholding statements and tax returns and a false employment verification form. We note that other attorneys who have participated in elaborate fraudulent schemes have received substantial suspensions from the practice of law for their misconduct. (See In re Sherre (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 56 (attorney suspended three years for participating in preparation of false documents inflating value of real estate held in trust for client insurance company, resulting in attorney’s conviction for mail fraud); In re Grossgold (1974), 58 Ill. 2d 9 (attorney suspended three years for participating in preparation and submission of fraudulent bills and inflated subrogation claims by which he gained $586.76 in fees, resulting in conviction for mail fraud); In re Alschuler (1944), 388 Ill. 492 (attorney suspended three years for participating in scheme in which he kicked back one half of annual retainer to officer of client company, and for later making false statements to investigators in attempt to conceal scheme).) Like the respondent in the present case, the attorneys in each of the preceding disciplinary matters participated in elaborate schemes to defraud; unlike the present respondent, however, the attorneys in those cases were not the principal architects of the schemes. During the same period, respondent’s application for admission to the Illinois bar was pending. In the application, respondent misstated her social security number, one of two numbers she has used. Such conduct demonstrates respondent’s lack of candor and her intention to frustrate the investigation of her qualifications to practice law by the Committee on Character and Fitness. In addition, respondent later failed to inform the committee of both the fraud she committed in obtaining her loan and the lender’s ensuing foreclosure action, despite her continuing obligation to apprise the committee of relevant matters bearing on her integrity. Respondent’s failure to disclose these important matters to the committee — matters that would have been grounds for denying her application for admission to the bar — thwarted the committee’s assessment of her character and fitness to practice law. See In re Ascher (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 485. In mitigation, we note that respondent has been cooperative throughout these proceedings, has expressed remorse for her misconduct, and has not been the subject of any previous disciplinary action. Further, the evidence fails to show the extent of the loss, if any, incurred by the lender as a result of respondent’s actions. Respondent insists that her only purpose in attempting to obtain the loan was to provide safe, affordable housing for her family. We must, however, reject as morally flawed respondent’s assumption that the purity of her motive may excuse her misconduct, and as empirically flawed her premise that such housing could not be obtained through honest means. Finally, respondent points to the evidence of her good reputation for honesty and integrity at work and in the community at large. Several of respondent’s character witnesses, however, were not aware of the full extent of her misconduct. Moreover, as this court has observed previously, "While proof of good reputation is always an element to be taken into consideration, it is no defense to specific acts of misconduct. [Citation.]” In re McCallum (1945), 391 Ill. 400, 415. The cases offered by the dissent as a sampling of disciplinary matters are readily distinguishable, involving, in contrast to the present proceeding, different forms of attorney misconduct, substantially greater mitigation, or both. See, e.g., In re Levy (1987), 115 Ill. 2d 395, 399 (concluding that respondent did not have intent to defraud); In re McAuliffe (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 254, 260-61 (no finding of fraud made by this court, review board, or hearing board; respondent suffering from significant mental and physical impairments at time of misconduct); In re Towles (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 179, 185 (respondent’s misconduct was result of ignorance or mistake); In re Eisenberg (1984), M.R. 3074 (respondent censured after pleading guilty to providing false information to Internal Revenue Service pursuant to plea agreement in which government acknowledged that respondent did not actually know documents were false and fraudulent); In re Ring (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 128 (neglect of legal matter); In re Hall (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 371 (neglect); In re Sims (1991), 144 Ill. 2d 323 (drug addiction); In re Scarnavack (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 456 (drug addiction); In re Levin (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 535, 540 (respondent’s remarks to clients and other attorneys concerning status of cases were blatant misstatements but not found to be fraudulent); In re Chapman (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 484 (alcoholism). Several other cases cited by the dissent also merit brief comment. In In re Gabriele & Villadonga (1992), MR 8236, this court denied the administrator’s petition to file exceptions to the report and recommendation of the review board and, in an unpublished order, instead entered an order summarily approving and confirming that report and recommendation. In view of those circumstances, the case possesses little precedential value. In addition, we note that the review board specifically observed that "the criminal acts committed by respondents involved facilitating a scheme that they neither conceived nor disguised from the purchasers” and believed that those circumstances mitigated the attorneys’ misconduct. Each of the two attorneys in that proceeding had been practicing law for about 20 years, had a spotless record, and had taken part in pro bono activities. In In re Cetwinski (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 396, another case cited by the dissent, the court noted, among other mitigating circumstances, that the attorney in that case had discontinued his misconduct prior to the investigation by law enforcement authorities, had suggested restitution to the client as part of his Federal sentence, enjoyed an otherwise unblemished reputation, had initiated his own pro bono program shortly after his admission to the bar, and cooperated fully with law enforcement authorities in obtaining evidence against, and testifying against, a codefendant. Finally, In re Armentrout (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 242, also cited by the dissent, may be an uncertain lodestar in determining disciplinary sanctions. It might be suggested that the two-year suspension imposed on the respondent in that case for forging voters’ signatures on petitions for a statewide advisory referendum was too lenient, especially in light of the attorney’s subsequent actions during the period of his suspension (see Cetwinski, 143 Ill. 2d at 398-402 (describing Armentrout’s role in separate misconduct in which Cetwinski was involved)). Considering both the seriousness of respondent’s various acts of misconduct and the mitigating evidence she has offered, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years and until further order of this court. Respondent suspended.  In referring to the circumstances under which the respondent left her position with the Second Circuit, the dissent reads the record selectively, ignoring entirely the explanation provided by the respondent’s former supervisor. During its investigation of the respondent, the Committee on Character and Fitness sent a questionnaire to the supervisor, seeking verification of the respondent’s employment history and making inquiry regarding the respondent’s qualifications. The supervisor answered "no” to the question, "While in your employ was the applicant worthy of trust and confidence?” In response to questions concerning the respondent’s honesty, integrity, and conduct, the supervisor attached an explanatory statement. The explanation stated: "While employed under my supervision as a law clerk for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Ms. Chandler was asked to resign because she had become actively involved with a team of defense attorneys representing certain defendants then in federal custody. According to prison records and information conveyed to me by a deputy warden Ms. Chandler visited these defendants several times while they were incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center. She gained access to the prison by claiming to be an attorney for one or more of these defendants. These visits occurred during working hours and without my knowledge or permission. In addition, I was informed by both an assistant United States attorney and a federal magistrate that Ms. Chandler had appeared before the magistrate on behalf of one or more of these defendants, also without my knowledge or permission and also during working hours. Moreover, Ms. Chandler failed to disclose to the prison officials, the AUSAs assigned to the case or to the magistrate that she was a Second Circuit law clerk. Ms. Chandler’s activities violated the code of conduct applicable to law clerks employed by the federal courts and demonstrated her lack of candor and integrity. Finally, during this time Ms. Chandler was unable to devote her attention to her duties as a law clerk. As a result, her assignments were not completed in a timely fashion or were poorly performed. In sum, Ms. Chandler’s conduct while in the Court’s employ demonstrated that she was not worthy of the trust and confidence placed in her by the Court.”    2In addition to the duty of disclosure imposed on an applicant by the bar application itself, Rule 1 — 101(b) of the Qode of Professional Responsibility provides as follows: "A lawyer is subject to discipline if he has made a materially false statement in, or if he has deliberately failed to disclose a material fact requested in connection with, his application for admission to the bar.” (107 Ill. 2d R. 1 — 101(b).) The respondent’s bar application expressly requested the following information: "11. (a) Have you ever been a party (either plaintiff or defendant) to or otherwise involved in any action or legal proceeding, either civil or criminal or quasi criminal, including any proceedings in juvenile court? *** If your answer is Yes as to any of the foregoing subparagraphs, state fully all of the facts, ***. Your answer must fully apprise the Committee of all relevant issues and facts, On her bar application, the respondent answered "no” to the inquiry in subparagraph 11(a). For the respondent’s failure to update the bar application with information regarding the foreclosure action and the manner in which she obtained the mortgage loan, the Administrator’s second complaint charged the respondent with violating Rules 1 — 101(b), 1 — 102(a)(4), and 1 — 102(a)(5) of the Code (107 111. 2d Rules 1 — 101(b), 1 — 102(a)(4), (a)(5)) and Supreme Court Rule 771 (107 111. 2d R. 771).