Email request to Justino Petrarca and Mary Ellen Meindl

The Landmark bombshell:

… and here is a simple request, emailed just now:

justin –

1. as a district 96 taxpayer, i ask you straight up:  did you disclose your personal relationship with a district 96 staffer to mary ellen, in her official capacity, in writing ?

in replying, please bear in mind the rules of the Illinois supreme court, article VIII, Illinois rules of professional conduct, rule 1.7: conflict of interest:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer [emphasis added].  see:

2.did you receive from mary ellen, in her official capacity, a D96 waiver indicating informed consent to your continued representation notwithstanding your declared personal relationship and any conflicts that may arise from said relationship ?  [see: rule 1.7 (b)(4).]

please produce these two documents at tonight’s meeting.

thank you.

mary ellen and jon –

under illinois foia, please consider this a request for any and all such notes, memoranda, letters, emails, declarations, waivers, communications, either on paper or in electronic storage, in the possession of riverside district 96, that amount to either attorney justino petrarca’s declaration to you of his personal interest that might give rise to conflicts of interest, or district 96’s waiver indicating informed consent in conformance with rule 1.7 (b)(4):

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent. [emphasis added]

thank you.

Explore posts in the same categories: District 96, Education

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: