Some divorce attorneys earn a living working for their clients, but one in Chicago’s Cook County Domestic Relations Division has found himself in hot water for “switching sides” and earning $370k worth of judgments along the way.
If it sounds unfair, that’s because it is, according Marty Paris’ view of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Paris divorce case is well known in Cook County for a then-bankrupt father of seven – Marty – languishing in jail over the ’23-’24 holiday season and then again months later. Judiococracy’s publications – AbusiveDiscretion and ALABnews – printed six stories on the matter.
But now there are new revelations in an ALABnews exclusive – Marty Paris’ March 19th ARDC Complaint against his former attorney, Brian Jason Hurst, and his law firm Hurst Robin Kay & Allen. The ARDC is Illinois’ attorney disciplinary body which normally focuses on attorney conduct in the practice of law. They mete out punishments when allegations of financial significance of this level and clear violations are apparent. But they choose what lawyers to chase and when.
In Paris’ message to the busy body, he highlighted one detail not disclosed during the tumultuous divorce proceeding. Hurst and his firm, which had once promised to zealously advocate for Marty in his case appeared before the Court on behalf of a party – not themselves – opposing him.
The ARDC Complaint reflects his shock:
“I don’t believe lawyers are allowed to oppose their own client, ‘switch sides’ in a court case, but that’s what happened to me.’
At first blush, Paris’ complaint would appear short on content. Paris only provided two exhibits to prove his case to the ARDC which is less than one might expect for a complex complaint against an attorney experienced at working the divorce circuit for his wealth. Paris stressed to the ARDC he doesn’t want them or Hurst shifting the issue, leading to its brevity.
“I have limited my complaints to the clearest cut violation to avoid the ARDC or Mr. Hurst shifting the conversation to irrelevant topics to avoid disciplining Hurst.”
The first of his exhibits wouldn’t seem to help Paris much. It appears a standard engagement agreement but for several notes. Hurst and his firm HRK&A agreed to represent Paris and, as the stories covering the Paris case note, did so and along with others, moved for actions which led to his jailing. Hurst would not be the only attorney in the Paris case to have his own former client thrown in jail.
The second exhibit proves more damning. It is a filing from Hurst and his firm on behalf of a party seeking judgment against Paris in the very same case. Hurst argues that without the Court doing his bidding on an emergency basis, another of Paris’ former attorneys wouldn’t get proper redress against Paris.
The Paris ARDC complaint then lays it bare:
“Hurst began collection against[sic] for Rosenfeld against me, eventually leading to my jailing.”
Rosenfeld and Hurst and at least one other of Paris’ former attorneys appear to have been responsible for the Paris’ seven children missing their father for Christmas that year.
But Paris’ one page commentary tries, but maybe fails, to go a step further in simplifying the case for the ARDC. He cites the exact rule that Hurst violated – the ARDC need only have a property developer’s savvy to see the abuse he feels he suffered. Paris contends:
“This is a violation of Rule 1.9.”
Paris’ skepticism with the legal system is understandable. It seeps out in comments that appear to question whether the ARDC intends to do its job by pleading with them to review the ARDC’s own rules about Rule 1.9’s non-waivability:
“…I never waived this conflict and the ARDC can review its own rules to understand that Rule 1.9 is non-waivable.”
Like most consumers of legal services, Paris is sensitive to being financially taken advantage of by what could be construed as ruthless, unethical attorneys who escape discipline while the ARDC focuses on less pressing matters:
“I view this financial judgment [$370k attained by Hurst, the majority of which in violation of Rule 1.9] to be at least as egregious as misusing trust account money.”
In the end, Paris seemed to hold back criticism of the ARDC for where it has otherwise been spending its time, by innuendo:
“My understanding is that the ARDC has already been involved in an investigation regarding Mr. Hurst and my case but targeted on[sic] someone else.”
On Tuesday, the Cook County Record‘s Jon Bilyk reported that Paris, representing himself, filed a malpractice complaint against the lawyers involved in the malfeasance. Bilyk’s story didn’t focus on the “switching sides” aspect of the ARDC complaint which was later filed.
Paris’ malpractice complaint is remarkably savvy, including complex counts that have recently been allowed to proceed in Cook County Law Division malpractice cases, such as Negligent Retention and Negligent Supervision.
The ARDC complaint is more mundane. Although Paris correctly identifies Rule 1.9 as an issue, he didn’t include the specifics of the rule. Rule 1.9 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct reads:
“Rule 1.9: Duties to Former Clients
(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client
(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.”
Paris’ short-if-not-so-sweet misssive to the ARDC might have accidentally overwhelmed the protectors of regular Illinoisans like Paris while trying to simplify it for them. Paris failed to implicate which of the subparagraphs – a, b, or c – to which he wanted his claim limited. Based on the severity of the allegations, the ARDC could be delayed in merely delineating charges should they decide to put a stop to the practice going forward under the noses of the judges in the division.
In 2019, the ARDC published a handy article providing the basis for seeing whether attorneys like Hurst are violating it. The ARDC doesn’t mince words:
“Violations of Rule 1.9 have routinely been found when the interests of a lawyer’s present client are adverse to the interests of a former client, such as in real estate transactions, divorce proceedings, and lawsuits involving corporations.”
The ARDC’s familiarity with the case, according to Paris, should make their review of Paris’ complaint straightforward. Upon documentation reviewed by ALABnews, Hurst has escaped any ARDC charges in an investigation before this one that appears to demonstrate dishonesty. [edited to clarify no charges were brought].
ALABnews‘ staff reporting team reviewed a filing in federal court showing the ARDC is familiar with the Paris case, Hurst, and the Chief Judge of the domestic relations division where the alleged Rule 1.9-breaking behavior seems to have gone unnoticed while Paris languished in jail.
The Appellate Court later overturned that judge for jailing debtor prison divorce dads, after civil rights mavens Loevy & Loevy stepped in to further expose the practice, highlighted in Judiciocracy’s earlier reporting.
The malpractic complaint calls Hurst “dastardly” suggesting Paris either copied or instigated this publication’s earlier headline use of the descriptor.
The Paris divorce case abruptly ended when the nationwide domestic relations judicial reform organization Children of the Court sued the judge in that case for refusing its and the adult children of the Paris family access to the courtroom. The organization’s moniker is “Children Holding Courts Accountable”
Olga Stambler, another partner at HRK&A was not named in the ARDC complaint but was reportedly involved in the matters of collection against Paris, at least. She joins Howard Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld Farmer as named defendants in the malpractice complaint. The two firms’ remaining named partners are only joined as Respondents in Discovery.
The ARDC has not received public criticism for one attorney’s accusation it is being used on behalf of the head of the domestic relations division to quell criticism of her.
====
Due to personal conflicts of interest of Judiciocracy’s Publisher and CEO Edward “Coach” Weinhaus (who has a relationship of one form or another with the ARDC, Children of the Court, Paris, Hurst, and Rosenfeld), Judiocracy consulted a third party to review the factual bases of this story and to sign off on its publishing on behalf of Judiciocracy’s ALABnews Staff Reporters. A non-conflicted member signed off on its publication.
