More Than A Formality

A father and son are the subject of a complaint filed by the Illinois Administrator. 

The facts are littered with a number of sudden deaths

In 2015, Respondent William agreed to represent Stephen Nocek (“Stephen”) in certain legal matters. Stephen was an 89 year-old man with three adult sons, Daniel, Michael and Philip Nocek.

In late August 2015, Daniel Nocek (“Daniel”) died unexpectedly at the age of 58. Respondent William agreed to represent Stephen in the probate of Daniel’s estate. Respondent William and Stephen agreed on a flat fee of $2,300. Stephen paid Respondent William in full and Respondent completed the representation.

Stephen also executed a will

Respondent William prepared Stephen’s will and, on September 30, 2016, Stephen signed the will which was also witnessed and notarized on that date. Stephen’s September 30, 2016 will provided that his entire estate would be left to his son Michael Nocek (“Michael”). Stephen’s son Philip Nocek (“Philip”) was a disabled adult. The will appointed Michael to serve as executor. Stephen’s September 30, 2016 last will and testament complied with Chapter 755, Section 5/4-3.

Then

In February 2017, Michael was hospitalized following an illness.

On February 21, 2017, Stephen contacted Respondent William to draft a last will and testament for Michael. Respondent William agreed to create a will for Michael. Respondent William and Stephen did not did not discuss a fee for Michael’s will.

On or about February 21, 2017, Respondent William drafted a last will and testament for Michael. Michael’s will named his aunt, Stephen’s sister Elizabeth Riff, and his two cousins as beneficiaries but did not include his brother Philip. Michael’s will also appointed Stephen as executor and his cousin, Kathleen Raymond (“Raymond”), as successor executor in the event Stephen was unable to serve.

On February 23, 2017, Respondent William visited Michael in the hospital to review the will. Respondent William and Michael reviewed the will and its terms and Respondent William read the will aloud to Michael. Respondent William was present as Michael signed the will. No other person was present when Michael executed his will. Respondent William left the hospital with Michael’s unattested will.

On February 24, 2017, Michael died.

The reaper grimly continued to stalk the family Nocek

On February 21, 2017, the same day that Stephen asked Respondent William to draft a will for Michael, Stephen also asked Respondent William to modify his (Stephen’s) September 30, 2016 will. Respondent William agreed to draft a codicil to modify Stephen’s will. Respondent William and Stephen did not discuss a fee for the codicil to Stephen’s September 30, 2016 will.

On February 24, 2017, Respondent William visited Stephen, who was in a hospital. Respondent William reviewed the codicil to Stephen’s September 30, 2016 will with Stephen by reading it aloud to Stephen. Respondent William was present when Stephen executed the codicil. The codicil modified Stephen’s original will in that, if Michael died before Stephen, Raymond would serve as executor. The codicil further modified the distribution of Stephen’s estate from Michael to three beneficiaries: Stephen’s sister and Stephen’s niece and nephew. Respondent William was present when Stephen signed the codicil and he left the hospital with Stephen’s unattested codicil.

Stephen died on March 2, 2017. 

The alleged misconduct 

On March 1, 2017, Respondent William asked Respondent James to sign the attestation clauses and affidavits of attesting witnesses on Michael’s will and Stephen’s codicil even though Respondent James had not been present for the signing of Michael’s will or Stephen’s codicil…

On March 1, 2017, after Respondent William and Respondent James signed the attestation clauses and affidavits…Respondent William asked Kimberli Montes, a family member, to notarize Michael’s will and Stephen’s codicil by affixing her notary seal to the documents. Ms. Montes did notarize the documents, notwithstanding the fact that she had not observed Michael, Stephen, Respondent William or Respondent James sign the documents.

The signatures on the attestation clauses and affidavits of witnesses by Respondent William and Respondent James on Stephen’s codicil and Michael’s will were false, as Respondent James did not observe Michael or Stephen execute the respective documents, Respondent James did not know Michael’s and Stephen’s capacity at the time the documents were executed and Respondents William and James were not “in the presence of each other” when Stephen and Michael signed the respective documents. As such, both Michael’s will and the codicil to Stephen’s September 30, 2016 will did not comply with Chapter 755, Section 5/4-3.

Philip’s counsel uncovered the issue and the documents were declared invalid

 Respondent William, along with counsel for Raymond and Phillip, appeared before the court in case numbers 2017 P 2424 and 2017 P 2426. Respondent William informed the court that Respondent James, the second witness, was not present when Michael’s will and the codicil to Stephen’s will were executed, that the witness attestation clauses and affidavits of witnesses on those documents were false attestations and the will and codicil were not executed properly.

The complaint alleges that both respondents made a false statement to a tribunal and engaged in dishonest conduct. (Mike Frisch)