BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: RHONDA CRAWFORD, Commission No. 2016PR00115 Attorney-Respondent, FILED --- October 7, 2016 No. 6281226. COMPLAINT Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Wendy J. Muchman and Shelley M. Bethune, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b) complains of Respondent, Rhonda Crawford, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 6, 2003, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct, which subjects Respondent to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770: COUNT I (Dishonesty as a result of handling cases on a judge’s call while dressed in judicial robes and seated on the judge’s chair behind the bench) 1. From August 2011 to August 2016, Respondent was employed as a Law Clerk/Staff Attorney for Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. From August 2011 until May 2015, Respondent worked at the Daley Center Courthouse and was responsible for research and writing assignments given to her by Chief Judge Timothy Evans. In May 2015, Respondent was transferred to the Markham Courthouse in the Sixth Municipal District ("Markham"), where she maintained her position as Law Clerk/Staff Attorney and was responsible for research and writing assignments given to her by any of the judges at Markham. Judge Marjorie Laws ("Judge Laws"), the presiding judge in Markham, was Respondent’s supervisor at Markham. 2. At no time has Respondent held the office of Judge or Associate Judge in Illinois pursuant to Article VI of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. As a result, at no time was Respondent authorized to act as a Judge or Associate Judge in a Circuit Court of this State of Illinois. 3. In March 2016, Respondent won the primary election for the office of judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County, First Judicial Subcircuit. Respondent is currently unopposed on the general election ballot for November 2016. Subsequent to winning the primary election, Respondent began observing judges at Markham during their court calls in preparation for the likely possibility that she would be elected to the office of judge in November 2016. 4. On August 11, 2016, Judge Valarie Turner ("Judge Turner") was assigned to Courtroom 098 in Markham ("Courtroom 098") for court calls scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., 10:30 a.m., and 1:00 p.m. On August 11, each of the three court calls involved traffic tickets that had been issued in the Village of Dolton. The Village of Dolton prosecutor working in Courtroom 098 that day was Luciano Panici, Jr. ("Panici, Jr."). 5. On August 11, 2016, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Respondent was seated in the witness box to the left of the judge’s bench in Courtroom 098. Shortly thereafter, Judge Turner entered Courtroom 098 wearing her judicial robe, took the bench, and began the 9:00 a.m. call. Respondent remained seated in the witness box throughout the 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. calls, between which there was no recess. 6. At approximately 12:00 p.m., the court recessed for lunch. At that time, Judge Turner introduced Respondent to https://www.iardc.org/16PR0115CM.html[10/14/2016 10:26:32 AM] BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD Panici, Jr. and asked, "Have you met Judge Crawford?" Respondent did not correct Judge Turner’s statement that she was a judge. Panici, Jr. introduced himself to Respondent and left Courtroom 098. 7. Judge Turner’s statement that Respondent was a judge in paragraph six, above, was false because Respondent was not a judge on August 11, 2016, nor has she ever been a judge. 8. Respondent knew that Judge Turner’s statement in paragraph six, above, was false because she knew she was not a judge. Respondent’s failure to correct Judge Turner’s statement in paragraph six, above, was dishonest and misleading. 9. At approximately 1:00 p.m., Panici, Jr. returned to Courtroom 098 for the afternoon call beginning at 1:00 p.m. At that time, Officer Derrell White also arrived at Courtroom 098 for the afternoon call. Officer White sat in a chair in a row of chairs located to the left of and slightly behind the witness box. Respondent again sat in the witness box to the left of the judge’s bench. Judge Turner began the afternoon call at approximately 1:00 p.m. 10. At some time near the end of the 1:00 p.m. call, Judge Turner announced to the people in Courtroom 098, "We’re going to switch judges" and gave her judicial robe to Respondent. Respondent did not correct Judge Turner’s reference to her as a judge and put on Judge Turner’s robe in plain view of the people in Courtroom 098. 11. Judge Turner’s reference to Respondent as a judge in paragraph ten, above, was false because Respondent was not a judge on August 11, 2016, nor has she ever been a judge. 12. At the time Judge Turner referred to Respondent as a judge in paragraph ten, above, Respondent knew Judge Turner’s statement was false because she knew she was not a judge. Respondent’s failure to correct Judge Turner’s reference to her as a judge in front of the people in Courtroom 098 was dishonest and misleading. 13. After putting on Judge Turner’s robe, Respondent sat down on the bench and began purporting to preside over at least three cases on the 1:00 p.m. call. Judge Turner stood behind Respondent. 14. As a result of Judge Turner’s previous introduction of Respondent, at the time Respondent put on Judge Turner’s robe and began purporting to preside over cases, Panici Jr. believed Respondent was a judge. 15. After Respondent had put on Judge Turner’s robe and sat on the bench, the court clerk called the case of defendant Maliq Giles ("Giles"), ticket YE-334-458. At Giles’ request, Respondent purported to continue the matter until October 26, 2016. Respondent reflected her purported decision by writing "MD 10-26-16" on the back of ticket YE334-458. 16. After Giles’ matter, the court clerk called the case of defendant Angel LaSalle ("LaSalle"), ticket YE-334-458. When LaSalle stepped up to the bench, Respondent said to LaSalle, "Officer is not in court." Panici, Jr. then made a motion to continue the matter. Respondent turned to Judge Turner and asked, "Can I deny his motion?" Judge Turner replied, "Yes, you can deny the motion" and Respondent purported to deny the motion. Panici, Jr. then made a motion to non-suit the matter, which Respondent purported to grant. Respondent then reflected her purported decision by writing "ONIC" (Officer Not In Court) and "MCNS" (Motion City Non-Suit) on the back of ticket YE-334-458. 17. At some point while Respondent was wearing Judge Turner’s robe and seated on the bench, she called the case of defendant Kendrah Blackshear ("Blackshear"), ticket YE-250-620. Blackshear stepped up to the bench before Respondent and presented a valid driver’s license. Panici, Jr. made a motion to non-suit the matter and Respondent purported to grant the motion. 18. At the time Blackshear stepped up in front of Respondent, described in paragraph 17, above, Blackshear believed Respondent was a judge as a result of the facts that Respondent was wearing a judicial robe, sitting behind the bench in the Judge’s chair, and presiding over cases being called by the clerk. 19. After the 1:00 p.m. call concluded, Respondent returned Judge Turner’s judicial robe to her. At that time, Officer White approached Respondent to congratulate her on her judgeship. Officer White asked Respondent if she would be assigned to Markham and Respondent replied that she was in Markham now but would probably be assigned https://www.iardc.org/16PR0115CM.html[10/14/2016 10:26:32 AM] BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD downtown. 20. Respondent’s statement to Officer White referenced in paragraph 19, above, was false and misleading because she was not a judge assigned to Markham on August 11, 2016. 21. Respondent knew that her statement to Officer White referenced in paragraph 19, above, was false and misleading because she knew she was not a judge assigned to Markham. 22. After being apprised of what had occurred, Judge Laws conducted an investigation of Respondent’s conduct. As a result of that investigation, Judge Laws placed all three tickets referred to in paragraphs 15-17, above, back on the court’s docket. On September 1, 2016, Judge Laws heard all three matters, tickets YE-334-458 (Giles), YE-334-458 (LaSalle), and YE-250-620 (Blackshear). Panici, Jr. was the prosecutor and motioned to non-suit each matter. Judge Laws granted the motions and dismissed the tickets nunc pro tunc to August 11, 2016. 23. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by conduct including donning a judicial robe and purporting to preside over the remainder of the court call on August 11, 2016 in Courtroom 098 without the authority to do so, purporting to enter judicial orders without authority to do so, and conduct including failing to correct Judge Turner’s reference to her as a judge, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and b. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including presiding over matters on August 11, 2016 when she had no authority to do so and causing the court to have to conduct an investigation and call back the three cases to put them back on the Court’s docket, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). COUNT II (Criminal conduct of official misconduct and false personation of public officer) 24. The Administrator re-alleges paragraphs one through 22 of Count I, above. 25. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in full force and effect Section 33-3(a)(2) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, which states that a public employee commits official misconduct, a Class 3 felony, when, in her official capacity, she knowingly performs an act which she knows she is forbidden by law to perform. 26. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in full force and effect Section 17-2(b)(2) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, which states that a person commits a false personation, a Class A misdemeanor, if she knowingly and falsely represents herself to be a public official or public employee. 27. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, by engaging in the crimes of official misconduct and false personation of a public officer, in violation of Section 333 and Section 32-5 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, and in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). COUNT III (False statements in a disciplinary investigation) 28. The Administrator re-alleges paragraphs one through 22 of Count I, above. https://www.iardc.org/16PR0115CM.html[10/14/2016 10:26:32 AM] BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD 29. On August 12, 2016, the Administrator received a request for investigation of Respondent from Panici, Jr. related to Respondent’s conduct on August 11, 2016. Based on the information in Panici, Jr.’s request for investigation, the Administrator initiated investigation number 2016IN03486 into Respondent’s conduct. 30. On September 22, 2016, Respondent appeared at her counsel’s office to give her sworn statement in relation to investigation number 2016IN03486. At that sworn statement, Respondent made the following statements regarding her conduct on August 11, 2016: a. That putting on Judge Turner’s robe did not mislead people in Courtroom 098 to think that she was, in fact, a judge; and b. That it was clear, based on how things were happening in Courtroom 098 on August 11, 2016, that Judge Turner was trying to teach Respondent. 31. Respondent’s statements in paragraph 30, above, were false because Respondent knew that Judge Turner had introduced her as "Judge Crawford" to Panici, Jr. earlier that day and that Judge Turner announced to Courtroom 098 that they would be "switching judges," and that, therefore, the people in Courtroom 098 thought she was a judge. 32. At the time Respondent made the statements referred to in paragraph 30, above, she knew that her statements were false. 33. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by conduct including giving false testimony at her sworn statement on September 22, 2016, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be referred to a panel of the Hearing Board of the Commission, that a hearing be conducted, and that the Hearing Panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted. Respectfully submitted, Jerome Larkin, Administrator Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission By: Shelley M. Bethune Shelley M. Bethune Counsel for the Administrator One Prudential Plaza 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 565-2600 Email: sbethune@iardc.org https://www.iardc.org/16PR0115CM.html[10/14/2016 10:26:32 AM]