BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
THOMAS E. MARGOLIS
Commission No. 2014PR00031
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 6217217.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Respondent, THOMAS E. MARGOLIS, by his attorney, William F. Moran, III, states as
follows for his answer to the Complaint filed against him in the above-referenced cause by the
Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, JEROME LARKIN:
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
1.
Respondent was licensed to practice law in the State ofIllinois on November 4,1993.
Respondent has also been admitted to the practice of law in the State of Missouri in 2010 and the
State of Kentucky in 2012. In 1996, Respondent was admitted to practice before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Respondent was admitted and is registered in all
of these jurisdictions under his current name.
2.
Respondent holds no other professional license or certificate.
COUNT I
(False Statements to Opposing Counsel and Workers' Compensation Arbitrator)
1.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 1 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
2.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 2 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
3.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
4.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 4 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
5.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 5 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
6.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 6 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
7.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
8.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 8 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
9.
Respondent denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 9 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint. Answering further, Respondent would state that he actually appeared
before Arbitrator Gallagher at the Herrin docket call to try the Ronald Clark case on Wednesday,
March 13, 2013. Further, the Springfield docket call ended on Tuesday, March 12, 2013, so there
were no hearings scheduled in Springfield on March 13,2013. As a result, Respondent could have
tried the Wise case in Herrin on March 13, 2013, and does not believe he would have represented
otherwise to Mr. Giacone.
10.
Respondent denies that he represented to Mr. Giacone that he was scheduled to
appearbeforethe Illinois Workers' CompensationCommission in Springfield, Illinois on March 13,
2013,as alleged in the first sentence of Paragraph 10 of Count I of the Administrator's Complaint,
so he denies that he made a false statement to Mr. Giacone in this regard. Respondent admits the
factual allegations as set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 10 of Count I.
11.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 11 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
12.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 12 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
13.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 13 of Count I of the
Administrator's Complaint.
14.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Subsection (a) of Paragraph 14 of
Count I of the Administrator's Complaint, as it relates to his statements to Mr. Giacone and
Arbitrator Gallagher related to being in Caruthersville, Missouri on March 12, 2013. Respondent
denies the remaining allegation as set forth in Subjection (a) of Paragraph 14. Respondent admits
the allegation that is set forth in Subsection (b) of Paragraph 14.
COUNT II
(Unauthorized Payments and Lack of Communication in
Workers' Compensation Case-Brickeen)
15.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 15 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
16.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
17.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 17 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
18.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 18 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
19.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 19 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
20.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 20 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
21.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 21 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
22.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 22 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
23.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 23 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
24.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 24 of Count II of the
Administrator's Complaint.
25.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Subsections (a) through (e) of
Paragraph 25 of Count II ofthe Administrator's Complaint. Answering further, Respondent would
state that his client was in no manner prejudiced by his conduct.
COUNT III
(Unauthorized Payment in
Workers' Compensation Case-Mouser)
26.
Respondent restates his answer to Paragraph 15 of Count II above.
27.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 27 of Count III of the
Administrator's Complaint.
28.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 28 of Count III of the
Administrator's Complaint.
29.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 29 of Count III of the
Administrator's Complaint.
30.
Respondent admits the allegation as set forth in Paragraph 30 of Count III of the
Administrator's Complaint.
31.
Respondent admits the allegations as set forth in Subsections (a) through (e) of
Paragraph 31 ofCount III ofthe Administrator's Complaint. Answering further, Respondent would
state that his client was in no manner prejudiced by his conduct.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, THOMAS E. MARGOLIS, would request that this matter be
set for hearing, that the members ofthe Hearing Panel assigned to this matter consider the evidence
and argument presented by the parties, make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with
the evidence presented, and make a recommendation for discipline to the Supreme Court that is
consistent with the purposes of an attorney disciplinary proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS E. MARGOLIS, Respondent
By:_
His attorney
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:
William F. Moran III (#06191183)
STRATTON, GIGANTI, STONE, M0RAN & RADKEY
725 South Fourth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
Telephone: 217/528-2183
Facsimile: 217/528-1874
Email: [email protected]