BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
MICHAEL JEROME MOORE,

Commission No. 2015PR00076

Attorney-Respondent,

FILED --- August 26, 2015

No. 6194325.

COMPLAINT
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Peter L.
Apostol, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Michael Jerome Moore, who was
licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November 5, 1986, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in
the following conduct which subjects Respondent to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:
COUNT I
(Changing fee agreement and harassing communications Buchanan)
1. In or about December 2012, Respondent and Leon Buchanan, Jr. ("Buchanan") agreed that Respondent would
represent Buchanans son, Leon Buchanan, III ("Leon"), in matters related to aggravated battery charges pending
against Leon in the Circuit Court of Cook County as case number 12CR0848701. Respondent and Buchanan
further agreed that Respondent would receive a flat fee of $3,500 as Respondents legal fee for representing Leon
in case number 12CR0848701. Respondent and Buchanan agreed that Buchanan would collect the $3,500 in legal
fees on behalf of Leon and would provide that amount to Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent received the full
$3,500 amount.
2. As a result of Respondents attorney-client relationship with Leon, Respondent owed Leon the fiduciary duties
attendant to that relationship, including, a duty to exercise the utmost good faith and fair dealing in all of his
interactions with Leon and Leons agents, a duty of undivided loyalty, a duty of care and a duty to avoid placing
himself in a position where his interests would conflict with the interests of his clients.
3. As a result of his attorney-client relationship with Leon, Respondent also owed Leon and Leons agents a duty
to avoid undue influence, and to avoid taking advantage of the position of authority and trust he held, through his
position as Leons attorney.
4. In or about the summer of 2014, despite the fact that Respondent and Buchanan had previously agreed that
Respondent would represent Buchanans son, Leon, for a $3,500 flat fee (paragraph one, above), Respondent
began requesting that Buchanan pay him an additional $500 in legal fees to continue representing Leon in case
number 12CR0848701. As a result, Buchanan paid Respondent an additional $200 in legal fees. However,
Respondent demanded that Buchanan pay him an additional $300. Respondent left Buchanan several voice mail
messages, in which he made the following statements:
a. "You are a piece of garbage. All black people are alike. Youre slovenly, ignorant."
b. "You better give me my money or your sons case is going to be delayed."

c. "Im sick of you, you piece of shit."

d. "I dont know whos the biggest bitch. You or [family]. Im going to lock you up."
e. "Low class n-----s. Im going to have you all locked up."
f. "You call me with stupid shit. Wait until next court date."
g. "You have until 5:00 on Thursday. $300, no $500 check... Or on Friday Ill
withdraw. I already told the States Attorney to writ your son over."
h. "You are such a pussy. They are going to writ him over. I tried to tell your stupid
ass. Other lawyers would charge $10,000 for this case. Start planning for another
lawyer."
i. "Youre ugly, low class, ignorant. Ill finish with you when he gets off. Youre
demeaning your son."
j. "Help your son. Pay. Stop delaying case."
5. At no time did Respondent advise Leon and/or Buchanan to consult with independent counsel before Buchanan
paid Respondent additional legal fees over the original $3,500 flat fee agreement between Respondent and
Buchanan. At no time did Respondent explain to Leon and/or Buchanan that Respondents receipt of additional
legal fees was contrary to the agreement to pay Respondent a flat legal fee and that they had no obligation to agree
to pay Respondent additional legal fees.
6. At no time did Respondent explain to Leon and/or Buchanan that his interest in obtaining additional legal fees
was in conflict with Leon and/or Buchanans interest in maintaining the $3,500 flat fee agreement, nor did
Respondent obtain Leon and/or Buchanans consent after disclosure.
7. As a result of his failure to allow Leon and/or Buchanan to consult with independent counsel before accepting
additional legal fees from Buchanan, Respondent exercised undue influence over Leon and/or Buchanan because
of his position of trust and authority over them.
8. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. entering into a business transaction with a client without full disclosure, by
conduct including overreaching the attorney-client relationship by requesting
additional legal fees over the flat fee agreement without making adequate
disclosures or obtaining informed consent from his client, in violation of Rule
1.8(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to
embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by leaving the voice messages for
Buchanan described in paragraph four, above, in violation of Rule 4.4(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
c. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by conduct
including overreaching the attorney-client relationship by requesting additional
legal fees over the flat fee agreement, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT II
(Harassing communications Adler)

9. Prior to June 19, 2015, Respondent and Forine Durr ("Durr") agreed that Respondent would represent Durr in
matters related to a power of attorney Durr had executed, appointing Respondent as Durrs attorney-in-fact. On
June 19, 2015, Durr began living at the Lakefront Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Chicago ("Lakefront").
10. On July 2, 2015, Durr moved out of Lakefront. Thereafter, Respondent began contacting Aharon Adler
("Adler"), the administrator of Lakefront, to determine why Lakefront had allowed Durr to leave the premises.
11. On July 6, 2015, at about 6:30 p.m., Respondent telephoned Adler and left the following voice mail message:
You know, I tried to be academic, intellectual, and community-minded and everything
else with you. What youre supposed to do as a nursing home, you piece of [shoe or Jew]
garbage. You put my girl out in the street and didnt give a fuck, and didnt let her come
back, and know that she is mentally challenged. Are you mentally challenged, you piece
of shit? Let me tell you something. There is a tort--with your stupid ass, you dont know
what that iscalled violation of fiduciary capacity. And thats what youve done in this,
with your stupid Jew ass. Mother-fuck you, how you fucked my girl. Okay, Im going to
sue you, a federal law-- Ill sue you, sue the fuck out of you. You shouldve knew better.
Fiduciary capacity carries with it a responsibility of the particular concerns of the person
involved. Shes schizophrenic, hyper-paranoid schizophrenic, you piece of shit.
12. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to
embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by conduct including leaving the voice
mail message for Adler described in paragraph 11, above, in violation of Rule
4.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010)
COUNT III
(Neglect of criminal appeal State of Wisconsin v. Terrence L. Thomas)
13. On September 29, 2011, in Brown County case number 2011-CF-977, the State of Wisconsin filed a one-count
information against Terrence L. Thomas ("Thomas"). The information alleged that Thomas committed the Class C
felony offense of repeated sexual assault of the same child, in violation of Wis. Stat. sec. 948.025(1)(e) (2009-10),
doing so as a repeat offender under Wis. Stat. sec. 939.62(1)(c) based on a prior felony conviction.
14. Prior to February 15, 2012, Respondent and Thomas agreed that Respondent would represent Thomas in case
number 2011-CF-977. Respondent and Thomas did not reach a formal fee agreement, but Thomas mother paid
Respondent $1,000 in legal fees for representing Thomas. Respondent and Thomas agreed that Respondent would
assist Thomas other attorney, Andrew J. Williams ("Williams"), a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, who would also
be representing Thomas at trial. The court granted Respondent, who is not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin,
leave to appear pro hac vice.
15. On February 15, 2012, after a two-day trial at which Respondent and Williams represented Thomas, a jury
found Thomas guilty of repeated sexual assault of the same child as charged in the information. Thereafter, the
court sentenced Thomas to 12 years of imprisonment, followed by 10 years of extended supervision.
16. Prior to May 14, 2012, Respondent and Thomas agreed that Respondent would represent Thomas in an appeal
of Thomas conviction in case number 2011-CF-977. Respondent and Thomas agreed that Respondent would
work with Williams in pursuing an appeal on behalf of Thomas. Respondent and Williams agreed that Respondent
would handle the substantive aspects of the appeal, and Williams would act as local counsel.
17. On May 14, 2012, Respondent filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Thomas, along with a motion to appear pro
hac vice in Thomas appeal. Thereafter, the clerk of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ("court of appeals") received
the notice of appeal and assigned case number 2012AP1114-CR to the appeal.

18. On May 30, 2012, the court of appeals entered an order noting that the notice of appeal Respondent caused to
be filed had not been signed by either Thomas or counsel, and Respondents motion to appear pro hac vice had not
been signed by a Wisconsin attorney. The court of appeals ordered that Thomas file a signed notice of appeal
within 14 days, or face possible dismissal of the appeal. The court also ordered that Respondents motion to
appear pro hac vice was denied with leave to refile. Respondent received a copy of the May 30, 2012 order shortly
thereafter.
19. At all times alleged in this count, Wis. Stat. sec. 809.25(2) required that a party filing a notice of appeal pay a
filing fee of $195 at the time of filing, unless that fee is waived.
20. At all times alleged in this count, Wis. Stat. sec. 814.29 required that a petition to waive appellate filing fees
contain an affidavit signed by the party claiming indigency.
21. On June 13, 2012, Respondent and Williams filed a signed notice of appeal on behalf of Thomas. However,
they did not enclose a filing fee, nor did they seek a waiver of the filing fee.
22. On June 21, 2012, the court of appeals entered an order, sua sponte, extending by five days the time for receipt
of the appellate filing fee. The order stated that if the filing fee was not timely received, the appeal would be
dismissed. Respondent received a copy of the June 21, 2012 order shortly thereafter.
23. On June 29, 2012, Respondent filed an amended motion to appear pro hac vice and a petition to waive
appellate filing fees. The petition to waive appellate filing fees did not contain an affidavit signed by Thomas.
24. On July 6, 2012, the court of appeals granted Respondents motion to appear pro hac vice, but denied the
petition to waive appellate filing fees. The court of appeals ordered Thomas to either pay the filing fee, or file the
petition to waive appellate filing fees and affidavit of indigency, by July 23, 2012. Respondent received the July 6,
2012 order shortly thereafter.
25. As of August 2, 2012, Respondent had not provided the appellate filing fee to the court of appeals, nor had he
filed a petition to waive appellate filing fees and affidavit of indigency signed by Thomas.
26. On August 2, 2012, the court of appeals dismissed case number 2012AP1114-CR.
27. On August 21, 2012, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing case number
2012AP1114-CR, as well as a petition to waive appellate filing fees and affidavit of indigency. However, the
affidavit of indigency was not signed by Thomas.
28. On August 30, 2012, the court of appeals ordered that Respondents motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal order be held in abeyance until September 12, 2012. The order further provided that if the court did not
receive a completed petition to waive appellate filing fees and affidavit of indigency signed by Thomas on or
before September 12, 2012, the motion for reconsideration would then be denied. Respondent received a copy of
the August 30, 2012 order shortly thereafter.
29. As of September 28, 2012, Respondent had not provided the appellate filing fee to the court of appeals, nor
had he filed a petition to waive appellate filing fees and affidavit of indigency signed by Thomas.
30. On September 28, 2012, the court of appeals denied Respondents motion for reconsideration and case number
2012AP1114-CR remained dismissed.
31. On April 9, 2013, Thomas, through new counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that
Respondent and Williams provided ineffective assistance of counsel that deprived Thomas of the right to pursue a
direct appeal of his conviction.
32. On April 18, 2013, the court of appeals entered an order holding the petition for writ of habeas corpus in

abeyance, and ordering both Respondent and Williams to submit a written response to the allegations in the
petition within 15 days, or by May 3, 2013. Respondent received a copy of the April 18, 2013 order shortly
thereafter.
33. At no time thereafter did Respondent respond to the April 18, 2013 order of the court of appeals requiring him
to answer the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel raised against him in Thomas petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
34. On May 21, 2013, the court of appeals entered an order that requested a response from the state as to whether
it objected to the reinstatement of Thomas right to appeal. The order noted that Respondent had failed to comply
with the April 18, 2013 order requiring him to respond to the allegations in the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Respondent received a copy of the May 21, 2013 order shortly thereafter.
35. On July 15, 2013, with the state not objecting to the reinstatement of Thomas right to appeal his conviction,
the court of appeals entered an order granting the petition for habeus corpus and reinstating Thomas right to
appeal. Respondent received a copy of the July 15, 2013 order shortly thereafter.
36. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. failing to provide competent representation to a client, by conduct including failing
to file a completed petition for waiver of appellate fees and affidavit of indigency
signed by Thomas and failing to respond to orders of the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals, in violation of Rule 20:1.1 of the Wisconsin Rules of Professional
Conduct; and
b. failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by
conduct including failing to file a completed petition for waiver of appellate fees
and affidavit of indigency signed by Thomas and failing to respond to orders of the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in violation of Rule 20:1.3 of the Wisconsin Rules of
Professional Conduct.
COUNT IV
(Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation)
37. On December 23, 2013, the Administrator received a request for investigation of Respondent from the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals relating to Respondents representation of Terrence Thomas ("Thomas") (see Count
III, above). The Administrator docketed the investigation as number 2013IN05852.
38. On June 25, 2014, the Administrator received a request for investigation of Respondent from Leon Buchanan,
Jr. ("Buchanan"), in relation to Respondents representation of Buchanans son, Leon Buchanan, III (see Count I,
above). The Administrator docketed the investigation as number 2014IN02923.
39. On June 8, 2015, after Respondent had submitted written responses in 2013IN05852 (Thomas) and
2014IN02923 (Buchanan), the Administrator issued a subpoena requiring Respondent to appear for his sworn
statement and requesting, in part, his client files related to his representation of Terrence L. Thomas and Leon
Buchanan, III, on June 30, 2015.
40. On June 30, 2015, Respondent appeared for his sworn statement and gave testimony, but he did not produce
any documents related to his representation of Terrence L. Thomas or Leon Buchanan, III. At his sworn statement,
Respondent agreed to comply with the document production requested by the Administrators subpoena by July
14, 2015.
41. On July 9, 2015, the Administrator sent Respondent a letter reminding Respondent that he had until July 14,
2015 to comply with the document production requested by the Administrators subpoena.

42. On July 21, 2015, Respondent telephoned counsel for the Administrator and stated that he had been busy with
court appearances, but would comply with the document production requested by the Administrators subpoena
shortly.
43. As of August 17, 2015, the date Inquiry Panel D voted a complaint in this matter, Respondent had not
produced any documents with regard to his representation of Terrence L. Thomas or Leon Buchanan, III.
44. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. knowingly failing to respond to lawful demands for information from a
disciplinary authority, by conduct including failing to comply with the document
production requests in the Administrators June 8, 2015 subpoena, in violation of
Rule 8.1(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
b. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including
failing to comply with the document production requests in the Administrators
June 8, 2015 subpoena, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010).
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
By: Peter L. Apostol

Peter L. Apostol
Counsel for the Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 565-2600