The Illinois administrator has recently filed a complaint alleging misconduct by an attorney after she was disqualified in a guardianship matter.

The charges involve blogging about the case:

Between
December 2009 and November 2011, the court made various findings of law in
relation to the Sykes case, some of which involved [her former client] Gloria’s ownership in certain
property. In or about November 2011, Respondent began writing and publishing
two Internet web logs (“blogs”) devoted to discussing matters related to Mary
Sykes’ probate matter. The two blogs were entitled, “marygsykes – An attorney
blog concerning corruption and greed in the Probate Court of Cook County,” and
“marygsykes,” respectively. Respondent posted her own writings as well as the
writings of others on both blogs. Those writings included allegations that
there was corruption in the probate court of Cook County, particularly in
relation to Mary Sykes’ probate case, that Sykes was the victim of elder abuse,
and that the GALs and the court had acted inappropriately with respect to Sykes’
estate, that they had violated the law, and that they had physically or mentally
harmed Sykes.

Respondent’s
blogs were open to the public and were not password-protected. Respondent knew
or should have known that the contents of her blogs were continuously available
to anyone with access to the Internet. Respondent a purported disclaimer on her
blogs, which included the following language:

Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we
can get the word out. There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging) truth
in it, esp. for the GAL’s (sic), the probate court and a society that ignores
(thereby condoning) the sleazy world of probate, and in particular the 18th
floor of the Daley Center in Chicago, but everyone needs to understand, these
are not pleadings, there is no Motion, Response and Reply set by any court,
together with extended legal argument recorded by a court reporter and subject
to a Motion to Reconsider if errors or new evidence is found.

The complaint then sets out the various posts and alleges

Respondent’s blog posts...that there
was impropriety going on in relation to the Sykes case; that the GALs and
the judges were corrupt; that the GALs and the court had engaged in
financial exploitation or had financially profited in some way in relation
to Sykes’ guardianship case; that the judge had inappropriately taken away
Sykes’ rights; and that Stern, Farenga, and the judge had committed crimes,
were false.

Respondent
either knew that her statements...were
false or she made the statements with reckless disregard as to their truth
or falsity.

We previously reported on a complaint brought against an Illinois attorney who allegedly violation her duty of client confidentiality by blogging about clients and cases. There does not appear to be such a charge here.

Given that, I think that there may be a substantial First Amendment defense to this complaint. (Mike Frisch)