BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
PETER LAWRENCE CURRIE,
Commission No. 2013PR00062
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 6281711.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Respondent, Peter Lawrence Currie, by his attorneys, Mary Robinson and James A.
Doppke, Jr., in response to the Complaint filed by the Administrator, answers as follows:
COUNT I
(2012 criminal conviction - battery)
1.
On November 29, 2011, Respondent consumed some beer and at least 6
alcoholic beverages at Salerno's restaurant and McNally's Pub before proceeding to the
Filling Station Pub and Grill, hereinafter the "Pub," located in St. Charles, Illinois.
ANSWER:
2.
Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 of Count I.
Respondent, with Jason Nord and Matthew Dickens, ordered and received
alcoholic beverages at the Pub. After received his alcoholic beverage, Respondent sat at the
bar and vomited into the glass containing the beverage. Respondent left his seat at the bar
and after removing his outer clothing, returned to his seat at the bar.
ANSWER:
Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent denies that he
"vomited" into the glass. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he
L1
AMG - 8 2013
ATTV REG & DISC COMM
CHICAGO
swallowed down the "wrong pipe" and coughed. Respondent admits the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 2 of Count I.
3.
As Respondent was about to leave the Pub, Mr. Nord had a physical fight with
the bartender, Brett Willing. Respondent intervened in the fight by punching Mr. Willing
about the body and placing him in a chokehold. Respondent, Mr. Nord and Mr. Willing
continued fighting for a short time until Respondent extricated himself. Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Nord and Mr. Willing stopped fighting and separated. As Mr. Willing was lying on the
floor of the Pub, Respondent approached Mr. Willing and kicked twice at the bartender's
head and chest area. Mr. Willing sustained injury to his head and body.
ANSWER:
Admitted in part and denied in part Respondent denies that he
punched Mr. Willing; denies that he put Mr. Willing into a "choke hold;" and denies
that he made physical contact with Mr. Willing when he kicked at him or that Mr.
Willing sustained any injury as a result of Respondent's kicking. Further answering,
Respondent affirmatively states that he pulled at Mr. Willing's legs in an effort to get
him off Mr. Nord, whom Mr. Willing was choking violently with both hands. Further
answering. Respondent affirmatively states that he also attempted to lift Mr. Willing
off Mr. Nord by placing one arm under his armpit and another around his neck.
Respondent admits the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of Count I.
4.
Respondent and Mr. Nord left the Pub and went to the nearby Magoo's Bar, in
St. Charles, Illinois. Police arrived, entered Magoo's bar and arrested Mr. Nord for the
aggravated battery of Mr. Willing but were unable to locate Respondent as he had fled via
the back door.
ANSWER:
Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent denies that he
"fled via the back door" of Magoo's Bar. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively
states that he was sitting next to Mr. Nord when Mr. Nord was arrested at Magoo's
Bar. Respondent admits the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 of Count I.
5.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in
Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12.3.05[a)(5), which provided that a person committed the offense of
aggravated battery when he committed a battery, other than by the discharge of a firearm,
and knowingly strangled another individual.
ANSWER:
6.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of Count I.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in
Illinois, Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 720 ILCS 5/12.3.05(c), which provided that a
person committed the offense of aggravated battery when he committed a battery, other
than by the discharge of a firearm, on or about a public way or public place of
accommodation.
ANSWER:
7.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Count I.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in
Illinois, Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 720 ILCS 5/12-3 which provided that a person
committed the offense of battery when he knowingly and without legal justification caused
bodily harm or made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature to an individual.
ANSWER:
8.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Count I.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in
Illinois, Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 720 ILCS 5/25-l(a)(l), which provided that a
3
person committed the offense of mob action when he engaged in the knowing or reckless
use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons who acted
together and without authority of law.
ANSWER:
9.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Count I.
On December 2, 2011, a warrant issued for Respondent's arrest under docket
number 2011CF00002682, People of the State of Illinois v. Peter Currie for the offenses of
Aggravated Battery (Strangulation) to Brett Willing in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12.3.05
(a)(5), Aggravated Battery (Public way) to Brett Willing in violation of 720 ILCS 5/123.05(c) and Mob Action by use offeree or violence disturbing the peace in violation of 720
ILCS 5/25-l(a)(l).
ANSWER:
10.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Count I.
On December 5, 2011, after Respondent learned that a warrant had issued,
he surrendered to the St. Charles police where he was arrested and charged with
Aggravated Battery and Mob Action as referenced above in paragraph nine.
ANSWER:
11.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Count I.
On January 17, 2012, a Grand Jury for the Circuit Court of Kane County,
Illinois returned a four-count felony indictment against Respondent charging that
Respondent committed the felony offenses of Aggravated Battery (Strangulation) to Brett
Willing in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12.3.05 (a)(5), two counts of Aggravated Battery (Public
way) in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) and Mob Action by use of force or violence
disturbing the peace in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-l(a)(l) in the matter of People of the
State ofIllinois vs. Peter Currie, 11 CF 2682.
4
ANSWER:
12.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Count I.
On May 24, 2012, Respondent pled guilty to the amended misdemeanor
charge of Battery, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3 (a)(1) in People of the State ofIllinois vs.
Peter Currie, 11 CF 2682. Respondent was sentenced to 18 months of conditional discharge,
ordered to complete 50 hours of community service, pay fines and costs in the amount of
$2,840 and obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation.
ANSWER:
13.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Count I.
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a.
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct (2010), by committing the
criminal offense of battery in violation of 720 ILCS
5/12-3 (a)(1);
b.
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
c.
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of
justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in Paragraph 13 of
Count I.
COUNT II
(2006 Criminal Convictions - DUI and Possession ofCannabis Paraphernalia)
1.
On June 8th, 2006, Respondent was operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated on Washington Street in Naperville, Illinois. At approximately 2:01 a.m.,
Naperville Officer Reed performed a traffic stop of Respondent's vehicle after observing
multiple traffic violations including speeding and improper land [sic] usage.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Count II.
Further answering, Respondent admits that he was stopped by the police for
allegedly engaging in improper lane usage.
2.
While questioning Respondent, Officer Reed detected a strong odor of
alcohol from Respondent's breath. Respondent admitted to drinking alcohol. Respondent
failed field sobriety tests and a portable breathalyzer test revealed a .105 blood alcohol
level. The officer also recovered from Respondent's vehicle a small amount of cannabis
contained within a small wooden box.
ANSWER:
3.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Count II.
Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI), in violation of 625 ILCS 5/ll-501(a)(2), the traffic violations of improper
lane use, speeding and operating an uninsured vehicle and the violations of Naperville
municipal ordinance for possession of cannabis in violation of 10-2-3-1 and possession of
cannabis paraphernalia in violation of 10-2-3-1-2. City of Naperville v. Peter Currie, 06 DT
2652.
ANSWER:
4.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Count II.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a vehicle code
statute in Illinois, Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 625 ILCS 5/ll-501(a)(2) which
provided that a person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within
this State while under the influence of alcohol.
ANSWER:
5.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Count II.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a municipal code in
Naperville, Illinois, 10-2-3-1-2 which provided that it was unlawful for any person
knowingly to possess cannabis paraphernalia for the use thereof.
ANSWER:
6.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of Count II.
On July 18, 2006 Respondent pled guilty to one count of DUI and one count of
possession of cannabis paraphernalia as referenced above in paragraphs four and five,
before Judge Bruce Kelsey in DuPage County Circuit Court.
ANSWER:
7.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Count II.
On July 25, 2006, Respondent appeared before Judge Kelsey for sentencing
on his guilty pleas to DUI and possession of drug paraphernalia in CityofNaperville v. Peter
Currie, 06 DT 2652. Prior to Respondent's sentencing, Judge Kelsey ordered Respondent to
submit to an instanter portable breath test to determine whether the Respondent was
under the influence of alcohol. Respondent's portable breathalyzer test revealed a blood
alcohol level of .012.
ANSWER:
8.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Count II.
On July 25, 2006, Respondent pled guilty to the charges of DUI and
possession of cannabis paraphernalia and was sentenced to one year court supervision
with the conditions that he complete level II counseling, pay $2,550.00 in fines and fees,
attend a victim impact panel and to refrain from violating any criminal statute or
ordinances of any jurisdiction.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Count II.
7
9.
On March 13, 2007, Respondent appeared before Judge Kelsey for a violation
of the conditions of sentencing in the matter of City of Naperville v. Peter Currie, 06 DT
2652. Respondent pled guilty to the violation [and] received an agreed sentence of an
extension of his court supervision for 3 months, attendance at a victim impact panel,
completion of an additional 40 hours of public service employment and completion of level
II counseling as previously ordered.
ANSWER:
10.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Count II.
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a.
committing criminal acts that reflects [sic] adversely on
his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990), by
committing the criminal offenses of DUI in violation of
625 ILCS 5/ll-501(a)(2) and possession of cannabis
paraphernalia in violation of Naperville municipal
ordinance 10-2-3-1-2; and
b.
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of
justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in Paragraph 10 of
Count II.
COUNT III
(2006 Criminal Conduct- Aggravated Assault)
1.
On May 21, 2006 Respondent was at the Park Chalet restaurant, hereinafter
"Chalet", located in San Francisco, California. Respondent began shouting at a band which
played music at the location. When Chalet employees asked Respondent to stop shouting at
8
the band and leave the premise, Respondent began using profanity and threatened the
employees.
ANSWER:
Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent admits that he
was present at the Park Chalet restaurant on May 21, 2006. Respondent denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 of Count III.
2.
Respondent refused to leave the Chalet grounds. Curtis Hefley, a bartender at
Chalet, escorted Respondent from the Chalet premise. Respondent threatened to have Mr.
Hefley killed and when Mr. Hefley turned to walk away, Respondent tackled Mr. Hefley to
the ground. Mr. Hefley sustained injuries to his forehead, head and ribs. Respondent placed
Mr. Hefley in a headlock and began punching Mr. Hefley.
ANSWER:
3.
Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Count II.
Chalet employees, including DeeAnn Chesebro, pulled Respondent from Mr.
Hefley. Respondent continued fighting and struck Ms. Chesebro in the head with his fist.
The employees were able to separate Respondent and Mr. Hefley. Respondent fled the
Chalet premise. Mr. Hefley was in fear of Respondent's threat.
ANSWER:
4.
Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Count III.
San Francisco police officers arrived at the Chalet but were unable to locate
Respondent. The officers left the Chalet grounds but returned shortly thereafter as
Respondent returned to the premise. The officers found Respondent who smelled of
alcohol and had an unsteady gait. Respondent resisted as Officers attempted to arrest and
handcuff Respondent.
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Count III.
9
5.
Respondent was arrested and placed into a police vehicle for transport.
During the transport, Respondent continued to yell and threaten the officers saying "You
two Asian female cops are gonna get it, you fucked with the wrong person!"
ANSWER:
Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent admits that he
was arrested at the Park Chalet restaurant on May 21, 2006, and that he was placed
in a police vehicle on that date. Respondent denies that he yelled at, or threatened,
the San Francisco police officers who arrested him. Respondent denies that he said,
on May 21, 2006, "You two Asian female cops are gonna get it, you fucked with the
wrong person!" Respondent denies that the San Francisco police officers who
arrested him were female. Respondent did not know, on May 21, 2006, whether the
San Francisco police officers who arrested him were of Asian ancestry or heritage,
and as of the date the instant Answer was filed, he has insufficient knowledge to
admit or deny the same. Answering further, Respondent admits that he did say, to
the officers who arrested him on May 21, 2006, "you got the wrong fucking guy,"
because he had not been involved in any violent incident at the Park Chalet
restaurant on May 21, 2006 prior to being arrested. Respondent denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of Count III.
6.
Upon arrival at the police station, Respondent began cursing and refused to
exit the patrol vehicle. As the officer attempted to remove Respondent from the vehicle,
Respondent charged the officer. Respondent fell to the ground and began kicking at the
officer. Officers eventually escorted Respondent to the police station holding cell.
10
ANSWER:
Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent admits that he
was placed in a police station holding cell on May 21, 2006. Respondent denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 of Count III.
7.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in
California, California Penal Code 245, which provided in part that any person who
committed an assault upon the person of another by any means of force likely to produce
great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or
four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding
$10,000.00 or by both the fine and imprisonment. At all times alleged in this complaint,
there was in effect a criminal statute in California, California Penal Code 240, which defined
assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on
the person of another.
ANSWER:
8.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Count III.
At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in
California, California Penal Code 422, which provided in part that any person who willfully
threatened to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another
person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means
of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent
of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is
made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person
threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and
thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or
11
for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county
jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
ANSWER:
9.
Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Count III.
Respondent was released from the custody of the San Francisco police after
Mr. Hefley and Ms. Chesebro withdrew their complaints.
ANSWER:
Admitted in part, denied in part, and neither admitted nor
denied in part. Respondent admits that he was released from the custody of the San
Francisco Police Department on the morning of May 22, 2006. Respondent has
insufficient information to admit or deny the reason for his release, because no one
told him that information. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that
on May 22, 2006, he assumed that he was being released because the police
determined, correctly, that they had arrested the wrong person. Respondent denies
the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of Count III.
10.
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:
a.
committing criminal acts that reflects adversely on his
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct (1990), by committing
the criminal offenses of aggravated assault in violation
of California Penal Code 245 (a) and criminal threat
with intent to terrorize in violation of California Penal
Code 422;and
b.
conduct which tends to defeat the administration of
justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute.
12
ANSWER:
Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in Paragraph 10 of
Count III.
RESPONDENT'S DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231
1.
Respondent is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. Other than that, he has never been admitted to practice law
before any other state court, federal court, or administrative agency.
2.
Respondent has never received any other professional license or certificate.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO COUNT HI
At no time prior to filing the Complaint in this case did the Administrator provide
notice to Respondent that he was referring the matter alleged in Count III to the Inquiry
Board, nor did he otherwise provide Respondent any opportunity to submit information to
the Inquiry Board concerning that matter, as required by Commission Rule 55.
Prior to the adoption of Commission Rule 235, Respondent would have raised this
issue by way of a motion to dismiss Count III, but because that Rule appears to preclude
such a motion, Respondent interposes the Administrator's failure as an affirmative defense.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Lawrence Currie, Respondent
BY:
James A. Doppke, Jr.
James A. Doppke, Jr.
One of his attorneys
RobinsonNiro, LLC
333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 450
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 676-9878
Fax: (312) 726-6045
jim.doppke(5)robinsonniro.net
13