An Expert Leatherman

The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging numerous ethics violations on the part of an attorney in connection with his dealings with a now-former client.

The client is a hair stylist; the initial representation involved a challenge to Governor Pritzker’s COVID closing orders.

Additional matters involved a debt collection and an order of protection against the client’s mother.

Allegation

On June 15, 2020, Respondent began a sexual relationship with Craig that did not previously exist. Respondent’s relationship with Craig continued until February 2023.

The client started a business called Future You; Respondent allegedly entered into business with her contrary to Rule 1.8(a)

At no time prior to March 29, 2022, did Respondent advise Craig that she had the right to seek the advice of independent counsel with respect to the transaction described in paragraphs 37 through 41, above, nor did Respondent have Craig give written informed consent to the terms of the transaction.

The client declared bankruptcy

Respondent’s statements in paragraph 46, above, that Craig is “ignorant of pretty much anything,” was a “petulant child who has no idea what to say or do,” that she “can’t even figure out you did copy me on this correspondence,” and that Respondent apologized “for her nasty character” had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden Craig.

Respondent allegedly frivolously violated the automatic stay

Respondent filed a lawsuit against Craig in a matter docketed as Future You Brands, LLC and Thomas Devore v. Riley N. Craig, 2023 CH 3 (Bond County Circuit Court). The complaint alleged that Craig failed to perform marketing duties for Future You and that she siphoned assets of the company. Respondent sought judicial dissolution of Future You, the judicial dissociation of Craig from Future You, and an accounting.

He also allegedly communicated with the former client when he was aware she was represented by counsel.

The Illinoize reported on sanctions imposed by the federal bankruptcy court set forth below.

Thomas DeVore, the southern Illinois attorney who made a name for himself with lawsuits challenging Governor JB Pritzker’s COVID-19 mandates and was the 2022 GOP nominee for Attorney General, was admonished and sanctioned by a federal bankruptcy judge Tuesday for his actions with a former client, girlfriend, and business partner.

The attorney had been sanctioned for his conduct in the client’s bankruptcy by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois

All the factors support an award of punitive damages here. Mr. DeVore’s conduct was indefensible. He filed a lawsuit just two days after the Debtor filed bankruptcy, and, despite being told by Attorney Pioletti that the filing violated the stay, he doubled down with an emergency motion and then his petition for an order of protection. The filing of the petition for an order of protection was particularly offensive because Mr. DeVore attempted to use a statute designed to help vulnerable people, including children, from the horrors of domestic violence to settle his business disputes with the Debtor. He misrepresented that he was a victim of domestic violence when he was not, and he presented false and misleading evidence in his petition and the attached narrative. All of this harmed the Debtor by embarrassing her and by causing her to incur over $5900 in fees to two separate attorneys. Even now the Debtor may be forced to spend more if Mr. DeVore does not remedy ongoing violations by dismissing the actions that he filed in violation of the stay.

Mr. DeVore is capable of paying a punitive damage award. He testified that he had the financial wherewithal to obtain the $600,000 in financing for Future You and that he had assets to post as collateral to secure the loan. He is also a sophisticated creditor. He is an attorney with the resources to have checked the law before acting, and he knew what Attorney Pioletti was telling him when advised that the filing of the Bond County lawsuit violated the stay. Mr. DeVore also knew exactly what he was doing when he told two different creditors that the Debtor’s bankruptcy did not impede their collection efforts. Mr. DeVore’s motives were clear: he intended to stir up trouble for the Debtor and harass her. If Mr. DeVore’s motives were truly limited to salvaging his business investment, he would have acted professionally, reached out to the trustee to make a deal to get control of Future You, cut his losses, and moved forward. Instead, he wasted his time disrupting the Debtor’s creditors meeting, posting nonsense about the Debtor’s Louis Vuitton purses on his social media platforms, and claiming to be a victim of domestic violence when he was not. When the Debtor filed her bankruptcy, Mr. DeVore had a right to be annoyed; he may well suffer a significant financial loss because of the failure of Future You. But her filing was not provocation for him to violate the stay, and his attempts to suggest otherwise are not credible.

The Court will award to the Debtor punitive damages in the amount of $7500 to be paid by Mr. DeVore. This amount is less that the $20,000 the Debtor requested but hopefully is enough to make Mr. DeVore change his behavior. Riddick, 231 B.R. at 269. The award is just a little more than the amount awarded for actual damages. Thus, it may get Mr. DeVore’s attention and cause him to realize that he must respect the law and the orders of this Court or bear the consequences of his actions. If the sanctions imposed are not enough to get Mr. DeVore’s attention, future violations should be brought to the Court’s attention and additional sanctions may issue.

The Louis Vuitton “nonsense” reference

The Debtor identified another undated Facebook post made by Mr. DeVore asking whether any of Mr. DeVore’s friends knew of an “expert leatherman” and saying that he expected to have “some Louis Vuitton black leather real soon[.]” The Debtor explained that she was the owner of two Louis Vuitton handbags that had been discussed at her creditors meeting and that had been turned over to the trustee to be sold. In yet another Facebook post identified by the Debtor, Mr. DeVore criticized his “most recent ex” and her mother without referring to the Debtor by name. The Debtor also identified a document she described as a TikTok alert letting her know that Mr. DeVore had begun following her on that social media platform. She said that she received the alert in late July.

(Mike Frisch)