COUNT I: Conflict of Interest – Inappropriate Sexual Relationship with a Client […]
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. representing a client, Riley Craig, when there is a significant risk that the representation of the client will be materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer, specifically, Respondent’s fiduciary duties to Riley Craig as a client while engaging in a sexual relationship with her, in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
b. having sexual relations with a client after the client-lawyer relationship commenced, by conduct including initiating a sexual relationship with his client, Riley Craig, after the client-lawyer relationship commenced, in violation of Rule 1.8(j) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
COUNT II: Conflict of Interest – Improper Business Transaction with a Client […]
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. entering into a business transaction with a client, by conduct including entering into an operating agreement in which Respondent and Riley Craig were each members and which formed the basis for Riley Craig and Respondent entering into a loan agreement for $601,829 on behalf of Future You, without 1) informing Riley Craig that she had the right to seek advice from independent counsel; and 2) obtaining the informed consent of Riley Craig, in a writing signed by Riley Craig, to the essential terms of the operating agreement, in violation of Rule 1.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
COUNT III: Using Means for No Other Purpose than to Embarrass, Burden, or Delay a Third Person and Filing Frivolous Litigation […]
By the reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. bringing a proceeding without a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including filing 2023 CH 3 in Bond County despite Respondent knowing that an automatic stay was entered in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy, in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal, by conduct including filing 2023 CH 3 in Bond County, which constituted violating the automatic stay in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy, in violation of Rule 3.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
c. engaging in conduct, while representing a client, that has no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by conduct including engaging in litigation, contact, or communication, as described in paragraphs 46, 48, and 49, above, while representing Future You, in violation of Rule 4.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
COUNT IV: Using Means for No Other Purpose than to Embarrass, Burden, or Delay a Third Person and Filing Frivolous Litigation) […]
By the reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. bringing a proceeding without a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including filing 2023 OP 55, based on Future You business issues, in Bond County despite Respondent knowing that an automatic stay was entered in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy, in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal, by conduct including filing 2023 OP 55, based on Future You business issues, in Bond County, which constituted violating the automatic stay in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy, in violation of Rule 3.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
c. engaging in conduct, while representing a client, that has no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, by conduct including engaging in litigation, contact, or communication, as described in paragraph 59, above, in violation of Rule 4.4(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
COUNT V: Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice […]
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. bringing a proceeding without a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, by conduct including filing 2023 CH 3 in Bond County despite Respondent knowing that an automatic stay was entered in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy, and for filing 2023 OP 55 in Bond County despite knowing that Respondent had no good faith basis for an order of protection against Riley Criag, in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);
b. knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal, by conduct including filing 2023 CH 3 and 2023 OP 55, which constituted violating the automatic stay in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy, in violation of Rule 3.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
c. engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including violating the automatic stay in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy case by filing and being sanctioned in an order and opinion by Judge Mary P. Gorman, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
COUNT VI: Contacting an Individual the Attorney Knows to be Represented by Counsel […]
By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
a. in the course of representing a client, communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, without the consent of the other lawyer or without authorization to do so by law or a court order, by conduct including emailing Riley Craig about her bankruptcy in the emails described in paragraphs 74 and 76, above, despite knowing Riley Craig was represented by counsel, and without the consent from Riley Craig’s attorney or the authority under law or court order, in violation of Rule 4.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and
b. engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, by conduct including violating the automatic stay in Riley Craig’s bankruptcy case and being sanctioned in an order and opinion by Judge Mary P. Gorman, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).
WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
Lea S. Gutierrez, Administrator
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
- Route 50 Corridor - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 7:49 am:
The GOP is really turned into a sideshow. Grifters and snake oil salesmen deluxe. Sad thing is in my part of the state I am sure people would give money to help him.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 8:20 am:
The reason, in part, a sexual relationship between an attorney and client is “unethical” is that (with 2 large loopholes) a sexual relationship between two people not married to each other is a misdemeanor. 720 ILCS 5/11-35 & 720 ILCS 5/11-40
- Keyrock - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 8:45 am:
The combination of this story and the Ed Burke/Supreme Court recusal story tells us everything we need to know about politics as usual in Illinois.
One of J.B.’s gifts to Illinois has been changing the narrative. It’s still politics, of course. And he’s not perfect. But he’s not been operating in the old Burke/Madigan way.
Now if we can only get a sane/competent second party again. But we may not see that for decades.
- Eire17 - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 8:51 am:
And the Supreme Court just allowed Ed Burke to keep his law license?
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 8:57 am:
I see the ‘…find out’ stage is proceeding apace.
- Socially DIstant watcher - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 9:15 am:
So “relations with a client” can get you disbarred but grifting doesn’t make the file?
- Anon E Moose - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 9:24 am:
To Anyone Remember:
Have you seen a single prosecution for adultery or fornication since Lawrence v. Texas?
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 9:29 am:
The main reason relationships with clients are unethical is the imbalance of power and the impact on the attorney client relationship.
- Will Colquhoun - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 9:47 am:
I am VERY happy to see that grifter get what’s coming to him, hopefully the beginning of a train of consequences that flattens him but good.
The comparison to Burke is fair only insofar as it’s an example of a connected criminal getting better treatment than a non-connected one. Just look at Texas’ AG Ken Paxton or hell look at all the lawyers from the Trump admin who all still possess their law licenses. Not mentioning this to excuse Burke, but it’s not just an Illinois thing.
- Anon E Moose - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 9:53 am:
Yet again, Ron Burgundy is correct.
- fs - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:10 am:
== The main reason relationships with clients are unethical is the imbalance of power and the impact on the attorney client relationship.==
This, times a hundred. And this appears to be a textbook case of it.
Attempts to justify it because “it’s based on old morality laws” are flat out loony and wrong. The Code of Conduct for attorneys is less than 20 years old, and anyone who’s gone through law school not only knows them but is required to pass a test separate and apart from the bar exam before they can be licensed. And this rule is very much part of that study and test. Snake oil salesman attorneys like Devore know full well of the rules, and the reason, they just think those rules don’t apply to them.
- Sad - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:12 am:
==The main reason relationships with clients are unethical is the imbalance of power and the impact on the attorney client relationship.==
Indeed. Sleeping with your client is a no no in all 50 states.
- ILLannoyed - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:14 am:
This is just sad. Tom DeVore wrecking lives and families all across Illinois for his own personal gain. Too bad so many rural downstaters didn’t see this guy for what he is. Bet the farm on a snake oil salesman who engages in slime ball behavior. But hey masks are the the enemy amirite
- Gravitas - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:14 am:
The disciplinary rule on sexual relationships is tricky, but I agree with Ron Burgundy. If the lawyer and client had a relationship predating the legal representation, the rule may not apply.
What a hot mess.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:24 am:
I wonder if he is going to try to use this to show how the state is out to get him. You should use him to fight the state because they are afraid of him.
Having read the complaint, he would have to spin it to do that; I suspect he will not mention the nature of the complaint at all, just the state is out to get him.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:37 am:
=I wonder if he is going to try to use this to show how the state is out to get him.=
It’s Tom DeVore, of course he is. He’s thumbed his nose at the entire judicial system for years and that makes him endearing to his supporters who don’t seem particularly concerned about his won/loss record. Why would he stop now?
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:42 am:
–didn’t see this guy for what he is.–
Yes they did.
Part of how this dynamic works is some people sincerely think this type of terrible personality will be useful in how they can be terrible to other people said person doesn’t like and wants to see terrible things happen to.
Some people like him, precisely because they see the guy for what he is.
It is in fact you who are having a hard time seeing all those other people for what they are. It’s an understandable, and common, blind spot.
- In the know - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:55 am:
This really gets him good.. On October 23, 2023, Judge Gorman entered an order and opinion addressing the
motion for sanctions. In her opinion, Judge Gorman stated that Respondent’s conduct, including
filing 2023 CH 3 and 2023 OP 55, was “willful” and amounted to “egregious violations of the
stay.” Judge Gorman also stated that Respondent’s “attempt to shoehorn his business disputes with
[Craig] into an action for an order of protection” violated the automatic stay in the bankruptcy and
was also “highly offensive considering the problems that the [Illinois Domestic Violence Act] was
enacted to combat.”
71. Judge Gorman ordered Respondent to pay Craig, within 30 days, $3,000 in actual
damages and $7,500 in punitive damages. The order also stated that Respondent was required to
pay Pioletti, within 30 days, $2,904 in attorney’s fees.
- Suburban Mom - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:05 am:
I approve of this use of my ARDC dues
- Siualum - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:16 am:
What’s the old saying, “don’t dip your pen in the company ink”?
- Unionman - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:28 am:
This was probably just the easiest case to bring. I am sure there are hundreds more. They didn’t touch his representation over COVID or the assault weapons cases.
He really should have kept that campaign committee for judge instead of AG. He would’ve been elected, had to give up all his clients but then it would have taken a lot longer for him to be out of the legal profession (getting paid a good salary too)
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:42 am:
Anon E Moose
When Thompson was Governor (pre-internet), a law professor came up with multiple criminal statutes with no prosecutions in years. Thompson thought it was a good idea. The list was introduced & prosecutors went ballistic. Claimed “Just because it hasn’t been prosecuted doesn’t mean we don’t threaten it.” A compromise was worked out, statutes that were used as threats were left on the books - including the 2 I cited.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:03 pm:
Ok. Might want to re-read Lawrence v. Texas. Pretty sure consensual encounters with adults are not criminal matters.
- Lurker - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:24 pm:
I’m not sure why this comment was limited to the GOP? Have you not seen all the other trials involving corruption and what party they are in? Or that Mapes can practice law and that he is much worse than this “salesman”?
>> The GOP is really turned into a sideshow. Grifters and snake oil salesmen deluxe. Sad thing is in my part of the state I am sure people would give money to help him.
- Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:36 pm:
Everyone agrees he should be disbarred for his grifting but this is the easiest case to make and probably the quickest. Like taking down Capone over not paying his taxes. You wish it was more poetically just, but the end result is the same, and so you accept it, begrudgingly.
- Two left feet - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:39 pm:
There’s a rule because it happens and it is wrong. At least, one attorney was suspended, on consent, “for 30 days for having a sexual relationship with a client while representing her in a contested divorce.” 02CH0099 https://www.iardc.org/DisciplinarySearch
- Lurker - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:40 pm:
Correction: I meant to say Burke. Had Mapes corruption on my mind while typing. If the Dems could slow their corruption down a bit and let me catchup, it’d help this feeble brain. 🤣
- Jocko - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:59 pm:
==Pretty sure consensual encounters with adults are not criminal matters.==
Yes but, you don’t decide to sleep with a client a month into your Covid-19 case against JB Pritzker…not to mention going ‘halfies’ into a beauty salon with this person fourteen months later.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:00 pm:
===Or that Mapes can practice law and that he is much worse than this “salesman”?===
I don’t think Tim Mapes is an attorney.
- The Ford Lawyer - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:03 pm:
-Suburban-Mom: “I approve of this use of my ARDC dues.” Me too. I am glad also that the conduct he is being dinged for is unrelated to his COVID grift. That makes it harder for him to argue that this is a political witch hunt, although he still will. All of this is classic unethical behavior and I think the only questions will be how long will the suspension be, and will it be UFO (and until further order). I’ll wager two years, and UFO after payment of all damages, mandatory ethics course, and demonstration to the Supreme Court that his is fit to practice law.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:16 pm:
His response to this today is… something.
- Retired SURS Employee - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:20 pm:
I, too, approve of the ARDC using my dues to prosecute this case. Indeed, the Complaint reads like an ethics question on the bar exam. At the very least, it should lead to a suspension “until further order of the court” if not disbarment.
- Back to the Future - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:24 pm:
Count me on the “I approve of the ARDC using my dues to prosecute this case” group.
- Soccermom - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:34 pm:
Fun fact — adultery is still a crime in Illinois
https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/august-2015/adultery-is-illegal-in-illinois/
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:37 pm:
In addition to the imbalance of power in their roles the client was decades younger than Tom. It reeks of predatory behavior. I think he saw this coming and is why he started the egg roll factory. Because who doesn’t think of egg rolls when they think of DeVore?
- fs - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:43 pm:
Funny that he makes all these claims about. “Threatened bankruptcy”, yada yada…and yet I don’t recall those claims being formally filed in the bankruptcy court. Instead, he tried to undermine the automatic stay by filing something that violated it, and was summarily smacked down for it by a longtime and well respected federal bankruptcy judge. The more he speaks, the deeper his legal hole gets; no matter how much he thinks it might help on the pr spin side.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:50 pm:
Tommy’s “response” doesn’t address the charges pending before the ARDC. He is just besmirching the former apple of his eye. (Kind of surprised he didn’t call her nasty)
- H-W - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 2:07 pm:
So intially, Mr. DeVore blamed his girlfriend’s mother-in-law as causing trouble. I think he sued her, and then dropped the case.
Now, it turns out his girlfriend is the problem. I imagine another lawsuit coming forth.
- Formerly Unemployed - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 2:10 pm:
One reason for this rule is that some lawyers have been known to offer clients a way to work off their legal bills. If you know what I mean and I think you do. It’s a major conflict of interest.
- Lordy lordy - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 2:23 pm:
Come on people, cut Tom some slack, those fly-in hunting trips to private hunting reserves with Illinois Republican National Committeeman Richard Porter aren’t going to pay for themselves.
- Duck Duck Goose - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 2:50 pm:
Weirdly (or perhaps not) nothing in DeVore’s response actually addresses the ethics charges against him. In fact, he appears to admit that he entered into an improper business relationship with his client.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:03 pm:
He claims that she was no longer his client when they became sexually involved. But she was the lead plaintiff in one of his Covid suits and remained so during the appeal.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:05 pm:
Anon E Moose
While you could be right (Alito, Thomas, et. al.), when ARDC promulgated this, worked in small office with many attorneys, one was told at training “The statutes are still on the books.” Besides, beyond clients, what if attorney is involved with client’s spouse? And small counties with spotty public defender resources, sure this isn’t threatened?
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 5:21 pm:
ILLannoyed:
My portion of Forgottonia couldn’t wait to vote for him in 2022 for Attorney General. Got nearly 70% of the vote.
I would like to see their reactions to this bit of news… my guess is it’s either “politics” or “the libs are out to get him”.
- Jersey Jersey - Thursday, Mar 14, 24 @ 11:16 am:
At least he didn’t blame it on the window lickers this time