"vomited" into the glass. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he

Transcription

1 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 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. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 ofcount I. 2. 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. Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent denies that he "vomited" into the glass. Further answering, Respondent affirmatively states that he L1 AMG ATTV REG & DISC COMM CHICAGO

2 swallowed down the "wrong pipe" and coughed. Respondent admits the remaining allegations ofparagraph 2 ofcount 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. 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 ofparagraph 3 ofcount 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.

3 Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent denies that he "fled via thebackdoor" ofmagoo's Bar. Furtheranswering, Respondentaffirmatively 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 ofcount I. 5. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/ [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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 5 ofcount I. 6. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a criminal statute in Illinois, Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 720 ILCS 5/ (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. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 ofcount I. 7. 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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 7 ofcount I. 8. 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

4 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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 8 ofcount I. 9. On December 2, 2011, a warrant issued for Respondent's arrest under docket number 2011CF , People ofthe State ofillinois v. Peter Currie for the offenses of Aggravated Battery (Strangulation) to Brett Willing in violation of 720 ILCS 5/ (a)(5), Aggravated Battery (Public way) to Brett Willing in violation of 720 ILCS 5/ (c) and Mob Action by use offeree or violence disturbing the peace in violation of 720 ILCS 5/25-l(a)(l). Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 ofcount I. 10. 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. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 ofcount I. 11. 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/ (a)(5), two counts of Aggravated Battery (Public way) in violation of 720 ILCS 5/ (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 StateofIllinois vs. Peter Currie, 11 CF

5 Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 11 ofcount I. 12. 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 ofthe State ofillinois vs. Peter Currie, 11 CF 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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 12 ofcount I. 13. 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. 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.,

6 Naperville Officer Reed performed a traffic stop of Respondent's vehicle after observing multiple traffic violations including speeding and improper land [sic] usage. 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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 2 ofcount II. 3. 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 and possession of cannabis paraphernalia in violation of City of Naperville v. Peter Currie, 06 DT Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 3 ofcount II. 4. 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 ofalcohol.

7 Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 4 ofcount II. 5. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was in effect a municipal code in Naperville, Illinois, which provided that it was unlawful for any person knowingly to possess cannabis paraphernalia for the use thereof. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 5 ofcount II. 6. 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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 6 ofcount II. 7. 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 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. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 7 ofcount II. 8. 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, in fines and fees, attend a victim impact panel and to refrain from violating any criminal statute or ordinances ofany jurisdiction. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 ofcount II. 7

8 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 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 ofan additional 40 hours of public service employment and completion of level II counseling as previously ordered. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 9 ofcount II. 10. 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 ; and b. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute. 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

9 the band and leave the premise, Respondent began using profanity and threatened the employees. Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent admits that he was present at the Park Chalet restaurant on May 21, Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph 1 ofcount 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. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 ofcount II. 3. 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. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 3 ofcount III. 4. 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. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Count III. 9

10 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!" 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 ofparagraph 5 ofcount 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

11 Admitted in part and denied in part. Respondent admits that he was placed in a police station holding cell on May 21, Respondent denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 ofcount 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, 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 ofanother. Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph 7 ofcount III. 8. 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

12 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. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 ofcount III. 9. Respondent was released from the custody of the San Francisco police after Mr. Hefley and Ms. Chesebro withdrew their complaints. Admitted in part, denied in part, and neither admitted nor denied in part. Respondent admits that he was released from the custody ofthe San Francisco Police Department on the morning of May 22, 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 ofparagraph 9 ofcount 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

13 Respondent denies the legal conclusions pled in Paragraph 10 of Count III. RESPONDENT'S DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 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, Respondentinterposes the Administrator's failure as an affirmative defense. Respectfully submitted, Peter Lawrence Currie, Respondent James A. Doppke, Jr. RobinsonNiro, LLC 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 450 Chicago, IL (312) Fax: (312) jim.doppke(5)robinsonniro.net BY: 13 James A. Doppke, Jr. One of his attorneys