![Screen Shot 2014-06-09 at 12.46.19 PM]()
MARION—An attorney who has represented or been involved with some of the most corrupt players in and around Williamson and Saline counties is under investigation by the state’s Attorney Registry and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).
A four-count ARDC complaint was filed May 9 against Joshua Bradley, a Marion attorney who works regularly in not only Williamson and Saline counties, but many others surrounding. He is originally from Harrisburg, and is the brother of Rep. John E. Bradley (D-117th).
Bradley has been practicing law since 1999, having worked first for the Franklin County state’s attorney, then for Morris Lane Harvey in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, before setting up his law office in Marion in 2007.
Bradley has in the past advertised that he has extensive experience in civil litigation, family law and personal injury, and “takes on cases involving highly complex litigation and civil litigation.”
However, the complexities of the cases involved in the four-count complaint against him might have proven a little too complex, and, if the allegations are true (and the ARDC wouldn’t file a complaint against one of its own unless it had the paperwork fully in order to support it), Bradley’s work on them shows either utter laziness…or total incompetence.
And, if other cases about which complaints have been made against Bradley are filed formally at ARDC, there exists yet a third possibility regarding why he’s made some of the alleged screw-ups: That Bradley has been doing the bidding of many of the corrupt in Williamson, and under said pressure, he’s simply proven to not be up to the task…and may very well be the weak link in the chain that might snap and take the string-pullers down with him.
Far-reaching situation
Given the associations of those mentioned in the first count listed in the ARDC complaint, the matter may have far-reaching ramifications.
That’s because the situation with Vishant Desai, a man who was allegedly in the country illegally and yet was brokering high-stakes deals across Marion in 2010, was tied up with not only the Marion corruption machine, but was best buddies with former Harrisburg mayor Eric Gregg…who at about the time of the filing of the ARDC complaint, was visiting his trademark bizarre behavior upon a Disclosure vendor (see related story), action that can only go badly for him now that he’s a high-paid state employee with the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.
Desai hired Bradley in 2008 to represent him in a divorce against his wife Manjinder Desai. In 2010, Vishant fell behind in mortgage payments on a property in Marion he’d purchased with Manjinder, this property located at 3307 Sunset Terrace.
Before the divorce was finalized, however, Desai was removed from the country by an order of U.S. Immigration officials, and he returned to England in July 2010. Bradley advised Desai to not pay the mortgage payments in August and September of that year because the divorce was not final. This resulted in a foreclosure on October 18.
Days after the divorce, Desai married another woman, Nancy, and she moved her belongings to the foreclosed-upon property, which case Bradley later agreed to represent Desai in, this in January 2011. He entered an appearance for Desai Jan. 18, 2011 and was granted an extension of time to plead to the foreclosure, to February 2.
However, Bradley never filed an answer to the foreclosure complaint…which resulted in a motion for default by CitiMortgage Feb. 7.
Father offers to pay
Desai’s father Mansukhlal Desai was the one who found the notice from Citi on the door of the property shortly thereafter, and, while his son was still in England, the elder Desai went to see Bradley about the case, telling Bradley that he would be willing to pay off the mortgage, about $65,000. Regardless, Bradley appeared in court on March 30, 2011, and consented to a judgment against Desai, resulting in the court ordering default and a judgment of foreclosure and sale…which Desai had never agreed to.
This proceeded for months, with Bradley being advised by Citi’s attorney that the property would be sold July 5. On June 30, Bradley filed a Motion for Continuance because he would “be out of town” on the July sale date, and because Desai was “still attempting to resolve the issues relating to the marital home which is the subject of this complaint”…despite the fact that it ceased being a marital home in October of the previous year.
On July 5, the court assessed that fact, and denied the motion to continue…at which Bradley didn’t appear.
On that day, the property was sold to Casey Rentals at a judicial sale, and was set for a July 18 approval of the report of the sale. Despite this, Bradley told Desai that the motion was granted and that the house could still be recovered.
Bradley, documents alleged, told Desai more lies: After an order of possession had been granted Casey Rentals, he neglected to tell the Desai’s; in August, he told Nancy Desai that the property had not been sold and that the motion to continue the sale had been granted; when she learned it had in fact been sold, he told her it had been sold illegally and that he would file pleadings to ‘void’ the sale; and before she returned to England, he said he would seek an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) on the property, and after she returned to England, he told her he had secured that order; and submitted a false draft of a lawsuit he said he’d file against Citi.
Yet when Nancy Desai returned to the States in October 2011, and he tried to tell her that he’d gotten a TRO, she learned that wasn’t the case; and, finding her belongings gone from the property, in January 2012, Bradley told her he “may have dropped the ball” and that he was going to withdraw from representing the Desai’s.
The first allegation in the Desai case is that of Misrepresentation and Lack of Diligence in regard the Desai case, in violation of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys with lies, misrepresentation and failure to promptly communicate with his clients on matters of their case.
Count 2: Dr. Tai involved
The second count regards another Marion notable who has been abused by the Marion machine: Dr. Mohammad Tai.
This situation relates directly to the Desai case, as Bradley also agreed with Desai, this in January 2011, to represent him in a lawsuit against Tai based on a breach of contract claim: Desai said Tai failed to return earnest money Desai had given, $35,000, in a proposed real estate transaction, about which there was no specific fee agreement.
The lawsuit was filed January 18, 2011; on April 4, the summons against Tai was returned “not served,” but Bradley did not pursue process.
However, in November 2011, Bradley told the Desai’s that he’d received $10,000 from Tai in connection with the case; ARDC documents allege he had not. Bradley then told Desai that Desai owed him $5,500 in fees, and that Bradley would give Desai the remaining $4,500; on Nov. 11, he wrote a check to Nancy Desai.
But in January 2012, he, as iterated above, ceased to represent the Desai’s, despite filing no motion to withdraw from the case Desai had against Tai. On March 8, 2012, the court dismissed the case “for want of prosecution”…all of this being in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and constituting Count 2.
![Screen Shot 2014-06-09 at 12.46.51 PM]()
Count 3: Battling the state
A third count is “Lack of diligence and dishonesty” in the case of Peter Homoya, a man who hired Bradley in April 2010 to represent him in a dispute with the State of Illinois and the Department of Transportation (IDOT), concerning Homoya’s claim that he built a frontage road in reliance on certain statement of IDOT personnel. Homoya also claimed that IDOT agreed to install traffic signals near the completed road but failed or refused to do so.
The case was filed June 28, 2010 and was a “CC” case (court of claims). On Aug. 27, the State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was not verified and failed to set out sufficient facts to support Homoya’s contentions.
Bradley did not file a response to the motion to dismiss; but on October 5, he told Homoya the dismissal order “had been taken care of.”
On Oct. 13, Homoya himself checked it out and was told by the CC clerk that no response had been filed. Homoya called Bradley that day and was told “not to worry,” that “he was taking care of this.”
Over several months, Homoya tried to contact Bradley about the case, but was only told Bradley would have to contact him later, with nothing said about any progress.
Bradley is alleged to have set up several meetings between Homoya and IDOT, for Homoya only to learn later that the meetings were never actually arranged at all. It’s also alleged that Bradley told Homoya that IDOT had made settlement offers (one of $350,000, out of which Homoya offered to pay Bradley’s fees, on which Homoya had fallen behind in paying)…which they had not. And when Homoya learned on Aug. 27, 2012, from another attorney that his lawsuit had been dismissed, he contacted Bradley, who told Homoya that it had not been dismissed…and even, on Sept. 7, told Homoya that he should be receiving a check from IDOT “the next week.”
When this didn’t materialize, Bradley actually told Homoya that he (Homoya) might have a legal malpractice claim against him (Bradley.)
Under this count, Bradley is charged by the ARDC with five violations of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
More alleged dishonesty
The fourth and final count of the current complaint is another “Lack of Diligence and Dishonesty” count in the case of Janice Travelstead, a woman who was injured in a car accident on Sept. 28, 2009.
Bradley took her case on a contingency fee basis on Oct. 14, 2009, and from there obtained information such as her medical records and the insurance records of the other driver, Shirli Suchomel. But he never filed a lawsuit on Travelstead’s behalf, even after Travelstead repeatedly called and went to Bradley’s office, these on at least 20 occasions according to ARDC paperwork.
Ultimately, on March 16, 2012, Travelstead went to Bradley’s office, where he advised her that the case was “under control” and he would call her in a few weeks…despite the fact that the statute of limitations for filing had expired on Sept. 28, 2011. This continued into May, with one more visit to Bradley’s office resulting in him telling her the case was “going well.”
In the Fall of 2012 Travelstead contacted another attorney, John Alleman, about the case. Alleman advised her that the statute was up. At that point was when her ARDC complaint against Bradley was valid, as the ARDC noted that he violated four of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the way in which her case was handled.
The violations as charged
The violations cited by the ARDC are among the following, many of which are repeated across all four counts:
Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client;
Failure to promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required by these rules;
Failure to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation;
Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
Failure to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable upon termination of representation to protect a client’s interests.
The biggest question remains why.
At first glance it might appear that Bradley is merely incompetent and shouldn’t be an attorney if he can’t A) tell the truth, B) keep his clients apprised of the situation, C) follow through on steps necessary for the execution of a simple lawsuit.
However, given a couple of the players in these cases, there may be more to it than that.
The Doug Bradley/Eric Gregg connection
In the case of Desai and Tai, both of them are linked back to heavy hitters in Marion/Williamson County at the time, including Eric Gregg following Desai around like a lapdog where it pertained to real estate transactions in Marion.
![State representative John Bradley has also had his share of issues lately, including a very messy divorce and equally-messy remarriage, which occurred in 2013. This Bradley, too, is tied in with bigwigs in both Marion and Harrisburg, from where the Bradleys hail and get a lot of their (some say misplaced) support.]()
State representative John Bradley has also had his share of issues lately, including a very messy divorce and equally-messy remarriage, which occurred in 2013. This Bradley, too, is tied in with bigwigs in both Marion and Harrisburg, from where the Bradleys hail and get a lot of their (some say misplaced) support.
As regards Tai, that doctor, who is from Downer’s Grove, came to be under fire when the property in which he’d invested, the old Executive Inn, became part of one of the multiple, overlapping TIF Districts in Marion, headed up by Doug Bradley, CPA, who claims to have no familial relationship with the Bradleys, John or Josh.
However, the Tai property under question, more than ten years ago, was desired by Bradley as it sat adjacent to “The Hill,” and Bradley’s big development plans (which he’s attempting to execute, but continues over stumbling blocks to this day; see last month’s issue about STAR Bonds). When the old Executive Inn property was condemned, the city made repeated calls to the doctor’s upstate office, which “almost drove him to have a nervous breakdown,” according to an acquaintance of Tai’s.
The following question may be applicable under the circumstances: By Bradley causing problems for Desai and subsequently Tai through ineptitude or inaction, did anyone benefit? If so, was it the city; Doug Bradley/Marion Heights LLC? Bradley’s attorney Ron Osman?
And in the case of Homoya, the same can be said: With a brother (John Bradley) as a state representative since 2003, would it behoove Josh Bradley to take a case against a state agency? And if he took it knowing he was going to cushion IDOT from a $400,000 claim on a frontage road, who else benefitted besides IDOT when the “ball was dropped”? Did this bring Bradley/Marion Heights back into play?
One more tie-in…
Perhaps the biggest question of all would be this: Is the exposure of Josh Bradley’s multiple faux pas related to the ongoing scrutiny of tax issues as they pertain to TIF Districts in Marion? Material was turned over to many investigating agencies last August; do these agencies now view Bradley as a “weak link” and are in hopes that as his screw-ups are examined, he might roll over on some of the major players (Osman, Bradley, even mayor Bob Butler) as the investigation continues forward?
Interestingly, Josh Bradley’s latest wife, Brandi, just won a spot on the Marion school board. There, she sits with another area attorney, Joe Bleyer, who’s been on the board for a number of years. The schools in Marion are under extreme financial duress due to the proliferation of the TIF Districts, which are taking tax dollars that should be going to the schools (and other taxpayer-supported bodies), all in the name of “development,” said development questionable at best.
It’s easier to operate a school district if those who are in charge of overseeing funding (the school board) don’t complain about lack of tax dollars flowing into the coffers.
As well, Osman was a very vocal proponent of Brandi Bradley’s ascension to the school board…again calling into question his motives and pointing out exactly where his priorities lie.
Other cases in which Josh Bradley has been accused unofficially of similar actions (or inactions), Disclosure has confirmed, are also currently under investigation; it’s been reported to this paper that these cases, if charged, will be added to the existing complaint.
If anyone has a complaint about Bradley’s conduct in their cases, they may contact the ARDC either online (where a complaint form is available) or call 217-546-3523.
Future hearing dates for Bradley’s complaint to be addressed by the appointed hearing board for ARDC had yet to be set as of press time.
