A former Springfield alderman faces a potential 90-day suspension from practicing law after an attorney discipline panel found he had a conflict of interest and engaged in dishonest conduct while representing a client who was suing the city.

The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission Review Board upheld on Monday a hearing board’s recommendation to suspend Samuel J. Cahnman, 62, for 90 days. Cahnman, who is licensed to practice in Illinois and has received previous discipline from the Illinois Supreme Court, served as 5th Ward alderman in Springfield for eight years before losing re-election last year.

The original three-count complaint alleged Cahnman had a conflict of interest and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation regarding his representation of a client, Calvin Christian.

While under the direction of separate counsel, Christian filed a lawsuit against the city in 2010 over an alleged Freedom of Information Act violation. This lawsuit was pending when Cahnman, who was an alderman at the time, represented Christian in cases over city traffic violations — a fact which Cahnman did not disclose to the city council or mayor, the hearing board found.

This lack of disclosure prompted the hearing board to find Cahnman had engaged in dishonest conduct that warranted a 90-day suspension. The hearing board also found the attorney had no conflict of interest in the matter.

The review board, which makes a final recommendation to the Illinois Supreme Court, upheld the hearing board’s recommendation that Cahnman be suspended for 90 days, but also reversed the hearing board’s finding that there was no conflict of interest.

The review board instead found that Cahnman had violated Rule 1.7 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct because he “had a concurrent conflict, in that he operated under two divided and conflicting loyalties — one to the city for which he was alderman, and one to his client, Mr. Christian, in the cases in which he was arrested or issued citations by Springfield police officers.”

In its report, the review board noted that Cahnman’s “continued representation” of a client who had hundreds of traffic citations in Springfield and a history of filing FOIA requests with the police department should have recognized there was a conflict.

From 2007 to 2013, Cahnman, while serving as alderman, represented multiple defendants in more than a dozen traffic and criminal violations in which Springfield police officers had made the arrests or issued the citations. One of those clients was Christian, who Cahnman agreed to represent after Christian received several traffic citations from city police officers in 2010.

While the traffic cases were pending, Christian in 2010 filed a lawsuit against the city alleging it had violated FOIA rules by refusing to release certain records involving police matters. In 2011, he filed another lawsuit related to information requests of the police department.

While the 2011 suit was still pending, Christian was arrested in 2012 by a Springfield police officer for driving without a valid license and improper parking on a road. Christian subpoenaed the city for records related to his arrest. Not long after Christian subpoenaed the city, Cahnman agreed to represent him on what he believed were “routine minor traffic offenses.”

After allegations circulated that the Springfield Police Department had destroyed records Christian had sought under FOIA, the issue came up for discussion at a city council meeting. The debacle, which became known locally as “Shredgate,” was discussed during a city council meeting in 2013 while Cahnman was sitting on the council. He did not mention that he represented Christian, even after Christian addressed the council regarding Shredgate.

Christian went on to file two other lawsuits against the city in 2013 — one regarding the Shredgate incident, in which he sought $365,000 in civil penalties from the city — and another that alleged police had violated his constitutional rights in his traffic stop arrest. Cahnman continued to represent Christian in the traffic case that resulted from the arrest.

The city council went on to meet in closed session multiples times in 2013 to discuss the Shredgate lawsuit filed by Christian, during which Cahnman still did not disclose that he was representing Christian in the separate traffic cases.

The city went on to approve a settlement of nearly $103,000 to Christian in the Shredgate suit.

Before the council voted on the settlement, another city alderman learned Cahnman was representing Christian in some traffic cases, which led city attorneys to inform the city council that Cahnman had a conflict of interest and shouldn’t vote on the settlement.

Cahnman stated during his hearing with the ARDC that he was unaware until this point that the federal lawsuit Christian had filed against the city, which had been discussed in the closed council meetings, related in any way to the traffic cases in which he represented Christian.

After city attorneys confronted the council, Cahnman admitted to representing Christian. He recused himself from matters involving Christian and the city and withdrew himself as Christian’s attorney. Cahnman also testified that he and Christian never discussed the lawsuits.

In its report, the review board stated Cahnman “knew or should have known that he was deceiving the city council by not being forthcoming about his representation of Christian” in the traffic cases.

The dishonesty violation falls under Rule 8.4 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, the board found.

Cahnman testified before the hearing board that he didn’t inform the council that he represented Christian because he didn’t read the constitutional rights complaint and thus didn’t know that Christian’s lawsuit related to this traffic cases.

Cahnman also stated that in 2002, while serving on the Sangamon County Board, he had done research in which he concluded there was no conflict of interest for him to represent criminal defense clients in Sangamon County while serving on the county board. He said he believed those same rules applied as alderman.

The review board disagreed with Cahnman’s reasoning for not notifying the city council of his conflict.

“(Cahnman) cannot stick his head in the sand to avoid his ethical obligations,” the board wrote.

Cahnman was represented by William F. Moran III of Stratton, Moran, Sronce, Reichert, Appleton & Nardulli in Springfieled before the hearing board.

Cahnman said today he was advised by counsel to withhold comment until further discussion can be had regarding the review board’s decision.

The Supreme Court censured Cahnman in 2014 when a hearing board found he had engaged in misconduct after obtaining a copy of a page from a judge’s appointment book.

ARDC review board decisions are solely recommendations made to the Illinois Supreme Court, which makes the final decision in most discipline cases. The parties have until Aug. 15 to file a petition for leave to file exceptions.

The matter is In re Samuel J. Cahnman, 2014 PR 00102.