An attorney accused of filing a frivolous pleading and prejudicing the administration of justice in connection with the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 should get her case dismissed, an attorney-discipline panel urged.
The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission Review Board recommended the action Tuesday for 49-year-old Monica R. Kelly, who is named as Monica E. Ribbeck in the complaint.
The suggestion reverses the ARDC Hearing Board’s findings that Ribbeck, of counsel at Ribbeck Law Chtd., should receive a 60-day suspension for filing a petition she knew would get dismissed but hoped would bring her publicity.
In March 2013, shortly after Flight 370 disappeared en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, Kelly named Boeing Co. and Malaysia Airlines as respondents in a Rule 224 petition in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of a passenger’s estate.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 allows an injured party to file a petition to identify unknown defendants who may be liable for damages through a limited discovery process before filing a complaint. Kelly’s petition sought information on the plane’s technological components under the logic that the companies behind them could be held liable for the plane’s crash.
But Circuit Judge Kathy M. Flanagan, who presides over the Law Division’s Motion Section, dismissed the petition a week later. It was the third Rule 224 petition she had dismissed from Ribbeck Law at the time, all stemming from investigations into high-profile aviation incidents.
In her four-page opinion, Flanagan held Rule 224 petitions should not be filed if known defendants exist in a case and cautioned Kelly’s firm against filing any more.
“Despite these orders, the same law firm has proceeded, yet again, with the filing of the instant petition, knowing full well that there is no basis to do so,” she wrote in her opinion. “Should the law firm choose to do so, the [c]ourt will impose sanctions on its’ (sic) own motion.”
In July 2014, the ARDC administrator filed a one-count complaint against Kelly, alleging she had filed a frivolous petition with no basis in law. The complaint also alleged she had engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In October, the Hearing Board found the administrator had proven his allegations and recommended Kelly’s suspension. The panel found she filed an improper and frivolous pleading in disregard of Flanagan’s previous warnings, which resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources.
The panel cited precedent from 3rd District and 5th District appellate court panels to find Kelly’s petition was frivolous because it included named defendants. It also rejected her argument that the 1st District’s opinion in Beale v. Edgemark Financial Corp., 279 Ill. App. 3d 242, 664 N.E.2d 302 directly addressed the circumstances surrounding her petition practice.
Kelly filed exceptions on the matter, arguing she had an objectively reasonable basis for filing the petition.
The Review Board disagreed with the Hearing Board’s interpretation of Beale and found it affirmatively answers the question of whether Rule 224 petitions can be filed with known defendants.
It’s a case that handles the “exact issue” Kelly raised in her briefs, the panel found, and it even acknowledges that different appellate districts have issue different opinions on the matter.
“We further agree with [r]espondent that, because Beale is a First District case, it is the law that governed her practice in Cook County Circuit Court at the time she filed the [Rule 224] petition,” the panel wrote. “Moreover, the fact that the Beale court so extensively discussed and distinguished the cases from the other appellate districts highlights the ambiguity about the scope of Rule 224.”
The review panel also found the Hearing Board erred when it found that Kelly’s motive behind filing the petition was improper.
“The standard is an objective one, not a subjective one,” the panel wrote. “ … As [r]espondent’s counsel noted at oral argument, the analysis started and ends with the inquiry whether [r]espondent had an objectively reasonable basis to file her petition; if yes, her mindset is irrelevant.”
Adrian M. Vuckovich, a partner at Collins, Bargione & Vuckovich who represented Kelly, said the review board got its report “exactly right” for more than one reason.
“Lawyers shouldn’t be sanctioned for investigating before filing a lawsuit, which is exactly what Ms. Ribbeck did here,” he said. “And … a lawyer shouldn’t be sanctioned for filing a frivolous case when there’s a division of appellate court cases and she followed one particular line of cases with the petition she filed.”
ARDC hearing boards act as the trial court in the attorney disciplinary process, while the review board functions as an appellate tribunal. The Illinois Supreme Court has the final say in most disciplinary cases.
Richard A. Green chaired Kelly’s review board panel, which also included Charles E. Pinkston and J. Timothy Eaton.
Both sides have until May 24 to file a petition before the Illinois Supreme Court to file exceptions on the matter, In re Monica E. Ribbeck, 14PR92. Deputy Administrator James J. Grogan said the administrator intends to take such action.
And although that means Kelly’s disciplinary process isn’t over, Vuckovich said the review board’s report is “a big step toward ending this winding road” and he’s confident his client will emerge from the proceedings without sanction.
“I think the decision will stand,” he said.
Partner George B. Collins of Collins, Bargione & Vuckovich also represented Kelly.