.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Proviso Probe

Saturday, February 04, 2006

GOV, ARDC ducks the question

After reading the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) response to a complaint against Askia Abdullah, I wrote to the ARDC Administrator Mary Robinson.

(Abdullah is a disbarred attorney that may be illegally doing legal work for Cook County Recorder of Deeds Eugene Moore. Along with David Sharp, husband of Maywood Trustee Wanda Sharp, Abdullah and Moore are defendants in a defamation suit brought by Paul Esparza.)

The ARDC response to the complaint brought by John H. Monaghan, Jr. of Chicago was that Abdullah was not interpreting the law—which would be illegal—but merely determining when the Family Medical Leave Act applies.

I’ve long had a low opinion of how the ARDC handles complaints against the politically connected. The Abdullah response struck me as absurd. So I wrote to Robinson to ask her to explain the difference between interpreting the law and determining when the law applies.

Robinson applied her legal training to duck the question. Below is the entire text of her letter.
Dear Mr. Nyberg:

A copy of Supreme Court Rule 766 identifying what ARDC matters are public and which are confidential is enclosed. Since thre are no public ARDC matters to which your inquiry relates, I can make no response.
Very truly yours,
/sig/ Mary Robinson

Basically the rules say everything they do is confidential.

But it doesn’t really matter what the rules say. According to the rules the ARDC probably should have found Abdullah in violation of his disbarment. So it looks like the ARDC fits the rules to its conclusions, not its conclusions to the rules.

The ARDC can do this because it is accountable only to the Illinois Supreme Court. And the Court seems indifferent to whether the ARDC is doing its job. The ARDC exists to serve lawyers; not to protect non-lawyers from crooked lawyers. There is no formal appeal process listed on either the ARDC website or the Supreme Court website. It’s a straightforward “who is watching the watcher?” problem.

The ARDC has the ingredients for a corrupt organization. It has minimal transparency and the ARDC evaluates appeals of its own decisions.

3 Comments:

  • Carl, I am a friend of Country Music (Don't Laugh)

    But this is one of those sitations where I have to say Sometimes you are the windshield, Sometimes you are the bug :)

    It happens man, I see you have Jim Leach's Blog listed (Abeblog)

    I worked with Leach in the Patch, that is one of the funniest blogs out there, Jimmy always had a good sense of humour and has lost a lot of Weight since the last time I saw him :)

    PS, I am glad that our conversation had some impact on you

    Take care and have a good weekend

    GO STEELERS :)

    By Anonymous That's the Problem, at 1:47 AM, February 05, 2006  

  • ARDC is a worthless organization. They always protect their own.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:07 PM, February 09, 2006  

  • To put it mildly, I think the ARDC is a big fat zero, just like every other state agency who's supposed to protect the consumer. I made a complaint against a lawyer last year, who blatantly ignored my case forcing me to plead guilty in a case that should have been easily thrown out of court. The ARDC just dismissed my complaint.

    In fact a lawyer by the name of Peter Alfieri says he has nobody to answer to. He agreed when I said the ARDC was a joke. I hope they read this anyway. But they still won't do squat.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:00 AM, August 21, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home