A Tragic Death Leads To An “Astonishing Amount Of Harm” That Merits Disbarment

An Illinois Hearing Board proposes the disbarment of an attorney in a lengthy report

The Administrator filed a five-count Complaint against Respondent. Counts I through IV involved Respondent’s participation in a series of related judicial proceedings arising out of a fatal accident. Count V involved his representation of a client in a guardianship matter. In each of the five counts, Respondent was charged with asserting claims or bringing proceedings that were frivolous, using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third party, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In Counts I and IV Respondent was also charged with making false statements to a tribunal and engaging in dishonest conduct.

The Hearing Board found that Respondent engaged in all of the misconduct charged…

Respondent, an Illinois lawyer since 1973, has operated his own law firm since 1980 focusing on appellate work, commercial litigation and probate. He has also handled legal malpractice cases at the trial and appellate level. Prior to 2015, probate work occupied about 30-40% of his firm’s practice. (Tr. 1297-1302)…

Counts I – IV involve Respondent’s participation in multiple proceedings stemming from the death of Claudia Zvunca in 2002. At issue is the propriety of Respondent’s filing of lawsuits in federal and state court (Count I), his allegations of abuse against attorney Jeanine Stevens (Count II), his removal of a state court sanctions proceeding to federal court (Count III), and his statements made in a pleading and affidavit (Count IV). Although Respondent’s alleged misconduct began in 2008, events prior to that time formed much of the bases for his actions and assertions, and therefore a review of those early proceedings is essential to an understanding and resolution of the ethical issues involved in this matter. While it would be impossible to reference all the testimony and the reams of documents submitted during the ten-day hearing, we have endeavored to summarize the chronology of events and evidence germane to the decision.

In January 2002 Claudia Zvunca and her seven-year-old daughter Cristina were traveling to Chicago by Greyhound bus when they disembarked at a station in Colorado. They had not yet re-boarded when the bus began pulling away. As Claudia, who was holding Cristina’s hand, ran alongside the bus, she was struck, run over, and killed. Claudia was survived by her daughter Cristina, her husband Tiberu Klein (Cristina’s step-father), and her parents Maria and Vasile Zvunca (Cristina’s grandparents) who resided in Romania. 

The Chicago Tribune reported on the charges. 

The commission accused Novoselsky of filing a frivolous federal lawsuit in August 2008 against the Zvunca estate’s lead lawyer, Jeanine Stevens, and two other lawyers that alleged legal malpractice and fraud, and that further alleged Stevens had abused Zvunca. The commission found Novoselsky made allegations “that had no factual basis” and that he had engaged in misconduct that involved “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

The hearing board lays out the story of that case in detail and respondent’s role

…in August 2010 Stevens and Cushing filed a motion for sanctions against Respondent for his improper filing of the state court complaints. On April 4, 2014 Judge Propes entered a sanctions order finding that the complaint filed by Respondent did not state a cause of action for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty or fraud, nor did he allege any damages or proximate cause. She pointed out that the federal court had told Respondent the claims were invalid and yet he re-filed them in state court. She concluded, therefore, that Respondent knowingly filed alleged causes of actions that did not exist. She also determined that it was a “near certainty” that Respondent’s state court claims would be barred by res judicata. (Tr. 1051-61; Adm. Ex. 16).

Judge Propes further found that Rule 137 sanctions were proper because Respondent had brought a lawsuit for an improper purpose – that is, to manufacture a conflict between Stevens and Cushing on one hand, and the beneficiaries of the estate on the other hand, in order to gain control of the wrongful death case. Her opinion noted that Respondent admitted during a hearing that he knew his filing of the federal case would create a conflict of interest and he had made that argument to Judge Locallo. (Tr. 1070-71; Adm. Ex. 16).

And finds that he filed frivolous litigation, made false statements to a tribunal and other rule violations

We find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent’s actions in filing frivolous claims undermined the judicial process in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5). Not only were considerable judicial time and resources expended in both the federal and state courts to address those claims, the entire Zvunca litigation was impacted because the frivolous lawsuits provided a basis for Greyhound and Respondent to argue that the attorneys in the wrongful death case had a conflict of interest. Ultimately, Judge Locallo removed the attorneys for that reason but it took several years and the expenditure of more time and resources before that decision was reversed. The drawn-out legal proceedings put into motion by Respondent’s ill-considered acts inevitably delayed the final settlement in the case, which deprived the very clients he undertook to represent of the monies they could have received years sooner.

Sanction

Respondent’s motivation for engaging in the misconduct, which we see as having been purely for personal gain, is another aggravating factor we consider. As to the Zvunca proceedings, the Administrator argued throughout the hearing that Respondent was attempting to disrupt the existing attorney/client relationships in the wrongful death litigation and insert himself into the proceedings as counsel for the plaintiff in order to reap large fees for himself. We believe this to be true, but in reviewing both the Zvunca and Kuc litigation we conclude his motivation was also rooted in his own over-zealous desire to beat down and out-trick his opponents by any means and at any cost, whether that cost was to his own clients or, ultimately, to himself. His determination to control the proceedings and his refusal to accept defeat was displayed repeatedly by his filing and re-filing of meritless cases, his endless motions for substitution of judges, his specious requests for reconsideration and appeals, and other behavior which a reasonable attorney would recognize as meritless and contumacious. Not only did Respondent not recognize his initial wrongful conduct, the imposition of sanctions seemed to have no effect in reforming his behavior.

With respect to those sanction awards, the evidence showed that Respondent racked up thousands of dollars of sanctions imposed by a federal judge and two separate circuit court judges. Respondent is in bankruptcy and most of the sanction orders remain unsatisfied.

While the foregoing factors are egregious and will impact our ultimate determination, the most disturbing factor that aggravates Respondent’s conduct is the astonishing amount of harm he caused to numerous individuals, including clients and opposing attorneys. See In re Saladino, 71 Ill. 2d 263, 375 N.E.2d 102 (1978) (discipline should be “closely linked to the harm caused or the unreasonable risk created by the [attorney’s] lack of care”).

The list of persons or entities who were damaged by Respondent’s conduct include:

• Cristina Zvunca – Respondent’s maneuverings delayed the progression of her case and her recovery. After seizing control of the litigation, he agreed to settle the case for an amount less than what had been discussed by the parties, and for less than the ultimate settlement amount;

• Jeanine Stevens, Marina Ammendola and John Cushing – the attorneys spent a vast amount of time responding to Respondent’s motions and lawsuits, paid thousands of dollars in fees to other attorneys to defend them against spurious allegations, suffered increases in their malpractice insurance premiums, and had less time to spend on their other client matters;

• Stevens and Ammendola – both testified they continue to suffer embarrassment and answer inquiries about the unfounded allegations made against them, which were not only personal and offensive in nature but, as to Stevens, could have subjected her to an unwarranted investigation by child services or worse;

• Gus Santana – incurred attorney’s fees in defending himself against baseless motions and accusations and was embarrassed by the proceedings, which took time away from his other clients;

• Eugene Kuc – received bills from Respondent’s firm which included work for the sanctions proceedings against Respondent. Further, he had to reimburse his mother’s estate when payments made to Respondent were not approved by the court and Respondent refused to refund the overage.

• James Ayres – had to defend a lawsuit brought by Respondent seeking contribution for the sanctions imposed against Respondent and his law firm, and no longer has a relationship with his family member Eugene Kuc;

• Multiple courts – both federal and state judges had their dockets taxed by frivolous litigation that took time away from their other cases. Judges Propes and Connors testified to the tremendous amount of time spent in reviewing pleadings and transcripts.

In addition, as discussed in a previous section, Respondent’s actions played a part in Judge Locallo’s order of September 2009 which removed the key players from the wrongful death litigation. That order was ultimately reversed, causing months of proceedings and the settlement of the case to be unwound.

He had prior discipline as reported by the ABA Journal. 

During the wrongful death case, Novoselsky routinely called a female lawyer names, including “b—-,’ ‘‘asshole,” “slut,” “c—,” “pervert,” “whore” and “child molester,” the review board said. He called another lawyer an “idiot” and a “cokehead,” and called a deputy a “dumbbell” after she asked him to lower his voice, according to the review board opinion.

Novoselsky denied making some of the statements about the female lawyer. He said he couldn’t remember making some statements and admitted others, saying his comments were provoked or part of the parties ribbing each other. Other witnesses said the female lawyer did not provoke the comments.

The prior discipline involved insults to the same attorneys who were the victims here.

The hearing board concludes

Respondent knowingly engaged in a sustained campaign of unfounded litigation and manipulation and failed to conform his actions to the requirements of the professional rules after adverse rulings by courts. Despite his testimony that he has now changed and will no longer engage in destructive behavior, his failure to be deterred by sanctions and his recent activity in a federal case in Wisconsin speak to the contrary. In light of the misconduct that occurred and the relevant case law, and in order to protect the public and the integrity of the profession, we conclude that disbarment is warranted.

According to this opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, respondent was not the sole bad actor on the scene

In 2002, Claudia Zvunca was tragically struck and killed by a Greyhound bus. Klein v. O’Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 755 (7th Cir. 2018). Claudia’s daughter, Cristina Zvunca, witnessed the accident. Id. She was seven years old at the time. Id. Since then, Claudia’s husband (and Cristina’s stepfather), Tiberiu Klein, has plagued various federal and state courts with attempts to manage the tort litigation related to Claudia’s death. Id. at 756. This federal lawsuit is just one installment in the sixteen-year litigious crusade carried out by Klein and his associates. This time, Klein dresses up his allegations as a series of conspiracy theories involving Klein’s erstwhile attorney David Novoselsky, Greyhound Lines, MB Financial Bank, and a handful of Cook County and Illinois Appellate Court judges. See generally R. 51, Am. Compl. But the window dressing does not matter: Klein’s claims in this case all fail on the merits for one reason or another. Because Klein has already had substantial leeway to amend his complaint and to bend and break pleading rules,  the case is dismissed with prejudice.

(Mike Frisch)