Peter Bender, a criminal defense attorney in Springfield, has been licensed to practice law since 1995. Although Bender’s license is in good standing, a regional disciplinary committee previously cautioned him about inappropriate contact with an alleged domestic assault victim of one of his clients. In 2019, Bender entered his appearance on behalf of Matthew Johnson, who was charged with several misdemeanor and felony offenses against the mother of his children, B.C. After both Johnson and B.C. failed to appear at the preliminary hearing, the state moved to admit evidence of Johnson’s threats against B.C. and her children. The circuit court sustained the state’s motion, finding there was ample evidence Johnson had been harassing B.C., including threats to kill her and her children because of her cooperation with law enforcement. Bender subsequently sought to obtain an affidavit from B.C. declaring she was not unavailable at the hearing. He sent word through his client’s girlfriend that he wanted to talk with B.C. When B.C. called Bender’s office, she was informed she needed to come speak in person. B.C. came to Bender’s office. He informed her that he represented Johnson, not her, and that she might want to obtain an attorney. He also informed her she had been declared an unavailable witness. Bender then dictated language to his assistant for an affidavit for B.C.’s signature. The affidavit stated that B.C. chose of her own free will not to participate in the case, that she disagreed with the prosecutor seeking charges against Johnson, that Johnson had not intimidated her, and that she did not object to Johnson’s release from jail. B.C. signed the affidavit. She later testified she did not understand the statements were being made under oath and she was not afraid of Johnson while he was in jail. The state later sought an order of protection for B.C. against Bender and sought to have Bender disqualified as counsel. The circuit court ordered Bender to have no contact with B.C. except through the formal discovery process and, although it overruled the disqualification order, it required Bender to obtain a conflict waiver from Johnson before continuing the representation. Bender filed the waiver, and Johnson pleaded guilty. The state subsequently filed a new criminal charge against Johnson alleging victim tampering. The information referenced Bender’s actions in obtaining the affidavit. Bender entered his appearance as counsel for Johnson. The state moved to disqualify him as counsel. Bender failed to appear at three subsequent hearings. The criminal charge later was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. Following a complaint, the chief disciplinary counsel filed an information alleging Bender violated the rules of professional conduct by representing a client despite a concurrent conflict of interest. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended the information be dismissed, finding no rule violations. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the recommendation and argues Bender should be suspended with no leave to apply for reinstatement for six months. 

This case presents two questions for the Court – whether Bender violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.