BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ANSWER: BACKGROUND COMMON TO COUNTS I-IV

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ANSWER: BACKGROUND COMMON TO COUNTS I-IV"

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: DAVID ALAN NOVOSELSKY, Commission No. 2015PR00007 Attorney-Respondent, No ANSWER BACKGROUND COMMON TO COUNTS I-IV 1. In 2002, Claudia Zvunca ("Claudia") was traveling with her seven-year-old daughter, Cristina Zvunca ("Cristina"), on a Greyhound bus back to Illinois from Las Vegas. The bus stopped for gas at a rest stop in Colorado, and Claudiaand Cristinaleft the bus. Later, when Claudia saw the bus pulling away, she began running after the bus holding Cristina's hand to try and stop it from leaving them at the rest stop. As she ran, Claudia was knocked downby the bus tire and crushed beneath the 37,000-pound bus. A bystander swept Cristina out ofthe way ofthe bus as she watched her mother die. Respondent has insufficient knowledge of the truth or falsity of the allegations ofparagraph 1 and therefore denies those allegations. 2. At the time ofher death, Claudia was married to Tiberu Klein ("Klein"), who was Cristina's stepfather. Claudia was also survived by her parents, Maria and Vasile Zvunca ("the grandparents"), who were living in Romania at the time of Claudia's death. 3. Following Claudia's death, Klein hired the law firm of Cogan, McNabola & Dolan ("Cogan firm") in February 2003 to prosecute a wrongful death claim against Greyhound and other defendants. In November 2003, Klein filed a petition in the probate division of the Circuit Court of Cook County to appoint an independent administrator for Claudia's estate in Cook County, where Claudia had resided {In Re the Estate of Claudia Zvunca, case number 03 P 8718 ("Claudia's estate case")). That petition requested that Greg Marshall, a paralegal in the

2 Cogan firm, be appointed to serve as independent administrator of Claudia's estate and was granted by the court. Stating further, the Cogan firm was the third lawyer retained by Tiberiu Klein in regard to prosecuting a wrongful death action, and at the time Klein retained the Cogan firm, a case seeking damages against Greyhound for the wrongful death ofclaudia Zvunca was pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, having been filed by predecessor counsel to the Cogan firm in the Circuit Court ofcook County in 2002 and then removed to federal court and transferred to Colorado. 4. On or about January 15, 2004, the Cogan firm filed a wrongful death case against Greyhound, Motor Coach Industries and the driver of the bus. The matter was docketed as Greg Marshall, Estate of Claudia Zvunca, and Cristina Zvunca v. Motor Coach Industries International, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Wesley Jay Tatum, Cook County case number 04 L ("the first wrongful death case"). In or about April 2004, the Cogan firm withdrew from Claudia's estate case and the first wrongful death case. Klein then hired the law firm of Clancy & Stevens to represent Marshall, who continued to serve as court-appointed independent administrator of Claudia's estate in the first wrongful death case. Jeanine Stevens ("Stevens") was the attorney from Clancy & Stevens who handled that case. In May 2004, Stevens voluntarily dismissed the first wrongful death case. Respondent denies that the case docketed as Greg Marshall, Estate ofclaudia Zvunca, and Cristina Zvunca v. Motor Coach Industries International, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Wesley Jay Tatum, Cook County case number 04 L , was the first wrongful death case filed in relation to the death ofclaudia Zvunca. Respondent admits the remaining allegations ofparagraph On or about September 14, 2004, Stevens refiled the wrongful death case against Greyhound and other defendants. That case was captioned Greg Marshall, Administrator of the Estate of Claudia Zvunca, deceased, and Cristina Zvunca, a minor by Paul Brent, as nextfriend v. Motor Coach Industries International, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Wesley Jay Tatum, Cook County case number04 L ("the secondwrongful death case").

3 Respondent denies that the case captioned Greg Marshall, Administrator of the Estate ofclaudia Zvunca, deceased, and Cristina Zvunca, a minor by Paul Brent, as next friend v. Motor Coach Industries International, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Wesley Jay Tatum, Cook County case number 04 L 10431, was the second wrongful death case filed in relation to the death of Claudia Zvunca. Respondent admits the remaining allegations of Paragraph On May 13, 2005, the Honorable James Kennedy removed Greg Marshall as independent administrator of Claudia's estate and appointed attorney F. John Cushing as the independent administrator of Claudia's estate. On May 12, 2005, the Honorable Susan Zwick appointed Marina Ammendola ("Ammendola") as Cristina's guardian ad litem in the second wrongful death case. Stating further, both appointments were made on motion of Stevens.. 7. On May 19, 2005, Stevens filed a motion to amend the complaint to reflect the appointments of Cushing and Ammendola. Stevens' motion was granted, and the second wrongful death case was thereafter recaptioned as F. John Cushing, Administrator ofthe Estate of Claudia Zvunca, deceased, and Cristina Zvunca, a minor by Marina E. Ammendola, as guardian ad litem v. Motor Coach Industries International, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Wesley Jay Tatum. The Cook County docket number remained 04 L In August 2005, Cushing, as administrator of Claudia's estate, hired the law firm of Clancy & Stevens to continue to represent Claudia's estate in the second wrongful death case. In September 2005, pursuant to a motion filed by Klein, the probate court changed Cushing's status from independent administrator to a supervised administrator. Respondent has insufficient knowledge of the truth or falsity of the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 8 and therefore denies those allegations. Respondent admits the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 8.

4 9. Between September 2005 and June 2006, the grandparents, who continued to reside in Romania, allowed Cristina to remain under Stevens' care and custody so that Cristina could attend school in Illinois. Respondent has insufficient knowledge of the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 9 and therefore denies those allegations. 10. Sometime in , Klein and the grandparents became dissatisfied with Cushing's, Stevens' and Ammendola's involvement in the second wrongful death case. 11. Between September 11, 2007, and May 2008, Judge Zwick made at least two requests that Cristina submit to a current mental health evaluation to assist the court in determining whether Cristina should give a deposition in the second wrongful death case. During this time, Klein and the grandparents began resisting Stevens' and Ammendola's efforts to have Cristina evaluated by a mental health professional, including failing to bring Cristina to two scheduled appointments with a pediatric psychiatrist. Klein and the grandparents also attempted to terminate the representation of Stevens and Ammendola and the administration of Cushing (including filing, in Claudia's estate case, a petition to remove Cushing as administrator of Claudia's estate, which was later denied). Stevens and Ammendola did not agree to Klein and the grandparents' requests that they withdraw from involvement in the second wrongful death case, because none of them had been retained by Klein or the grandparents: Ammendola had been appointed by the court, Stevens had been hired by Cushing as attorney for Claudia's estate, and Cushing had been appointed administrator by the court in Claudia's estate case. Further, Cushing did not represent, as an attorney, Cristina, Claudia's estate, Klein or the grandparents. Respondent admits that Klein and the grandparents filed a petition to remove Cushing as administrator of Claudia's estate. Respondent has insufficient knowledge of the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 and therefore denies those allegations. 12. In or about November 2007, Klein filed a pro se petition for guardian of Cristina's person in the probate division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. The matter was docketed as In re the Estate ofcristina Zvunca, case number 07 P 7929 ("the guardianship case"). In that petition, Klein sought to be appointed Cristina's guardian.

5 13. In or about February 2008, Respondent agreed with Klein and the grandparents to represent them and Cristina in matters related to the guardianship case and their claims related to Claudia Zvunca's death. On or about March 27, 2008, Respondent filed an appearance in the guardianship case. Stating further, at the same time, Klein and the grandparents also retained attorney Louis Cairo as co-counsel to Respondent. 14. Between March 2008 and July 2008, Respondent represented Klein in Klein's attempt to be appointed Cristina's guardian in the guardianship case. Ammendola opposed Klein's efforts to be appointed Cristina's guardian. 15. On or about April 14, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right in the second wrongful death case. In his motion, he averred that he was representing on Klein and the grandparents. On May 6,2008, Respondent filed two motions, one for substitution as a matter ofright, and one for cause, seeking to remove Judge Zwick from presiding over the second wrongful death case. 16. On or about June 5, 2008, Judge Zwick denied Respondent's motion to intervene and ruled that the substitution ofjudge motions were moot given her ruling on the motion to intervene. Judge Zwick denied the motion to intervene after determining that the estate had been aggressively represented in the litigation, that Klein's and Cristina's interests were potentially conflicting and because discovery had been concluded (but for Cristina's deposition) and the matter was ready for trial, therefore, allowing Klein to intervene might prejudice the original parties. Judge Zwick also found that the grandparents were strangers to the lawsuit and that the guardian ad litem had been adequately protecting Cristina's rights in the lawsuit. Respondent neither admits nor denies the legal conclusions recited in Paragraph 16, and admits the facts aueged. 17. On that same date, Judge Zwick ordered that Cristina be evaluated by a pediatric psychiatrist. Respondent, on behalf of Klein and the grandparents, later opposed Ammendola's efforts to comply with Judge Zwick's June 5, 2008 order to have Cristina evaluated bya pediatric psychiatrist, by stating in a letter to Ammendola that she could not speak with Cristina, that she could not physically take control of Cristina and that neither she nor Judge Zwick could order that Cristina be taken anywhere otherthanby requesting thatthe personal guardian do so.

6 18. Between May 2008 and July 2008, during the course of hearings in the guardianship case, the Honorable Kathleen McGury appointed Leonard Malkin ("Malkin") as guardian ad litem for Cristina in the guardianship case. In July 2008, Malkin interviewed Cristina, Klein and the grandparents to determine if Cristina was being manipulated by Klein or the grandparents. At this time, Judge McGury also spoke with Cristina in camera to discuss Cristina's wishes regarding the appointment of a guardian for her person. At no time did Judge McGury find or did Malkin report that Cristina, Klein or the grandparents had alleged that Stevens had physically or emotionally abused Cristina. Respondent admits the allegations of the first three sentences of Paragraph 18. Respondent denies the allegations ofthe last sentence ofparagraph In July 2008 Malkin filed his report to the court regarding interviews he conducted of Cristina, Klein and the grandparents. The report recited that Cristina (who was 14 at the time) expressed her wish that Klein be appointed to serve as her guardian and that she not be required to submit to a mental health evaluation, as proposed by Ammendola (who was still Cristina's guardian ad litem in the second wrongful death case). During Judge McGury's interview of her, Cristina reiterated the same wishes as she had expressed to Malkin, i.e, that Klein be appointed her guardian and that she not be required to submit to a mental health evaluation. 20. During her July 2008 interview with Malkin, Cristina also referred to the time in when Stevens was her temporary custodian, stating that she did not like living with Stevens, that she had been left alone until 8:00 p.m., fed what she considered to be junk food, and that she did not like Stevens. Cristina reiterated those complaints about Stevens' care during her in camera interview with Judge McGury. Respondent knew of Cristina's comments about Stevens to Judge McGury and Malkin, because they were discussed in court hearings during this time, and because he received a copy ofmalkin's report. 21. On or about July 18, 2008, Judge McGury entered an order in the guardianship case appointing Klein as guardian of Cristina's person. On that same date, Respondent filed a second motion to intervene as a matter of right in the second wrongful death case on behalf of Cristina, Klein andthe grandparents, which was denied by Judge Elrod. Shortly thereafter, Judge Elrod denied Respondent's previously-filed second motion for substitution of Judge Zwick for cause and reassigned the matter back to Judge Zwick.

7 ANSWER. 22. On or about July 24, 2008, Judge Zwick denied a previously-filed motion by Greyhound to disqualify Stevens from further representation in the second wrongful death case. 23. On or about July 28, 2008, the grandparents returned to their home in Romania and took Cristina with them to live. On or about July 31, 2008, Respondent filed, at Klein's direction, his substitute appearance as counsel for Cristina in the second wrongful death case. On or about August 12, 2008, Respondent then filed a motion to remove Ammendola as Cristina's guardian ad litem in the second wrongful death case. COUNTI {Filingand maintainingfrivolous litigation infederal court, re-filingfrivolous claimsand pursuing barredclaims in state court in the Zvunca matter) 24. The Administrator realleges paragraphs one through 23, above. NO ANSWER REQUIRED. 25. On or about August 8, 2008, while the second wrongful death, Claudia's estate and Cristina's guardianship cases were pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of the grandparents, as Cristina's next friend, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The matter was docketed as Zvunca et al. v. Motor Coach Industries International, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc., Jeanine Stevens, Marina Ammendola and F. John Cushing, case number 1:08-cv ("federal malpractice case"). Respondent asserted in the complaint that the basis for federal court jurisdiction was diversity of citizenship, becausethe grandparents were Romanian citizens. 26. In counts three and four of the federal complaint, Respondent alleged fraud and legal malpractice against Cushing, Stevens, Ammendola and the law firm of Clancy & Stevens. Respondent based his legal malpractice and fraud claims on the above-mentioned attorneys' refusal to withdraw upon being terminated by the grandparents and Cristina, as described in paragraph 11, above.

8 27. Respondent's statements in counts three and four of the complaint, referred to in paragraph 26, above were false, lacked any factual basis and had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Stevens, Ammendola and Cushing. At the time he filed the complaint, Respondent knew that Cushing, who was the administrator of Claudia's estate, had not represented the grandparents and/or Cristina as their attorney. Respondent also knew, at the time of filing the complaint, that Stevens had been appointed by the court to represent Claudia's estate and that Ammendola had been appointed by the court as guardian ad litem for Cristina. Respondent knew that Stevens could only be removed by an order by the judge in Claudia's estate case, that Ammendola could only be removed by an order by the judge in the second wrongful death case, and that Cushing could only be removed as administrator by an order issued by the judge in Claudia's estate case. 28. In count five of the complaint, Respondent alleged that Stevens had fraudently induced the grandparents to give Stevens temporary custody of Cristina in Respondent asserted a claim of intentional infliction ofemotional distress against Stevens by further alleging that Stevens had been "physically and emotionally abusive to the child, treated her harshly, abandoned her for long periods of times, and treated her with physical disdain by providing her with inadequate and improper food and a complete and utter lack of care. As a result of this virtually [sic] kidnapping, and explicit and intentional emotional and physical abuse ofthe child, Cristina Zvunca has suffered great emotional distress and has been permanently damaged by her experience under the control and custody ofms. Stevens." 29. Respondent's statements concerning Stevens in count five of the complaint, referred to in paragraph 28, above lacked any factual basis and had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Stevens because Respondent had received no information at the time he filed the complaint to support his claims that Stevens had physically abused Cristina, that she had "provided her with complete and utter lack of care", that Stevens had "virtually kidnapped" Cristina or that Cristina had been "permanently damaged by her experience underthe control and custody ofms. Stevens." 30. Respondent filed the complaint containing legal malpractice claims and abuse allegations in the federal malpractice case because he had been unsuccessful at that point in convincing Judge Zwick to remove Stevens from representation of Claudia's estate in the second wrongful death case, to allow Respondent's clients to intervene in the second wrongful death case and to abandon efforts to have Cristina submit to an evaluation. 31. Respondent filed the complaint containing legal malpractice claims and abuse allegations in the federal malpractice case with the express purpose of creating a conflict of 8

9 interest between the grandparents and/or Cristina and Cushing, Stevens and Ammendola, so as to force the removal or withdrawal of Stevens, Cushing and Ammendola from the second wrongful death case. Respondent had no basis for doing so that was not frivolous. Respondent also intended his statements in the complaintto embarrass, delay, or burden Stevens, Ammendolaand Cushing so that they would be forced to seek removal by the state court from the second wrongful death case. 32. Between August 2008 and February 2009, Cushing, Ammendola and Stevens filed various motions to dismiss the complaint in the federal malpractice case. 33. On or about February 26, 2009, the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing without prejudice all legal malpractice and fraud claims against Cushing, Ammendola and Stevens (as described in paragraph 26, above) based on what Judge Leinenweber determined to be Respondent's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but retaining the purported claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress by Stevens on Cristina. 34. On or about March 6, 2009, Respondent filed a second amended complaint in the federal malpractice case, reasserting the same claims oflegal malpractice, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Stevens and her law firm as had been contained in the original malpractice complaint. Respondent did not allege any new or additional facts in the second amended complaint than had been contained in the previous filing found by Judge Leinenweber to be insufficient to state a claim upon which reliefcould be granted. 35. Respondent filed the second amended complaint containing legal malpractice claims and abuse allegations in the federal malpractice case because he had beenunsuccessful at that point in convincing Judge Zwick to remove Stevens from representation of Claudia's estate in the second wrongful death case, to allow Respondent's clients to intervene in the second wrongful death case andto abandon efforts to have Cristina submit to an evaluation. 36. Respondent filed the second amended complaint with the express purpose of creating a conflict of interest between the grandparents and/or Cristina and Stevens, so as to force the removal or withdrawal of Stevens from the second wrongful death case. Respondent had no basis for doing so that was not frivolous. Respondent also intended his statements in the

10 second amended complaint to embarrass, delay, or burden Stevens so that she would seek removal by the court from the second wrongful death case. 37. On or about June 4, 2009, Judge Leinenweber issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing all counts of the second amended complaint in the federal malpractice case against Stevens and her firm, except for count four, which alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress of Cristina by Stevens. In his opinion, Judge Leinenweber dismissed the malpractice claims because the attorneys had been employed by the court-appointed administrator ofclaudia's estate and the court-appointed guardian ad litem for Cristina, that they could only be discharged by the circuit court and that their "failure to withdraw in and ofitself cannot constitute malpractice." Judge Leinenweber also found that the malpractice claims were premature because Respondent had not alleged any monetary loss or adverse judgment, settlement or dismissal. Further, Judge Leinenweber dismissed the fraud claims against Stevens and her law firm because he found that the circuit court had to determine ifthe appointments of the administrator and guardian ad litem had been procured by fraud, since that court made the appointments. Respondent received a copy ofjudge Leinenweber's June 4, 2009 memorandum and order shortly after it was filed. 38. On June 1, 2009, three days before the dismissal of the federal malpractice allegations, but after Cushing, Ammendola and Stevens had filed motions to dismiss, Respondent filed a complaint alleging malpractice, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress againstcushing, Stevens and Ammendola in the CircuitCourt of Cook County on behalf of Klein and Cristina's estate. The matter was docketed as Estate of Cristina Zvunca, Tiberiu Klein, et al. v. Cushing, Stevens andammendola, case number 09 L 6397 ("the 2009 state case"). 39. Sometime between September and October 2009, Klein and the grandparents became dissatisfied with Respondent's services and terminated him as counsel for Klein, Cristina and the grandparents. Respondent admits that on occasion, Klein expressed an intent to terminate Respondent, and denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph On or about September 29, 2009, Respondent filed a first amended complaint in the 2009 state case. 10

11 41. On or about October 8,2009 Respondent filed a motion to withdraw in the federal malpractice case, which the court granted. 42. On or about October 22, 2009, Judge Leinenweber dismissed the federal malpractice case for want of prosecution when no new attorney appeared on behalf of the grandparents and Cristina. At the time that Judge Leinenweber dismissed the federal case, the findings and dismissal by the court constituted an adjudication on the merits for purposes ofres judicata. Respondent admits the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 42. Respondent neither admits nor denies the legal argument pled in the second sentence of Paragraph On or about January 21, 2010, Respondent filed a third amended complaint in the 2009 state case. 44. Respondent's allegations in the complaint, first amended complaint and third amended complaint that he filed in the 2009 state case against Cushing, sounding in malpractice and fraud, were the same as those Respondent made in the federal malpractice case described in paragraph 26, above. At the time Respondent pled the legal malpractice and fraud allegations in the complaint, first amended and third amended complaints, if not before, Respondent knew that Cushing did not represent anyone as an attorney in the second wrongful death case or Claudia's estate case, that the federal court had dismissed the malpractice and fraud allegations on June 4, 2009, because Respondent had failed to state a claim under the legal theories alleged, that the malpractice claims were premature because Respondent had not alleged any monetary loss or adverse judgment, settlement or dismissal and that the federal court had held that allegations of malpractice based on an alleged failure to withdraw were insufficient, as Cushing's and Steven's removal had to be ordered by the circuit court. 45. Respondent's allegations in the complaint, first amended complaint and third amended complaint against Stevens sounding in legal malpractice and fraud, based on her alleged failure to withdraw when discharged by the grandparents, were the same as those that Respondent made inthe federal court case described in paragraphs 26 and 34, above. Atthe time Respondent pled the legal malpractice and fraud allegations in the first amended and third amended complaints, if not before, Respondent knew that the federal court had dismissed those same allegations on June 4, 2009, because they failed to state a claim under the legal theories alleged, and that the federal court had determined that allegations of malpractice based on 11

12 Steven's alleged failure to withdraw were insufficient as her discharge was required to be requested by the administrator and guardian ad litem, and ordered by the court that had appointed them. 46. After the federal court dismissed the federal case for want of prosecution, Respondent continued (by filing pleadings, including the third amended complaint) to assert the same claims in the 2009 state case that had been previously adjudicated by the federal court, although those claims were barred by resjudicata. 47. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, with no basis for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including, asserting fraud and malpractice claims against Cushing, Stevens, and Ammendola in the federal case, then asserting the same claims in the state case against Stevens and Cushing in the same manner as he had in the federal litigation after being told by the federal court that he had failed to state a claim and asserting claims that had been previously adjudicated in the federal litigation to create a conflict of interest so that Respondent could have the attorneys removed from the second wrongful death case and he could take control of that case and obtain professional fees, in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); b. making statements of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows are false, by conduct including statingthat the attorneys failed to withdraw upon termination by the grandparents and Cristina, in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); c. using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by asserting fraud and malpractice claims against Cushing, Stevens, and Ammendola in the federal case, making the same allegations in the same manner in state court that had previously been dismissed in the federal court litigation, to create a conflict of interest to have attorneys removed from the state court litigation and by making allegations that had no factual basis by stating that Stevens had physically abused, virtually kidnapped and provided no care to Cristina, in violation ofrule 4.4 ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (1990); d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by conduct including stating that the attorneys failed to withdraw upon termination by the grandparents and Cristina, and by stating that Stevens had physically abused, virtually kidnapped and provided no care to Cristina, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and 12

13 e. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice, by conduct including filing and attempting to maintain frivolous litigation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (1990). COUNT II {Failure to investigate claims in third amended complaint) 48. The Administrator realleges paragraphs one through 46, above. NO ANSWER REQUIRED. 49. On or about May 7, 2009, during a court hearing in the guardianship case, Respondent informed Judge McGury that he had received information from Cristina and/or Klein to the effect that Cristina had alleged she had been physically or sexually abused by Stevens when she lived with Stevens. 50. At no time did Respondent take any steps to investigate Cristina's purported claims, such as contacting the Illinois Department ofchildren and Family Services to request an investigation, contacting law enforcement authorities, or having Cristina evaluated by a mental health professional or expert. 51. Respondent did not allege in the June 1, 2009 complaint or September 29, 2009 first amended complaintthat he filed in the 2009 state case that Cristina had been physically and sexually abused by Stevens. 52. In September 2009, Klein and the grandparents became dissatisfied with Respondent's services and terminated Respondent's representation of Klein, Cristina and the grandparents. During that time, Respondent also became aware, at least through discussions in the court proceedings in the second wrongful death case, that Cristina no longer wished to have Respondent represent her interests. 53. On or about October 6, 2009, Klein, in his capacity as guardian of Cristina's estate, filed in the 2009 state case apro se emergency motion, in which he raised issues about Respondent's representation of the estate and alleged that he had not authorized the filing of the 2009 state case. 13

14 54. By at least October 6, 2009, Respondent was aware that both Klein and Cristina no longer wanted him to represent them in the 2009 state case. 55. Sometime between September 2009 and December 11, 2009, Respondent approached M.B. Financial, N.A. ('the bank") about serving as the guardian of Cristina's finances in the second wrongful death case. During that time, representatives of the bank agreed to serve as guardian of Cristina's finances, and also that Respondent would represent M.B. Financial, N.A., in it's anticipated capacity as that guardian, in the second wrongful death case and the 2009 state case. 56. On or about December 11, 2009, the Honorable Daniel M. Locallo appointed the bank to serve as the guardianofcristina's finances in the second wrongful death case. 57. On or about January 21, 2010, Respondent filed a third amended complaint in the 2009 state case. The amendments included, among other things, the addition of M. B. Financial as a plaintiffin the 2009 state court case. 58. Respondent sought appointment of the bank to act as guardian of Cristina's finances after he became aware that Cristina, Klein and the grandparents wished to terminate him as their attorney, to maintain his involvement in the second wrongful death case and the 2009 state case. Respondent had previouslyrepresented the bank in unrelatedmatters. 59. In the third amended complaint that Respondent filed in the 2009 state case, Respondent re-alleged the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Stevens that he had asserted in the federal court litigation referred to in Count I, above. In the third amended complaint, Respondent made the following additional allegations, inter alia, that he had not previously pled in the federal litigation: a. Stevens wanted to obtain control ofcristina and used Cristina as a "surrogate child"; b. Stevens had acted in a similar manner with other minors on other occasions in the past; c. Stevens obtained control ofcristina to abuse her and supplement Stevens' own emotional needs; d. Stevens threatened to place Cristina in "psychiatric confinement"; 14

15 e. Cristina had been struck by Stevens and "forced to engage in unwanted physical contact" with Stevens, who "shoved and slapped" Cristina and treated her as a "personal servant." 60. Respondent's statements in the third amended complaint, referred to in paragraph 59, above lacked any factual basis and had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden Stevens. At the time he filed the complaint, Respondent had not taken any steps to investigate any ofthe claims, such as contacting the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to request an investigation, contacting law enforcement authorities, or having Cristina evaluated by a mental health professional or expert. 61. On or about February 16, 2010, Cristina provided a letter to the Honorable William Haddad (the judge then presiding over the 2009 state case) in which she recanted all claims of abuse against Stevens. Respondent became aware of Cristina's recantation of the allegations against Stevens on or shortly after February 16,2010. Respondent admits that a letter signed by Cristina was submitted to the Honorable William Haddad on or about February 16, 2010, that the letter contained recantations ofsome of the claims of abuse against Stevens, and that Respondent became aware of the letter shortly after it was submitted. Respondent denies the remaining allegations ofparagraph Between February 16,2010and July 2010, Respondent continued to prosecute the abuse allegations against Stevens in the 2009 state case by filing pleadings, although he knew that Cristina had repudiated the claims. 63. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issuetherein, withno basis for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including, continuing to prosecute the third amended complaint containing the allegations of abuse against Stevens for five months after he learned Cristina had repudiated the charges in violation ofrule 3.1 ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); b. using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by making allegations of abuse against Stevens without investigating those allegations, in violation of Rule 4.4(a) of the Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); and 15

16 c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including, continuing to prosecute the third amended complaint containing the allegations of abuse against Stevens for five months after he learned Cristina had repudiated the charges in violation ofrule 8.4(d) ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010). DENY. COUNT III {Meritless removal tofederal court ofstate court action in Zvunca matter) 64. The Administrator realleges paragraphs one through 62, above. NO ANSWER REQUIRED. state case. 65. On or about July 13, 2010, at Respondent's request, the court dismissed the On or about August 11, 2010, defendants Cushing, Stevens and Ammendola filed a motion requesting sanctions against Respondent under Supreme Court Rule 137, based on Respondent's conduct in filing the amendedcomplaints in the 2009 state case without conducting a reasonable inquiry to the allegations and for an improper purpose. The matter was stayed pending appeals related to the second wrongful death case. 67. On or about February 4, 2011, Respondent filed a notice of removal of the Rule 137 proceeding in the 2009 state court case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District, Eastern Division. The matter was docketed as MB Financial, as guardian of the estate of Cristina Zvunca, minor, v. Jeanine Stevens, et al, case number l:ll-cv In the notice of removal, Respondent alleged as the basis for the removal that Cristina had filed a petition to intervene and was seeking damages from Respondent, her former counsel, and for costs and attorneys fees in the 2009 state court case and that, therefore, diversity of citizenship (since Cristina resided in Romania) existed for the basis of removal. At the time of the notice ofremoval, Respondent knew that the judge in the 2009 state court case had not yet ruled on Cristina's petition to intervene, and that, therefore, no diversity of citizenship existed, because Cristina had not been allowed yet to intervene in the 2009 state case sanctions matter. Respondent admits the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 68. Respondent denies the allegations ofthe second sentence ofparagraph

17 69. At the time Respondent filed the notice of removal, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137(b) provided that: "All proceedings under this rule shall be brought within the civil action in which the pleading, motion or other document referred to has been filed, and no violation or alleged violation ofthis rule shall give rise to a separate civil suit, but shall be considered a claim within the same civil action." 70. At the time he filed the notice of removal, Respondent knew that Rule 137(b) prohibited him from filing a civil suit separate from that giving rise to the Rule 137 sanctions motion in the 2009 state case. 71. At the time Respondent filed the notice of removal, none of the parties had consented to removal of the 2009 state case to federal court and Respondent was not a party to the 2009 state case. 72. On February 18, 2011, Cristina, through counsel, filed a motion in case number l:ll-cv to remand the matter to state court. On March 2, 2011, the court granted Cristina's motion, which Stevens had joined, as the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Respondent had previously dismissed the 2009 state case and there was no state court case to remove to federal court. 73. On or about March 31,2011, Cristina and Stevens filed in case number 1:11-CV a motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees against Respondent. 74. On or about July 5, 2011, Judge Leinenweber filed a memorandum opinion and order in case number 1:1 l-cv remanding the case to state court and granting in part, and denying in part, Stevens' and Cristina's motions for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and 28 U.S.C. section Judge Leinenweber found that Respondent's attempt to remove the case had been "meritless", that Respondent had cited no case law in support ofhis request to remove the case from state court because none existed, and that an "objectively reasonable attorney who undertook a cursory review of case law and the facts of the case would have never attempted to remove the Rule 137 proceeding from state court." Judge Leinenweber also found that Respondent had vexatiously multiplied the proceedings and found that Respondent was personally liable to Cristina for $10,155 and to Stevens for $2,424 for fees. 17

18 75. On or about July 15, 2011, Respondent filed a notice of appeal of Judge Leinenweber's July 5, 2011 order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The matter was docketed as MB Financial, N.A. v. Stevens, No On April 24, 2012, the appellate court affirmed the district court's July 15, 2011 order, finding, inter alia, that Respondent's removal was "worse than unreasonable; it was preposterous" as Respondenthad not been a party to the state court action and only a party could remove a state court case to federal court, that the filing of a sanctions motion did not make Respondent a party; and that removal required consent of all defendants and the defendants had not consented to removal. 77. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. bringingor defendinga proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, with no basis for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including, improper removal to federal court ofthe sanctions motion in violation ofrule 3.1 ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); b. using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by improperly removing the motion for sanctions to federal court and then appealing the remand order of the federal district court, in violation ofrule 4.4(a) ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); and c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including filing improper removal and appeal of the remand order of the federal district court, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010). COUNT rv {Misrepresentations to the court in Rule 137 sanctions proceedings) 78. The Administrator realleges paragraphs one through 76, above. NO ANSWER REQUIRED. 79. On or about December 21, 2010, Respondent filed a response to the August 11, 2010 motion for sanctions filed by Cushing, Stevens and Ammendola, referred to in paragraph 66, above. Respondent signed his December 21, 2010 response and attached an affidavit 18

19 reiterating many of the factual allegations in his response. In his response and affidavit, Respondent asserted that he filed the 2009 state case and the federal malpractice case because he had been directed to do so by "a Judge ofthe Circuit Court" and that he was acting as "the courtappointed lawyer under instructions from the Probate Court to file these lawsuits" and "did so at the direction of a judge." In his affidavit, Respondent asserted that "Judge McGury asked me to prepare filings to be filed initially in the federal court with regard to Ms. Stevens' conduct and later before the Law Division" and that "I was given specific instructions by Judge McGury to prepare and file the lawsuits that were filed both in federal court and later before this Court. Judge McGury also instructed me to enter an order stating that these lawsuits could not be dismissed without her knowledge and consent." 80. Respondent's statements in his response and affidavit referred to in paragraph 79, above, were false. At no time had Judge McGury, nor any other Circuit Court judge, ordered Respondent to file the 2009 state case or federal malpractice case. 81. Respondent knew that the statements in his response and affidavit referred to in paragraph 79 above, were false, because he knew that neither Judge McGury, nor any other Circuit Court judge, ordered Respondent to file the 2009 state case and federal malpractice case. 82. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct: a. bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, when there is no basis for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including alleging that he had been instructed by a judge to bring the 2009 state case and federal malpractice case, in violation ofrule 3.1 ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); b. making statements of material fact or law to a tribunal which the lawyer knows are false, by conduct including stating that he had been instructed by a judge to bringthe 2009 state case and federal malpractice case in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); c. using means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person, by conduct including alleging that he had been instructed by a judge to bring the 2009 state case and federal malpractice case, in violation ofrule 4.4(a) ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010); d. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by conduct including stating that he had been instructed by a judge to bring the 2009 state case and federal 19

20 malpractice case in in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and e. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice, by conduct including alleging that he had been instructed by a judge to bring the 2009 state case and federal malpractice case, in violation ofrule 8.4(d) ofthe Illinois Rules ofprofessional Conduct (2010). COUNTV {Filing meritlesspleadings in guardianshipproceeding in Kuc matter) 83. In or about June 2008, Respondent and Dr. Eugune J. Kuc agreed that Respondent would represent Dr. Kuc in matters related to Dr. Kuc petitioning the court to be appointed guardian of his mother, Daniela Kuc. On or about June 19, 2008, Respondent filed a petition for guardianship of a disabled person's estate on behalf of Dr. Kuc in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. The matter was docketed as In re the Estate ofdaniela Kuc, case number 2008 P On or about July 18, 2008, the Honorable Maureen Connors appointed Dr. Eugene J. Kuc as plenary guardianofdaniela Kuc's estate and person. 85. On or about February 13, 2009, Respondent, or someone at his direction, filed a petition in case number 2008 P 4108 requesting that an order of protection be issued against Robert Kuc, Dr. Kuc's brother. In that petition, Dr. Kuc sought to bar Robert Kuc from contacting Daniela Kuc or appearing at her home. Judge Connors allowed the petition and entered the order ofprotection against Robert Kuc on February 13, On or about April 1, 2009, Respondent, or someone at his direction, filed a petition for rule to show cause and request for sanctions in case number 2008 P 4108 against RobertKuc and his attorney, Gus Santana, alleging that on March 29,2009, Dr. Kuc had found a note on Daniela's night stand setting out Mr. Santana's office and cell phone numbers. Respondent attached to the rule to show cause phone records showing calls from Daniela's home phone to Mr. Santana's office and cell phones on March 26, Respondent requested that Mr. Santana be held in indirect criminal contempt for discussing Daniela's her guardianship with her without notifiying either Respondent or the guardian ad litem who had been appointed for Daniela Respondent further alleged in the petition that, in the alternative, if the calls had been made by Robert Kuc from Daniela's phone, that the court find that Robert Kuc violated the February 13,2009 order ofprotection. 20

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U SIXTH DIVISION September 11, 2015 No. 1-14-3589 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Robison v. Orthotic & Prosthetic Lab, Inc., 2015 IL App (5th) 140079 Appellate Court Caption RANDY ROBISON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ORTHOTIC & PROSTHETIC LAB, INC.,

More information

NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 05/23/2014 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Supreme

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.

More information

2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law:

2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: 2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. R. L. McNeely,

More information

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.]

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VIVO. [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] Attorneys

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U. No. 1-13-0250 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U. No. 1-13-0250 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U FIFTH DIVISION September 12, 2014 No. 1-13-0250 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

SMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings.

SMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings. SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado

More information

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

More information

Case 08-01176-AJC Document 1 Filed 03/01/2008 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

Case 08-01176-AJC Document 1 Filed 03/01/2008 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case 08-01176-AJC Document 1 Filed 03/01/2008 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION In re: JOSE SANCHEZ Case No.: 01-42230-BKC-AJC and FANNY SANCHEZ, Chapter

More information

Guide to APPELLATE PROCEDURE for the SELF-REPRESENTED

Guide to APPELLATE PROCEDURE for the SELF-REPRESENTED Guide to APPELLATE PROCEDURE for the SELF-REPRESENTED Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 110 East Main Street, Suite 215 P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701-1688 (608) 266-1880 Revised

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140554-U NO. 5-14-0554 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140554-U NO. 5-14-0554 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 08/13/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140554-U NO. 5-14-0554

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

In the Matter of Thomas J. Howard, Jr. O R D E R. This matter is before the court pursuant to a petition for reciprocal discipline filed by this

In the Matter of Thomas J. Howard, Jr. O R D E R. This matter is before the court pursuant to a petition for reciprocal discipline filed by this Supreme Court In the Matter of Thomas J. Howard, Jr. No. 2015-360-M.P. O R D E R This matter is before the court pursuant to a petition for reciprocal discipline filed by this Court s Disciplinary Counsel

More information

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations. RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall

More information

Part 6 Adjudication of Parentage

Part 6 Adjudication of Parentage Part 6 Adjudication of Parentage 78B-15-601 Proceeding authorized -- Definition. (1) An adjudicative proceeding may be maintained to determine the parentage of a child. A judicial proceeding is governed

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U. No. 1-14-1310 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Case: 4:13-cv-02652-SL Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/02/14 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 4:13-cv-02652-SL Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/02/14 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 4:13-cv-02652-SL Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/02/14 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JERRY P. TAMARKIN, et al., ) CASE NO. 4:13cv2652 ) )

More information

No. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

2015 IL App (3d) 130003-U. Order filed February 5, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

2015 IL App (3d) 130003-U. Order filed February 5, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 130003-U Order filed

More information

As used in this chapter, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following

As used in this chapter, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following Page 1 Massachusetts General Laws Annotated Currentness Part IV. Crimes, Punishments and Proceedings in Criminal Cases (Ch. 263-280) Title II. Proceedings in Criminal Cases (Ch. 275-280) Chapter 278A.

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 29, 2014 Decided February

More information

2015 IL App (3d) 140144-U. Order filed September 2, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

2015 IL App (3d) 140144-U. Order filed September 2, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 140144-U Order filed

More information

Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices.

Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. ---------------------------------------x

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 20 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joan M. Boyd,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Emory H. Booker, III, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Emory

More information

What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration

What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration Russell R. Yurk Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P. 2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049 (602) 234-7819

More information

FILED November 9, 2007

FILED November 9, 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2007 Term No. 33067 LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner FILED November 9, 2007 released at 10:00 a.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS M.R. 3140 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered February 16, 2011. (Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored.) Effective immediately, Supreme Court Rules

More information

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

More information

Covering Iowa Law and Courts: A Guide for Journalists. civil lawsuits for money damages. dissolution of marriage (divorce)

Covering Iowa Law and Courts: A Guide for Journalists. civil lawsuits for money damages. dissolution of marriage (divorce) CHAPTER 3: Those cases that are not criminal prosecutions fall under the general heading of civil cases. There are five types of non-criminal cases most commonly seen in Iowa: civil lawsuits for money

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 151268-U No. 1-15-1268 December 22, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 151268-U No. 1-15-1268 December 22, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st 151268-U No. 1-15-1268 December 22, 2015 SECOND DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

SENATE BILL 1486 AN ACT

SENATE BILL 1486 AN ACT Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Forty-fifth Legislature First Regular Session 0 SENATE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTION -, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY LAWS 00, CHAPTER, SECTION ; AMENDING

More information

RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF ILLINOIS (BOND AND MADISON COUNTIES)

RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF ILLINOIS (BOND AND MADISON COUNTIES) RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF ILLINOIS (BOND AND MADISON COUNTIES) Rule No. 2.01: Assignment and Coordination of Cases Involving Custody and Visitation A. Each child

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U. No. 14-1710 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U. No. 14-1710 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U SECOND DIVISION November 10, 2015 No. 14-1710 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION In re: ) Chapter 7 Liquidation ) marchfirst, INC., et al., ) CASE NO. 01 B 24742 ) (Substantively Consolidated)

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Pieczonka, 2015 IL App (1st) 133128 Appellate Court Caption BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,

More information

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. NOW COMES Respondent, ROBERT BLESS, by and through his attorneys, Thomas

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. NOW COMES Respondent, ROBERT BLESS, by and through his attorneys, Thomas In the Matter of: BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE FILED ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION and DEC 3 0 2013 DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION ATIY REG &DISC COiVlM CHICAGO ROBERT BLESS, Attorney-Respondent, Commission

More information

2014 IL App (3d) 120079-U. Order filed January 13, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2014 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2014 IL App (3d) 120079-U. Order filed January 13, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2014 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2014 IL App (3d 120079-U Order filed

More information

CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG)

CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) State of Minnesota ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Robert B. Beale, Rebecca S.

More information

FILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 150225-U NO. 4-15-0225

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 140

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 140 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 140 CHAPTER 1950. ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION ACT Rule 1951.

More information

MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CASCADE COUNTY. Appearing on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and the Class were attorneys Daniel P.

MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CASCADE COUNTY. Appearing on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and the Class were attorneys Daniel P. ,5SEPV Wl0: 3ii /"'LCD JCOURT MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CASCADE COUNTY Robert Jacobsen, -vs- Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff, Defendant. Cause No.: ADV-03-201(d) Final Order Approving

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT PLAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT PLAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT PLAN 1. AUTHORITY Pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 as amended (CJA), Section 3006A of Title 18, United

More information

RULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW

RULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW RULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW Definitions (1) In this rule, Application claim for relief includes a child support order, a spousal support order, a custody order, a property order, and corollary relief

More information

No. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150941-U SIXTH DIVISION December 18, 2015 No. 1-15-0941 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION Public Reprimand with Consent Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law Colleen J. Locke is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, whose address of record

More information

2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898

2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898 2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 1449 BASHIR SHEIKH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. GRANT REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District

More information

BILL ANALYSIS. Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted)

BILL ANALYSIS. Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted) BILL ANALYSIS Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted) AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT C.S.S.B. 1309 gives the State of Texas civil

More information

BILL ANALYSIS. C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Civil Practices Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

BILL ANALYSIS. C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Civil Practices Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE BILL ANALYSIS C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Civil Practices Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE C.S.S.B. 1309 gives the State of Texas civil remedies to be invoked by the attorney general

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from three counts of formal charges instituted

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court People v. Bruun, 2015 IL App (2d) 130598 Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID BRUUN, Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection

Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Scope of Rule 60A 60A.01(1) This Rule is divided into four parts and it provides procedure for each of the following: (c) (d) protection of a child, and other purposes,

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with

More information

51ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2013

51ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2013 SENATE BILL 1ST LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, INTRODUCED BY Joseph Cervantes 1 ENDORSED BY THE COURTS, CORRECTIONS AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE AN ACT RELATING TO CIVIL ACTIONS; CLARIFYING

More information

United States District Court Western District of Michigan FILING YOUR LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT

United States District Court Western District of Michigan FILING YOUR LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT United States District Court Western District of Michigan FILING YOUR LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT * This handbook is not for use by prisoners * Prepared by the Office of the Clerk United States District Court

More information

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.]

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.] [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LORD. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.] Attorneys Misconduct

More information

HB 2845. Introduced by Representative Patterson AN ACT

HB 2845. Introduced by Representative Patterson AN ACT REFERENCE TITLE: state false claims actions State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislature Second Regular Session HB Introduced by Representative Patterson AN ACT AMENDING TITLE, ARIZONA

More information

Grandparent Custody and Visitation Issues

Grandparent Custody and Visitation Issues Chapter 14 Grandparent Custody and Visitation Issues Melody K. Fuller, Esq.* Melody K. Fuller, P.C. SYNOPSIS 14-1. Grandparent Visitation Issues 14-2. Custody of Grandchildren 14-3. Resources This chapter

More information

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL AID AND RELATED ETHICAL ISSUES I N N S O F C O U R T P U P I L A G E G R O U P 3 P R E S E N T A T I O N

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL AID AND RELATED ETHICAL ISSUES I N N S O F C O U R T P U P I L A G E G R O U P 3 P R E S E N T A T I O N INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL AID AND RELATED ETHICAL ISSUES I N N S O F C O U R T P U P I L A G E G R O U P 3 P R E S E N T A T I O N OATH OF ATTORNEY I do solemnly swear: I will support the Constitution of the

More information

Case 5:14-cv-00756-XR Document 21 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv-00756-XR Document 21 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Case 5:14-cv-00756-XR Document 21 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION MIGUEL GUEVARA AND UDELFIDA GUEVARA, v. Plaintiffs, GREEN

More information

A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING THE EMANCIPATION OF A MINOR

A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING THE EMANCIPATION OF A MINOR A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING THE EMANCIPATION OF A MINOR Traditionally, any person under the age of 18 who was married or entered military service was considered emancipated. An additional category consisted

More information

TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ANNUAL DUI TRAINING 2010 TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI - OCTOBER 21-22, 2010

TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ANNUAL DUI TRAINING 2010 TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI - OCTOBER 21-22, 2010 TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ANNUAL DUI TRAINING 2010 TUNICA, MISSISSIPPI - OCTOBER 21-22, 2010 Glenn R. Funk 117 Union Street Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 255-9595 ETHICS IN DUI DEFENSE

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES LEE TROUTMAN Appellant No. 3477 EDA 2015 Appeal from the

More information

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify

More information

Case 3:11-cv-02791-D Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 62

Case 3:11-cv-02791-D Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 62 Case 3:11-cv-02791-D Document 11 Filed 02/08/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHNNY RAY JOHNSON, # 483120, Plaintiff, v.

More information

Case 3:07-cv-00952-L Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID 979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv-00952-L Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID 979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-00952-L Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID 979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RAFFAELE M. PANDOZY, Ph.D., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2319. September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2319. September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2319 September Term, 2012 MARY LYONS v. KENNETH HAUTMAN A/K/A JOHN HAUTMAN Zarnoch, Graeff, Moylan, Charles E. Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned),

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,569. In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,569. In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,569 In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed February 27, 2015.

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE COURT DEPARTMENT JUVENILE COURT RULES

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE COURT DEPARTMENT JUVENILE COURT RULES COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE COURT DEPARTMENT JUVENILE COURT RULES FOR THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN Rule 1. Scope of Rules These rules apply to all actions in the Juvenile Court Department

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 142304-U. No. 1-14-2304 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 142304-U. No. 1-14-2304 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st 142304-U SECOND DIVISION May 5, 2015 No. 1-14-2304 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act

Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act 36.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) Claim means a written or electronically submitted request or demand that: (A) is signed by a provider or a fiscal agent and

More information

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.]

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.] [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARMON. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 143 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4598.] Attorneys at law

More information

CIVIL TRIAL RULES. of the COURTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS. Table of Contents GENERAL MATTERS. Rule 1.10 Time Standards for the Disposition of Cases...

CIVIL TRIAL RULES. of the COURTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS. Table of Contents GENERAL MATTERS. Rule 1.10 Time Standards for the Disposition of Cases... CIVIL TRIAL RULES of the COURTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS Table of Contents GENERAL MATTERS Addendum to Local Rules Rule 1.10 Time Standards for the Disposition of Cases...2 Rule 1.11 Annual Calendar...3

More information

No. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009

No. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010 GROSS, C.J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. D.B.D., the father, Appellee. No. 4D09-4862 [August 25, 2010]

More information

EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213. Section 13 -- Siegel. Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS

EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213. Section 13 -- Siegel. Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS GWid: EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213 Section 13 -- Siegel Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS 1. This is an open book examination. You may use any written materials that you have brought with you (including

More information

No. 1-09-3532 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-09-3532 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOURTH DIVISION APRIL 28, 2011 No. 1-09-3532 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP1151 DISTRICT I MICHAEL L. ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP1151 DISTRICT I MICHAEL L. ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

lawyer regulation SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS

lawyer regulation SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS MARK F. BRINTON Bar No. 007674; File Nos. 02-1473, 03-0042 and 03-0440 dated Feb. 20, 2004, Mark F. Brinton, 1745 S. Alma School Rd., Suite H-102, Mesa, AZ 85210, was suspended for

More information

JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Sheldon Wernikoff, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly

JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Sheldon Wernikoff, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly SECOND DIVISION September 28, 2007 No. 1-06-2949 SHELDON WERNIKOFF, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 122440-U. No. 1-12-2440 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 122440-U. No. 1-12-2440 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 122440-U SECOND DIVISION July 29, 2014 No. 1-12-2440 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES

ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES (a) Mission: The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce

More information

Title 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights

Title 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held

More information

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION People v. Albright, No.03PDJ069. 10/29/03. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, attorney registration number 14467,

More information

2013 IL App (5th) 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION

2013 IL App (5th) 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION NOTICE Decision filed 08/20/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2013 IL App (5th 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC

More information

Chapter No. 367] PUBLIC ACTS, 2001 1 CHAPTER NO. 367 HOUSE BILL NO. 779. By Representatives Briley, Hargett, Pleasant

Chapter No. 367] PUBLIC ACTS, 2001 1 CHAPTER NO. 367 HOUSE BILL NO. 779. By Representatives Briley, Hargett, Pleasant Chapter No. 367] PUBLIC ACTS, 2001 1 CHAPTER NO. 367 HOUSE BILL NO. 779 By Representatives Briley, Hargett, Pleasant Substituted for: Senate Bill No. 261 By Senator Cohen AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code

More information

2012 IL App (2d) 110969-U No. 2-11-0969 Order filed June 6, 2012

2012 IL App (2d) 110969-U No. 2-11-0969 Order filed June 6, 2012 No. 2-11-0969 Order filed June 6, 2012 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A

More information

No. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2012 IL App (1st 1111354-U SIXTH DIVISION April 20, 2012 No. 1-11-1354 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

NOTICE TO GRANDPARENT

NOTICE TO GRANDPARENT A Power of Atrney may be created if the parent, guardian, or cusdian of the child is any of the following: 1. Seriously ill, incarcerated, or about be incarcerated 2. Temporarily unable provide financial

More information

FILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713

More information