​Chicago-(AEAE) Illinois Attorneys Timothy Strino, Joshua Concannon and Penny Eilers were charged with professional misconduct before the Illinois Attrony Registration and Disciplin Commission.
​ On September 23, 2026 ARDC Intake Counsel Britt Florin issued an Order stating "We have review the pleading referenced in your complaint and cannot conclude the motion prepared by Mr. Storino was misleading as to justify a displinary inquiry into his conduct surrounding the motion....If in the future any court determines that Mr. Storine, Mr. Concannon or Ms Eilers engaged in professional misconduct regarding your claims, please let us know. at that time ,we will be pleased to review the matter to determine whether action by this commission might be warranted."
Disclaimer: The charges against Timothy Storino, Joshua Concumcannon and Penny Eilders were "allegations". Timothy Storino, Joshua Concumcannon and Penny Eilders deny the charges and are considered innocient until proven guilty in a court of law.

​

​CHICAGO: (AEAE) AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE)
FORMAL DISCIPLINARY STATEMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY NOTICE
Regarding Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon and Alleged Abuse of Appellate Extension Procedures
The Americans for the Enforcement of Attorney Ethics (AEAE) announces its serious concerns regarding the conduct of Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon in connection with multiple requests for extensions of time filed in the Illinois Third District Appellate Court in Stoller v. Illinois State Police, Appeal No. 25-0586.
AEAE maintains that repeated requests for extensions of time, when unsupported by legitimate necessity or presented through materially inaccurate factual or legal representations, can undermine the integrity of the appellate process, prejudice an opposing litigant, and interfere with the timely administration of justice.
The allegations at issue concern whether Ms. Vernon filed multiple extension requests that she knew or reasonably should have known were frivolous, with the alleged purpose or foreseeable effect of delaying appellate proceedings and prejudicing the Appellant.
AEAE considers the integrity of judicial proceedings a matter of professional obligation, not administrative convenience. Attorneys appearing before Illinois courts are expected to exercise candor, accuracy, and good-faith judgment in every filing submitted to the judiciary.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULES
AEAE alleges that the conduct described in its disciplinary complaint may constitute violations of the following provisions of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule
Subject of Allegation

Rule 3.3(a)
Alleged lack of candor toward the tribunal, subject to the specific subsection and elements asserted in the complaint.

Rule 8.4(c)
Alleged conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Rule 8.4(d)
Alleged conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The applicability of these provisions, the sufficiency of the factual allegations, and whether any violation occurred remain matters for determination through the appropriate disciplinary process.
AEAE contends that an attorney's repeated requests for additional time should not be used as a mechanism to obtain an unfair procedural advantage. Where a litigant alleges that extension requests are unsupported, repetitive, or materially misleading, those allegations warrant examination based on the actual filings, representations, procedural history, and applicable court rules.
II. AEAE'S CONCERNS REGARDING PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
AEAE has expressed an adverse opinion concerning Ms. Vernon's professional integrity and honesty, including an alleged one-half-star rating attributed to its assessment.
Any such rating is an AEAE opinion or organizational assessment, not an adjudicated finding by the ARDC or a court of law. AEAE's characterization must not be presented as an established disciplinary determination unless supported by a final, verifiable ruling or other authoritative finding.
AEAE's position is that professional accountability requires attorneys to be answerable for the accuracy of their representations and the procedural consequences of their litigation conduct. Criticism of an attorney's actions must, however, remain grounded in identifiable evidence and the applicable professional standards.
III. APPELLATE DELAY AND PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT
The alleged repeated extension requests raise concerns regarding the effect of procedural delay on the Appellant's ability to obtain timely appellate review.
Where an appellant is required to respond to successive requests for extensions, the practical consequences may include:

• Delayed resolution of the appeal.
• Additional burdens on a self-represented litigant.
• Increased litigation costs and administrative burdens.
• Potential impairment of the litigant's ability to obtain timely judicial relief.
• Questions regarding whether the extension process is being used consistently with its intended purpose.

These are identified potential consequences, not adjudicated findings that Ms. Vernon caused each consequence or acted with an improper purpose. The actual impact and intent must be established through the relevant evidence and applicable procedural standards.
AEAE asserts that the appellate process must serve the fair and timely resolution of disputes rather than become a vehicle for unnecessary delay.
IV. DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROCEDURAL TRANSPARENCY
AEAE calls for appropriate scrutiny of the allegations through the legally authorized disciplinary process. Any reviewing authority should examine the actual extension motions, supporting representations, prior extensions, applicable deadlines, opposing objections, and the procedural history of the appeal.
The question is not whether an attorney may ever request additional time. Attorneys may have legitimate grounds for seeking extensions. The issue is whether particular requests were filed in good faith, supported by accurate representations, and consistent with professional obligations.
AEAE maintains that procedural privilege does not excuse dishonesty, and an attorney's position as an officer of the court does not eliminate the duty of candor. Any determination of misconduct must be made under the governing rules and evidentiary standards.
V. PRESERVATION OF DUE PROCESS AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
This statement concerns allegations attributed to AEAE. It does not establish that Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon committed professional misconduct, violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, or acted with an intent to prejudice the Appellant.
Ms. Vernon denies the charges, as applicable, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence in any disciplinary proceeding in which that presumption applies. The allegations remain subject to review, response, and adjudication by the appropriate authority.
No disciplinary violation should be treated as proven unless and until established through the applicable legal process.
AEAE's advocacy for professional accountability does not replace the authority of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission or any court to determine the facts and law.
VI. AEAE'S CLOSING POSITION
The integrity of the legal profession depends upon more than the appearance of procedural compliance. It depends upon candor, accuracy, good faith, and respect for the rights of every litigant—including those proceeding without counsel.
AEAE will continue to advocate for the examination of alleged professional misconduct through documented evidence, established ethical standards, and lawful disciplinary procedures.
An extension of time is a procedural request—not a license to misrepresent facts, distort the law, or impose unjustified delay. Whether that principle was violated in this matter is a question for the authorized disciplinary process to determine.
AMERICANS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY ETHICS (AEAE)
Advocating for Professional Integrity, Judicial Accountability, and the Fair Administration of Justice.
Disclaimer: This statement contains allegations and attributed opinions. It does not constitute a final disciplinary determination. All allegations remain subject to the applicable legal process, and Assistant Attorney Emily Vernon is presumed innocent unless and until misconduct is established through the appropriate adjudicatory proceedings.

​Chicago-(AEAE) Today Judge Mary S. Trew was charged in a Judicial Inquiry Board Complaint of violations of the Illinois Code of JudiciaL Conduct as a result of a hearing conductedf in Cook County case No. 2025 1450232. 
Legal Disclaimer: The complaint contains allegations, Judge Mary S. Trew  denies the Charges and is considered innoncient until proven guilty in a Court of Law.

​Chicago-(AEAE)A ARDC Complaint has been filed against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Assistant Attorney General Connor Q. Hollander, arising out of their conduct in the matter of The Equal Justice Party, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al  Case No 2025 1450232, currently pending in the Circuit Court, County Division of Cook County, Illinois.
As detailed in the ARDC Attorney Disbarment Complaint and supporting documentation, Attorney General Raoul and Assistant Attorney Connor Q. Hollander:

1. Represented multiple defendants Board members Catherine McCrory, Jack Vrett, Laura Donahue Casandra Watson, Tom Newman, Amy Calvin, Jason Hinds, Jennifer M. Balard Croft, Cris Cray, Ms. Walowitz, Rich Terven, Tonya Genovese, with conflicting interests without obtaining informed written consent in violation of Rule 1.7;
2. Failed to discharge supervisory responsibilities under Rule 5.1.
3. Respondents further represented multiple defendants with directly conflicting interests, including the Illinois Department of Human Services and individual DHS employees, without obtaining informed written consent as required by Rule 1.7.
4. The combined motion and subsequent filings contained misrepresentations of law and fact, misleading the court as to the propriety of their pleading and the scope of their authority to represent multiple defendants.
5. These actions caused unnecessary delay, prejudice to Complainant, and undermined the fair administration of justice.

IV. Rule Violations
Respondents’ are charged  violating the following Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 1.7 – Conflict of interest in representing multiple clients with adverse interests without informed written consent.
• Rule 3.3(a)(1) – Making false statements of law to a tribunal.
• Rule 3.3(a)(2) – Failing to disclose controlling legal authority directly adverse to their position.
• Rule 8.4(c) – Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
• Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• Rule 5.1(a)–(c) – Failure of Attorney General Raoul to properly supervise subordinates and ensure compliance with ethical obligations.

 
Complainant Information
Attorney Information
Attorney 1: Kwame Raoul
  Position: Illinois Attorney General
Attorney 2: Connor Q. Hollander
   Position: Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601

 The Illinois Attorney General Office refused to comment.
​
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The details contained in the Charging documents are allegations.  Connor Q. Hollander and Kwame Raoul are presumed Innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  Connor Q. Hollander and Kwame Raoul  denies all of the charges.
  

​Chicago-(AEAE)A ARDC Complaint has been filed against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Assistant Attorney General Aidan Nuttal, arising out of their conduct in the matter of Leo Stoller, et al. v. Illinois Department of Human Services, et al., Case No. 2022 AR 001369, currently pending in the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois.
As detailed in the ARDC Complaint and supporting documentation, Attorney General Raoul and Assistant Attorney General Nuttal:

1. Represented multiple defendants with conflicting interests without obtaining informed written consent in violation of Rule 1.7;
2. Filed a procedurally improper combined Section 2-301 and Section 2-619.1 motion, misrepresenting the law and misleading the Court, in violation of Rules 3.3(a) and 8.4(c), (d);
3. Violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 by submitting frivolous pleadings not well grounded in law or fact; and
4. Failed to discharge supervisory responsibilities under Rule 5.1.

For ARDC review,  following materials as exhibits are in support of the ARDC complaint:

• Exhibit A: Copy of Defendants’ Combined Section 2-301 and 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss (filed July 18, 2025)
• Exhibit B: Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 137 Sanctions filed in Cook County Circuit Court
• Exhibit C: Other relevant pleadings and orders of record

1. Illinois law is clear that a jurisdictional objection under Section 2-301 must be raised separately and prior to any other responsive pleading. By combining these motions, Respondents knowingly filed a procedurally improper and frivolous pleading.
2. Respondents further represented multiple defendants with directly conflicting interests, including the Illinois Department of Human Services and individual DHS employees, without obtaining informed written consent as required by Rule 1.7.
3. The combined motion and subsequent filings contained misrepresentations of law and fact, misleading the court as to the propriety of their pleading and the scope of their authority to represent multiple defendants.
4. These actions caused unnecessary delay, prejudice to Complainant, and undermined the fair administration of justice.

IV. Rule Violations
Respondents’ are charged  violating the following Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 1.7 – Conflict of interest in representing multiple clients with adverse interests without informed written consent.
• Rule 3.3(a)(1) – Making false statements of law to a tribunal.
• Rule 3.3(a)(2) – Failing to disclose controlling legal authority directly adverse to their position.
• Rule 8.4(c) – Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
• Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• Rule 5.1(a)–(c) – Failure of Attorney General Raoul to properly supervise subordinates and ensure compliance with ethical obligations.

 
Complainant Information
Attorney Information
Attorney 1: Kwame Raoul
  Position: Illinois Attorney General
Attorney 2: Aidan Nuttal
   Position: Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601

 The Illinois Attorney General Office refused to comment.
​
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The details contained in the Charging documents are allegations.  Aidan Nuttal and Kwame Raoul are presumed Innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Aidan Nuttal and Kwame Raoul  denies all of the charges.