2 aph -6iminre edelstein (13-45606)- irene kogan hiredlevine'sfirm on behalfofher father, emil...

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD

OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of

DEBRA VORHIES LEVINE,

Attorney-Levine,

No. 6239484

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Between the years of 2009-2014, Levine represented numerous clients who had

bankruptcy matters pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division ("the Court").

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one, and affirmatively states that

Levine represented thousands of clients that were either her own personal clients, or

cases she covered for other attorneys during her nearly twenty years ofpractice.

Commission No. 2015PR 00128

2. During this time, Levine neglected her clients' matters in various ways, including failing

to appearin court, failing to file documents on behalfof her clients, charging an

unreasonable fee and failing to communicate with her clients.

ANSWER: Levine neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph two, and

affirmatively states that the charge is too broad to answer due to lackof specificity. She

further states that she never charged an unreasonable fee to any clients. Furthermore,

there wasa point in time in which communication was difficult due to lackof phone

service and an eviction from her downtown office location. F I L fc U

2 aph -6 im

ATTY REG & DISC COMMCHICAGO

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PARAGRAPH TWO

1. At the end of May 2014, Levine lost her Office Manager (Gaby) that had been

with her for around four and a half years. Gaby's husband and sister who had

also been employed by Levine's office, left as well.

2. An attorney that Levine had hired, Rebecca Murray, left the firm's employ at the

end of April or beginning of May, 2014. She had been hired to cover family law

cases. Rebecca started her own law firm, or most likely had been in this process

for some time. After, or even before leaving, Rebecca Murray proceeded to

solicit Levine's clients.

3. Gaby left Levine's employ on May 28, 2014. After hitting Levine with a ream of

paper, Levine filed a battery report on the same date, a copy of which is attached

as Exhibit A.

4. After Gaby and Rebecca Murray's departure, it became clear that they were

working in concert, and attempting to solicit my clients. Both of them appeared to

have a very hostile attitude toward Levine. Gaby was working for Rebecca by at

least June 20, 2014 as indicated by emails soliciting former clients of Levine's to

write letters requesting refunds and file ARDC complaints against her. See a

copy of an e-mail from Gaby to a former client attached as Exhibit

5. Levine attempted to find a suitable assistant to perform Gaby's workload, but was

unsuccessful with those hired because they were not as familiar with Levine's

practice as Gaby was.

6. Trying to mitigate any damages, Levine stopped marketing for new clients in late

May, 2014, eventually causing a financial hardship, in 2014.

7. Sometime in June, Levine found that some of her client files were missing, and by

June 30, 2014, it became clear that much of her client information was in the

hands of Rebecca Murray because she filed a responsive ARDC complaint against

Levine where she demonstrates that she had "borrowed" confidential information

from Levine's office and was soliciting clients to write letters complaining about

Levine and requesting refunds.

8. Two months after leaving Levine's employ, on July 29, 2014, Gaby's husband,

placed an advertisement on Yelp with a picture of Levine lying on the couch

saying that Levine was drunk and passed out. Levine only found out about this

because a friend called and told her about it sometime during August. Levine

called Gaby's husband and told him to take it down or she was suing for

defamation. A copy of this is advertisement is attached as Exhibit.

9. In November of 2014, Levine was hospitalized.

10. In late November or early December, Levine's phone service was disconnected.

11. In mid-December, Levine was evicted from her office in the Monadnock building

12. While hospitalized, Levine's medication was changed to Gabapentine and

Lexapro. Levine is tolerating the medication, and feels well.

3. On or about January 21, 2015, the Office of the United States Trustee ("the Trustee")

filed a statement of charges ("statement") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Northern District Eastern Division against Respondent which was docketed as In re

Debm Vorhies Levine, case number 15-MP-9002. In the statement, The Trustee charged

Levine with incompetence, neglect, failure to communicate, accepting an unreasonable

fee, criminal conduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration ofjustice

in relation to her representation of various clients before the Court. The Trustee also

charged Levine with violating Administrative Procedural Rule II.B.l because, allegedly,

Levine did not maintain an active email address to receive electronic notice and service

from the Court's electronic case management/electronic case management/electronic

filing system.

ANSWER: Levine admits that the U.S. Trustee filed a Statement of Charges against her,

but denies that she willfully neglected her clients, and states as follows:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Bankruptcy

Court), never called Levine incompetent or dishonest.

2. The accusation of criminal conduct, had to do with one instance of

accidentally bouncing a check to a client that she was ordered to return

funds to.

3. Levine's electronic mail service (ECF) was discontinued for a while when

she lost communication through her existing e-mail. She corrected this

matter.

4. On February 4, 2015, while the matter, In re Tanesha Carroll, case number 14-39034

was pending and Levine was purportedly representing Tanesha Carroll in that matter, the

Honorable Bruce W. Black entered an order suspending Levine from the practice of law

before him, until further order of Court as a result of the Trustees' statement against

Levine in case number 15-MP-9002.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph four, but affirmatively states that

on the day of this 341 meeting, Levine was ill and could not find coverage.

5. On March 17, 2015, Levine filed an amended answer to the Trustee's statement in case

number 15-MP-9002. In her answer, Levine admitted some allegations, denied others

and raises(d) affirmative defenses to the various factual allegations while denying all a

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegation in paragraph five that she filed an amended

answer to the Trustee's statement, but did not deny all violations.

Levine disagrees that there were any problems with the clients listed in the Table of

Bankruptcy Cases, with the exception of In re Edelstein (13-45606), and In re Salyes (14-

28541), and Sharp (11-02646).

6. On June 10, 2015, Levine and the Trustee entered into an agreed order regarding the

statement in case number 15-MP-90002 that included Levine's admission (1) that Levine

failed to communicate and was unavailable to be reached by her clients on the following

matters: In re Edelstein (13-45606), Inre Gacuta (09-31485); In re Sharpe (11-04626);

In re Cal (11-17734); In re Hudson (12-27240); In re Chavin (12-28489); In re Wingfield

(14-15315); In reJohnson (14-17114); In re Sayles (14-28541); and Inre McCray (14-

30129) and (ii) that Levine failed to appear at hearings, including the

following matters:

ANSWER: The following matters were not included in the table of cases:

In re Edelstein (13-45606) - Irene Kogan hired Levine's firm on behalf of her father,

Emil Kogan, to file an objection to confirmation of Ms. Edelstein's Chapter 13

bankruptcy on behalf of her father. Subsequently she hired a new lawyer and filed an

ARDC complaint against Levine. Levine did everything she could, and the new lawyer

was unsuccessful derailing confirmation of the Chapter 13. A copy of the response by

Levine to the ARDC is attached as Exhibit B.

In re McCray (14-30129) - Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny

allegations regarding this client.

In re Johnson (14-17114) - Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations regarding this client.

In re Wingfield (14-15315) - This client wanted her case dismissed. See attached letter

as Exhibit C.

Following are answers to the Table of Cases:

TABLE OF BANKRUPTCY CASES

09-34185 Robert Gacuta Pro se by Debtor 11-05-2014 EmergencyDespite Levine being Motion toCounsel of Record Sell

Residence

ANSWER: Levine admits that she did not appear at this hearing. Levine represented thisclient since 2011. On November 5, 2014, while Levine was hospitalized. Robert Gacutafile a. pro Se Motion to Sell Real Estate, and did not give Levine notice, not that it wouldhave mattered since Levine was in the hospital. Levine had spoken to Gacuta's wife andthe real estate broker on several occasions and explained that the conclusion of theirChapter 13 case was imminent. Levine also asked for a copy of the contract to sell, andnever received one. Levine knew that Gacuta had completed all of his payments and wasready for a discharge and told them to wait until the discharge came through. Gacuta

would not get the advantage of a strip-down on the real estate unless a discharge orderpreceded the sale of the property. Gacuta filed his own motion. When Levine appearedin Bankruptcy Court on a Motion for Sanctions because she did not appear on theNovember 5, 2014 hearing, she was fined $800.00. Gacuta has received a discharge in

bankruptcy, and the case is closed.

11-04526 Melanie Sharpe Pro Se by Debtor 12/18/2014 Motion to

Remove

Attorney

ANSWER: Levine admits that she did not appear at this hearing. Levine had represented

this client in the instant case since 2011, and she had also represented this client in a prior

case. Levine did not appear on this matter for two reasons: One, there was no point in

appearing because what is Levine supposed to say to a Motion to have her removed. It is

the client's prerogative. Levine had made many appearances for this client in her case,

both prior to and after confirmation. The client was not in any danger of losing her

property and the case was close to discharge. Two, Levine was in the middle of aneviction from her office.

11-17734 Jennifer & Israel Cal Chapter 13 Trustee 09/29/2014 Motion toDismiss for

Failure to

Turnover

Tax Refund

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny these allegations, andtherefore denies the same. However, the documents were tendered and the clients werenot harmed.

11-22692 James & Mary Chapter 13 11/27/2014 Motion toWallace Dismiss

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations pertaining to the above captioned case, andaffirmatively states that the clients wanted their case dismissed. Levine did not appearbecause she did not want to say "no defense" to dismissal, in case they decided to re-filetheir case. This would have been the equivalent of saying that they did not care. They arestill Levine's clients in an action to modify their mortgage.

12-27240 Tonja Hudsonhearing.

Debtor (Levine) 11/11/2013 Confirmation

ANSWER: Levine admits that she did not appear on the final confirmation hearing, butaffirmatively states that she knew that the case was going to be confirmed and it was,She had spoken to Glenn Stearns, the Chapter 13 Trustee, and he had advised Levine thatthe case was going to be confirmed and that she did not need to appear. This is typical ofthe relationship between Trustees and counsel. Objections to claims had been resolved.Client has since received a discharge.

12-28489 Robert & CindyChavin

Chapter 13 Trustee 9/13/2012 Motion to

Dismiss for

Failure to

Make Plan

Payments

ANSWER: This case was confirmed on March 13, 2013. The case is still pending.Levine is still representing this client. She did not receive or see this Motion to Dismiss.The client caught up.

12-44647 Cervando & Marlen Chapter 13 Trustee 12/16/2013Rodriguez

Motion to

Dismiss for

Failure to

make

Make Plan

Payments

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations regardingthis matter.

13-08882 Francisco & Maria Chapter 13 TrusteeNavaro

12/18/2014

PaymentsMotion to

Dismiss for

Failure to

Turnover

Tax Refund

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph nine, pertaining to this matter.Levine was still representing these clients at the time of a hearing in front of theBankruptcy Court, to which the client appeared and could not understand, in her words,"Why everyone was being so mean to me (Levine)." Navarro received a tax return of$7,400because they were claiming zero exemptions. They fell behind on their mortgagepayments and had to go to Maria's sister for a loan of $7,000. They only had $400 left.They had a $400 dollar check for the Trustee. They were allowed to continue with theircase.

13-24527 Daniel & Amanda Chapter 13 Trustee 3/20/2014 Motion toGreen Dismiss for

Ineligibility

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in this paragraph. Counsel did appear in Courton this matter. This case was a Chapter 13 converted to a Chapter 7. Levine haddiscussed the possibilities with her clients prior to converting the case. They wereadvised that there was a risk that they would be ineligible, but they wanted their caseconverted anyway. The Chapter 7 was dismissed.

13-28861 Valerie Holmes Wells Fargo Bank 10/06/2014 Motion for11/03/2014 Relief from

11/24/2014 Stay

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.Levine was hospitalized the day after the November 3, 2014 hearing. She affirmativelystates that she did speak to the client and learned that the client wanted to modify hermortgage. Client was attempting to modify her mortgage, and stated that she did notwant her case dismissed, but was advised by the mortgage company that they wanted thestay to be modified before they proceeded. Levine advised the client that this was notnecessary as long as they had a letter stating that they were free to proceed withoutviolating the automatic stay. She listened to the mortgage company anyway and was finewith a modification of the automatic stay.

13-37603 SGK Ventures, LLC Keywell Metals 4/16/2014 Motion forLLC Civil

ContemptAgainst BramiSuperalliag

10

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegationsregarding this client.

14-10038 Jessie Rodriguez Clerk of Court 4/29/2014 341

5/29/2014 Examination

Of Debtor

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in this matter, but affirmatively states that thisoccurred during a time of upheaval in her office. On or around the end of April, orbeginning of May, 2014, an attorney quit and went to practice in her own firm, and at theend of May, 2014, her office assistant quit, and joined the attorney.

14-15315 Stacey Wingfield Debtor (Levine)& Chapter 13Trustee

11/17/14 Confirmation

Of Chapter 13& Motion to

Dismiss for

Unreasonable

Delay

ANSWER: AMENDED RESPONSE. Levine denies that she did anything improper inthis case. Stacy Wingfield wanted her case dismissed and wrote a letter to that effect, SeeExhibit B. Levine was in Bankruptcy Court on November 17, 2014 and told the Trusteethat she wanted her case dismissed.

14-17114 Fella Johnson Debtor (Levine) 8/21/2014

9/18/2014

Confirmation

of Chapter 13Plan

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph nine pertaining to this matter.She affirmatively states that she filed the petition, plan, and amendments. The law firmof Auther Cobin substituted in on this case on October 2, 2014, and the plan wasconfirmed. The amount of money that Levine received in this case was $627. OnDecember 11, 2014, Levine appeared in Court and tendered $1,000, more than what shehad received from the client. Opposing counsel wanted to refund money to Levine,recognizing that Levine had overpaid the client, but Levine refused the offer.

11

14-19021 Julian & Belinda

MarquezU.S. Trustee 7/09/2014 Motion to

Dismiss for

Failure to File

RequiredDocuments

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in thismatter.

14-28541 Adrianne Sayles U.S. Trustee Motion to

Substitute

Counsel

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in pertaining to this matter. Levine hadprepared the documents relating to this matter. Levine did not think it was necessary toappear on a Motion to Substitute counsel.

14-28626 Edward & Doris

Stasierowski

U.S. Trustee 9/04/2014 Motion to

Dismiss

For Failure to

File RequiredDocuments

14-28626 Robert Murphy U.S. Trustee Motion to

Dismiss

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations, regarding to this matter, but affirmativelystates that she was unable to file schedules and a feasible plan for this client because shelearned after filing an emergency petition to stop an impending sale that he was morethan $40,000 dollars in arrears on property taxes. She discussed this situation at lengthwith the client. Prior to filing, he had stated that he had hired another companyto reducehis property tax arrearages. After filing, he stated that yes, he had hired another companyto reduce his taxes, but they were only able to reduce his monthly payment, not thearrearages. Levine advised him thatbecause he could not reduce his tax arrearages, andbecause he did not have enough to pay the taxes within a Chapter 13 plan in themaximum time allowed, that he was most certainly going to lose his property and shouldconvert to a Chapter 7. He did not want to follow through.

14-38701 Sandra Rosas U.S. Trustee 12/10/2014 Motion to

12

12/11/2014 Dismiss for

Failure to File

RequiredDocuments

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations regarding this matter and affirmatively statesthat she filed her case on October 24, 2014. The client demanded that she wanted hercase filed right away. Her credit counseling had been filed, on October 17, 2014, prior tofiling the case. WhenLevine tried to get in touchwith her to obtaina signed copyof herdeclaration, she found that she was in Mexico and could not be reached. Levine hadprepared all of the schedules, but was unable to obtain a signed Declaration of ElectronicFiling. Thomas Drexler took over the case, but never filed an appearance.

7. As part of the June 10, 2015 agreed order, Levine also agreed to undergo a Court-

ordered examination, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 329, of the fees Levine charged and

received from her clients in the following bankruptcy matters, which subsequently

resulted in Judge Black ordering the following disgorgement from Levine to her clients:

ANSWER: See the following explanations:

TABLE OF BANKRUPTCY CASES

09-31485 Robert Gacuta 12/02/2014 NO $800.00

12/16/2014

ANSWER: Levine admits that she did not appear on the hearing on December 2, 2014,but has insufficient recollection of the December 16, 2014 hearing. At the time of thishearing, Levine had represented this client for almost five years. Levine did appear on aMotion for Sanctions for this matter. On or near the mid-December hearing, Levine wasevicted from her downtown office, and had been in the eviction process since October,2014. See Exhibit ???This Order for Disgorgement was unfair, and she objected duringthe hearing. Levine was in communication with the client's wife, and the real estatebroker, and advised them against filing the motion, or selling the property prior todischarge, which was imminent. Levine cannot comply with the Court Order forEconomic reasons.

11-04626 Melanie Sharpe 1/08/2015 NO Any and allAttorney fees

13

ANSWER: Levine admits that the Court ordered this disgorgement because she did notappear on a motion to have her removed. Prior to this motion, Levine had represented theclient for nearly four years on this particular case prior to entry of this order. She hadgotten the case confirmed and appeared on many subsequent motions to save her variousproperties. Levine also represented this client on a prior case. Levine feels that to refundall attorney fees is draconian and without justification. Levine cannot comply with theCourt Order for Economic reasons.

11-17734 Jennifer & Israel 10/24/2014 NO $1,500Cal 12/15/2014

ANSWER: Levine admits that the Court ordered this disgorgement. The instanceswhere the Bankruptcy Court alleges that Levine did not appear included instances whereLevine was hospitalized shortly after occurrence, namely the 10/24/2014, and whereLevine was in the process of eviction, namely the 12/15/14 hearing. Levine cannotcomply with the Court Order for Economic reasons.

13-08882 Francisco & 1/08/2015 NO Any and allNavarro Attorney Fees

Received

ANSWER: Levine admits that the Court ordered this disgorgement. Levine representedthe client by filing all of the appropriate documents to have the case confirmed, andappeared at the Chapter 13 meeting of creditors. The client appeared in Court whenLevine was subjected to a hearing, and still wanted me to represent her. Her case is stillpending. What is the client supposed to do under these circumstances?

13-08697 Suburban West 6/18/2013 YES Any and allProperties, LLC Attorney Fees

Received

ANSWER: Levine has inadequate information to admit or deny the allegations in thisparagraph. Levine only received at most, $700, and was not the primary attorney ofrecord.

13-28861 Valerie Holmes 11/24/2014 NO TBD

1/05/2015

1/26/2015

ANSWER: Levine has inadequate information to respond to any allegations in thismatter. She did appear on a Motion for Sanctions before Judge Cox, and Judge Coxnever fined her. Levine has been in contact with the client since that hearing date.

13-83852 Industrial 4/09/2014 YES $8,787

14

Mechanical

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in this matter. Levine represented this client in aChapter 11 case. Pursuant to agreement by both parties, Levine was in agreement toresign from this case and tendered a refund of $8,787 and contempt was purged. The casewas filed as an emergency and the client did not cooperate in tendering documents.

14-09245 Muriel & Michael 9/29/2014 12/08/2014 $996

Jenkins 11/03/2014 Only11/24/2014

12/08/2014

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations, butaffirmatively states that she was hospitalized in November of 2014 and had been in theprocess of eviction from her downtown office since October of 2014, and was evicted inDecember of 2014. The office was, at best disorganized during this time. There was noharm to the client. See the attached Exhibit

14-0038 Jessie Rodriguez 6/18/2014 YES $500

ANSWER: Levine prepared this client's bankruptcy petition and tendered all necessarydocuments. Levine missed the 341 meeting, but it was held, there was a finding of "noassets," and the Debtor received a discharge. Levine has been financially unable torefund money.

14-2702 Mark&Trina 8/22/2014 NO $615Coleman 10/03/2014

10/24/2014

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegationsregarding this client.

14-7114 Fella Johnson 9/18/2014 NO $1,000

ANSWER: Levine tender $1,000 to Ms. Johnson in Court and the contempt waspurged. Client's new counsel actually offered to refundme the filing fee, but I refused.

14-9012 Julian & Belinda 7/17/2014 YES $1,500

Marquez

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in this matter.

15

14-28626 Edward & Doris 7/17/2014 NO $1,165Stasierowski 9/30/2014

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in this matter.

14-29267 Robert Murphy 10/20/2014 NO $630

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in this motion. This petition was filed because theclient approached her shortly before a sale date on his residence. Levine filed an emergencypetition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Before filing the case, and because he had already been aclient, she asked about the status of his property tax. He told Levine that he had hired a companyto represent him with his property tax issues. After filing the case, Levine found that he wasmore than $40,000 in arrears on property taxes, and asked him about this. He then said that thecompany he hired modified his monthly mortgage payment, but because he could not pay them,they never modified his property tax arrearages. His arrearages to the mortgage company wereabout $40,000. Given that the client did not have the monthly income to support a plan for$40,000 in property tax arrears, his plan would be unfeasible and dismissed. Levine advised himthat he would have to give up his property, rent, and advised him to file a Chapter 7, none ofwhich he wanted to do. I am going to start swearing them under oath, to tell the whole truth, andnothing but. (don't forget to delete this).

14-35486 Steve & Beatrice 1/13/2015 YES $1,200Parker

ANSWER: Levine objects to the amount of the disgorgement ordered. Levine monitored theclients' compliance with credit counseling, prepared all of the documents required to file, andfiled the case. All necessary documents were tendered to the Trustee. The only matter remainingwas the clients 341 meeting. Levine appeared at the continued 341 meeting and was advised bythe Trustee that the U.S. Trustee was continuing the meeting. Levine was provided with nocontinued date. I charge $75.00 for an appearance at a 341 meeting.

14-38701 Sandra Rosas 12/03/2014 NO $1,500

ANSWER: Levine prepared the petition for this client and obtained all necessarydocuments. The client's case was filed on October 24, 2014. Her credit counseling wascompleted on October 17,2014. When Levine tried to get in touch with Rosas to sign theDeclaration of Electronic Filing, she found that she was in Mexico. On February 3, 2015, the

client was discharged.

16

8. By reason of the conduct described above, Levine has engaged in the following

misconduct:

a. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness inRepresenting her clients, by conduct including failing toAppear on behalf of various clients before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Northern District, Eastern Division, in violation of Rule1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010)

b. failure to keep her clients reasonably informed about thestatus of their matters and failure to promptly comply withreasonable requests for information, by failing to respondto various clients' telephone calls and failing to provideinformation regarding the status of their bankruptcymatters, in violation of Rules 1.4(a)(3) and (4) of theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

c. Failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenseThat has not been earned or incurred, by conduct includingFailing to refund the unearned fees received from variousClients in relation to their bankruptcy matters, in violationOf Rule 1.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of ProfessionalConduct (2010)

ANSWER: Levine denies that she willfully engaged in any of the allegations in the

above paragraph.

COUNT II

(Failure to refund unearnedfee, neglect andfailure to communicate-Andrew Franklin)

10. On or about March 5,2013, Levine and Andrew Franklin ("Franklin") agreed that, for a

total flat fee of $2,000, Levine would represent Franklin in matters relating to Franklin's

desire to modify the terms of his home mortgage loan. On that date, Levine requested

and received $1,000 cash payment from Franklin to be applied to the total fees she

requested. Franklin and Levine agreed that the remaining portionof the requested fee

17

would be paid every two weeks by Franklin at a rate of $100/payment until the entire

amount was paid. Levine and Franklin further agreed that Levine would start working on

Franklin's matter immediately by calling the mortgage company and preparing and

submitting documents to the mortgage company. Levine told Franklin that she would

supply him with more information in a few weeks about the loan modification process

and the status of the case.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph ten. Consumer contacted Levine's

firm for a loan modification in February, 2013. He was informed that no work would be

done on his case until the full retainer was received. Levine admits that she received an

additional retainer of $1,000 on March 13, 2013. Levine denies that she told Consumer

that the firm would begin work even though the retainer was not paid in full.

11. At no time after Levine and Franklin agreed that Levine would represent Franklin in

matters relating to the modification of Franklin's mortgage did Levine initiate any work

on behalf of Franklin, such as calling the mortgage company or preparing documents for

submission to the mortgage company.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph eleven. Even before Levine had

completed the retainerpayment, Levine's staff began discovery on prior modification

attempted. When a lawclerk called Consumer to inquire if Bank of America contacted

him or sent any notices, Consumer becameunreasonably irritated, raised his voice, and

chastised Levine's clerk over the telephone for an unreasonably lengthyduration, while

providing no useful information for his case.

18

12. On March 29, 2013, Franklin delivered his check number 1119 in the amount of $100 to

Levine to be applied to the agreed fees in his case.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph twelve.

13. On April 2, 2013, Levine, or someone at her direction, deposited Franklin's check

number 1119 into Levine's JPMorgan Chase Bank client trust account number ending in

the four digits "2937", which was entitled, "DVL Law Offices, LLC, IOLTA Trust

Account," (hereinafter "IOLTA account") and was used by Levine as a client fund

account.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph thirteen.

14. On April 26, 2013, Franklin delivered his check number 1120 in the amount of $400 to

Levine to be applied to the agreed fees in his case.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph fourteen.

15. On May 7, 2013, Levine, or someone acting at her direction, deposited Franklin's check

number 1120 into her IOLTA account. As a result of this May 7, 2013 deposit, Franklin

had paid Levine $1,500 of the $2,000 total fee she had quoted to Franklin to handle the

loan modification case to conclusion.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph fifteen.

16. On June 18, 2013, Levine sent Franklin a letter stating that she would not begin working

on Franklin's case until he had paid her the remaining $500 balance he owed. Franklin

telephoned Levine's officeto discuss the letter, because he believed, basedon their

19

March 15, 2013 conversation, that Levine had begun working on his case after receipt of

the initial fee payment. Shortly after June 18, Franklin tried to contact Levine at her

office at least five times, but was unable to do so because Levine did not answer her

phone calls. Franklin left messages, but at no time did Levine return Franklin's calls.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph sixteen, and demands strict proof

thereof.

17. On July 2, 2013, Franklin sent his check number 1121 in the amount of $500 to Levine to

be applied to the remaining portion ofthe agreed fees inhis case. As ofJuly 2nd,

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph seventeen.

18. On July 8, 2013, Levine, or someone acting at her direction, deposited Franklin's check

number 1121 into her IOLTA account.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph eighteen.

19. At no time after receiving the final payment from Franklin, did Levine perform any work

on his behalf, such as calling the mortgage company or preparing documents for

submission to the mortgage company.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph nineteen. Despite difficulties in

communication with Consumer, DVL Law Offices, LLC proceeded to call phone

numbers found in older notices from the bank, located in his file, only to find that the

majority of those employees were no longer working in those positions. After finally

20

tracking down one of them, that employee provided a name of the new loan officer

assigned to Consumer's file.

After numerous attempts to contact that loan officer, our office found that the loan

officer was on vacation. Finally, a few weeks after the loan officer returned, she was able

to reach out to provide a one line e-mail asking us to," Please contact the modification

department: 800-449-096 for further information. The telephone number was not

correct, and the office finally found the correct number, and was in contact with the

mortgage company.

20. Between July 2, 2013 and September 16, 2013, Franklin telephoned Levine's office

approximately ten times and left messages each time requesting that Levine contact him

regarding the status of his loan modification matter. Despite being aware of Franklin's

numerous attempts to reach Levine, at no time did Levine return Franklin's calls.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph twenty. Levine did not return the

telephone calls, but a member of Levine's staffdid and continually complained abouthis

Mr. Franklin's behavior. The employees responsible for the clients' case, said the he was

rude, and uncooperative in helping to resolve his issue. The office requested many

documents which were not forthcoming from the clients.

21. On September 16, 2013, Franklin telephoned Levine's office and was advised by an

employee of Levine's office that Levine was not available, but that the employee would

give Franklin's message to Levine. Franklin told the employee that, if Levine did not

21

contact him by September 19, 2013, he would come to Levine's office to pick up his

original records and to collect a refund of the fees he had paid to Levine. As of

September 20, 2013, Levine had not contacted Franklin, so Franklin arrived at Levine's

office to collect his original documents and a refund of the $2,000 in unearned fees that

he paid Levine. Levine knew of Franklin's attempts to contact her, includingvisitingher

office, but refused to meet with Franklin or to provide him with his records or a refund.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information with which to admit or deny the

allegations in paragraph twenty-one that Franklin attempted to contact her, and therefore

denies the same.

On September 20, 2013, Levine spokewith the client and informed him that he was

disrupting the office and frightening Levine's staff. Levine had previously agreed to

meet with the client. Consumer did not show up as promised on the dates he stated.

Consumer appeared unannounced on a Friday afternoon towards the end of business

hours, demanding a full refund and his file. After unreasonably raising hisvoice and

speaking in a threatening tone for no reason, building security wascalled. Consumer

refused to leave the premises, despite being asked to by multiple staffmembers, the

attorney, and building security. Consumer continued to verbally harass staffmembers and

the attorney in the presence of building security, while refusing to leave. Consumer then

proceeded to call the police to our office.

When thepolice arrived, alloriginal copies ofhis files were given to Consumer. Due to

Consumer's irate behavior, the ChicagoPolice Department and the buildingmanagement

22

banned the Consumer from the premises indefinitely. This was not the law offices

determination, but came from outside sources.

22. Rather, at the time, Levine contacted building security to have Franklin removed from

her office. Then, Franklin who was removed from Levine's office waited in the lobby of

Levine's building and contacted the Chicago Police Department for assistance in getting

his records and refund.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph twenty-two. Levine was not about

to send a staff member anywhere near Franklin.

23. The Chicago Police Department officers who responded to Franklin's request visited

Levine's office to confront Respondent, and returned to the lobby about 20 minutes later.

As of this September 20th date, Respondent knew that Franklin had discharged her, so

Respondent returned Franklin's original documents by giving the documents to the

officers, who then gave them to Franklin. But Respondent refused to give the officers,

Franklin's refund money and instead Respondent provided a post-it-note, in lieu of an

IOU, to building security, to be given to Franklin, stating, "9/27/13-security check and

documents D. Levine.

ANSWER: Levine has no clear memory of this date, and therefore cannot admit nor

deny the allegations. Levine does not remember, nor is it likely that Levine wrote a

post-it-note to the client. Does he have Levine's signature?

23

24. On September 27, 2013, Levine did not issue arefund to Franklin and as ofAugust 26,

2015, the date the inquiry Board voted acomplaint in this matter, Levine had not returned

any of the funds paid to herby Franklin.

ANSWER: Levine does not have any information regarding the exact allegations in

paragraph twenty-four, and cannot admit nor deny them.

25. At no time did Levine perform sufficient services for Franklin relating to the loan

modification matter to justify retention ofthe entire $2,000 fee she received from her

client.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph twenty-five. This client took up

an inordinate amount the law firms time and energy. He was rude, abusive to staff and

would not answer questions in aconstructive manner. Consumer also demanded return

for a "reimbursement" for increased mortgage rates. According to research an attorney

with the firm conducted, The national mortgage data showed that mortgages had dropped

the week before this incident to a four month low, according to the Weekly Primary

Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS) conducted by Freddie Mac. As such, Consumer was in

the position to get agreat interest rate on amodification. There were no court

appearances ordeadlines missed.

26. By reason of the conduct above, Levine has engaged in the following misconduct:

Levine denies the allegations inparagraph twenty-six.

a Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing aclient,by failing to contact Franklin's mortgage company or prepare documents forsubmission to the mortgage company, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rulesof Professional Conduct (2010);

24

b. Failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Franklin's many telephone calls concerning his loan modification matter, in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

c. Failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Franklin paid her for his loan modification matter, in violation of Rule 1.16( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2011)

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph twenty-six.

COUNT III (Conversion and failure to refund unearned fees-June Gruner)

27. On or about January 10, 2014, Levine and June Gruner (Gruner) agreed that Levine

would represent Gruner in a then-pending dissolution of marriage matter entitled, In re

the Marriage of Klaus Gruner and June Gruner, case number 2013-0-11046 (Circuit

Court of Cook County). On that date, Levine and Gruner signed an attorney-client

agreement wherein Gruner agreed to pay Levine a retainer fee of $5,000 to be applied to

Levine's fees, charged at a rate of $300 per hour, and costs. Levine and Gruner agreed

that the funds Gruner paid Levine would be deposited into Levine's client trust account,

and maintained in that account, until the costs and legal fees incurred or earned.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph twenty-seven.

28. On January 10, 2014, Gruner drew check number 8463 in the amount of $5,000 and made

the check payable to Levine. Because Levine had agreed to withdraw funds from

Gruner's check number 8463 only as. legal fees or expenses were earned or incurred, the

proceeds of those funds from check number 8463 were a security retainer and remained

the property of Gruner until Levine earned them or spent them on costs.

25

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph twenty-eight.

29. On January 13, 2014, Levine, or someone acting at her direction, deposited Gruner's

check number 8463 into her IOL TA account.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph twenty-nine.

30. On or about January 15, 2014, Gruner met with Levine at Levine's office. Levine

demanded that Gruner stay at Levine's office until Levine finished preparing to Gruner' s

then-husband's, Klaus petition for dissolution of marriage in case number 2013-D-

011046.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph thirty, although "demanding" that

Gruner stay at Levine's office until Levine finished preparing a petition to dissolution of

marriage is a bit of an exaggeration.

31. On or about January 23, 2014, Levine filed her appearance as counsel for Gruner and

filed the petition for dissolution, prepared by Gruner and Levine, in case number 2013-D-

011046.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph thirty-one.

32. On January 27, 2014, Levine filed an amended response to Klaus Gruner's petition for

dissolution of marriage that included a minor change that clarified where some of the

personal property at issue was located.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph thirty-two to the extent that the

amended petition filed contained minor changes.

26

33. At some time between January and February 2014, Gruner decided to seek another

attorney to represent her in relation to her dissolution matter.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

paragraph thirty-three and therefore denies the same.

34. On February 17, 2014, Gruner sent Levine a letter advising Levine of her termination.

In that letter, Gruner also requested that Levine refund a majority of the retainer she paid

to Levine. Levine received Gruner's February 1 ih letter shortly after it was mailed, but

as of the date of this complaint was voted, August 26, 2015, Levine did not respond to

Gruner's letter or return any of the fees she had received from Gruner.


paragraph thirty-four and therefore denies the same.

35. On March 14, 2014, attorney David Frumm ("Frumm") sent a letter to Levine, on behalf

of Gruner, in which he requested that Levine provide him and/or Gruner with an

itemization of Levine's claimed fees and costs by March 21, 2014. Levine received the

letter shortly after it was sent to her.


paragraph thirty-five, and therefore denies the same.

36. On or about March 20, 2014, Levine sent Gruner an itemization of the fees and costs she

claimed had been earned and incurred during her representation of Gruner in case number

2013Dl 1046. Levine's itemization indicated that her fees and costs totaled $3,994.20,

leaving a balance of unearned fees due to Gruner in the amount of $1,005.20.

27

ANSWER: Levine admits that an itemization of fees was sent, but denies that the

amounts are correct. Levine spent an inordinate amount of time with Gruner on the

phone which does not seem to have been accounted for.

37. As of December 8, 2014, prior to any payment of the remaining $1,005.20 to Gruner,

Levine's IOLTA account balance fell to $0.00 as a result of Levine's transfer of the

remaining funds in the account, totaling $2,933.33, to her JPMorgan Chase business

checking account number ending in the four digits "6262" (hereinafter "business

account"). The business account was titled "DVL Law Offices," and Levine used the

account for business and personal purposes.


paragraph thirty-seven, and therefore denies the same.

38. As of June 8, 2015, prior to any payment of the remaining $1,005.20 to Gruner, Levine's

business account was overdrawn by $74.39.


paragraph thirty-eight.

39. At no time did Gruner authorize Levine to use, for Levine's own business or personal

purposes or for any purpose other than the representation of Gruner in her dissolution

matter, any of the $1,005.20, which was unearned portion of the security retainer fee.


paragraph thirty-nine.

28

40. Levine's use of Gruner's funds constitutes conversion.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph forty.


misconduct:

a. Conduct involving the improper withdrawal of funds from the client trust account which were to be retained until fees were earned or expenses incurred, by conduct including Levine's withdrawal and use of Gruner's funds without earning those

funds as fees or incurring any costs on behalf of Gruner, in violation of Rule 1.15( c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

b. Failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Franklin paid her for his loan modification matter, in violation of Rule 1.16( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2011 )Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by conduct including converting Gruners funds paid for filing and legal fees, for her own business or personal expenses without Gruner's authority, in violation of Rule 8.4 (c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (20 I 0

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph forty-one.

COUNT IV (Conversion and failure to refund unearned/ees-Mclnnis)

42. On or about January 17, 2014,, Levine and Carol Mcinnis ("Mcinnis") agreed that Levine

would represent Mcinnis in a pending dissolution of marriage matter. On that date,

Mcinnis agreed to pay Levine a retainer fee of $2,000 to be applied to Levine's fees and

costs in the dissolution of marriage matter. Levine and Mcinnis agreed that the funds

29

would be deposited in Levine's client trust account until the costs and legal fees were

incurred or earned.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph forty-two.

43. On January 17, 2014, Mcinnis delivered her check number 1002 to Levine, which had

been made payable to Levine in the amount of $2,000. Because Levine had agreed to

withdraw fund from Mcinnis' check number 1002 only as legal fees or expenses were

earned or incurred, the proceeds of those funds from check number 1002 were a security

retainer and remained the property of Mcinnis until Levine earned them or spent them on

costs.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph forty-three.

44. On January 17, 2014, Levine, or someone at her direction, deposited Mcinnis' check

number 1002 into her IOLTA account.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph forty-four.

45. On January 31, 2014, Levine filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on behalf of

Mcinnis. The matter was docketed as, In re the Marriage of Carol Mcinnis and Luther D.

Mcinnis Jr., case number 2014 D 00813 (Circuit Court of Cook County). Mcinnis'

husband, Luther Mcinnis was served with the petition in the matter on March 6, 2014.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph forty-five.

30

46. On April 14, 2014, Mcinnis had a meeting with Levine regarding Mcinnis' dissolution of

marriage matter. During their meeting, Levine seemed not to remember Mcinnis' matter,

and Levine asked Mcinnis to tell her all of the details regarding the case. After the

meeting, Mclnnis sent an email to Levine's secretary, Gabby, providing information

regarding Mclnnis husband's pension and requesting that Levine's associate, Rebecca

Murray ("Murray"), call her upon her return to the office.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegation in paragraph forty-six that she had to review the

information in her file because Rebecca Murray had been handling her case, and had

since left the firm. Levine has insufficient information regarding any emails that

transpired thereafter.

47. On May 13, 2014, Mclnnis sent an email to Levine's secretary, Gabby, requesting a bill

for her dissolution of marriage case. At Levine's direction, Gabby sent an itemization to

Mclnnis which indicated that fees and costs, to date, totaled $815.00, leaving a balance of

unearned fees due to Mclnnis in the amount of $1, 185. In an exchange of emails

thereafter and with Levine's direction, Mcinnis and Gabby reviewed the bill and

confirmed that the balance of $1, 185 was correct and that $1, 185 was the current

unearned portion that remained from the security retainer fee that Mclnnis paid to Levine.


paragraph forty-seven that a bill was sent to Mclnnis, and denies the veracity of any such

bill. .

31

48. On May 14, 2014, Mcinnis sent an email to Gabby advising that she was considering

seeking new counsel as she did not feel confident with Levine. Mcinnis further requested

a refund of the remaining portion of the security retainer. Two days later, Gabby replied

that she was submitting Mcinnis' request for a refund to Levine and that Levine would

call Mcinnis regarding the possibility of a refund.

ANSWER: Levine does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations

in paragraph forty-eight, and therefore denies the same.

49. On several occasions between May 14, 2014 and May 28,2014, Mcinnis called Levine

and left messages for her, which Levine received, requesting that Levine contact her

regarding Mcinnis' request for a refund oflegal fees. On May 23, 2014, Mcinnis

received an email from Levine in which she claimed that she had not come to work the

previous week and that Levine would call Mcinnis back the following week. On May 27,

2014, Mcinnis called Levine's office but had to leave a message for Levine to call her

back-which Levine did not do until the next day.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph forty-nine. The bill for Mcinnis

was prepared by someone other than herself. Rebecca Murray had been assigned the

representation of McGinnis, and she left Levine's employ somewhere around the end of

April or beginning of May, and was in the process of taking some of Levine's clients

with her, including Mcinnis.

32

50. On May 28, 2014, Levine answered Mcinnis' telephone call and told Mcinnis that she

didn't know where Mcinnis' file was located. Mcinnis advised Levine that she would

call again in a few days after Levine had a chance to locate and review her file.

ANSWER: Levine admits that she could not find McGinnis' file and never did find the

hard file, or any notes in her computers aside from those she personally made. Levine has

insufficient information to admit or deny any other allegations in paragraph fifty,

51. On June 2, 2014, Mcinnis telephoned Levine to request that Levine refund to her any

unearned legal fees. During their conversation, Levine told Mcinnis that she hadn't yet

located Mcinnis' file and once again requested that Mcinnis provide Levine with a

statement complaining about Murray's representation. Mcinnis refused to do so. Levine

told Mcinnis that she would review the file and schedule an appointment for Mcinnis to

come to Levine's office later in the week to receive a refund of the unearned fees.

Thereafter, Respondent scheduled an appointment for Mcinnis to come to Respondent's

office on June 6, 2014.

ANSWER: Levine admits that she could not find McGinnis' file. Levine never asked

Mcinnis to complain about Rebecca Murray, and has insufficient information to admit or

deny the remainder of these accusations, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph fifty-one.

52. On June 61h, Mcinnis arrived for her appointment at Levine's office and found Levine

lying on the couch of her office and with the office in disarray. Levine asked Mcinnis

why she was there and Mcinnis said that she was there to pick up the refund of the

unearned fees. Levine stated that she still had not reviewed the file and that she would

33

have her accountant send a check to Mcinnis. Mcinnis requested to pick up the check

personally, and they agreed to meet the following week.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph fifty-two.

53. Between June 6, 2014 and June 18, 2014, Mcinnis made additional attempts to contact

Levine to schedule a meeting date. On June 18, 2014, Levine agreed to meet Mcinnis at

her office on June 20, 2014.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph fifty-three.

54. On June 20, 2014, Mcinnis arrived at Levine's office and was met by an individual who

identified herself as Jackie Sanchez ("Sanchez"). Mcinnis asked to speak with Levine

and was advised by Sanchez that Levine was not available. Levine soon thereafter yelled

from her office that she didn't have any checks and couldn't do anything for Mcinnis.

Levine threatened to call security to have Mcinnis removed when Mcinnis accused

Levine of being deceitful.


paragraph fifty-four and therefore denies the allegations.

55. As of August 26, 2015, the date this complaint was voted, Levine had not refunded the

unearned portion of the security retainer fee, $1,185, paid by Mcinnis to Levine in

relation to her dissolution proceedings.


paragraph fifty- five.

34

56. As of December 8, 2014, the balance of Levine's trust account ending in the four digits

"2937" was $0.00 as a result of Levine's transfer of the remaining funds in the account,

totaling $2,933.33.


paragraph fifty-six and therefore denies the same.

57. At no time did Mclnnis authorize Levine to use, for Levine's own business or personal

purposes or for any purpose other than the representation of Mclnnis in her dissolution

proceedings, any of the $1, 185, which was the unearned portion of the security retainer

fee.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph fifty-seven.

58. At no time did Levine perform sufficient services for Mclnnis, by filing a petition for

dissolution of marriage and meeting with Mclnnis, to justify her retention of the full

amount of Mclnnis' $2,000 that Mcinnis paid to Levine and that which Levine kept for or

spent on herself.


paragraph fifty-eight and therefore denies the same.

59. Levine's use of Mclnnis' funds constitutes conversion.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph fifty-nine.


misconduct:

a. Conduct involving the improper withdrawal of funds from the client trust account which were to be retained until fees were earned or expenses incurred, by conduct including Levine's withdrawal and use of Mcinnis funds without earning those funds as fees or incurring any costs on behalf of Gruner, in violation of Rule 1.15( c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

35

b. Failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Mcinnis paid her dissolution matter, in violation of Rule 1.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2011

c. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by conduct including converting Mcinnis' funds paid for filing and legal fees, for her own business or personal expenses without Mcinnis' authority, in violation of Rule 8.4

d. c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph sixty.

COUNTV (Failure to refund unearned fee and failure to communicate-Kimberly Justice)

61. On or about January 20, 2014, Levine and Kimberly Justice ('Justice") agreed that

Levine would represent Justice in a contemplated Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter. On that

date, Levine and Justice signed an attorney-client agreement, in which Justice agreed to

pay Levine a flat fee of$1,231 for legal fees and $344 for filing fees and costs, or $1,575

in total. Levine told Justice that she wanted full payment of the $1,575 before Levine

would file the bankruptcy proceeding.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph sixty-one.

62. On January 20, 2014, Justice and Levine agreed that Justice would pay Levine $100, with

the agreement that Justice would make additional payments when she was financially

able to do so, and that Levine would file the Chapter 7 petition after Levine received all

36

of the fees and costs she had requested from Justice. Justice paid Levine $100 in cash on

that date.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph sixty-two.

63. On April 15, 2014, Justice paid Levine an additional $500 towards the required fees and

costs for her bankruptcy matter. At that time, Justice advised Levine that she was

working as a temporary employee, so that it would likely take her some time to save the

balance of the funds needed to proceed with the Chapter 7 proceeding.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph sixty-three.

64. In or about September 2014, Justice called Levine's office on several occasions and left

messages advising Levine that she had the remaining $945 balance of the required fees

and costs to proceed with her Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter. Despite receiving these

messages, Levine did not return Justice's calls.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in sixty

four.

65. On of September 2014, Justice decided not to pay the $945 balance to Levine because

Levine had not responded to Justice's calls and failed to communicate with Justice.

Around that time, Justice left several messages for Levine, asking Levine to pursue

Justice's case or refund $600 to Justice and terminate their attorney-client relationship.

Despite receiving these messages, Levine did not return Justice's calls.


paragraph sixty-five

37

66. Justice went to Levine's office at least three times between September and November of

2014 to collect her refund and to obtain any documents she had given to Levine

throughout the course of their relationship, but Levine was not present any of the times

that Justice went to Levine's office.


paragraph sixty-six.

67. Between September and November 2014, Justice telephoned Levine's office and

eventually, was able to schedule an appointment to meet with Levine on November 3,

2014 at I :30 p.m. to collect her original documents that she provided to Levine and also

so Justice could collect her $600 refund from Levine. Upon arrival, Levine's office was

locked and dark inside. When Justice departed at 2:00 p.m., Levine had not appeared for

their appointment. Later that day, Justice contacted Levine by telephone and was advised

by Levine that she was at her office but was leaving for the day. After that call, Justice

went back to Levine's office and saw Levine, but Levine advised Justice that she was

about to leave and that she would not stay to meet with Justice.

ANSWER: Levine does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations

in paragraph sixty-seven and therefore denies the same.

68. At no time did Levine perform any legal work regarding Justice's bankruptcy, including

the preparation or filing of a petition, or incur and costs on behalf of Justice. The

38

services Levine provided, if any, do not justify her retention of the $600 she received

from Justice.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph sixty-eight.

69. At no time did Levine perform any legal work regarding Justice's bankruptcy, including

the preparation or filing of a petition, or incur any costs on behalf of Justice. The

services Levine provided, if any, do not justify her retention of the $600 she received

from Justice.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph sixty-nine and will produce an

itemization of fees for this client.


misconduct:

a. Failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Justice's telephone calls in relation to her bankruptcy matter, in violation of Rule l.4(a)(4)

b. Failure to promptly deliver to the client any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive, by failing to return Justice's original documents to her as requested, in violation of Rule I. I ( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and

c. Failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Justice paid her dissolution matter, in violation of Rule 1.16( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010)

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph seventy.

COUNT VI

39

(Incompetence, lack of diligence and failure to communicate-Joshua Counts)

71. On or about February 13, 2014, Levine and Joshua Counts ("Counts") agreed that Levine

would represent Counts in a contemplated parentage and child custody matter for a total

fee of $2,000, which included fees and costs. At the time Counts hired Levine, he

advised her that he lived in Henry County, Illinois. Henry County is on Illinois' western

border and, by car, is about 3-4 hours west of Chicago.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph seventy-one.

72. On or about February 13, 2014, Counts presented Levine with a check from Carol Blaser,

Count's grandmother, in the amount of $2,000, which represented the legal fees and costs

requested by Levine to represent Counts in his parentage and child custody matter.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph seventy-two.

73. On February 20, 2014, Levine, or someone working on her direction, deposited the

$2,000 check Levine received from Counts into Levine's JPMorgan Chase Bank IOLTA

account ending in the four digits "293 7."

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph seventy-three.

74. On April 7, 2014, Levine filed a petition to establish parentage and for other relief

("petition") on behalf of Counts in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The clerk of the

court docketed the matter as Jn re the Custody and Child Support of R.S., a minor, Joshua

Counts v. Cortney Snell, case number 2014D79483.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph seventy-four.

40

75. Levine knew, or should have known, that Cook County was not the proper venue in

which to file the petition because none of the parties resided or owned real property in

Cook County.

ANSWER: Levine did know that the case had been filed in Cook County and discussed

this matter with the client and Rebecca Murray. In fact, representation was contingent

upon filing the case in Cook County. Cook county is a correct venue and, Illinois has

jurisdiction.

76. On or before April 26, 2014, Cortney ("Snell"), the subject child's mother, received

notice of the petition filed by Levine in the Circuit Court of Cook County.


paragraph seventy-six, .and therefore denies the same.

77. On April 26, 2014, Douglas Scovil ("Scovil"), Snell's attorney, sent a letter to Levine

questioning the venue in which Levine file the petition, and requested that Levine

voluntarily agree to have an order entered transferring venue to Henry County.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegation.

78. As of May 14, 2014, Levine had taken no action in response, to Scovil's letter. As a

result, on that date, Scovil filed, noticed and served upon Levine, an objection to venue

and a motion to transfer the case to Henry County. On May 28, 2015 (2014) sic, at a

hearing in (on) Scovil's motion, the Honorable Jean M. Cocozza, continued the case to

June 26, 2015 (2014) sic at 9:30 a.m. Shortly after May 14, 2014, Levine received notice

of the continued court date of June 26, 2015 (2014) sic.

41


paragraph seventy-eight.

79. Between May 2014 and June 2014, Counts called Levine's office and left several

messages requesting that Levine contact him regarding his case and the possibility of a

refund of the legal fees he had paid her. Despite receiving Count's messages, at no time

did Levine respond return Count's calls. In addition, Counts scheduled two meetings

with Levine in that period of time to discuss his case. Levine canceled the first meeting

and was not at her office for the second scheduled appointment.


paragraph seventy-nine, and therefore denies the same.

80. On or before June 26, 2014, Counts discharged Levine as his counsel and retained new

counsel who voluntarily dismissed the petition filed by Levine in case number

14079483. On September 4, 2014, Snell filed a petition to determine the existence of a

parent-child relationship in Henry County. The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Henry

County docketed the matter as, In re Courtney Snell v. Joshua Counts, case number 2014

F80.


paragraph eighty.

42

81. As of August 26, 2015, the date the Inquiry Board Voted a complaint in this matter,

Levine had not returned any of the funds paid to her by Counts. The legal services

Levine provided do not justify her retention of the $2,000 Levine received from Counts.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-one.

82. At no time did Levine perform any legal work regarding Counts' parentage and child

custody matter that would have benefited her client, like filing the petition to establish

parentage in the correct county of Henry Co. or even re-filing this petition in Henry Co.

once the matter was transferred there, on behalf of Counts.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-two.

83. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Respondent has engaged in the following

misconduct:

a. Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by conduce including filing the petition in the wrong venue in Count's parentage and child custody matter, in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

b. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by failing to cause Count's parentage and custody matter to be moved to the proper venue, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct(2010);and

c. Failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Count's telephone calls and failing to meet with Counts' regarding his parentage and child custody matter, in violation of Rules l.4(a)(3) and 4 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph eighty-three.

COUNTS VII

43

(Conversion, commingling, neglect,failure to refund unearned fee and failure to communicate-Antony Thomas)

84. On July 1, 2013, Angela Thomas Jones ("Jones") filed a motion against her former

spouse, Anthony Thomas("Thomas"), in a child support-related matter that was already

pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County under case number 2001D005945. Case

number 2001D005945 was in regard to Jones' and Thomas' divorce-related matters that

followed after the year 2001 continued to proceed under case number 2001D005945.


paragraph eighty-four, and therefore denies the same.

85. On July 17, 2013, Levine filed her appearance in case number 2001D005945 on behalf of

Thomas to assist Thomas in child support-related dispute with Jones.


paragraph eighty-four, and therefore denies the same.

86. At some time between July 17, 2013 and March 18, 2014, Jones and Thomas came to an

agreement regarding their child support-related dispute.


paragraph eighty-five and therefore denies the same.

87. On or about March 18, 2014, Levine and Thomas agreed that Levine would represent

Thomas in matters relating to case number 2001D005945. Specifically, Thomas asked

Levine to draft a letter memorializing the agreement between Thomas and Jones to

pardon Thomas from paying arrears in the child support matter. Levine also agreed that

44

after that letter had been drafted, signed and notarized, Levine would file the executed

letter with the court.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph eight-six.

88. On March 18, 2014, Levine and Thomas signed a new attorney-client agreement, and

Thomas agreed to pay Levine a security retainer of $1,300 to be applied to Levine's costs

and fees, with Levine agreeing to bill against that retainer at dollar amounts ranging from

$75-$300 per hour, based on various factors. The fee agreement provided, in part, that

the funds Thomas paid Levine would be deposited into Levine's client trust account until

any costs or legal fees were incurred or earned.

Levine admits the allegations in paragraph eighty-seven.

89. On March 18, 2014, Thomas made a debit card payment to Levine in the amount of $800

to be applied to Levine's requested fees and costs to represent Thomas in his case.

Because Levine had agreed to withdraw funds from Thomas' debit card payment only as

legal fees or expenses were earned or incurred, the proceeds of those debit card funds

were a security retainer and remained property of Thomas until Levine earned them or

spend them on costs.


paragraph eighty-nine.

90. The funds received from Thomas' March 18, 2014 debit card transaction were directly

deposited into Levine's Wells Fargo business checking account number 2945 ('business

checking account"), which Levine used for business and personal purposes. This account

45

was not a separate, identifiable client-trust account, and the money Levine received from

Thomas was never transferred to Levine's trust account.


paragraph ninety.

91. On March 28, 2014, Thomas made a second debit card payment to Levine in the amount

of $500 to be applied to the remaining balance of legal fees and costs requested by

Levine in relation to his case.


paragraph ninety-one.

92. The second payment of funds received from Thomas on March 28, 2014 was also directly

deposited into Levine's JPMorgan Chase business checking account and was never

transferred to Levine's trust account either.


paragraph ninety-two.

93. At some time in March 2014, Thomas gave Levine all the documents she requested from

him so she could represent Thomas' matter.


paragraph ninety-three.

94. At no time did Levine perform any legal work on Thomas' behalf in relation to the child

support matter, including drafting a letter memorializing Thomas'and Jones' agreement.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph ninety-four.

46

95. Between April 2014 and September 2014, Thomas contacted Levine's office at least

eight times to inquire about the status of his case, and each time Thomas asked Levine to

contact him. Levine knew of Thomas' phone calls, shortly after messages were left, but

did not return his calls except for on one occasion.

ANSWER: Levine denies that she received phone calls from Thomas in April or May of

2014. However, Levine did complain to Gaby, in writing, that she was not receiving

telephone calls on May 28, 2014 which prompted her, at the end of the day, to hit me on

the head with a ream of paper. Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the

remaining allegations in paragraph ninety-five.

96. On September 25, 2014 and October 7, 2014, Thomas sent email messages to Levine

wherein he advised her that he was terminating her services and requested an accounting

of the fees and costs paid to her and a refund of the unused portion of any payments that

Levine received. Levine knew of Thomas' emails, shortly after those email messages

were sent, but did not respond to his emails.


paragraph ninety-six, and therefore denies the same.

97. As of December 31, 2014, the balance of Levine's JPMorgan Chase business/checking

was $.10 (ten cents).


paragraph ninety-seven and therefore denies the same.

47

98. As of the August 26, 2015 date the Inquiry Board voted a complaint in this matter,

Levine had not returned any of the $1,300 in funds paid to her by Thomas.


paragraph ninety-eight.

99. At no time did Levine perform sufficient services for Thomas relating to the child support

matter, including filing the letter that Thomas and his ex-wife were to notarize and sign

about their agreement to pardon Thomas' child support arrears, and any services Levine

provided on Thomas' matters, to justify Levine's retention of the entire $1,300 fee that

Thomas paid Levine.


paragraph ninety-nine.

100. At no time did Thomas authorize Levine to use any portion of the $1,300 she had

received as retainer fees for Levine's own business or personal purposes or for any

purpose or for any purpose other than the representation of Thomas in his child support

arrears.


paragraph one hundred.

101. Levine's use of Thomas' funds constitute conversion.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and one.

102. By reason of the conduct outlined above, Levine has engaged in the following

misconduct:

48

a. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by conduct including failing to file a petition for pardoning of child support arrearage on behalf of Thomas, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

b. failure to keep the client or third person reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Thomas 'telephone calls and emails regarding the status of his child support arrearage matter, in violation of Rules 1.4(a)(3) and (4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

c. failure to hold property of a client or third person that is in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property, by failing to deposit funds for fees and costs paid to her by Thomas into her client trust account, but instead, depositing it in her business checking account, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

d. Failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Thomas paid for his child support arrearage matter, in violation of Rule 1.16( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O); and

e. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by conduct including converting Thomas' funds paid for filing and legal fees, for her own business or personal expenses without Thomas' authority, in violation of Rule 8.4 ( c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). \

COUNT VIII (Conversion, incompetence, neglect and failure to refund unearnedfee-Elizabeth Passmore)

103. "On March 18, 2014, Levine and Elizabeth Passmore ("Passmore") agreed that Levine

would represent Passmore in matters related to a pending suit seeking foreclosure of the

mortgage on Passmore's home. The suit was pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County

under case number 2014 CH 00123 7, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Elizabeth L. Passmore,

et al.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and three.

49

104. On that date, Levine and Passmore signed an attorney-client agreement, and

Passmore agreed to pay Levine a security retainer of $1,500 to be applied to Levine's fees

and costs. The parties agreed that the funds would be deposited in Levine's client trust

account until the costs and legal fees were incurred or earned.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and four.

105. On March 18, 2014, Passmore gave Levine $800, via check number 8080 from

Passmore's personal CitiBank checking account. Because Levine had agreed to withdraw

funds from Passmore's check number 8080 only as legal fees or expenses were earned or

incurred, the proceeds of those funds from check number 8080 were a security retainer and

remained property of Passmore until Levine earned them or spent them on costs.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and five.

106. On March 18, 2014, Levine, or someone at her direction, deposited Passmore's check

number 8080 into Levine's JPMorgan Chase Bank IOLTA account number ending in the

four digits "293 7."


paragraph one hundred and six.

107. On March 18, 2014, during Passmore's meeting with Levine, she advised Levine that

the initial case management conference in case number 2014 CH 00123 7 was scheduled to be

so

held on March 24, 2014. Levine agreed to appear on behalf of Passmore at the March 24,

2014 case management conference.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph

one hundred and seven.

108. On March 24, 2014, neither Levine, nor anyone else on Passmore's behalf appeared at

the initial case management conference in case number 2014 CH 001237. That day, the

court entered an order striking the case from its case management call. Levine did not file

her appearance in this matter until about three weeks after this March 24th case management

call.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and eight, but

affirmatively states that Passmore had not paid the entire retainer. Nonetheless, counsel

would have attended the case management conference ifthere was a need to. Case

management conferences are routinely stricken from the call.

109. On April 4, 2014, Passmore paid Levine $550 via money order number 2173007296.

The proceeds from money order 2173007296 represented a portion of the security retainer

requested by Levine and belonged to Passmore until earned as fees or applied to costs

relating to her foreclosure matter.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and nine.

110. On April 17, 2914, Levine deposited the $550 money order number 2173007296 into

her JPMorgan Chase business/checking account.

51


one hundred and ten.

111. On April 18, 2014, Passmore asked Levine to prepare and send a letter to Passmore's

mortgagor, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen"), requesting a loan modification or other

mortgage assistance options on behalf of Passmore. Levine agreed to do so. At no time did

Levine prepare or send such a letter, although she did send a letter to Ocwen advising that

she was Passmore's attorney and that Ocwen was authorized to speak directly to Levine

regarding Passmore' s mortgage.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and eleven.

112. On April 21, 2014, Levine filed her appearance on behalf of Passmore and her motion

to vacate the default judgment against her client in case number 2014 CH 00123 7. At the

time Levine filed the motion, the court had not entered a default judgment against Passmore.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and twelve.

113. Between April 2014, and October 2014, Passmore called Levine's office on several

times and left messages requesting that Levine contact her regarding her foreclosure case.

Despite receiving these messages, Levine did not return Passmore's calls.


one hundred and thirteen, and therefore denies the same.

52

114. On August 27, 2014, Levine's motion to vacate a default judgment in case number

2014 CH 00123 7 was set to be heard. Levine appeared on that date and withdrew the

motion, since there had been no default judgment entered in the case. Levine performed no

further legal work on behalf of Passmore in the case after Levine filed her court appearance

and withdrew her motion to vacate.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and fourteen. Levine

misunderstood the information provided from the client.

115. On or about September 15, 2014, Passmore retained new counsel to represent her in a

Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. Later, Ocwen agreed to accept monthly mortgage

arrearage payments from Passmore under a special provision of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy

plan.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and fifteen, but

affirmatively states that Levine advised Passmore from the very beginning to file a Chapter

13 bankruptcy because she had no funds to negotiate with the mortgage company. We

discussed this on several occasions, and she was absolutely against it

116. On September 23, 2014, Passmore sent a letter to Levine, via certified mail, in which

she advised Levine that she had terminated Levine's services and in which she requested that

Levine refund $1,350, which Passmore believed was the unearned portion of the legal fees

she had paid to Levine. Levine received Passmore's letter on September 25, 2015, but at no

time did Levine respond to it.

53


one hundred and sixteen.

117. In or about early November 2014, Passmore called and spoke to Levine. Passmore

reminded Levine about Passmore's letter terminating Levine's services as well as Passmore's

request for a refund of the $1,350 in unearned legal fees paid by Passmore. Levine falsely

claimed she did not receive Passmore's September 23, 2014 letter, despite the fact that

Passmore sent that letter via certified mail and received confirmation that Levine received

and signed for receipt of that letter on September 25, 2014.


one hundred and seventeen and therefore denies the same.

118. At the time Levine told Passmore that she didn't receive Passmore's September 23,

2014 letter, Levine knew that her statement was false because Levine did receive the letter

and signed the green certification card attached to that letter.


one hundred and eighteen and therefore denies the same.

119. On November 15, 2014, Passmore sent another copy of her September 23, 2014 letter

to Levine via facsimile. On the cover sheet of the facsimile transmission, Passmore again

requested a refund of the $1,350 in unearned legal fees she had paid to Levine. Despite

receiving this faxed copy of Passmore's letter and a request for a refund of fees, at no time

did Levine respond to Passmore's November 15, 2014 facsimile.

54


one hundred and nineteen, and therefore denies the same. Levine had just gotten out of the

hospital and was advised to take another two weeks to a month off.

120. As of the August 26, 2015 date the Inquiry Board voted a complaint in this matter,

Levine had not returned any of the $1,350 in funds paid to her by Passmore. The services

Levine provided Passmore do not justify Levine's retention of the $1,350 Passmore paid

Levine.


one hundred and twenty, but denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and twenty that

she owed Passmore $1,350.


misconduct.

a. Failure to provide competent representation to a client, by conduct including filing a motion to vacate default judgment in Passmore's foreclosure matter when a default judgment had not been entered, in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

b. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by failing to appear at the initial case management conference on behalf of Passmore in her foreclosure matter and failing to request information from Passmore' s mortgage company, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

c. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Passmore's telephone calls regarding her foreclosure matter, in violation of Rules l.4(a)(3) and (4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

55

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and twenty-one.

COUNT IX (Commingling, neglect, failure to refund unearned fee

and failure to communicate-Angel Aguaiza)

122. On or about April 11, 2014, Levine and Angel Aguaiza ("Aguaiza) agreed that Levine

would represent Aguaiza in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter. On that date, Levine and

Aguaiza signed an attorney-client agreement and Aguaiza agreed to pay Levine a flat fee of

$1,201 for legal fees and $344 for filing fees and costs, totaling $1,545 to handle Aguaiza' s

Bankruptcy case to conclusion.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and twenty-two.

123. On or about April 11, 2014, Aguaiza paid Levine $600 in cash, which Levine agreed to

apply to the legal fees and costs she requested to represent Aguaiza in his bankruptcy matter.


one hundred and twenty-three.

124. On or about April 13, 2014, Aguaiza completed the required credit counseling for his

Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding and gave a copy of the certificate of completion to Levine.


one hundred and twenty four.

56

125. On April 17, 2014, Aguaiza paid Levine an additional $945 in cash, which Levine

agreed would be applied to the remaining balance of legal fees and costs owed to Levine. On

that date, Levine confirmed to Aguaiza that she had received his credit counseling certificate

and told him that she would file his bankruptcy petition within about a month. Levine further

advised Aguaiza that he should receive notice of a court date within about a month.


one hundred and twenty-five.

126. From the total of $1,545 paid in cash by Aguaiza to Levine, $344 of those funds were

to be applied to filing fees and expenses and should have been deposited into Levine's client

trust account, as required by Rule l.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and twenty-six.

127. As of when this complaint was voted on August 26, 2015, Levine had not deposited any

cash funds received from Aguaiza for filing fees and costs into her trust account.


one hundred and twenty-seven.

128. At no time did Levine file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Aguaiza or take

any other action on his behalf.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and twenty-eight.

57

129. In approximately May 2014, after not receiving a court date or any further

communication from Levine, Aguaiza went to Levine's office to inquire about the status of

his case. During that visit, Levine advised Aguaiza that she didn't know the status of his

case and requested additional copies of documents she had previously received from Aguaiza

around April 2014. Levine again advised Aguaiza that she would file the bankruptcy petition

soon.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information of to admit or deny the allegations in

paragraph one hundred and twenty-nine.

130. Between approximately May 2014 and October 2014, Aguaiza called Levine's office

and left several messages requesting that Levine contact him regarding the status of his case.

Levine was aware of her client's efforts to contact her, but she did not return his calls.


one hundred and thirty.

131. On or before October 9, 2014, after not receiving any communication from Levine

regarding his bankruptcy matter, Aguaiza retained new counsel to proceed with a Chapter 7

bankruptcy on his behalf.

ANSWER: Levine has no information with which to admit or deny this allegation, and

therefore denies the same.

132. On October 29, 2014, the ARDC received Aguaiza's Request for Investigation

("Request") of Levine where, in addition to complaining about Levine's lack of diligence

toward Aguaiza's bankruptcy case, Aguaiza asked for a refund of the money he paid to

58

Levine to represent him in that bankruptcy matter. Shortly after receiving Aguazia's

Request, a copy was sent to Levine, which she received.

ANSWER: Levine has no information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph number

one hundred and thirty two a therefore denies the same.

133. At no time did Levine return any of the unused or unearned portions of those funds that

Aguaiza paid Levine in relation to his Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter.


one hundred and thirty-three and therefore denies the same.

134. At no time did Aguaiza authorize Levine to use, for her own business or personal

purposes or for any purpose other than the representation of Aguaiza in his Chapter 7,

bankruptcy matter, any of the $1,545, which was the full, flat fee that Aguaiza paid Levine.

Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and thirty-four.

135. At no time did Levine perform any services or incur any costs on behalf of Aguaiza in

relation to his Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in one hundred and thirty-five.

136. Levine's use of Aguaiza's funds constitutes conversion.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and thirty-six.

59


misconduct:

a. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by failing to by failing to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Aguaiza in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

b. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Aguaiza' s telephone calls and requests for the status of his bankruptcy matter, in violation of Rules l.4(a)(3) and (4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

c. failure to hold property of a client or third person that is in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property, by failing to deposit funds for costs paid to her by Aguaiza into her client trust account, in violation of Rule 1.15( a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

d. failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Aguaiza paid her dissolution matter, in violation of Rule 1.16( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and thirty-seven.

COUNTX (Conversion, commingling andfailure to refund unearned fee-Patrice Woods)

138. On or about April 23, 2014, Levine's law office, through her associate, Rebecca

Murray ("Murray"), agreed to represent Patrice Woods ("Woods") in a parentage and child

support matter that was already pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County entitled,

Michael Keller v. Patrice Woods, case number 13 D 080043. Woods had already filed a pro

se appearance on her behalf in that matter.

60


the allegations in paragraph one hundred and thirty-eight except for the last line which states

that the client had already filed a pro se appearance which is verified by the record.

139. On that date, Woods and Levine, through her law firm, DVL Law Offices, LLC, signed

an attorney-client agreement. Woods agreed to pay a security retainer of $2,000 to Levine's

firm. Levine and Woods agreed that the $2,000 retainer fee would be held in the firm's

client trust account until the payments of legal fees or costs were earned or incurred. They

also agreed that DVL Law Offices would charge Woods at the rate of $180 per hour for

Murray's time, that work performed by law clerks and other staff would be charged at the

rate of $75 per hour and that Levine's hourly fees would be higher than Murray's.

ANSWER: Levine admits has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

paragraph one hundred and thirty-nine, and therefore denies the same.

140. On April 23, 2014, Woods issued her check number 632 in the amount of $1,000,

which had been made payable to DVL Law Offices and Murray. Because Levine had agreed

to withdraw funds from Woods' check number 632 only as legal fees or expenses were

earned or incurred, the proceeds of those funds from check number 632 were a security

retainer and remained the property of Woods until Levine earned them or spent them on

costs.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in one

hundred and forty.

61

141. On April 30, 2014, Levine, or someone at her direction, deposited Woods' check

number 632 into Levine's JPMorgan Chase business checking account.


one hundred and forty-one.

142. On April 24, 2014, Levine electronically filed her firm's appearance on behalf of

Woods in case number 13D80043.


hundred and forty-two. Levine never filed family law cases electronically in State Court.

143. On May 1, 2014, Murray appeared on behalf of Woods at a hearing on a petition for

plenary order of protection.


one hundred and forty-three.

144. Shortly after May 1, 2014 court date, Woods telephoned Levine and left a message

advising Levine that she and the father of her child had decided to work things out on their

own, outside of the judicial system. Woods requested a refund of the unearned legal fees

paid to Levine's firm.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and forty-four. Woods

obviously had not worked things out on her own, given that the docket in this case continues

62

through April 16, 2015. After leaving DVL Law Offices, sometime after May 1, 2014,

Rebecca Murray filed her personal appearance in this case on May 23, 2014.

145. On or before May 12, 2014, Murray ceased working at Levine's firm.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and forty-five.

146. Between approximately May 1, 2014 and May 23, 2014, Woods called Levine's office

on over a few occasions and left messages requesting that Levine refund the unearned portion

of legal fees paid to her. Despite having received these messages, at no time did Levine

return Wood's calls. Nor did Levine provide Woods with a refund of the unearned fees since

Woods and the father of her child worked things out on their own.


one hundred and forty-six, and therefore denies these allegations.

14 7. At no time did Woods authorize Levine to use, for Levine's own business or personal

purposes or for any purpose other than the representation of Woods in her dissolution

proceedings, any of the $1,000, which was the unearned portion of the security retainer fee.


one hundred and forty-seven.

148. At no time did Levine's and her firm's services of filing an appearance and appearing

in court one time on Wood's behalf, warrant her retention of the full amount of Wood's

$1,000 that Woods paid to Levine and that which Levine kept for or spent on herself.

63

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and forty-eight. Levine's

firm did not just pay the appearance fee of$209, the firm also prepared a Plenary motion,

communicated with the client, served notice on the parties involved, appeared in Court,

which usually takes no less than two hours, and answered telephone messages.

149. Levine's use of Woods' funds constitutes conversion.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and forty-nine.

150, By reason of the conduct described above, Levine has engaged in the following

misconduct:

a. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by conduct including converting Woods' funds paid for filing and legal fees, for her own business or personal expenses without Thomas' authority, in violation of Rule 8.4 (c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and fifty.

COUNT XI (Conversion, commingling, neglect,failure to refund unearnedfee andfailure to

communicate-Zenobia Polk)

64

151. On or about July 22, 2014, Levine and Zenobia Polk ("Polk) agree that Levine would

represent Polk in a child support arrearage matter. On or about that date, Levine requested

and received $1,500 from Polk as full payment of Levine's anticipated fees and costs to

handle this matter to conclusion. Polk explained to Levine that the arrearage related to child

support that had been ordered to be paid in the late 1970's or early 1980's that the subject

child had since become emancipated, and that the child's father resided in Chicago.


one hundred and fifty-one. .

152. On July 22, 2014, Polk delivered her check number 221 in the amount of $1,500 to

Levine. The proceeds of Polk's check number 221 represented the legal fees and costs

requested by Levine to represent Polk in her child support arrearage matter.


one hundred and fifty-two.

153. On August 12, 2014, Levine, or someone at her direction, deposited Polk's check

number 221 into Levine's JPMorgan Chase business account number ending in the last four

digits of 6262 ('Levine's personal account") which Levine used for business and personal

purposes.


one hundred and fifty-three.

65

154. From the $1,500 paid by Polk to Levine, a portion of those funds were to be applied to

filing fees and expenses and should have been deposited into Levine's client trust account, as

required by Rule l.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.


hundred and fifty four.

155. At no time did Levine deposit any funds received from Polk for filing fees and costs

into her client trust account.


one hundred and fifty-five.

156. At no time did Levine do any work on this case on behalf of Polk in her child support

arrearage matter, such as filing an appearance, appearing in court or corresponding with

opposing counsel.

ANSWER: Levine has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph

one hundred and fifty-six.

157. Between July 2014 and September 2014, Polk called Levine on several occasions and

left messages requesting information about the status of her case. Levine was aware of these

messages and except for on occasion in September, Levine did not return Polk's calls. On

the occasion which Polk and Levine did speak, Levine provided Polk with various reasons as

to why no work had been done on her case, including purported health problems, car

66

problems, and staffing issues. Polk asked for a refund of her fees and costs at the conclusion

of that conversation.


one hundred and fifty-seven.

158. At no time did Levine perform any services on behalf of Polk to earn the fees paid to

her in relation to Polk's child support arrearage case.


one hundred and fifty-eight.

159. At no time did Levine refund any portion of the fees and costs paid to her by Polk.


one hundred and fifty-nine.

160. As of April 30, 2015 the balance in Levine's account number ending in 6262 was

$165.33 because Levine used the money for her own business and or personal purposes.


one hundred and sixty.

161. At no time did Polk authorize Levine to use any portion of the funds paid to her for

costs for Levine's own business or personal purposes or for any purpose other than the costs

related to the representation of Polk in her child support arrearage case.

67


one hundred and sixty-one.

162. Levine's use of Polk's funds constitutes conversion.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and sixty-two.


misconduct:

a. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by conduct including failing to proceed in any manner on behalf of Polk in her child support arrearage matter, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

b. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to Polk's telephone calls and requests for the status of her child support arrearage matter in violation of Rules 1.4( a )(3) and ( 4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

c. failure to hold property of a client or third person that is in the lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property, by failing to deposit funds for costs paid to her by Polk's for filing fees into her into her business checking account, in violation of Rule l.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

d. failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Polk paid her dissolution matter, in violation of Rule 1.16( d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

e. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by conduct including converting Polks' funds paid for filing and legal fees, for her own business or personal expenses without Thomas' authority, in violation of Rule 8.4 ( c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010).

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and sixty-three.

68

COUNT XII (Lack of diligence and failure to refund unearned fee-Myover-Piotrowski)

164. In or about 2009, Levine and Rebecca Myover-Piotrowski (Myover-Piotrowski) agreed

Levine would represent Myover-Piotrowski in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, In re

Rebecca Myover-Piotrowski, case number 09-28251 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern

District of Illinois),

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and sixty-four.

165. As of September 2014, Myover-Piotrowski's bankruptcy case remained pending, and

all that remained to be done to conclude the matter was for Levine to prepare and file a

document titled, "

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and sixty-five.

166. Between September 2014 and December, 2014, Myover-Piotrowski called Levine's

office approximately a dozen times and left voicemails or sent emails to Levine requesting

that the declaration be filed in her case, so the bankruptcy could be concluded. Levine

received these messages, but on the few occasions when Myover-Piotrowski spoke with

someone at Levine's office, she was given various reasons why the declaration had not been

filed, including that Levine had been ill and that Levine's staff had been fired.


one hundred and sixty-six, and therefore denies the same, but affirmatively states that she had

been hospitalized in early November, 2014 and was evicted from her office in mid-

December, 2014.

69

167. On November 30, 2014, Myover-Piotrowski emailed Nora Matranga ("Matranga"), a

Senior Staff Attorney with the U.S. Trustee's Office, to explain her efforts to have the

declaration filed and to seek her advice. Matranga responded to the email on December 2,

2014 suggesting that Myover-Piotrowski file the bankruptcy directly with the Court.


one hundred and sixty-seven.

168. At no time did Levine file the declaration directly with the Court.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and sixty-eight.

169. On or about January 15, 2015, the Court entered an order closing Myover-Piotrowski's

bankruptcy without a discharge because the declaration certifying that all domestic support

obligations due had been paid had not been filed in the case.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and sixty-nine, but

affirmatively states that Myover-Piotrowski had contacted the Trustee's office and been

instructed on how to file the correct document on December 2, 2014, giving her one a half

months to do so. These documents are regularly filed with the Court by clients because the

notice goes out directly to the client with instructions and sometimes the cases are five years

old. All they have to do is sign it and mail it back to the Court.

70

170. On or about January 21, 2015, Myover-Piotrowski received a copy of the of the Court's

January 15, 2015 order from Levine's office.

ANSWER: Levine denies the allegations in paragraph one hundred and seventy, and

affirmatively states that these notices are usually sent out by the Trustee's office. Levine's

office generally sends a notice out too as well as calls the client, but her downtown office

was closed at the time in question.

171. On January 22, 2015 Myover-Piotrowski, filed the declaration in her case and, a motion

to re-open the case and waive the filing fee. The Court granted both motions on January 26,

2015.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and seventy-one.

172. On February 4, 2015, as referenced in Count I of this complaint, the U.S. Bankruptcy

Court; Northern District of Illinois; Eastern Division entered an order suspending Levine

from the practice of law before that body until further order of Court in the matter entitled, In

re Tanesha Carroll, case number 14-39034.

173. On February 9, 2015, Myover-Piotrowski received her bankruptcy discharge.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and seventy three.

174. On February 11, 2015, the Court entered an order of disgorgement requiring Levine to

refund $200 to Myover-Piotrowski for causing her to have to file a prose motion to reopen

her case.

ANSWER: Levine admits the allegations in paragraph one hundred and seventy-four.

71

175. As of the date the inquiry Board voted a complaint in this matter, Levine had not

refunded any portion of the $200 she was ordered to refund Myover-Piotrowski pursuant to

the disgorgement order entered by the Court.


misconduct.

a. Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by conduct including failing to proceed in any manner on behalf ofMyoverPietrowski in her bankruptcy matter, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (201 O);

b. failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to reasonable requests for information, by failing to respond to MyoverPietrowski' s telephone calls and emails regarding the filing of the declaration in her bankruptcy matter in violation of Rules l.4(a)(3) and (4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

c. failure to refund any advance payment of fees or expenses that has not been earned or incurred, by conduct including failing to refund the unearned fees and costs Myover-Pietrowski's bankruptcy matter, in violation of Rule l.16(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010)

WHEREFORE, Levine requests that the Administrator dismiss this complaint, or for any other relief deemed equitable and just.

Debra J. Vorhies Levine 638 W. Grace Street, 3E Chicago, IL 60613 312-259-5970 [email protected] 6239484

72

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the same to be true.

Date 411612016

Debra J. Vorhies Levine 638 W. Grace Street, 3E Chicago, IL 60613 312-259-5970 [email protected] 6239484

73

v1\.. 11m 1Nr-Ut1MA 11uN NU 11\;t:/ \,;tll\;AuU ~ULlt,;t: Ut:~AH I Mt:N I rH1s1sNOrAN oFFJC1ALP01.1CEREPORr-ir1sFOR1NFDRMA_rt0NPuRPosEsoNLY.R.D. No. H l(';L7 '16 5> }S INCIDENT MT'TER v s ( MpLE JUCR CODE ()\..f &O DATE/TIME OF OCCURRENCE l~ t1.tfi(° l'f /I ·30 SM NAME OF VICTIM/COMPLAINANT LEV• Nii, • . l)f:BRA v. BEAT/UNIT OF ASSIGN. I l 4 BEAT OF OCCUR. -..&1 .... 1 .... ·3..,,_ ___ _ CASE NAME - PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILUNOIS/~ITY OF CHICAGO vs. GA g TS Y' .. ,3 ..,,. Lilt-'• BAL L ~Al <2 If an arrest has taken place, the following is your court information: Date: Or Time: Court Branch: Court Loe.:

If you need more help call the VictllTllW"lfness Assistance Program of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office at (773) 869 - 7200.

Your case will be on tUe with the Chicago Police Department under the above listed R.D. Number. Refer to TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE FOR THE DEAF/TELETYPE (TDD/TTY) this number whenever you are communicating with the Chicago Police Department concerning this Incident Hearing-impaired persons who possess such equipment may communicate with the Chicago Police Your case will be assigned for follow-up investigation based upon specific facts obtained during the Initial Department 24 hours a day by calling (312) 746-9715. Hearing-impaired persons in need of investigation. The presence of these facts can predict whether a comprehensive follow-up investigation assistance during normal business hours may also contact their local police district or the Special would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the suspect (s) or the recovery of property. Your case will Activities Section at {312) 745 - 5823.

be r~viewect and retained to det~!'"'n~ if crimi~als. active. in the area can be ld~ntifiect .. A detective will not OBTAINING A WARRANT OR SUMMONS FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES routinely contact you rnless additional U1format10n 1s requlfed or your further assistance IS needed. ff est is de will b 1 f eel f th dat ti d loca · of th

TO REPORT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have knowledge of specific facts which might assist in the investigation of your case, please contact :he unit marked below:

PROPERTY CRIMES VIOLENT cmMES

AREA CENTRAL D (312) 747-8382 D (312) 747-8380

AREA SOUTH D (312) 747·8273 D (312) 747-8271

AREA NORTH D (312) 744-8263 D (312) 744-8261

BOMB & ARSON {ALL AREAS) D (312)746-7619

SPECIAL VICTIMS

0 (312) 747-8385

D c312) 141-8216

D c312) 144-8266

an arr ma , you e n onn o e e, me, an tion e court proceedings at which your appearance will be required. When you report a crime and an arrest is not made, you may go in person to the appropriate court listed below to request that criminal proceedings be initiated by way of a warrant or summons. Bring this Victim Information Notice and any other relevant Information, such as the offender's name, physical description, and home address to the warrant officer assigned to the court between 8:30 am and 11 :30 am Monday through Friday (excluding court holidays). The warrant officer will then assist you in the process of obtaining the warrant or summons.* Police District of Occurrence Court Branch for Warrant or Summons

D 14,15, 16,17,25 Branch 23 5555 W. Grand Ave.

D 1,18,19,20,24 Branch29 2452 W. Belmont Ave.

... .....

: t

~ISSING PERSONS LOCATED J When persons reported missing are located or have returned, the MISSING PERSONS SECTION nust be contacted IMMEDIATELY at (312) 745-6052.

D D

2,7,8,9 Branch 34 155 W. 51st St. ·--' 3,4,5,6,22 Branch 35 727 E. 111th St. ' ...: C'

:OPY OF THE REPORT D 10,11, 12,13 Branch 43 3150 W. Flournoy St. _,, "he above listed A.O. Number may suffice for insurance purposes. However, there may be instances when . copy of the case report is desired. A copy of the case report which verifies that an incident of injury, loss r damage has been reported to the Chicago Police Department may be obtained after 14 working days ·om the date the incident was reported. To obtain a copy of the report, send a check or money order ayable to the "DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE-CITY OF CHICAGO" in the amount of $.50 and a elf-addressed stamped return envelope to: Chicago Police Department Headquarters, Records Inquiry .ection, 1st floor, 3510 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60653. Include the following information •Ith your request: 1) Victim's name and address (or person reporting crime), 2) Type of incident, 3) Address I occurrence, and 4) R. D. Number. •AKE THE RIGHT CALL > report a crime in progress or other emergency that requires immediate police response, call 911. > report non-emergency situations, call the Police Department at 311 within City limits, or if outside the City nits call (312) 746-6000.

:HICAGO ALTERNATIVE POLICING STRATEGY (CAPS) ~FE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS le police alone cannot solve the problems of crime in our City. It takes an active and Informed community :xklng with the police and other City agencies to really make a difference. Join your nel!flbors and your 1lghborhood police officers as we work together to reduce crime and Improve the quality of life In our CHy. ~e part of the CAPS team rn your community. To find out how, call 311 or visit online at:

htto:J/www .chicagopolice.orq.

•For Incidents relating to domestic violence, a warrant/summons will only be issued from the Domestic Violence Court located at 555 West Harrison, on the first floor.

AUTOMATED VICTIM NOTIFICATION (AVN) The County of Cook has a toll free, multifingual, 24-hour Automated Victim Notification System. To obtain information about a defendant's court date or custody inside of Cook County Jail: call 1-877-846-3445. Do not depend only on the AVN for your safety. If you feel that you may be in danger, take precautions as if the defendant has already been released.

ILLINOIS CRIME VICTIMS NOTIFICATION Innocent victims of violent crime may be eligible to receive benefits from the Illinois Crime Victims Compensation program for such costs as medical, funt}ral, loss of support, and wage loss. NO RECOVERY IS PROVIDED FOR PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE, NOR FOR PAIN OR SUFFERING. To apply or to detennlne whether one qualifies, the victim, or if deceased, a relative or dependent, must contact the Illinois Attorney General's Office. Further lnfomiatlon and clalm forms can be obtained from the Crime Victims Compensation Program, Office of the Attorney General of Illinois, 100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, IHinols 60601, or by calling (312) 814-2581.

RECOVERY OF PROPERTY - STOLEN VEHICLE RECOVERED The Chicago Police Department must be no~ IMMEDIATELY, via the •911• emergency number, when property reported lost or stolen Is recovered.

CREDIT CARDS - CHECKS, LOST OR STOLEN '""'" oo Beat . 'Immediate~ notify the ooocemed ""'"cam """"'"'"""'by telephone ID noduce "'" ,.,...,,lty ot lur next Beat Community Meeting will be held on (date/ time} being liable for the unauthorized use of your lost or stolen credit card or check. It Is suggested that

you also lnfonn !he credit card Issuer or bank in writing as a follow-up measure to ensure proper (location) notification.

~D-11.383 (Rev. 3/12)-Engllsh IMPORTANT: RETAIN THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR PERSONAL RECORDS

)..

'U

DEBRA J. VORHIES LEVINE 638 W. Grace Street; Chicago, IL 60613

PHONE: 312-259-5970; e-mail: [email protected]

February 20, 2014

Attention Christine P. Anderson Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission 130 East Randolph Drive; Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 ~6219

Re: Case Number; 2015IN00470 Bankruptcy Case Number; 13-4506; Abella Edelstein

Dear Ms. Anderson

I represented Irene Kogan as the guardian for her father Emil Kogan. Emil Kogan

is the ex-husband of Abella Edelstein. Ms. Kogan paid me exactly four hundred dollars.

This payment did not even come close to the compensation I should have received. I spent

one hundred and seventy-six dollars just in court costs. There are cases that I have taken

that I should not have taken, or I should have withdrawn from; this is one of them. Ms.

Kogan dropped by my office, unannounced on a regular basis. I spent at least twenty hours

with her in the office. This does not include all of the court work I completed or the

motions I prepared and filed for her in support of her case. See Exhibit A, Itemization of

Work; also see Exhibit B, A copy of the docket report for Abella Edelstein. Ms. Kogan

wanted Ms.Edelstein' s Chapter 13 case dismissed because she believed that Ms. Edelstein

was hiding assets, not disclosing important information, and taking advantage of Emil

Kogan while he was incapacitated. Ms.Edelstein's lawyer had a good argument when he

responded to my motions. He stated that divorce issues should not be litigated in

Bankruptcy; nevertheless, there were other issues aside from the divorce issues that

E~ xh,, i,J rr 1~

were relevant. I could not have done anything differently. I completely followed my

client's direction in this case to the.extent to which bankruptcy applies. Ms. Kogan is a

very angry person. Now she is directing her anger at me. I felt sorry for her, and this is

why I continued with the case. In the future, I will not let my emotions cloud my

judgment.

Ms. Kogan complained that I reeked of alcohol and my office was messy. Frankly,

this is just not true. I do not drink alcohol when I am working. Of course, there are files

and paper work in my office. I multitask,just like any other lawyer. It is not disorganized,

just cluttered at times depending on how busy I am.

Ms. Kogan hired another lawyer, Alexander Tynkov, on or around, September of

2014. He lost the case, and Ms. Edelstein's Chapter 13 plan was approved.

If you have any further questions, please contact me. I expect that you will hear

more from Ms. Kogan.

V~r~ Debra J. Vorhies Levine

ITEMIZATION OF TIME

1/31/14 Reviewed documents and exhibits in preparation 2.0 $600.00 for filing motions.

2/12114 Prepared and filed an Objection to confirmation, 1.0 $300.00 of Ms. Edelstein' s Chapter 13 plan. Many exhibits Were included, all of which had to be scanned.

3/11114 Prepared and filed an Amended Objection· .4 $120.00

3111114 Paid court costs $176.00

3/13/14 Court appearance on Objection to Confirmation .5 $150.00 Continued.

5/14114 Prepared and filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. 1.5 $300.00 Edelstein' s Chapter 13 plan.

5115114 Court appearance on confirmation of Debtor's .6 $180.00 Chapter 13 plan and all motions. All matters Continued to 6/12/14.

6/1/14 Reviewed Debtor's.response to allegations .3 $90.00

6112114 Prepared and filed a reply to Debtor's response. .8 $240.00

6112114 Court appearance on all matters. .5 $150.00

6/12/14 Court appearance on all matters. Pre·trial set .6 $180.00 For hearing on Motion to Dismiss.

7/24114 Court appearance on all matters. Continued to .5 $150.00 1012114.

Total Attorney Fees $2,280.00 Total Costs $176.00 Total $2,456.0Q

Time in office not charged. Estimated 20 hours $6,000.00

I am not even including the phone calls.

if x; Vvi ~ rr' 'I '0

Monday November 17th, 2014

Marilyn 0. Marshall 224 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604

Debra Levine DVL Law Offices, LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1001 Chicago, IL 60604

RE: Stacey Wingfield-Case# 14 B 15315 Motion to Dismiss

Dear Chapter 13 Trustee Marilyn 0. Marshall and Debra Levine of DVL Law Offices:

I am writing this letter to notify the Trustee Marilyn 0. Marshall and Attorney Debra Levine that I am no longer interested in Pursuing Bankruptcy Chapter 13 and that I am in agreement with the Trustee's motion to dismiss. I would like to move forward with paying my creditors directly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Jrc'-d;r W V'-ib cv{ Stacey Wingfield Case# 14-15315

f. Xt) ,·b1T-(~: