Public sector discipline: Two Illinois public sector attorneys disciplined during March term of court for criminal conduct

In re Arrigo, Commission No. 06 CH 45, S. Ct. No. M.R. 21373 (March 19, 2007). John Arrigo was an officer in the United States Air Force and, as such, was subject to annual written evaluations of his job performance. The evaluations were prepared by his superior officers and were a factor used in granting promotions. At a time when he was being considered for a promotion to Brigadier General, Arrigo attempted to have his superiors consider an inflated performance evaluation, by preparing a performance report related to his own job performance and signing a colonel’s name to it. When he was initially questioned about the purported signature of the colonel, he denied knowing who signed the report. The following day, Arrigo admitted the forgery, but he was reprimanded by the Air Force for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the Administrator’s petition to impose discipline on consent and suspended Arrigo for one year and until further order of the Court.

In re Juliano, Commission No. 07 DC 1001, S. Ct. No. M.R. 21467 (March 19, 2007). Richard Juliano, who was an employee of then-Secretary of State George Ryan, pleaded guilty to participating in a fraudulent scheme to perform campaign-related work for the Ryan gubernatorial campaign while receiving a salary from the Secretary of State. He also fraudulently assisted in the diversion of the services of other Secretary of State employees and in the diversion of government resources and property, and he participated in the falsification of Secretary of State records to conceal this conduct. Juliano was sentenced to serve three months of confinement in a work release program and four years on probation, ordered to perform 350 hours of community service, and fined $10,000. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed Juliano’s motion for disbarment on consent, following the Administrator’s submission of a statement of charges against him, and his filing of an affidavit admitting that his conviction would constitute conclusive evidence of his guilt of criminal conduct for disciplinary purposes. 

The full texts of the Arrigo consent petition and the Juliano statement of charges, as well as the Supreme Court’s final orders, may be accessed through the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission’s web site at www.iardc.org, by selecting “Rules and Decisions.”