* An ARDC administrator has laid out her case against Tom DeVore. The harshest potential penalty is disbarment. The least is a reprimand…

Lea S. Gutierrez, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”), by her attorney, Rachel C. Miller, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Thomas Guy DeVore (”Respondent”), who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 10, 2011, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which subjects him to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770

* And here we go…

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

Go read the whole thing. It’s quite something and it’s been a very long time since a former Illinois attorney general candidate faced such accusations.

*** UPDATE *** Response…