On Friday, January 30, 2026, the Administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint against attorney Calvita J. Frederick, alleging professional misconduct across multiple cases. The complaint details five counts of misconduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Calvita J. Frederick,” with case no. 2026PR00008.
The first count involves S.F., a former Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, who paid Frederick a $15,000 retainer in September 2024 to represent her in a dispute with a school district in Kankakee County. According to the complaint, Frederick was also retained by two other women, G.W. and O.S., also involved in disputes with the same school district. The agreement stipulated Frederick would bill at $350 per hour in her office and $400 per hour outside the office, with an additional 20% contingent fee from any settlement. S.F. paid the full retainer in three installments.
The complaint alleges that Frederick did not adequately represent S.F., failing to negotiate a settlement, file a complaint, or arrange meetings with district representatives. By early January 2025, Frederick withdrew from representing the women. S.F. requested an itemized bill and a refund of unearned fees, which Frederick allegedly failed to provide. The ARDC argues Frederick charged an unreasonable fee and failed to refund unearned fees, violating the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
The second count concerns C.E., who retained Frederick in February 2022 for an age discrimination claim against the Chicago Fire Department, paying a $10,000 retainer. The complaint states Frederick failed to file any claims on C.E.’s behalf with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before the statute of limitations expired. Despite meeting six times over 20 months, Frederick allegedly did not act diligently, failed to consult reasonably with C.E., and did not return any unearned portion of the retainer until after the ARDC inquiry.
The third count arises from Frederick’s representation of M.O. in a civil rights action against the City of Chicago. The complaint alleges Frederick failed to participate in drafting a joint pretrial order, filed untimely motions in limine, and made false statements about Judge Gary Feinerman, who presided over the case. Judge Feinerman ultimately granted a mistrial and dismissed M.O.’s case with prejudice, reprimanding Frederick and referring her to the federal court’s Executive Committee for discipline. The Executive Committee suspended Frederick from the general and trial bars for at least one year. The ARDC alleges Frederick lacked competence, disobeyed pretrial rulings, and engaged in conduct intended to disrupt the tribunal, violating multiple Rules of Professional Conduct.
The fourth count involves Frederick’s representation of E.P. in federal claims against the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Medicine. The complaint alleges Frederick made false statements about Judge Steven C. Seeger’s qualifications and integrity in a motion to alter or amend a judgment. The ARDC alleges these statements violated Rule 8.2(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
The fifth count stems from Frederick’s representation of F.A. in a 2017 lawsuit regarding a residential tenancy. The complaint alleges Frederick failed to appear for trial in March 2022, resulting in a default judgment against F.A. for $81,470.50. Frederick filed a notice of appeal but allegedly failed to timely file the record on appeal, leading the appellate court to dismiss the appeal. The ARDC alleges Frederick failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, violating Rule 1.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Administrator of the ARDC has requested that the matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board for a hearing, findings of fact and law, and a recommendation for appropriate discipline.
According to Avvo.com, Ms. Frederick is an attorney in Chicago, Illinois. She acquired her law license in Illinois in 1983.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
