Illinois Rules Of Professional Conduct Committed By Attorney Homer Simpson

Below please find a detailed memo outlining the violations of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct committed by attorney Homer Simpson in relation to his former Client, Edna Krabappel:

In Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, it is understood that Mr. Simpson represented himself as, “a specialist in employment discrimination.” As stated in Rule 7.4: Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduction:

(c) Except when identifying certificates, awards or recognitions issued to him or her by an agency or organization, a lawyer may not use the terms “certified,’’ “specialist,’’ “expert,’’ or any other, similar terms to describe his qualifications as a lawyer or his qualifications in any subspecialty

Krabappel is a new client of Mr. Simpson and not a long-standing one, it is necessary for their to be a clear establishment of rate of fee. After accepting Ms. Krabappel as a client, Mr. Simpson needed to explain to his client his general nature of the legal services to be provided, the basis, rate or total amount of the fee and whether and to what extent the client would be responsible for any costs.

These details of the arrangement would be explained in writing in the form of a memorandum or pre-existing copy of the attorneys customary fee arrangements. These details of the arrangement must be communicated and understood between all involved Parties. As Mr. Simpson failed to communicate his fee arrangement with his client, he is in violation of Rule 1.5: Fees and begins his violations in terms of communication.

In Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Ms. Krabappel explained that between the time period of 28 days, there was no contact between herself and her attorney, Mr. Simpson, despite nine attempts to reach Mr. Simpson. After each attempt via voicemail, handwritten notes, and communication with Mr. Simpson’s paralegal, Ms. Krabappel never received word from Mr. Simpson in relation to her case, which is a violation of Rule 1.4: Communication. As stated under Rule

Krabappel wanted to be in contact with her lawyer, she was unable to get his attention and thus was unable to be consult regarding the case and be reasonably informed about the status of the matter. Ms. Krabappel did have contact with one member of Mr. Simpson’s Firm, Mr. Smithers, but since Smithers is a paralegal he is unable to consult Ms. Krabappel regarding legal matters.

Further without consulting with his client, Mr. Simpson filed a Complaint against SBE on her behalf, which is another violation of Rule 1.4: Communication. As a lawyer is required to “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”

Since Mr. Simpson did not communicate with his client before filing, Ms. Krabappel’s matter was not explained to her and she was not given the opportunity to make an informed decision for herself before a Complaint was filed on her behalf.

It was only after the fact that Ms. Krabappel was told about the filing of her Complaint once the SBE filed a Motion to Dismiss Krabappel’s Complaint due to “the Compliant was so poorly and incompetently drafted.” This incompetency is a violation of Rule 1.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. As stated under Rule