Court Opinion

ID: 9711937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:42:31.990707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:08.523124
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SIMON, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority acknowledges that the conduct of the respondents was flagrant, and since it involved acts of forgery, their conduct constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. I concur in those observa- ■ tions. I dissent, however, because I do not believe the sanctions imposed were sufficient in view of the serious nature of the misconduct. Tampering by members of the bar with any aspect of our voting process deserves neither leniency nor indulgence. The respondents’ conduct was planned and designed to mislead the officials in charge of voting procedures. They knowingly submitted fictitious names with the purpose of having them accepted by election officials as valid signatures of registered voters. The issue here is not, as the respondents would have us believe, whether the tax referendum in connection with which the fictitious names were submitted was important. Neither is it whether any one was hurt by their mischief, as the respondents contend should be asked. Rather the issue is whether the respondents intended to and did subvert the voting process, and whether they intended to and did mislead election officials into believing that signatures the respondents knew were fictitious were genuine. The Hearing Board found: “The intent of the respondents was to defraud, and the action of Eugene Armentrout in affixing a notary seal in a manner which would conceal his own name is particularly reprehensible.” The Review Board evaluated the seriousness of the respondents’ fraud and deceit as follows: “Collectively and individually, the conduct of the Respondents undermine our democratic system of government. In our society, each person has equal power in our government based on his willingness to take part in the franchise process. Securing petitions to place a proposition on the ballot is a fundamental part of our electoral process. When one person or a group of persons participates in that process in such a way that fraudulently dilutes the strength of all others, it undermines the democratic system. The thousands of fraudulent signatures manufactured by the Respondents helped to endanger a free society and tends to encourage skepticism on unwarranted occasions. When some of the participants in the fraud are lawyers; one being the chief lawyer of the county, two being assistants to the chief lawyer of the county, it brings the profession of the practice of law into serious disrepute.” Our responsibility here is not only to impose an appropriate sanction on the respondents for their fraudulent and deceitful conduct, but also to vindicate the sanctity of the voting machinery and to declare that the bar will not tolerate any tampering with it. In my judgment, the sanctions imposed are not severe enough to accomplish these ends or, in view of the high offices at least Mr. Armentrout and Mr. Petersen occupied, to improve public confidence in the bar, which is a significant, though admittedly not the only, reason for disciplinary proceedings. In many instances attorneys have been disbarred or have received suspensions of three years or longer because of fraudulent conduct in converting clients’ funds. (In re Feldman (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 7 (disbarment); In re Smith (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 134 (disbarment); In re Stillo (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 49 (disbarment); In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 50 (disbarment); In re Anglin (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 261 (five-year suspension).) I do not understand why the fraudulent and deceitful conduct in which the respondents engaged here should be regarded as less serious or should be sanctioned any less severely. In fact, it seems to me that a higher standard of responsibility and respect for the law should be expected of lawyers who are public officials than of their less visible brethren at the bar. Should we who have been honored with public office not be expected to set an example for them and for the public generally? Should we not be held to a higher standard of scrutiny? And, if we fall short, should we not be expected to answer more fully for our shortcomings? Based on these observations, I dissent because after spelling out at length the egregiousness of the respondents’ conduct, I believe that the majority concludes by imposing sanctions which are woefully inadequate and which indicate that public officials are not required to conform to higher standards then others, perhaps not even to standards as high as those demanded of others. Rather than reassuring the public that erring public officials will be held fully accountable for their misconduct, I fear that the sanctions the court has applied here will create the contrary impression. With respect to Mr. Armentrout, the court points out in mitigation that he was convicted and fined for his conduct. This is not a mitigating consideration, for frequently we disbar those who have been convicted of crime and sentenced to serve prison terms for their misdeeds. The majority points out that Mr. Armentrout’s promising political career has been terminated, a factor which I would regard as irrelevant. The majority also places emphasis on the large number of favorable testimonials he received from judges and other officials concerning his character and accomplishments. I believe that the distinction Mr. Armentrout had achieved in his political career and his public life as a lawyer should be regarded, if anything, as an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor. Because of his important public position, Mr. Armentrout enjoyed the acquaintance of the judges and other highly placed public officials who testified or submitted letters in his favor. These officials might not have known or been willing to lend their support to lawyers who were more anonymous or less highly placed than Mr. Armentrout. As I suggested above, based on his visibility and the trust society placed in him as the highest legal officer of Kane County, we were entitled to expect more from Mr. Armentrout than he gave us. Not only did he fail to protect the election machinery against subversion, he sabotaged it himself in a calculated manner. The majority laments that Mr. Armentrout has suffered substantial financial and professional loss, but is that not what frequently happens to those who are caught up in the disciplinary web because of their misconduct? Mr. Armentrout’s offense was a serious one and the sanction imposed by the majority fails to recognize its gravity. As a State’s Attorney he was supposed to enforce the law, but instead, he not only callously violated it and our professional canons, but recruited other law enforcement officers to assist him in that endeavor. In addition, he took steps to conceal the fraud by warning his assistant, Charles E. Petersen, against using a telephone book for the purpose of copying names because of the ease of detection of that form of roundtabling. He then suggested to Petersen that names be copied off voters’ lists instead of from telephone books. I believe Mr. Armentrout should be disbarred. So far as Mr. Petersen is concerned, he too must answer as a public official. In addition to that violation of his public trust, he acted as the organizer and manager of the roundtabling operation, arranging the times and places for the activity and soliciting others to engage in it. I believe that the Administrator’s recommendation of a two-year suspension is more appropriate to the gravity of Mr. Petersen’s conduct than the six-month suspension the majority has decided upon or the 18-month suspension recommended by the Review Board. With respect to Mr. Grodner, I disagree with the majority that the fact that he had been admitted to practice for only three months when the roundtabling took place should serve as a mitigating factor. It must be apparent to all who examine this situation that one does not require a legal education or admission to the bar to know that what the respondents were doing was improper. The majority points out also in mitigation that Grodner was complying with the request of his superiors, but I am under the impression that the defense that “I was only following orders” was discredited both at the Nuremberg and the Watergate trials. I do not think it is asking too much of licensed attorneys to exhibit the good judgment to say “No” when they are importuned to engage in dishonest pursuits. Instead, Grodner and his co-respondents appeared to treat the activity in which they engaged as a joke. Grodner, too, occupied public office, and even if only for a short time, it was long enough to know that as a prosecutor he was expected to uphold the law, not violate it. The sanction of censure recommended for him by the Administrator is inappropriate, for it overlooks the obligation he undertook when he assumed the prosecutor’s office. I believe the Review Board’s recommendation that he be suspended for six months was a proper disposition. I am agreeable to the imposition of censure as the sanction for the other respondents, not because their offenses were not serious, but rather because this court has already imposed censure on John Truemper, Jr., whose participation appears to have been generally of the same nature as that of Kim Edward Presbrey and William H. Weir. None of them were public officials.