Veteran Chicago defense attorney Jeffrey Steinback will likely have his law license suspended for 30 days, following a hearing Tuesday morning before a panel of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Steinback and the ARDC agreed to what is called a “joint motion for approval to file a petition for discipline on consent.” While the exact terms of the suspension were not formalized Tuesday, ARDC panel chair Carlo Poli said it would take the matter under advisement. While both sides have agreed on the 30 day term of suspension, only the Illinois Supreme Court may formally sanction attorneys with more than a formal reprimand.

A formal decision will take between several weeks and several months.

Matthew Lango, who represented the ARDC Administrator at the hearing, told the panel that the decision was arrived at “after a great deal of deliberation by the administrator and back and forth with Mr Steinback and Mr. (Steinback counsel Adrian) Vuckovich.”

Asked by Poli if he agreed that the assertions in the disciplinary petition “were true and correct,” Steinback replied, “I do.”

Steinback, 71, stood accused in the ARDC complaint of a “lack of diligence, failure to expedite litigation, (and) failure to correct a false statement of material fact” related to alleged medical emergencies he claimed required him to make several last minute motions for continuances of a sentencing hearing in a 2020 criminal case in Iowa Federal court.

Steinback was retained as defense counsel in late November 2021 by accused killer Heather Mack. Mack pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to murder her mother, Sheila von Wiese Mack, in Bali in 2014 and is awaiting sentencing on Dec. 18. Steinback has worked with co-counsel Mike Leonard to craft a proposed plea agreement that would limit any prison sentence for Mack to 28 years or less. A federal judge will have to accept that plea agreement at sentencing.

Steinback’s ability to practice law was already limited after his being sanctioned by Northern District of Iowa Judge C.J. Williams for alleged misconduct in a 2020 criminal case there. Citing a variety of alleged medical reasons, Steinback filed a total of five motions for continuances, including one the day before a scheduled sentencing hearing. On two occasions, the Chicago man Steinback was representing made the four-hour long drive to Iowa, only to find that Steinback had not shown up.

Steinback was hit with numerous sanctions by Williams following a subsequent hearing, and later by the Northern District of Illinois Judicial Executive Committee. In September 2022, Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer signed an order barring Steinback from the practice of law within the federal Northern District of Illinois, “unless co-counsel, who has filed an appearance on the case, is present and/or signs all pleadings until further order of the court.”  He was also fined $5,000.

The ARDC complaint quotes from Williams’ conclusion in sanctioning Steinback.

“The fact that Steinback has produced no records, no witness, no evidence whatsoever to support his evolving story of treatment for his alleged back spasms on September 24, 2021, leads the Court to the inescapable conclusion that he never went to see anyone that day about his back spasms, even assuming he had them,” Williams wrote in a scathing opinion in 2022.

The ARDC in particular noted that Williams found that Steinback “repeatedly disobeyed the court, misled the court and was not candid with the court,” and that he also “… repeatedly failed to produce documents as ordered by (Williams) that could have substantiated his need for continuances.”

Williams told Steinback that while he “stops short” of finding Steinback guilty of perjury, he believed his claim was “a lie from the beginning.”

Steinback’s counsel Vuckovich, who called him “a legend,” made note of the fact that while Steinback may have lied to a federal judge, he did not fail in his obligations to his client.

“Mr. Steinback was able to get Count 7 of the indictment dismissed, and that count alone would have required an additional two years,” Vuckovich said. “So, although today was not the best day for Mr. Steinback, his representation of (his client) was not compromised.”

The ARDC panel also seemed to take into account Steinback’s full cooperation with its investigation, as well as his decades-long career as an elite defense attorney dedicated to his clients.

Steinback’s own closing comments to the panel sounded a contrite note. “I had previously apologized to Judge Williams during the (Iowa court) proceedings,” he said. “I do so again today for my misconduct.

“Whatever it is you consider to be appropriate I tell you now that I will accept and embrace fully.”