In the Matter of:

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
FILED
JUN - 3 2014
ATTYREG &DISC COMM
CHICAGO
JOHN EDWARD FARRELL,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 775231.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD
DEFAULT PROCEEDING
The hearing in this matter was held on May 6, 2014 at the Chicago offices of the
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), before a Hearing Board Panel
consisting of William E. Hornsby, Jr. Chair, Fredrick H. Bates and Peter B. Kupferberg.
Wendy J. Muchman and Tara Korthals appeared on behalf of the Administrator. Respondent
was not present, and no counsel appeared on his behalf. At the conclusion of the Administrator's
presentation, counsel for the Administrator recommended that Respondent be suspended for
three years and until further order of the Court.
We have considered the Administrator's five-count Complaint,1 a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit 1, the Order entered on March 26, 2014, deeming the allegations of the
Complaint admitted, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2, and the evidence presented bythe
Administrator at the hearing. The Administrator submitted a certification from the Registrar of
the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) documenting Respondent's
failure to register withthe ARDC. (Adm. Ex. 1). Respondent has no prior discipline.
Commission No. 2013PR00121
Accordingly,
1. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Respondent, service of the
Administrator's Complaint was made on Respondent by mail, pursuant to
Commission Rule 214(b). Copies of the Proof of Service and supporting Amended
Affidavit are attached as Exhibit 3.
2. This Panel finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in the
acts alleged and committed the misconduct charged in the Complaint.
3. Given Respondent's misconduct, the aggravating evidence and the relevant case law
submitted by the Administrator, we recommend that Respondent, John Edward
Farrell, be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.
4. The Panel has concluded that this form will adequately communicate its
recommendation to the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
William E. Hornsby, Jr.
Fredrick H. Bates
Peter B. Kupferberg
CERTIFICATION
I, Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
of the Supreme Court of Illinois and keeper of the records, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a
true copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Board, approved by each Panel
member, entered in the above entitled cause of record filed in my office on June 3, 2014.
fttMAvdi ^-Q&uJL
Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois
MAINLIB #512721 vl
1At the hearing, on the Administrator's oral motion, the Complaint was amended to strike from
the introductory paragraph the language alleging that Respondent engaged in conduct which
tends to defeat the administration of justice or which brings the courts or legal profession into
disrepute, pursuant to In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767 (Nov. 15, 2013). The removal of that
language does not affect the validity of the order deeming the allegations of the Complaint
admitted, nor does it affect our findings and recommendation.
Exhibit 1
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
JOHN EDWARD FARRELL,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 775231.
COMPLAINT
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
by his attorney, Wendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b) complains of
Respondent, John Farrell, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November
23, 1976, that he engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of
justice or which brings the courts or legal profession into disrepute and subjects Respondent to
discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:
BACKGROUND COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1. Between 2005 and 2009, Respondent was the Chief Civil Assistant at DeKalb
County State's Attorney's Office. In June 2009, the DeKalb County Board appointed
Respondent as Interim Acting DeKalb County State's Attorney, as the State's Attorney was
appointed to ajudgeship. Respondent served as Acting DeKalb County State's Attorney until
December 2010. After December 2010, the elected State's Attorney, Clay Campbell,
reappointed Respondent, Chief of the DeKalb State's Attorney's Civil division, a position
Respondent held until heresigned onOctober 12, 2012.
FILED
oct ?:< ?m
ATTY REG &DISC COMM
CHICAGO
Commission No. _ _ .
2013PR00121
COUNT I
{Neglect and Misrepresentation)
2. On or about April 18, 2007, the DeKalb County Board passed a resolution
authorizing the office of the State's Attorney of DeKalb County to obtaincertain property owned
byA. Anderson by eminent domain inorder to enable widening of a county highway ("Anderson
eminent domain matter.").
3. On or about April 18, 2007, in his capacity in the DeKalb State's Attorney's
Office, Respondent was responsible for pursuing the Anderson eminent domain matter onbehalf
of the County.
4. At no time between April 18, 2007, when Respondent agreed to pursue the
Anderson eminent domain matter, and October 12, 2012, the date of his resignation, did
Respondent take any action toinitiate or pursue the Anderson eminent domain matter.
5. Between June 11, 2008, and March 9, 2009, Respondent repeatedly and falsely
stated to William Lorence, then DeKalb County Engineer, and/or Wayne Davey, Support
Services Engineer at the Highway Department) that he had filed the Anderson eminent domain
matter and also gave status updates by e-mail, as set forth in the subparagraphs below.
a. June 11,2008, Respondent to Wayne Davey:
Just want to let you and bill [sic] know we have a discovery cut-off on our
eminent domain case with the "unknown owners" ofJuly 30th and a court date on
August 14. I am hopeful we will have ajudgment in our favor by then or shortly
thereafter.
b. November 13, 2008, Respondent to William Lorence andWayne Davey:
I answered ready to proceed on the eminent domain case today. Defense counsel
asked for a continuance to obtain updated comps, and Judge Klein granted the
motion over our objection. They are to provide those to me no later than
December 22, and the case is now set for hearing on January 8. The wheels of
justice grind ever so slowly.
c. January9,2009, Respondent to WilliamLorence and Wayne Davey:
I just got word from Judge Klein's secretary that the eminent domain trial on the
Anderson property scheduled for Jan. 13 is not going due to the fact that thereare
two speedy criminal trial term cases that must gonext week. He is taking oneand
Judge Stuckert the other. I have tried to stress the importance of getting a
determination on this case, but criminal cases apparently take precedence. I will
tryto get as short a dateas possible andcall you withthe newtrial date.
d. March 9, 2009, Respondent to Wayne Davey:
...I ammeeting with Jim Stoddard on the Anderson/eminent domain or easement
about an easement and payment on the 23rd. Looks like we will avoid a trial
which was scheduled for the 16th. I have serious issues with Judge Klein rulings
recently and this would certainly be a better route to go. I will keep you and Bill
psoted [sic].
6. Between September 9, 2011, and August 28, 2012, Respondent and DeKalb
County Engineer, Nathan Schwartz, exchanged e-mails regarding the status of the Anderson
eminent domain action, as follows:
a. September 8, 2011, from Schwartz to Respondent:
I have on my calendar that today there should be a ruling on the Anderson
property. When you find out/get a copy of the decision, please send a copy my
way.
b. September 9, 2011, from Respondent to Schwartz:
We did not get the ruling yet. Apparently Judge Klein is keeping the case and is
on a road trip/vacation. I have asked his secretary to advise me when she thinks
he will issue a ruling, and I'm waiting to hear back from her...I will keep you
posted...
c. August 28, 2012, from Schwartz to Respondent:
I don't think I've asked in awhile...Was the Anderson property ever ruled upon?
I think something happened right about the time the Keslinger Road bridge
became active and so the Anderson property fell to the side. What can you tell
me?
d. September 9,2011, from Respondent to Schwartz:
The case has been transferred to Judge Brady. I am noticing it up so we can get
moving.
7. All of Respondent's emails and representations to Lorence, Davey and Schwartz,
as set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6 above regarding the status the Anderson eminent domain
action, were false and Respondent knew they were false when he made them. In fact,
Respondent never filed or otherswise pursued any eminent domain action relating to the
Anderson property.
8. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred before January 1, 2010,
Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
b. failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests
for information, in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
c. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);
d. conduct prejudicial of the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (1990);
9. By reason of the conduct described above that occurred on or after January 1,
2010, Respondent hasengaged inthefollowing misconduct:
a. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the 2010
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
b. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the
2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
c. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of
the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
e. conduct prejudicial of the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct.
COUNT II
(Misrepresentation toOpposing Counsel andthe Court)
10. As of November 17, 2011, in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's
Attorneys' office, Respondent was responsible for representation of the County in a matter then
pending in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County as case number 11 TX 72, entitled Hayden
Investments v. DeKalb County Collector.
11. On or about November 8,2011, Judge Kurt Klein set a court date for case number
11 TX 72 for November 17,2011.
12. Onor before November 17, 2011, Respondent telephoned DeKalb County State's
Attorney, Clay Campbell, and told Campbell that he would be unable to appear in court on
November 17, 2011, because his wife, Katherine Kamka Farrell, was dying and "receiving last
rites." Campbell telephoned Kevin Drendel, opposing counsel in 11 TX 72, to convey the
information provided by Respondent.
13. On November 17, 2011, Respondent did not appear in 11 TX 72. Drendel
appeared before Judge Klein and informed the court that Respondent's wife was receiving last
rites.
14. As ofJanuary 31,2012, Respondent in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's
Attorney's office, was responsible for representation of the County in another matter then
pending in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County as case number 09 L 03, Luke v. Brittany Branch
and the County ofDeKalb.
15. On January 31, 2012, Respondent appeared before Judge Kurt Klein in case
number 09 L 03. At that court appearance, Respondent made the following statement on the
record:
Mr. Farrell: This is an automobile accident that occurred at Glidden Road and
Bethany and we're here today for a settlement conference. I informed counsel,
and I apologized to them as I apologize to the court, I hoped we wouldn't waste
the court's time today and I think I probably have because of my wife's illness
and my wife's passing has had, you know, an issue of communication with these
two gentlemen.
16. Both statements, the one made by Respondent directly to the court, set forth in
paragraph 15 above, and via Mr. Campbell, set forth in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, were false.
Respondent's wife had not received last rites on November 17, 2011, nor had she died as of
January 31, 2012.
17. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, in
violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010);
b. failing to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, in violation ofRule
3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
c. making a false statement of material fact to a third person in
violation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010);
d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010);
e. conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010).
COUNT III
(Neglect and Misrepresentation)
18. As of September 2011, in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's Attorneys'
Office, Respondent was responsible for representation of the County in a matter pending in the
Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Panel Built, Inc. v. DeKalb County, DeKalb County Public
Buildings andAggressive Industrial Structures, etal, 11 CH459.
19. On December 22, 2011, an agreed turnover order was entered in case number 11
CH 459, which required the County to turn over $7,100 to the plaintiff. Respondent told Gary
Hansen, the DeKalb County Administrator, andRespondent's contact withrespect to case 11 CH
459, that thepayment constituted a settlement of all claims bythe plaintiff.
20. Respondent's statement that the $7,100 payment concluded the matter was false
and Respondent knew it was false because he knew that the majority of the plaintiffs claim
against the county was outstanding and that the lawsuit had not been dismissed.
21. In May 2012, Respondent and counsel for the plaintiff, Tina Paries, engaged in
settlement discussions. In June 2012, Respondent made an initial offer on behalf of the County
in the amount of $15,000, which was rejected by the plaintiff, as were several subsequent
settlement offers.
22. On October 9, 2012, Respondent sent ane-mail toParies stating the following:
I just want you to know that at my request, the Public Building Commission has
scheduled a special meeting to discuss this litigation in this matter for tomorrow
evening at 6:30. It will be in be in executive session. I intend to lay everything
out and attempt to get to the $50,000 we discussed. I will call you first thing
Thursday morning to discuss the results.
23. On October 11, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Paries, informing her that he
had received authorization to settle for $45,000.
24. Respondent's statements to Paries, as set forth in 23 above, that the DeKalb
County Public Building Commission had met pursuant to Respondent's request to discuss
settlement in case number 11 CH 459, and that the Committee had given approval for a
settlement of $45,000, were false and Respondent knew they were false. In fact, the
Commission did not meet on October 10, 2012, did not discuss any possible settlement and did
not approve a settlement of $45,000, or of any amount.
25. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failure to abide by a client's decision whether to settle a civil
matter in violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct;
b. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the 2010 Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct;
c. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of
the matter, in violationof Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the 2010 Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct;
d. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the
representation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of the 2010 Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct;
e. making a false statement of material fact to a third person in
violation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010).
f. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in
violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct;
g. conduct prejudicial ofthe administration ofjustice, in violation of
Rule 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
8
COUNT IV
(Misrepresentations to Opposing Counsel andtothe Court)
26. As of September 2011, in his capacity in the DeKalb County State's Attorney's
Office, Respondent was responsible for representation of the County in the matter then pending
in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County as case number 08 MR280, entitled National Bank and
Trust v. County ofDeKalb. Respondent's contact in that matter was Paul Miller, DeKalb County
Planning Director.
27. On September 6, 2011, the court entered a judgment and order in favor of the
plaintiff in case number 08 MR 280. Both Respondent and counsel for plaintiff, Richard
Schmack, were present in court on September 6, 2011.
28. On or about September 6, 2011, Respondent and Miller discussed the court's
decision incase number 08MR 280 and Miller directed Respondent to proceed with anappeal of
the court's decision. Respondent agreedto do so.
29. On or about September 19, 2011, plaintiffs counsel Schmack sent an e-mail to
Respondent offering aproposed settlement in case number 08 MR 280: ifDeKalb County would
agree to forego an appeal of the court's September 6, 2011, decision, the plaintiff would agree to
entry of an order modifying the terms of the court's decision.
30. Respondent did not convey the terms ofthe plaintiffs settlement offer to Miller
and did not seek authorization from Miller or any other county official to any settlement.
31. On September 29, 2011, falsely advised Schmack in case number 08 MR 280 that
DeKalb County had agreed to the proposed settlement and would not appeal the case.
32. Respondent's statements to Schmack were false and Respondent knew they were
false because Respondent had not discussed the settlement offer with any County Official.
33. On or about October 7, 2011, Schmack sent a proposed agreed order to
Respondent and on that date, Respondent and Schmack spoke by telephone approvingthe agreed
order and agreed to present the order to the court in case number 08 MR 280 on October 12,
2011, after the time allowed for an appeal had elapsed (30 days.)
34. On October 12, 2011, an agreed order was entered in case number 08 MR 280
modifying the September 6,2011, order.
35. Respondent did not inform Miller of the entry of the October 12, 2011, agreed
order in case number 08 MR 280.
36. Between September 2011 and September 2012, Miller spoke with Respondent on
several occasions to ask the status of the County's appeal in in case number 08 MR 280. On
each occasion, Respondent advised Miller that the appeal was pending. In September 2012,
Respondent told Miller that the appeal was delayed because Mr. Schmack was running for
State's Attorney of DeKalb County.
37. Respondent's statements to Miller were false and Respondent knew they were
false when he made them, because Respondent knew that case number 08 MR 280 had been
concluded by agreed order on October 12, 2011.
38. On October 10, 2012, Miller happened to speak to Schmack about a matter
unrelated to case number 08 MR280, and mentioned his beliefthat the appeal of the decision in
case number 08 MR 280 was pending. Schmack informed Miller that case number 08 MR 280
had been resolved by agreed order inOctober 2011 and that no appeal had ever been filed.
39. Shortly after his conversation with Schmack on October 10, 2012, Miller
telephoned Respondent to discuss Schmack's statements regarding case number 08 MR 280.
Respondent expressed surprise to Miller and stated that in fact, Respondent had been working on
10
the appeal of the September 2011 decision in case number 08 MR 280 for many months.
Respondent told Miller that he would "try to figure out what was going on" and call Miller back.
40. After Miller's telephone call with Respondent, Miller contacted Schmack, who e-
mailed Miller with a screen-capture of a record of case number 08 MR 280 from the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of DeKalb County, which concluded with the October 12, 2011, agreed order.
41. Miller forwarded Schmack's e-mail to Respondent and then telephoned
Respondent shortly thereafter asking for an explanation. Respondent stated that he had left a
message with Mr. Schmack requesting an explanation. Respondent told Miller that he hadnever
seen the agreed order, knew nothing about it, and that it had been entered at a time when
Respondent was dealing with his wife's cancer, from which she eventually died. Miller
informed Respondent that he had heard that Respondent's wife was, in fact, alive. Respondent
told Miller that he had "heard this rumor before" and that "it breaks my heart." Respondent told
Miller that "my wife died in January" and "this is the kind of thing that makes me want toresign
and walk away." Miller apologized to Respondent for his comments and Respondent advised
Miller that he mayhaveto filea motion for reconsideration in case number 08 MR280.
42. Respondent's statement that he had left a voice mail for Schmack, that he knew
nothing ofthe October 10, 2011, agreed order and that he was dealing with his wife's cancer in
October of 2011, were all false andRespondent knew they were false when he made them.
43. On October 12, 2012, Schmack sent a letter to then DeKalb County State's
Attorney Clay Campbell setting forth the circumstances ofthe settlement ofcase number 08 MR
280 and his recent communications with Miller.
11
44. On October 12. 2012, Campbell met with Respondent and confronted him with
Schmack's letter. Respondent acknowledged to Campbell that he had lied to Miller about filing
an appeal in case number 08 MR 280 and resigned his position as assistant State's Attorney.
45. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a. failure to abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter in
violation of Rule 1.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct;
b. failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the 2010 Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct;
c. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of
the matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(3) of the 2010 Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct;
d. failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the
representation, in violation of Rule 1.4(b) of the 2010 Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct;
e. making a false statement of material fact to a third person in
violation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010).
f. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in
violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct;
g. conduct prejudicial of the administration ofjustice, inviolation of
Rule 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
12
COUNTV
(Misrepresentations to theARDC)
46. At all times alleged in this complaint, 720 ILCS 5/17-3 was in effect. The statute
provides:
A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he
knowingly makes makes a false document or alters any document
to make it false and that document is apparently capable of
defrauding another; or issues or delivers such document knowing it
to have been thus made or altered.
47. On or about August 15, 2012, Judge Klein reported Respondent's statements to
the court in the above matters to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, and
stated that he had been informed that Respondent's wife was, in fact, still living. The ARDC
opened investigation number 2012IN04141 as a result.
48. On August 22, 2012, counsel for the Administrator, Wendy Muchman, sent a
letter to Respondent asking Respondent to provide a written response to the charge of Judge
Klein.
49. By letter dated October 3, 2012, Respondent responded in writing. Respondent's
letter set forth the purported history his wife had with cancer, beginning in 2008. Respondent
stated the following:
During the latter part of2010 through 2011, Katherine's condition stabilized for a
time and then became increasingly difficult. Finally, in October of 2011, it was
determined medically that Katherine was not going to recover. She made the
decision that she no longer wished to stay in Sycamore, but wanted to go back to
Arizona. I agreed and moved her. For the next two months or so, I spent
significant time away with Katherine. Sadly, that ended without me being present
when she passed. I lost my best friend and soulmate. Katherine was a very
spiritual person who always told me towalk inawareness.
50. Respondent attached a "certification of cause of death" for Katherine Louise
Farrell from the state of Arizona with his October 3, 2012, response, purportedly signed by
13
registered nurse practitioner Julianne J. Bendale, reflecting a date of death of January 4, 2012,
and cause of death as cardiac arrest due to lung cancer, as a consequence of cervical cancer.
51. The certification of cause of death produced by Respondent together with his
response was fabricated by Respondent or someone acting at his direction. Respondent knew
that the certificate of death was false when he sent it to the ARDC.
52. On October 16, 2012, Judge Robbin Stuckert submitted correspondence to the
Administrator alleging that Respondent made misrepresentations to his client in case number 08
MR 280.
53. On or about November 15, 2012, DeKalbCountyState's Attorney ClayCampbell
submitted correspondence to the Administrator alleging that Respondent made
misrepresentations to a county official, alsoin casenumber 08 MR280.
54. On or about December 18, 2012, counsel for the Administrator wrote to
Respondent to inform Respondent of the additional charges submitted by Clay Campbell and
Judge Stuckert and requesting that Respondent submit a written response tothose charges.
55. By letter dated January 2, 2013, Respondent requested anextension, stating:
Beginning December 17, 2012 and through January 1, 2013, I have been caring
for my very ill sister in Iowa. Upon my return to Chicago, I discovered your
letter...1 therefore respectfully request 30 days to respond...
56. Respondent's statement in his January 2, 2013, letter was false. Respondent has
one sister, who has not seen Respondent in approximately 8 years.
57. By letter dated February 1, 2013, Respondent submitted a written response to the
charges ofJudge Stuckert and Clay Campbell. In his response, Respondent stated:
During the months leading up to trial [in September 2011], I was going through
an extremely stressful time with an illness in my family. I was torn between my
duties and responsibilities in the office and in my personal situation.. .1 simply did
14
not get the notice filed in a timely fashion in the days that followed, most of
which I was absent from the Office dealing with things as best I could.
58. Respondent's statement about an illness in his family as set forth in his February
1, 2013, response was false. Respondent was not dealing with an illness in his family.
59. On December 3, 2012, DeKalb County State's Attorney Clay Campbell was
replaced by Richard Schmack.
60. On April 1, 2013, Schmack filed a request for investigation with the ARDC
regarding Respondent's conduct with respect to the Anderson eminent domain matter, set forth
in count I, above. The Administrator opened investigation number 2013IN01823 as a result.
61. On May 15, 2013, counsel for the Administrator sent a letter to Respondent
requesting that Respondent respond in writing to Schmack's charge.
62. On May 28, 2013, Respondent sent a letter to counsel for the Administrator. In
his letter, Respondent requested anextension of timeto respond, stating:
I have attempted to schedule to meet withmy counsel but due to his schedule and
Memorial Day plans and my taking care of an ill sister, I have not yet had the
opportunity to meet withhimto discuss the matter andresponse thereto.
63. Respondent did not provide a name of counsel with whom he purported he was
consulting. Respondent's statement that he was caring for an ill sister was false, and Respondent
knew it was false as Respondent has only one sister whom he has not seen since approximately
2005.
64. On June 28, 2013, Respondent submitted a written response to the charge of
Schmack.
65. On July 22, 2013, counsel for the Administrator sent a letter and subpoena to
Respondent at his registered business address compelling his appearance at Chicago Commission
offices on September 11, 2013. The letter and subpoena were returned as unclaimed and on
15
August 20, 2013, a second letter and subpoena were mailed to Respondent at his registeredhome
address.
66. By letter dated September 6, 2013, Respondent stated as follows:
On August 10, 2013, I traveled with my daughter to help her move back to
college for her senior year. I became seriously ill while there andwas admitted to
University Hospitals in Iowa City, where I underwent emergency stomach/colon
surgery and was diagnosed with advanced stage cancer. I was released from the
hospital on September 5, but I am too weak to travel backto Chicago and must
undergo follow-up exams and chemotherapy for the next 30 to 60 days. My son
and daughter are helping meto get to mysister's home where I will be staying for
the time being under their loving care and watchful eye.
Respondent provided anaddress for his sister inthe letter, but did not provide a telephone
number, nor did Respondent provide any document, name of a doctor, or any other means to
verify his purported illness.
67. Respondent's statement in his September 6, 2013, letter regarding residing with
his sister was false and Respondent knew it was false. The address provided by Respondent was
a former address for his sister and Respondent has not seen his only sister since approximately
2005.
68. 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 by committing the
crime of forgery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/17-3 in violation of
Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. making a statement of material fact known by the lawyer to be
false, in connection with a lawyer disciplinary matter, in violation
ofRule 8.1(a) ofthe Illinois Rules ofProfessional Conduct (2010);
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation, in
violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010);
16
d. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010); and
WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of
the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the 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
Wendy J. Muchman
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite, 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 565-2600
MAINLIB #479585 vl
17
U\fJX^
Exhibit 2
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
JOHN EDWARD FARRELL,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 775231.
ORDER
Apre-hearing conference was held in this matter on March 26, 2014, at 9:45 a.m. by
telephone. Participating were William E. Hornsby, Jr., Chair and Wendy J. Muchman, Counsel
for the Administrator. The Clerk ofthe Commission attempted to contact Respondent, but was
unsuccessful and Respondent did not participate. Counsel for the Administrator advised the
Chair as to thestatus of the matter. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Administrator's Motion to Deem the Allegations of the Complaint Admitted
Pursuant to Commission Rule 236 and Bar Respondent from Presenting Witnesses at Hearing
Pursuant to Commission Rule 253 is entered andcontinued;
2. Ahearing in this matter is scheduled for May 6, 2014, commencing at 9:30 a.m. at the
Chicago offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, located at One
Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 800; and
3. Each party shall appear at the hearing with 5(five) copies of all documentary exhibits
prepared in conformance with Commission Rule 276.
PILED
MAR I 62014
AnYREO&DJSCCOMM
CHICAGO
Commission No. 2013PR00121
CERTIFICATION
I, Kenneth G. Jablonski, Clerk of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
of the Supreme Court of Illinois and keeper of the records, herebycertifies that the foregoing is a
true copy of the order, approved by the Hearing Board Chair, enteredin the above entitled cause
of record filed in my office on March 26, 2014.
Kenneth G. Jabldhski, Clerk of the
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois
MAINLIB #500721 vl
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Andrea L. Watson, on oath state that I served a copy of this Order on the Attorney-
Respondent listed at the addresses shown below by regular mail by depositing it with proper
postage prepaid, by causing the same to be deposited in the U.S. Mailbox at One Prudential
Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601 on March 26, 2014, at or before 5:00
p.m. At the same time, a copyof this Order was delivered to Counsel for the Administrator.
John Edward Farrell
Attorney-Respondent
Law Office of John Farrell
1439 S. Prospect
Park Ridge, IL 60068-5346
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 26th day of March, 2014.
Notary Public
OFFICIAL SEAL"
MICHELLETHOME

i,jssrsE&i
John Edward Farrell
Attorney-Respondent
6458 N. Northwest Highway
Chicago, IL 60631-1412
Andrea L. Watson
Exhibit 3
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
M I Ln Cm &Jr
JAN 2 3 2014
In the Matter of:
ATTY REG &DISC COMM
CHICAGO
JOHN EDWARD FARRELL,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 6194460.
ADMINISTRATOR'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 214(b)
I, Denise N. Manolis, state under oath that I personally mailed copies of the Complaint,
Notice of Complaint, Order Assigning the Chairperson of the Hearing Panel, Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois, a letter pursuant to Commission Rule 260 and a Memorandum
Regarding Pre-Hearing Conference Procedures by ordinary mail, postage fully prepaid, and
certified mail, postage fully prepaid and return receipt requested, directed to Respondent, John
Edward Farrell, at his address shown on the Master Roll, 1439 South Prospect, Park Ridge, IL
60068-5346 and 6458 N. Northwest Highway, Apt. 3, Chicago, IL 60631-1412, by causing the
same to be deposited in the United States mailbox located at 130 East Randolph,^Chicago,
Illinois, on January 22, 2014, at or before 5:00 p.mT
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 23rd day of January, 2014.
C/rfdnA /T /r^
OTARY PUBLIC

OFFICIAL SEAL" *
* JOHN R.KELLY
;; Notary Public. SWeof lUJnote^
mssssssassBxat
Commission No. 2013PR00121
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD _ f- f-\
OF THE F I L C U
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION B
AND JAN 2 32014
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION d
i ti. f ^ ATTY REG &DISC COMM
In the matter of: ) " CHICAGO
John Edward Farrell,
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 775231.
Commission No. 2013PR00121
AMMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANT CHERYL BAUER
PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 214(b)
I, CHERYL BAUER ("Affiant"), being first duly sworn, hereby state:
1. Affiant possesses firsthand knowledge of the facts presented in this affidavit and,
if calledas a witness, Affiant will testify to the truth of the facts as presented in this Affidavit.
2. Affiant is an Investigative Assistant for the Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois ('"the Commission") and, as such, is
authorized to make personal service of process pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 765(a) and
Commission Rule 215(1).
3. As set forth below, despite Affiant's good faith efforts and repeated attempts to
personally serve John Edward Farrell ("Respondent") with documents related to this matter,
service remains unsuccessful.
Affiant's Attempts to Serve Respondent with the Complaint.
4. OnOctober 23, 2013, Affiant wasrequested to personally serve Respondent with
a Copy of Complaint 2013 PR 121, Notice ofComplaint, Order Assigning Chairperson of the
Hearing Panel, Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Memorandum regarding Pre-hearing
Conference Procedures, and a letter pursuant to Commission Rule 260 ("Complaint Packet").
MAINJ.IH_#4'Jl(i4.V_vl
5. On October 23, 2013, Affiant confirmed on the Commission's Master Roll
the Respondent had last registered withthe Commission in the year 2013.
6. On October 23, 2013, Affiant checked the Commission's Master Roll and located
the Respondent's last known business address at 1439 S. Prospect Ave. Park Ridge, Illinois
60068.
7. On October 29, 2013, Affiant ran an Accurint report and located another possible
address for Respondent at 6458 N. Northwest Highway Apt. 3., Chicago, Illinois 60631.
8. On October 29, 2013, at or around 4:45pm, Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect
Ave. in Park Ridge, Illinois, the Respondent's last registered business address. 1439 S. Prospect
Ave is a single-family home residence. Affiant rang the doorbell and knocked numerous times,
but there was no answer. Affiant left a business card in the front door and left the premises.
9. On October 29, 2013, at or around 5:15pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest
Highway in Chicago, Illinois. 6458 N. Northwest Highway is a condo complex. Affiant was able
to get inthe initial front door; however there is a second door and buzzer box inorder to be let in
to the condos. The buzzer box was on the left hand side and mailboxes for residences were on
the right. The Respondent's name was on the buzzer box as well as a mailbox. Affiant buzzed
Respondent's name numerous times, but there was no answer. Affiant left a business card by the
Respondent's mailbox and left the premises.
10. On November 1, 2013, after not hearing from Respondent, at or around 1:20pm,
Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant's card was still in the
door from the previous attempt. Affiant knocked and rang the doorbell multiple times, but there
was no answer. Affiant left another business card in the front door and left the premises.
11. On November 1, 2013, at or around 1:35pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest
Highway in Chicago, Illinois. After ringing the Respondent's buzzer box without a response,
MA1NI.IH #4';iMVvl
Affiant knocked on the main door. A neighbor answered the door and recalled the Respondent's
name, but stated that he was not home if he did not answer. The neighbor gave the Affiant a
better time to reach the Respondent. Affiant noticed that the first business card left was gone
from the mailbox, so Affiant left another one and left the premises.
12. On November 4, 2013, after not hearing from Respondent, at or around 7:20pm,
Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant noticed the cards from
the previous two attempts were gone. After numerous times of ringing the doorbell and knocking
without an answer, Affiant left another business card in the front door and left the premises.
13. On November 4, 2013, Affiant spoke with a neighbor at 1435 S. Prospect Ave in
Park Ridge, Illinois. The neighbor did not recall the Respondent living at that address; he never
saw Respondent there, only a woman and children.
14. On November 4, 2013, at or around 7:45pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest
Highway in Chicago, Illinois. Affiant rang the bell in relation to Respondent, however there was
no answer. Affiant then rang a different bell and a gentleman came out. When asked about
Respondent, the neighbor said he did not know of an individual by that name living at the
complex. Affiant left another business card for Respondent by the mailbox and left the premises.
15. On November 5, 2013, Affiant checked the Commission's Master Roll for the
Respondent's last known business phone number. Affiant called Respondent at 847-692-3703.
The phone number was disconnected.
16. On November 5, 2013, Affiant located the Respondent's last known home phone
number according to Law Manager at 773-304-8070. That number was disconnected.
17. On November 5, 2013, Affiant called the number associated with the address at
6458 N. Northwest Highway from the Accurint report and left a voicemail.
MAINI.IB_#4yi643_vl
18. On November 5, 2013, through prior knowledge obtained during the ARDC
investigation, Affiant confirmed the phone number 815-985-7164 listed for Respondent was for
the State's Attorney's Office. Affiant confirmed the Respondent has not been at that location for
over a year.
19. On November 6, 2013, after not hearing from Respondent, at or around 7:30am,
Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant again noticed that the
cards from the previous attempts were gone. After no answer at the door, Affiant left another
business card in the door and left the premises.
20. On November 6, 2013, at or around 7:50am, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest
Highway in Chicago, Illinois. Affiant's card was gone from the previous attempt. Affiant left
another business card by the mailbox after no response at the door. Affiant noticed a realty sign
outside the door and noted the information before leaving the premises.
21. On November 6, 2013, Affiant called the realtor, Mark Davey at 773-412-5386 in
relation to the 6458 N. Northwest Highway property and left a voicemail.
22. On November 7, 2013, after not hearing back from Mr. Davey, Affiant emailed
him at mdavey(a)Rubloff.com requesting he contact Affiant.
23. On November 12, 2013, Affiant had received a voicemail from Mr. Davey.
Affiant called Mr. Davey back and asked about Respondent. Mr. Davey said he never dealt with
the Respondent.
24. On November 14, 2013, Affiant accessed the Cook County Treasure's website
and obtained the property identification number for Respondent. According to the website, the
address of 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge Illinois is still registered tothe Respondent.
25. On November 14, 2013, Affiant received instruction from Wendy Muchman, the
attorney assigned tothis matter, toattempt service one more time.
MAINI.IB_#4'J164S_vl
26. On November 15, 2013, at or around 6:35am, Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect
Ave in Park Ridge, Illinois. Again, there was no answer at the door. Affiant spoke with a
neighbor across the street at 1501 Granville about Respondent. The neighbor recalled the last
name, but not for the Respondent. The neighbor stated only knowing the last name for a woman
and children. Affiant left another business card and left the premises.
27. On November 15, 2013 Affiant requested an attorney case listing for the
Respondent.
28. On November 15, 2013, Affiant confirmed with registration that the Respondent
had most recently changed his address on the Master Roll of attorneys to 1439 S. Prospect Ave
Park Ridge Illinois on August 8, 2013.
29. On November 18, 2013, Affiant received an email stating that there was no
attorney case listing available for Respondent.
30. On November 19, 2013 Affiant confirmed on the Cook County Treasure's
website that the residence at 1439 S. Prospect Ave in Park Ridge Illinois is listed under the
Respondent's name and thetaxes were paid onFebruary 16, 2013 and July 16, 2013.
31. As of present, Affiant has not received any communication from Respondent.
Affiant's Service of the Complaint Pursuant to Commission Rule 214(b).
32. As set forth above, upon due inquiry, Respondent cannot be located, and to
Affiant's best information and belief, Respondent has concealed himselfwithin the state so that
process cannot be servedupon him.
33. In the original affidavit, it was represented that Affiant provided Respondent with
proper service ofthe complaint packet in the above-referenced matter, which requires mailing
the complaint to Respondent at his last known address on the Master Roll.
34. On January 15, 2014, it was determined that by mistake, the complaint had not
MAINI.IB #49K>4.VvI
been mailed to Respondent.
35. As a result of the failure to mail the complaint to Respondent, John R. Kelly,
Senior Investigator, requested Affiant make several additional attempts at personal service of
Respondent.
36. Accordingly, on January 15, 2014 at or around 4:00pm, Affiant arrived at 1439 S.
Prospect Avenue in Park Ridge, Illinois to attempt proper service upon Respondent. There was
no answer at the door; Affiant left her business card and left the premises.
37. On January 15, 2014 at or around 4:20pm, Affiant arrived at 6458 N. Northwest
Highway in Chicago, Illinois. Affiant noticed that Respondent's name was still on the buzzer
box; however it was no longer on the mailbox. Affiant rang the bell in correlation to
Respondent's name and a gentleman came out. Affiant asked about Respondent and the
gentleman said that unit is currently empty and no one lives there. Affiant thanked him for his
time and left the premises.
38. On January 16, 2014 at or around 7:45am, Affiant arrived at 1439 S. Prospect
Avenue in Park Ridge, Illinois. Affiant noticed that her card from the previous day was still in
the door and the mail had not yet been checked. After ten minutes, Affiant left another business
card and left the premises.
39. As of present, Affiant has not received any communication from Respondent.
40. As of the date of filing thisaffidavit, a copy of the complaint is being mailed to
Respondent to the address on the Master Roll of 1439 S. Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, Illinois
60068 as well as 6458 N. Northwest Highway Apt. 3., Chicago, Illinois 60631.
41. Further Affiant sayeth not.
MAINUH_#4!>H>43_v1
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 23rd day ofJanuary, 2014.
'tfUs P
NOTARY PUBLIC
\ -OFFICIAL SEAL" \
I JOHN R.KELLY
X Nor^fnWic.StateoflUinois
M y Commisston ExpiresJJgJgDlo^
MAINl.IB_#491fi43_vl
Cheryl Bauer
Investigative Assistant