The Illinois Administrator has charged an attorney with a conflict of interest in representing both a family business and a couple that wished to adopt a child.
The business
In 2002, Family Choices, NFPC (“Family Choices”) was incorporated with the Secretary of State as a not-for-profit corporation. Family Choices provided adoption services. Family Choices operated until December 2015, when the entity did not renew its license. Family Choices was owned by Joyce Crouse (“Crouse”), who also served as the executive director of the entity. Crouse is Respondent’s mother. Family Choices employed at different times Respondent’s sister, Susan Wolk (“Wolk”), and Respondent’s brother Kevin Crouse.
In or about 2005 or 2006, Respondent’s husband, Philip Cobb, provided loans of $15,000 and $5,000 to Family Choices and/or Crouse on or about 2005 or 2006. At the time this Complaint was filed, that loan has not been repaid, and prior to 2010, Philip Cobb forgave the loan.
Prior to 2002, Respondent’s husband owned the building at 515 W. Main St., Collinsville, Illinois, where Respondent and Family Choices each operated their respective businesses during all times described in this Complaint. Family Choices did not pay rent to Respondent’s husband.
Respondent, who specialized in adoption law at all times described in this Complaint, represented Family Choices in court on several occasions, provided ongoing legal advice and consultation to Family Choices, and assisted Family Choices in drafting legal documents.
Between 2000 and 2014, Respondent represented family members who were associated with Family Choices, including Respondent’s mother (Crouse), her sister (Wolk), and brother (Kevin). Respondent also provided legal advice or representation to Wolk’s daughters and husband during this time period.
From time to time after 2006, Respondent referred clients to Family Choices for adoption services, and Family Choices staff referred clients to Respondent for legal services.
The clients
In the summer of 2012, Janet (“Janet”) and Gregory (“Gregory”) Warren spoke to Respondent about their wish to adopt a baby from Janet’s niece (“biological mother”). At the time, the biological mother was expecting to deliver the baby in August 2012, and Janet and Gregory anticipated that the baby would be born with non-prescribed drugs in his system.
During the meeting, Respondent invited her sister, Wolk, a licensing worker at Family Choices, into the meeting with the Warrens. The Warrens disclosed to Respondent and Wolk that they both had prior substance abuse issues, then in remission, and Gregory had a 1991 incident reported to DCFS, resulting in an indicated finding by DCFS of sexual abuse. Gregory also advised Respondent and Wolk that he currently used Tramadol, a non-opiate prescription drug.
During the meeting, Respondent and Wolk told the Warrens that if the baby was born with drugs in his system that DCFS would be alerted by the hospital, and DCFS would not approve the Warrens as adoptive parents based on the couple’s past.
During the meeting, Respondent and Wolk told the Warrens that they needed to retain Family Choices to successfully adopt the baby, given their prior substance abuse issues and the indicated abuse finding. Respondent explained to the Warrens that if the biological parents surrendered the child to Family Choices, that Family Choices could then provide a home study recommending that Warrens be allowed to adopt the baby. Wolk agreed to decide whether to recommend the Warrens as adoptive parents of the baby after reviewing the Warrens’ psychological evaluation and other information gathered during the home study process.
During the meeting, Respondent told the Warrens that Wolk was Respondent’s sister.
The complaint alleges that the attorney failed to disclose the conflicts such as
At no time did Respondent advise the Warrens that their interests were directly adverse to the interests of her client, Family Choices in the proposed adoption, as Family Choices could recommend that the Warrens not be allowed to adopt the baby. At no time did Respondent advise the Warrens that Family Choices would be the party-respondent in the Warren’s proposed adoption case.
At no time did Respondent advise the Warrens that her representation of the Warrens would be materially limited by her responsibilities to her family and clients, including Crouse and Wolk.
At no time did Respondent advise the Warrens that Family Choices had a financial incentive to charge more than one family for adoption services relating to the baby’s adoption.
At no time did Respondent advise the Warrens that if their interests became adverse to the interests of Family Choices that she would not fully and vigorously represent them in court.
During the meeting, the Warrens and Respondent agreed that Respondent would represent them in an adoption proceeding. They agreed the Warrens would pay $3,000 in legal fees, plus expenses. The Warrens paid Respondent $2,730 in legal fees on November 11, 2012.