Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
Attorney disqualification upheld. In a particularly contentious post-judgment case, the trial court disqualified husband’s attorney under SCR 3.7 ad 1.7. The attorney was also husband’s mother and a fact witness during a pre-judgment hearing. The evidence reflected that she had also filed a notice of appeal challenging the court’s findings restricting husband’s parenting time at the time of entry of judgment, consulted with his prior attorneys, and guaranteed payment of his fees to his prior counsel. The Appellate Court affirmed the disqualification based on Rule 3.7 which provides that an attorney shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the attorney is likely to be a necessary witness. The Court noted that at the time the motion to disqualify was heard, the attorney was not just likely to be a witness, but had already been a witness and disqualification on that basis alone was proper. The Court’s opinion also discussed Rule 1.7 which provides that an attorney shall not represent a client if there is a significant risk that the attorney’s personal interests will materially limit representation of the client. The attorney had two personal interests at stake in the case: (1) The restrictions on husband’s parenting time affected how much she got to see her granddaughter and (2) She had guaranteed fees that husband had owed his prior attorneys. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling noting the disqualification was justified, necessary, and not an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Hipes and Lozano, 2025 IL App (1st) 240601.
In re Marriage of Hipes
Section 508(b) fees upheld as sanctions, but Section 508(a) and Child Representative Fees reversed for lack of ability to pay. In a post-judgment matter which has been up on appeal twice, the issue of attorneys’ fees was significant. Husband appealed the attorneys’ fees issued against him and his counsel under Section 508(b), which were affirmed due to husband’s counsel’s improper continued involvement after disqualification. Further, although contempt findings were entered, they were purged and deemed moot on appeal. As to Section 508(a) fees and Section 506(b) fees (Child Representative), the Court affirmed the fee awards to the extent payable from existing assets such as IOLTA funds, tax refunds, and retirement account distributions, but reversed the balance of the awards, holding husband lacked the ability to pay given his modest $40,811 annual income versus obligations exceeding 100% of that amount. In its ruling, the Court acknowledged that the resolution was not ideal for wife’s attorney or the Child Representative who received only approximately 40% of their awarded fees, but that undermining husband’s financial stability was improper.In re Marriage of Hipes and Lozano, 2025 IL App (1st) 240601
In re Marriage of Hipes
Trial court’s use of the Hunt formula upheld. Wife appealed the trial court’s marital and non-marital allocations of twoof husband’s retirement accounts in a dissolution of marriage action. With respect to the first retirement account, the trial court used the Hunt formula to determine the respective marital and non-marital portions since husband had worked at the company prior to the date of the marriage. Under the Hunt formula, the account was 44% non-marital and 56% marital. Wife argued that the Hunt formula should not apply to a defined contribution plan and that there was no precedent for its application to anything other than defined benefit plans, which the Court rejected. However, the Appellate Court vacated the trial court’s deduction of $54,880 from the value of husband’s Mastercard 401(k), finding it was error to credit him for contributions made during the proceedings on the basis that they were “already considered” in support. Those contributions were, in fact, marital property and the entire account should be divided equally. The Court also upheld the trial court’s allocation judgment and rejected wife’s arguments that joint-decision making and an expanded parenting schedule for father was an abuse of discretion.In re Marriage of McLean, 2025 IL App (5th) 250094.
In re Marriage of McLean