BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: GEORGE STEPHEN KOIS, Commission No. 2015PR00047 Attorney-Respondent, No. 1501429. ANSWER NOW COMES Respondent George Stephen Kois, by his counsel William J. Martin, Ltd., and William J. Martin and respectfully presents the following ANSWER to the Administration's Complaint: RESPONDENT KOIS'S RULE 253 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT 1. Respondent was admitted to the Illinois Bar on May 19, 1977. 2. Respondent was admitted to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 1977. 3. Respondent is not licensed in any other jurisdictions. 5. Respondent holds no other professional licenses. FILED JUL 2 0 2015 ATTYRECGH,&CADfoCCOMM
Unauthorized Practice oflawafter Failing to Register 1. At all times alleged in this complaint, Supreme Court Rule 756(a) required that, on or before the first day ofjanuary ofeach year, every attorney admitted to practice law in Illinois, except those who had assumed retirement status, register and pay to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ("the Commission"), any registration fee due according to the provisions ofthe rule. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph one. 2. At all times alleged in this complaint, Supreme Court Rule 756(a)(5) permitted an attorney to register with the Commission as inactive, and for such periods as the attorney remains on inactive status, he would not be eligible to practice law or hold himselfout as authorized to practice. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph two. 3. On October 6, 2000, Respondent registered as inactive with the Commission pursuant to Rule 756(a)(5), and he remained on inactive status until September 6, 2001. ANSWER: Respondent has no recollection ofregistering as inactive pursuant to Rule 756(a)(5), and has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny that the records ofthe Commission show that on October 6, 2000, Respondent registered as inactive with the Commission pursuant to Rule 756(a)(5), and he remained on inactive status until September 6, 2001. 4. At all times alleged in this complaint, 756(d) provided that the Administrator, on February 1 of each year, remove from the master roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois the name ofany attorney who has not registered for that year as required by Supreme Court Rule 756(a). ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph four. 5. As offebruary 1, 2001, Respondent had not registered with the Commission or paid the annual fee due, and, on September 6, 2001, the Administrator removed Respondent's name from the master roll ofattorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.
ANSWER: The Complaint contains two paragraph fives. We will answer them in the order in which they appear. The Answer to the first paragraph five is that Respondent has no recollection of not registering with the Commission or paying the annual fee due, and has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny that the records ofthe Commission show that on September 6,2001, the Administrator removed Respondent's name from the master roll ofattorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois. 5. At no time between September 6, 2001, and June 15,2015, the date that this complaint was voted by Inquiry Panel D of the Commission, did Respondent register to practice law in Illinois. ANSWER: The second paragraph five in the compliant is answered as follows: Respondent completed all ofthe required Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Classes in early November, 2014 and on November 5,2014, Respondent sent an email to Andrew Oliva at the ARDC informing him that he was then current with his MCLE credits and asking what he would need to do to reactivate his license. Respondent disclosed and self-reported in his email that: "Before my license became inactive, I had stopped practicing law and paying dues and I was working full-time in the areas ofnon-legal business management and development and telecommunications and mobile services consulting. I did four months oflegal consulting and business advising for a municipal board in Alabama." Respondent sent a follow-up email to Mr. Oliva and left phone messages but never heard anything from the Commission until over a month later when he received a letter from Mr. Kozlov dated December 14, 2014 containing a Request for Investigation from Mr. Landes. Respondent selfreported his unauthorized practice of law at least one month before he was notified ofthe investigation ofhis conduct. Respondent further states he has cooperated fully with the Commission at all times. 6. Between October 6, 2000, and June 15,2015, Respondent was not authorized to practice law in Illinois, or to hold himself out as so authorized. At no time referred to in this complaint was Respondent licensed to practice law in Alabama. ANSWER: Respondent has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the first two sentences of paragraph six. Respondent was not authorized to practice law in Illinois, or to hold himselfout as so authorized. In response to the second sentence ofparagraph 6, Respondent admits that at no time was Respondent licensed to practice law in Alabama.
7. Upon Respondent's removal from the roll on September 6, 2001, the Administrator sent Respondent a Notice ofremoval from Master Roll as a result ofhis failure to register and pay his registration fee. Respondent received that notice shortly thereafter. ANSWER: Respondent has insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of paragraph seven. Moreover, Respondent states that his emotional state and his changing ofaddresses during his lengthy and acrimonious divorce seriously affected him and interfered with his remembering if he received such a notice. 8. In June 2014, Respondent agreed to represent the Water Works & Sewer Board ofthe City of Prichard ("WWSBCP") in Prichard, Alabama, in a dispute with Board ofwater and Sewer Commissioners ofthe City ofmobile ("BWSCCM") in connection with a dispute governed by Alabama law. Respondent and WWSBCP, through its Chairperson, Russell Heidelburg, agreed that Respondent would be paid a fixed fee of$10,000 per month to represent WWSBCP in the matter. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations ofparagraph eight. 9. Between June 2014 and October 2014, Respondent, in cooperation with Michael King and W. Allen Woolley ofedwards Wildman, represented WWSBCP in its dispute with BWSCCM, and BWSCCM paid Respondent a total of $40,000 for his legal services. ANSWER: The Complaint contains two paragraph nines. We have answered them in the order in which they appeared. With respect to the first paragraph nine, Respondent admits he, in cooperation with Michael King and W. Allen Woolley ofedwards Wildman, represented WWSBCP in its dispute with BWSCCM. Respondent further states that he was paid by WWSBCP and not BWSCCM. 9. At no time did Respondent notify his client, his co-counsel, or opposing counsel in the matters referenced in paragraph eight, above, that he was not authorized to practice law in Illinois. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of the "second" paragraph nine. 10. By reason ofthe conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in thatjurisdiction in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 756(d) by handling legal matters for WWSBCP and holding himself out as an attorney after he assumed inactive status and after his name was removed from the roll oflicensed attorneys in Illinois, and at a time when he was not licensed to practice law in Alabama; and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct by handling legal matters and holding himselfout as an attorney after he assumed inactive status and after his name was removed from the roll oflicensed attorneys. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 10 and specifically denies each and every allegation in subparagraphs a and b because they plead conclusions of law to be determined by the Hearing Board and are not allegations offact. Respectfully submitted, William J. Mar. Attorney for^dspondent William J. Martin William J. Martin, Ltd. 1011 Lake Street, Suite 314 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: 708-848-2100 Facsimile: 708-848-2254