BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
u
OF THE
8 l*. taz \^j
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
AMY REG & DISC COMM
CHICAGO
In the matter of:
TINA MARIE JACOBS,
Commission No.
2013 PR 00064
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 6190255
RESPONDENT TINA MARIE JACOBS' ANSWER
Tina Marie Jacobs, by her attorneys, Breen & Pugh, in Answer to
the Administrator's Complaint states as follows:
1.
In January 2012, Respondent agreed to represent Heartland
Bank in connection with two loans it had made in 2007 to Herbert O.
McDowell, III and Julie McDowell. The loans were secured by two
residential properties the McDowells owned that were located in Illinois
and Michigan, and were guaranteed by United Financial Group, Ltd.
and Creative Consultants, Ltd., both of which were Illinois business
entities owned or operated by the McDowells.
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of the first sentence
of Paragraph 1. Respondent states that she agreed to represent
Heartland Bank in connection with two loans it had made to Herbert O.
McDowell, III and Julie McDowell in 2003 and 2007. Respondent admits
the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 1.
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
SUITE 1460
CHICAGO, IL60604
PHONE: (312) 360-1001
FAX: (312) 362-9907
2.
On January 18, 2012, Respondent caused several letters to
be sent to the McDowells, and to United Financial Group and Creative
Consultants, concerning the debt to Heartland Bank. She caused copies
of each letter to be sent by regular and certified mail. In the January 18,
2012 letters, Respondent notified the McDowells of the amounts due
under their loans, and of the fact that Heartland had accelerated the
debt.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 2.
3.
As of January 18, 2012, as Respondent knew, the Illinois code
of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/5-1502.5(c), provided, inter alia, as follows:
[l]f a mortgage secured by residential real estate
becomes delinquent by more than 30 days the
mortgagee shall send via U.S. mail a notice advising the
mortgagor that he or she may wish to seek approved
housing counseling. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in this Section, nothing shall preclude the
mortgagor and mortgagee from communicating with
each other during the initial 30 days of delinquency or
reaching agreement on a sustainable loan workout
plan, or both.
No foreclosure under Part 15 of Article XV of the Code of
Civil Procedure shall be instituted on a mortgage
secured by residential real estate before mailing the
notice described in subsection (c).
The notice required in this subsection (c) shall state the
date on which the notice was mailed, shall be headed
in bold 14-point type "GRACE PERIOD NOTICE", and shall
state the following in 14-point type: "YOUR LOAN IS
MORE THAN 30 DAYS PAST DUE. YOU MAY BE
EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. IT MAY BE IN YOUR
BEST INTEREST TO SEEK APPROVED HOUSING
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
SUITE 1460
COUNSELING. YOU HAVE A GRACE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO OBTAIN APPROVED
HOUSING COUNSELING. DURING THE GRACE PERIOD,
THE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM TAKING ANY LEGAL ACTION
AGAINST YOU. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL
30 DAY GRACE PERIOD IF YOU OBTAIN HOUSING
COUNSELING FROM AN APPROVED COUNSELING
ANGENCY. A LIST OF APPROVED COUNSELING
AGENCIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION."
CHICAGO, IL60604
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 3.
PHONE: (312) 360-1001
FAX: (312) 362-9907
2
4.
Because Heartland Bank's loans to the McDowells were
secured by residential real estate, 735 ILCS 5/5-1502.5 required
Respondent to send the McDowells the "grace period notice" referred
to in paragraph three, above, prior to filing any foreclosure action
against the McDowells on behalf of Heartland Bank.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 4.
Respondent did not include the "grace period notice" in
5.
any of the letters she sent to the McDowells, or to United Financial Group
or Creative Consultants, on January 18, 2012, or at any other time prior to
filing a foreclosure action against the McDowells on behalf of Heartland
Bank.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 5.
Respondent further states that at all relevant times she believed that she
included the "grace period notice", where appropriate, in the letters
sent to the McDowells.
6.
On February 16, 2012, Herbert O. McDowell, III wrote
Respondent a letter in which he acknowledged receiving at least one
copy of her January 18, 2012 letter, and he demanded that she produce
to him information regarding the debt and the loan history. McDowell
also notified Respondent that he had retained attorney David P.
Leibowitz to represent him in connection with the matter. Respondent
produced the requested information to Leibowitz shortly thereafter.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 6.
7.
On March 6, 2012, Respondent filed a foreclosure action
against the McDowells on behalf of Heartland Bank. The matter was
received and docketed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
as Heartland Bank & Trust Company v. McDowell, et a/., no. 12 CH 8214.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 7.
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
SUITE 1460
CHICAGO, IL60604
8.
Answer to the complaint in case number 12 CH 8214. In their first
affirmative defense to the complaint, the McDowells claimed that they
had not received the "grace period notice" as required by 735 ILCS 5/51502.5(c).
PHONE: (312) 36O-IO0I
FAX: (312) 362-9907
On June 6, 2012, the McDowells, through Leibowitz, filed an
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8.
9.
Shortly thereafter, Respondent reviewed her file in
connection with case number 12 CH 8214, and was unable to locate a
copy of any letter she caused to be sent to the McDowells that included
the "grace period notice." Respondent also reviewed documents on a
computer server maintained by her firm, Jacobs & Pinta, and she was
unable to locate any documents maintained on that server that
contained the text of any letter she caused to be sent to the McDowells
including the "grace period notice."
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 9.
Respondent further states that in January 2012, Respondent was in the
midst of preparing to move offices and starting a new firm (Jacobs &
Pinta). The dissolution of her thirteen (13) year partnership with the law
firm of Jones & Jacobs was both emotional and abrupt. During January
2012, Respondent's new firm was operating separate and apart from her
previous partner, but still sharing office space due to a delay in the
availability of the new offices. Heartland Bank was a carryover client
from Jones & Jacobs.
10.
On or about August 28, 2012, Respondent caused a
document to be created that purported to be a letter to the McDowells
dated January 18, 2012 and containing the "grace period notice."
Respondent wrote the letter in longhand, and gave it to her then-
secretary, Valerie Schubert, to type and print. Respondent revised the
document at least twice, until Schubert created a final version that
Respondent approved.
ANSWER: On information and belief, Respondent admits the
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
allegations of Paragraph 10. Respondent further states that at all
SUITE 1460
CHICAGO, IL60604
PHONE: (312) 360-1001
FAX: (312) 362-9907
relevant times she believed she had sent the "grace period notice" to
the McDowells and was reconstructing a true and correct copy of that
notice.
11.
Respondent knew that the document referred to in
paragraph 10, above, was not a genuine copy of a letter she caused to
be sent to the McDowells.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 11.
Respondent further states that she believed that the letter was an
accurate reconstruction of a letter previously sent.
12.
On September 5, 2012, Respondent filed a motion to strike
the McDowells' Answer and affirmative defenses in case number 12 CH
8214. Respondent attached the purported "grace period notice" letter
referred to in paragraph 10, above, to the motion. Further, in an affidavit
she also attached to the motion, Respondent claimed, falsely, that the
purported "grace period notice" letter referred to in paragraph 10,
above was a true and correct copy of a letter that she sent to the
McDowells on January 18, 2012. As Respondent knew, that statement
was false.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of the first two
sentences of Paragraph 12. Respondent denies the second two
sentences of Paragraph 12 inasmuch as those sentences state that
Respondent knew she was making false statements. Respondent admits,
however, that she attached an affidavit wherein she claimed that the
purported "grace period notice" letter was a true and correct copy of a
letter that she sent to the McDowells on January 18, 2012. While this
statement is indeed incorrect, Respondent believed that the attached
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
letter was a true and correct reconstruction of the "grace period
SUITE 1460
CHICAGO, IL60604
PHONE: (312) 36O-IO0I
FAX: (312) 362-9907
notification" letter Respondent believed was sent to the McDowells.
13.
Thereafter, the parties in case number 12 CH 8214 entered
into a briefing schedule regarding the motion to strike. The McDowells
did not file a response to the motion. The court in case number 12 CH
8214 then set Respondent's motion to strike for hearing on February 6,
2013.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 13.
14.
On or about December 20, 2012, Schubert submitted to the
Administrator a request to investigate Respondent in relation to the
conduct described in paragraphs one through 12, above. In the
request, Schubert stated that Respondent had directed her to create
the purported "grace period notice" letter referred to in paragraph 10,
above. The Administrator received Schubert's request on December 20,
2012, and docketed investigation number 2012IN06216 in relation to it.
ANSWER: On information and belief, Respondent admits the
allegations of Paragraph 14.
15.
On January 28, 2013, the Administrator sent Respondent a
letter requesting her response to the matters set forth in Schubert's
request for investigation. Shortly thereafter, Respondent again reviewed
her file in connection with case number 12 CH 8214, and she determined
to withdraw her motion to strike the McDowells' Answer and affirmative
defenses in light of Schubert's report to the Administrator that
Respondent had instructed Schubert to create the purported "grace
period notice" referred to in paragraph 10, above.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the first sentence of Paragraph 15.
Respondent denies the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph
15 inasmuch as that sentence states that Schubert's report was the sole
reason for withdrawing her motion to strike the McDowells' Answer and
affirmative defenses. Respondent states that Schubert's report caused
BREEN ♦ PUGH
her to conduct an independent investigation, which led to Respondent's
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
SUITE 1460
conclusion that the "grace period notification" letter was never sent and
CHICAGO, IL60604
that her motion to strike should be withdrawn.
PHONE: (312) 360-1001
FAX: (312) 362-9907
6
16.
Respondent appeared before the Hon. Jean Prendergast
Rooney at the February 6, 2013 hearing in case number 12 CH 8214, but
neither Leibowitz nor the McDowells appeared. Respondent informed
Judge Rooney that she was withdrawing her motion to strike the
McDowells' Answer and affirmative defenses. Judge Rooney then asked
Respondent if she anticipated that the matter would be settled, and
Respondent replied in the affirmative. Judge Rooney did not ask, and
Respondent did not state, the reason why Respondent was withdrawing
the motion.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 16.
17.
After the February 6, 2013 hearing date, case number 12 CH
8214 remained pending, but no further hearing dates were set.
Respondent and Liebowitz then participated in negotiating a settlement
of the parties' claims in the case, and the parties formally agreed to
settle the matter in or about April 2013.
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 17.
18.
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has
engaged in the following misconduct:
a.
making 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.
offering evidence that the lawyer knows to
be false, in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010);
c.
falsifying evidence, in violation of Rule 3.4(b)
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);
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
e.
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
SUITE 1460
CHICAGO, IL60604
conduct which tends to bring the courts
f.
and the legal profession into disrepute.
PHONE: (312) 360-1001
FAX: (312) 362-9907
7
ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph
18 as these are legal conclusions rather than averments of facts.
RESPONDENT'S PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Commission Rule 231, Respondent states that she has
been admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois since November 7,
1985, and before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois since November 13, 1986. She has no other professional licenses
or certificates.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Tina Marie Jacobs, respectfully requests
that this matter be dismissed, or, alternatively, that it proceed pursuant to
the applicable rules of the Supreme Court and the Attorney Registration
and Disciplinary Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
BREEN ♦ PUGH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
SUITE 1460
CHICAGO, IL60604
PHONE: (312) 360-1001
FAX: (312) 362-9907
8