An Illinois lawyer has been indicted for attempting to hire a government agent to kill his girl friend’s ex husband. He has been charged in a seven count indictment including three counts of using his phone and two counts of using his car in an effort to hire a man to kill the ex husband.

Certainly if the charges are true he is ethically deprived. But the ethical problems should have been apparent before he offered to pay several different people to kill the man. The news stories vary as to what actually happened. Above the Law says that the ex husband is a former client of Jason W. Smiekel, the accused. The Daily Herald says that Smiekel represented his current girl friend who is the victim’s ex wife in divorce proceedings. In either case ethical problems arise. If he represented the husband in the divorce and he was romantically interested in the wife, it is quite doubtfully that he zealously represented his client the husband. If he represented the wife in the divorce proceedings problems also occur. Going through a divorce is extremely difficult. It is an emotionally difficult period and to be be romantically courted by your attorney raises question about whether he is representing his client or himself. Both instances raise serious conflict of interest issues. As an attorney he should only be concerned with the interests of his client. Neither his own interests or the interests of the opposing party should concern him. Regardless of whether he represented the husband or the wife interests besides that of his client had to be considered.

The preamble to the Illinois Rules of Professional conduct states: “The lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Such confidence only can be maintained if the lawyer acts competently and zealously pursues the client’s interests within the bounds of the law. ” Rule 1.7(b) states

A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after disclosure.

Section 8.4(a) states

(a) A lawyer shall not:

(1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules;

(2) induce another to engage in conduct, or give assistance to another’s conduct, when the lawyer knows that conduct will violate these Rules;

(3) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(4) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. . .

Regardless of the result of the criminal charges I presume the Disciplinary Commission will have its work laid out for it.

Last week I discussed the case of Ken Kratz, the District Attorney of Calumet County Wisconsin who was accused of sending sexually abusive text messages to a victim in a domestic violence case.

Kratz’s response seemed to be that he made an innocent mistake. He refused to resign. He said, “(I hope) my entire career won’t be judged on a single series of text messages. But I know it will be.” He admitted the behavior was inappropriate but he said it came from a lapse of judgment in a career of being “a zealous advocate” for victims of crime.

But allegations have come forward of at least two other women, one a law student who he helped clear her record and the other another victim of domestic violence who he abused with text messages. If these are true it is hardly a single lapse of judgment but a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Kratz is now on medical leave and the governor is looking for ways to remove him from office.

Kratz should be looking for a good criminal defense attorney to defend him against possible stalking charges and to defend him before the state bar for bringing discredit to the bar.