CHICAGO LEGAL MALPRACTICE LAWYER BLOG

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

Each year the ARDC files many cases against lawyer who convert funds from client trust accounts. This case is slightly different. The ARDC has charged one member of a two-member firm with failing to (a) maintain accurate and complete client trust account records and (b) failing to make “reasonable efforts” that the other lawyers in the firm were in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

This is a case alleging inadvertent conversions of client funds due to a lack of record-keeping by the lawyers and the firm. There were several bounced checks and some clients apparently had to wait longer than they should have to receive their settlement checks.

This is an unpublished case, captioned, In re Marriage of Marie Brinkley v. Leonard Przysucha, 2014 Ill App (1st) 131397-U. The case is a dispute over child support obligations. The respondent allegedly had a large balance of unpaid child support. The petitioner, however, had obtained a bankruptcy discharge and did not disclose the child support claim in her bankruptcy petition.

The leading case on the issue is Berge v. Mader, 2011 IL App (1st) 103778. In that case, the court held that the petitioner was judicially estopped from pursuing the child support claim because she failed to disclose it in her bankruptcy papers.

In the Brinkley case, which is arguably identical, the lawyers for petitioner did not disclose the contrary authority and were sanctioned. The Court explained: ”

In re Balivet – 2014 VT 41 :: 2014 :: Vermont Supreme Court Decisions :: Vermont Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia.

Vermont has reprimanded a judge for failing to rule promptly in a family court matter involving the guardianship of a minor child. This is the first time I have ever seen a member of the judiciary disciplined for a lengthy delay in a ruling.

In November 2001, the respondent judge granted the child’s grandfather to be his guardian.

MATTER OF NOVINS, 2014 NY Slip Op 3465 – NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2014 – Google Scholar.

Some of the facts set forth in ethics cases are almost impossible to believe. This is one such case where an associate of a law firm agreed to assist a former client with a legal malpractice case against his employer.

After a personal injury case was lost, and the client threatened to sue the firm for legal malpractice, an associate of the law firm contacted the aggrieved client and negotiated a written contingency fee agreement with the aggrieved client.

Filed April 10.

This is a case involving a lawyer who successfully obtained employment with DCFS. The ARDC charged that he falsified his Illinois Employment Application by listing employment at a company. By falsifying employment (and salary) the lawyers was able to obtain a higher salary than he otherwise would have obtained.

“On July 1, 2003, Respondent received a four-year term position as an attorney with DCFS at a salary of $85,000. (Tr. 51, 55). That position required him to be a lawyer. (Tr. 270). At that time, Respondent was aware of the Governor’s Office’s policy that new employees to State government could not receive 10% more than their most recent salary. (Tr. 52-53). However, he also was aware that exceptions could be made to this policy. (Tr. 53-54).