FILED BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

FILED BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD of the OCT 18 2016 ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION and DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ATTY REG. &DISC COMM CHICAGO In the Matter of: EBONY-DAWN LUCAS, Attorney-Respondent, Comm. No. 2016PR00103 No. 6292082. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES Respondent, Ebony-Dawn Lucas, by and through her attorney, James A. Doppke, Jr., and for her answer to the Administrator's Complaint in this matter, denies any and all allegations contained in the prefatory paragraph of the Complaint, and states as follows: {Alleged presentation ofan allegedlyfalse document to obtain access to condominium associationfunds) 1. In 2015, Respondent, through various business entities, owned 12 condominium units at a three-story, 35-unit building known as Drexel Commons ("Drexel"), which was located at 4627-4637 South Drexel Boulevard in Chicago. Another group of people, either individually or through their business entities, owned 17 condominium units at Drexel, andthe remainingcondominiumunitsatdrexel wereownedby individual owners. Drexel was occupied almost entirely by renters. Denied. 2. In 2015, Respondent was involved in a dispute with Drexel's condominium association ("association") over various issues, including Respondent's transfer of her

ownership interest in the various units to newly-created corporations she controlled, as well as approximately $65,000 in unpaid condominium assessments that Respondent allegedly owed to the association. At the beginning of the dispute, the balance of the association's operating account at JPMorgan Chase Bank ("Chase Bank"), ending in the four digits 6818, was less than $2,000. Denied. 3. As of November 20, 2015, Drexel's by-laws ("by-laws") provided for a threeperson condominium board consisting of a president, a secretary, and a treasurer. At that time, Kamil Karbaz ("Karbaz") was the president of the association's board, Brian Colebrook ("Colebrook") was its secretary and Respondent was its treasurer. Admitted. 4. On November 21, 2015, the association's board met, but Respondent did not attend that meeting. At the November 21 meeting, Karbaz and Colebrook voted to remove Respondent as treasurer and to appoint another unit owner, David Westveer ("Westveer"), to that position. Soon after, Respondent received a copy of the meeting minutes confirming that Westveer had replaced Respondent as the association's treasurer. Respondent denies that any legal meeting of the board was held on November 21, 2015, denies that Karbarz was present at any meeting, and denies all other allegations contained in this paragraph. 5. In December 2015 and January 2016, Respondent made two payments toward the past-due condominium assessments that she owed to the association, which were then deposited in the association's Chase Bank account ending in the four digits 6818, and which raised the balance in that account to approximately $80,000.

Respondent admits that in December 2015, she made payments to the association pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Association. Respondent denies that she made any such payments in January 2016, other than her payment of the January 2016 assessment. Respondent denies all remainingallegations contained in paragraph 5. 6. On or about January 7, 2016, Respondent determined to call a special meeting of Drexel's condominium unit owners to be held on the Martin Luther King holiday, January 18, 2016, at 10 a.m., at her law office. Drexel's by-laws required that notice of such meetings be mailed, personally delivered and posted conspicuously at the condominium building. Respondent did not personally deliver any notices. Respondent posted some notices at Drexel but some of the other condominium unit owners did not see the posted notices since renters occupied most of the owners' condominium units at Drexel. Around that time, Respondent also emailed her paralegal, Mayra Santos ("Santos"), and directed Santos to email notice of the January 18,2016 meeting to a specific list containing only nine names and addresses of owners and agents, all of whom owned fewer units at Drexel than did Respondent, and therefore would be eligible to cast fewer votes than Respondent at the meeting. Respondent admits that she called an association meeting, and that at her direction, her assistant Mayra Santos mailed notices via US Mail to all unit owners. Respondent further admits that she caused notices of the meeting to be posted on the property. Respondent denies that the association's bylaws require that notices be personally delivered, denies that notice was solely sent via email, denies that any owners were not provided notice of the meeting, and denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 6.

7. At some point priorto January 18,2016, Respondent asked her friend, Teshera Hull ("Hull"), to attend the special meeting as an agent of one of Respondent's business entities. Hull did not have any ownership interest in any of Drexel's condominium units, but, as Respondent's agent, she could vote at the special meeting on behalf of Respondent's condominium units, with Respondent's permission. Admitted. 8. At the January 18, 2016 meeting, those who were present decided to appoint Respondent as an "assistant" to the association's board, a position that was not specifically provided for in Drexel's by-laws, and to appointleslie Johnson as the association's president and Hull as its secretary. They also determined to appoint Tony Osias ("Osias") as treasurer, although Osias, a unit owner, did not know about the meeting, was not present and did not have an agent there to represent his interests. Respondent and Hull later prepared minutes of the January 18, 2016 Drexel association meeting that reflected those decisions. Respondent admits that she, Leslie Johnson, Teshera Hull, and Tony Osias were elected to the board by a majority ofthe owners on the board. Respondent admits that Johnson was elected as president, Hull was elected as secretary, Osias was elected as treasurer, and Respondent was elected as an assistant to the board pursuant to the association's bylaws. Respondent denies all other allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 9. On January 19, 2016, Respondent and Hull went to a Chase Bank on LaSalle Street in downtown Chicago, where they gave a copy of the minutes from the January 18, 2016 meeting to a bank employee. Respondentand Hull requested that Chase Bank add their names as signatories to Drexel's account ending in the four digits 6818, which would allow Respondent and Hull access to funds in the association's account The Chase Bank employee

would not permit Respondent or Hull to add their names to the association's account, and advised Respondent and Hull that Chase Bank's rules permitted only board members, and not "assistants," to be signatories on condominium association accounts. Denied. 10. Sometime after leaving the bank on January 19, 2016, at Respondent's direction, Hull altered the minutes of the January 18, 2016 special meeting to show that Respondent had been elected the president ofthe association's board. Respondent admits that at the direction of a bank employee, the minutes were altered to conform to the information contained on the Secretary of State's website, which incorrectly showed Respondentas President ofthe board. Respondent denies all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10. 11. The altered minutes, described in paragraph 10 above, were false, because Respondent had not been elected president of Drexel's condominium association at the January 18, 2016 meeting or at any time thereafter. Respondent knew that the altered minutes were false because she knew she had not been elected presidentatthe January 18, 2016 Drexel association meeting or atanytime thereafter. Respondent admits that she was not elected as President of the Association on January 18, 2016. Respondent denies all remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11. 12. Sometime on January 19, 2016, after leaving Chase Bank on LaSalle Street, Respondent called her acquaintance, Arnell Brady ("Brady"), who was employed at Chase Bank as a mortgage banker, for advice about how to add Respondent's and Hull's names to Drexel's condominium association account ending in the four digits 6818. Brady told

Respondent and Hull to go to a Chase Banklocated in the Hyde Park area of Chicago and to ask to sign Chase Bank's "Business Account Add Signers" form. Denied. 13. On January 19, 2016, after her conversation with Brady, Respondent and Hull went to a Hyde Park branch of Chase Bank and gave a bank employee a copy of the altered Drexel association meeting minutes, which listed Respondent as the president of Drexel's association's board. Respondent and Hull signed only their names, but not their board titles, to the "Business Account Add Signers" form regarding Drexel's condominium association account ending in the four digits 6818. Denied. Further answering, at no time did Respondent represent herselfas the president of the association's board on any bank document. 14. On January 20, 2016, Respondent and Hull went to a Chase Bank branch on Wacker Drive in Chicago. With Respondent's knowledge, Hull signed a withdrawal slip and withdrew $75,000 from the association's Chase Bank account ending in the four digits 6818, and obtained a cashier's check in that amount made payable to "Drexel Commons." Admitted. Further answering, Respondent admits that she, Leslie Johnson, and several unit owners were aware that Hull withdrew $75,000 offunds collected for a special assessment so that they could be deposited into an account which was segregated from the Association's operatingfunds. 15. On February 3, 2016, a day before the next scheduled association meeting, Respondent and Hull opened a new bank account for Drexel's condominium association at a different bank, 5/3 Bank ("5/3") in Hyde Park. On that day, Respondent and Hull added

themselves as the signatories to the association's new account by signing their names, but not their board titles, and they deposited the $75,000 cashier's check into the new account. Respondent admits that after discussion and agreement with Leslie Johnson and several unit owners, the $75,000 check was deposited in an account in the name of "Drexel Commons Condominium Association" at 5/3rd Bank in Hyde Park. Further answering, Respondent states that she, Hull, and Johnson were added as signatories on the account. Respondent denies any remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. 16. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, and knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, or doing so through the acts of another, by conduct including assisting Hull, as Respondent's agent, to draft minutes that falsely stated that Respondent was the president of the association's board, when Respondent knew she had been appointed to the position of assistant, in order to falsely obtain access to the association's bank account at Chase Bank, in violation of Rule 8.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and b. engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by conduct including assisting Hull, as Respondent's agent, to draft minutes that falsely stated that Respondent was the president of the associaiton's [sic] board, when Respondent knew she had been appointed to the position ofassistant, and then falsely represented herself as the president of the association's board at Chase Bank's Hyde Park location, in order to obtain access to Drexel's bank account at Chase Bank, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). Denied.

RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE 231 1. Respondent is admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois. In 2005, she was admitted to practice law in Michigan. Her Michigan license has been underan administrative suspension for non-payment of bar dues for several years, but it is not and has never been subject to discipline. Respondent is also admitted to the General Bar for the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. practice law. 2. Respondent holds no other professional licenses other than her license to AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: INTRODUCTION For the following reasons, Respondent asserts, as and for her affirmative defenses, that the Administrator has not stated a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. In support whereof, Respondent respectfully states as follows: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I 1. The Administrator's Complaint in this matter contains several allegations that are intended to suggest that Respondent engaged in behavior designed to conceal her actions, conceal the true nature of transactions in which she was engaging, conceal the true nature of her involvement with the Drexel Condominium Association, or otherwise engage or attempt to engage in dishonest conduct. 2. Several of the allegations of the kind described in paragraph 1 of the instant Affirmative Defense, above, are incorrect or based on incorrect information, despite the Administrator having had the correct information in his possession for significant lengths of time:

a. In paragraph 6 of his Complaint, the Administrator alleges, inter alia, that the bylaws of the Drexel Condominium Association required notices of meetings to be personally delivered to each owner. In fact, at all relevant times, section 4.05 of the bylaws provided that written notice of membership meetings was to be "mailed or personally delivered and posted conspicuously on the Condominium Property" (emphasis added). The Administrator has been in possession of the bylaws since at least November 19, 2015; b. In paragraph 6 of his Complaint, the Administrator alleges, inter alia, that Respondent instructed her assistant, Mayra Santos, to email notices of the January 18, 2016 meeting to owners of units in the building. In fact, the email that Respondent sent to Ms. Santos with instructions concerning the notices directed Ms. Santos to mail the notices, not email them. The Administrator has been in possession of the email from Respondent to Ms. Santos since at least February 1, 2016. c. In paragraph 8 of his Complaint, the Administrator alleges, inter alia, that at the January 18,2016 meeting of the board of the association, Respondent was appointed to be an assistant to the board, "a position that was not specifically provided for in Drexel's by-laws." In fact, Section 6.01 ofthe bylaws specifically provides that "The officers of the Residential Association shall be a President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such assistants to such officers as the Board may deem appropriate" (emphasis added). The Administrator has been in possession of the bylaws since at least November 19, 2015. d. In paragraph 13 of his Complaint, the Administrator alleges, inter alia, that on January 19, 2016, Respondent and Teshera Hull "signed only their names, but not their board titles, to the 'Business Account Add Signers' form regarding Drexel's condominium association account

ending in the four digits 6818." In fact, Teshera Hull accurately signed the Business Account Add Signers form as the secretary of the board of the association, and Respondent signed the form with no designation or title because the form neither required nor prompted her to do so. The Administrator has been in possession of the Business Account Add Signers form since at leastjanuary 26, 2016. 3. To the extent that the above-referenced allegations in paragraphs 6, 8, and 13 of the Administrator's Complaint are meant to suggest that Respondent engaged in a course of dishonest conduct, or individual dishonest acts, or in any way acted with an intent to conceal the true nature of her actions, such allegations are facially and factually incorrect, and they therefore fail to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE II 4. As the Administrator alleges, and Respondent admits, in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Teshera Hull ("Hull") had no ownership interest in any of the units in the Drexel Condominium Association, but served only as an agent of one of Respondent's business entities. 5. As the Administrator alleges (and Respondent admits) in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Hull was elected secretary of the board of the association on January 18, 2016. Hull was not elected in her personal capacity, as she did not have any ownership interest in any of the units in the Drexel Condominium Association. Rather, she was elected in her capacity as Respondent's agent. Therefore, although Respondent was only elected to be an assistant to the board, her interests were represented on the board by Hull, her agent. 6. In paragraph 16 of his Complaint, the Administrator alleges that Respondent "assist[ed] Hull, as Respondent's agent, to draft minutes that falsely stated that Respondent

was the president of the association's board, when Respondent knew she had been appointed to the position of assistant, in order to falsely obtain access to the association's bank account at Chase Bank." 7. For the following reasons, it was not necessary for Respondent to be, or to purport to be, the president of the association's board in order to obtain access to the association's bank account: a. Hull, Respondent's agent, was the secretary of the board; b. In her capacity as secretary, Hull was empowered to execute the Business Account Add Signers form promulgated by Chase, and in so doing to certify that "the person[s] added as authorized signers on the [association] account [had] been added in accordance with resolutions or other documents of the [association] regarding signing authority for bank accounts"; c. The Business Account Add Signers form called only for the signature of a secretary signing on behalf of a corporation or unincorporated association, not for the signature ofthe president; d. Hull was authorized by Respondent and by the board to direct JPMorgan Chase to add Respondent as a signer to the account, in her capacity as an assistant to the board; e. Hull and Respondent added their names to the account as signers with the full knowledge and authority of the board as constituted at the January 18, 2016 meeting. 8. Therefore, the Administrator's charge that Respondent falsely purported to be the association's president in order to gain access to the association's bank account is based on a false premise. Respondent was not required to be the association's president in order to become a signer on the bank account, and she neither needed to, nor did, engage in any dishonest conduct in connection with the bank account.

9. For the foregoing reasons as set forth in Affirmative Defenses I and II herein, the Administrator has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Respondent therefore respectfully requests that the Hearing Board dismiss the Administrator's complaint. James A. Doppke, Jr. Robinson Law Group, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1060 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 676-9878 jdoppke(5>robinsonlawillinois.com Respectfully submitted, Ebony-Dawn Lucas, Respondent 0 #9*jY&.i BY: James A. Doppke, Jr. One ofher attorneys