Andrew T. Hays, Antonia Hays, Sarah E. Buck

8/11/2019 Andrew T. Hays, Antonia Hays, Sarah E. Buck

1/19

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

---------------------------------------------------

)

In the Matter of: )

)

) Supreme Court No:

)

)

)

Andrew Hays ) No 2014IN3330

Antonia Hays ) No 2014IN1Sarah u!" ) No 2014IN3332

#espondents )

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TO"Andrew Hays

Anton$a HaysSarah u!"%

Hays Firm LLC,

55 W. Wacker Drive,14thFloor,Chicago, Illinois 60601

NOTICE OF FILING A REPLY TO ANTONIA HAYS RESPONSE

PLEASE TA#E NOTICEthat on S$%t$&'$( 2* 2014% I f$&ed w$th the C&er" of

the A#'C the atta!hed Attorney '$s!$p&$nary #ep&y to Anton$a Hays No

2014IN3331 #esponse

Chr$stopher Sto&&er

(04 *+ ,rand Apt 414

Ch$!ao% I&&$no$s (0(3.

312-/34 .1

1


2/19

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

---------------------------------------------------

)

In the Matter of: )

)

) Supreme Court No:

)

) )

An+($, Hays ) No 2014IN0

Anton$a Hays ) No 2014IN3331

Sarah u!" ) No 2014IN3332

#espondents )

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REPLY TO ATTORNEY ANTONIA HAYS1 RESPONSE2

1Anton$a Hays

Ms. Hays is a partner at Hays Firm LLC. She received her B. A. magna cum laudefrom Loyola University Chicago (!!"# and her $. %. from Loyola University ChicagoSchool of La& ('#. She is a mem)er of the *hi Beta +appa Society, the nation-soldest and most prestigious academic honor. Her practice includes the handling ofcomple and multiparty litigation involving estates and trusts, contractual disputes,commercial disputes, construction/related issues, )reach of contract actions, and otherareas of civil litigation. Ms. Hays is a mem)er of the 0llinois Bar and is also admitted topractice in the Federal %istrict Court for the 1orthern %istrict of 0llinois. She is a mem)erof the 0llinois State Bar Association and Chicago Bar Association. Ms. Hays &as named

as a ' 0llinois 2ising Star )y Super La&yers maga3ine in the field of BusinessLitigation. She can )e contacted at4 antonia-ays.-ays/i(&o&.

25he Attorney 2egistration and %isciplinary Commission &as esta)lished )y the 0llinoisSupreme Court to deal &ith issues of professional misconduct of attorneys. 5he seriousallegations of professional misconduct that the Complainant has raised regarding the

2espondents are issues that are not )efore the 0llinois Court in No.2014 CH06759+5he issues of professional misconduct raised )y this Attorney %isciplinary !omp&a$nt

2
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/19

In the se!ond pararaph of #espondent Anton$a Hays adm$ts that she $s a

partner of Hays $rm C+ 5hus under A#'C #u&e +13% +2 Anton$a Hays $s

respons$6&e for a&& of the !hares of profess$ona& m$s!ondu!t a&&eed $n

Comp&a$nant7s !omp&a$nt notw$thstand$n the fa!t that #espondent Anton$a Hays

see"s to sh$e&d herse&f from the !hares of profess$ona& m$s!ondu!t 6y !&a$m$n

that #espondent Anton$a Hays do not re!a&& ha8$n e8er spo"en w$th Mar"

Sto&&er+ Nor does #espondent Anton$a Hays !&a$m that 7I ha8e 6een on matern$ty

&ea8e at a&& t$mes re&e8ant to Chr$stopher7s Sto&&er7s !omp&a$nt+ 9 2 pae 2 of

#espondent Anton$a Hays response &etter mar"ed as ;h$6$t 1+ #espondent adm$ts

that she $s a partner $n the three person &aw f$rm% Hays aw $rm and !annot

are $ssues that the Comm$ss$on $s so&e&y empowered to a!t upon under the I&&$no$s#u&es of ude+

3RULE 1" RESPONSI3ILITIES OF PARTNERS* MANAGERS* AND SUPERISORYLA5YERS

?a) A partner $n a &aw f$rm% and a &awyer who $nd$8$dua&&y or toether w$th other &awyerspossesses !ompara6&e manaer$a& author$ty $n a &aw f$rm% sha&& ma"e reasona6&e efforts to ensure

that the f$rm has $n effe!t measures $8$n reasona6&e assuran!e that a&& &awyers $n the f$rm!onform to the #u&es of


4/19

e;p$ated herse&f from profess$ona& m$s!ondu!t &$a6$&$ty 6y !&a$m$n she was on

matern$ty &ea8e wh$&e the sa$d m$s!ondu!t too" p&a!e+

5he 2espondent, Antonia Hays, provides irrefuta)le evidence that

she violated A2%C 2ules .' (d# A la&yer shall not counsel a client to engage, or

assist a client, in conduct that the la&yer 6no&s is criminal or fraudulent,Criminal,

Fraudulent and *rohi)ited 5ransactions. 7ith 6no&ingly and &illfully assisting their client

Mar6 Stoller to commit a crime8or fraud in Coo6 County Civil Case No. 2014 CH06759

(Exhibit 1 to complaint.)

The Repon!ent" #ntonia Ha$, p%o&i!e i%%e'table e&i!ence

that he &iolate! #RC Rle1.7* C+N,-CT +, NTERE/T*R-E .7(a)*

-#3ER #/ TNE//. 2UL9 8.4 52U5HFUL19SS 01 S5A59M915S

5: :5H92S 0n the course of representing a their client Mar6 Stoller,

6no&ingly4 (a# ma6e false statement(s# of material fact or la& to a third

person and A2%C 2ules ;.8

;.84 M0SC:1%UC5(a#,()#,(c#, (d# violating or attempt to violate the

2ules of *rofessional Conduct, 6no&ingly assist or induce another to do so,

or do so through the acts of another. #ntonia Ha$,Andre& Hays partner

Sarah Buc6 provided evidence against her of creating a false affidavit of

Mar6 Stoller mar6ed as Exhibit

4

4


5/19

3AC#GROUND FACTS

2espondents Andre& Hays, Antonia Hays and

Sarah Buc6,represent , Mar6 Stoller, 8> the son of Christopher Stoller, "?

the complainant in Coo6 County Case No. 2014 CH06759 &here Mar6

Stoller is charged &ith defrauding his father out of @",, aided and

a)etted )y the said respondents &ho are named defendants. (See 9hi)it

to complaint# 5he response of Sarah Buc6 clearly esta)lishes evidence of

her professional misconduct and clear violations of the 0llinois *rofessional

2ules of *rofessional Conduct.

ANDRE5 HAYS* #ntonia Ha$,SARAH 3UC# ENGAGED IN A

COERUP AND THREATENED OPPOSING COUNSEL* FORMER

COO# COUNTY 6UDGE 5AYNE RHINE* 5ITH A RULE 17 MOTION

UNLESS SARA 3UC# 5AS IMMEDIATELY DISCHARGED AS

DEFENDANT FROM CASE No. 2014 CH06759 (/ee Exhibit 2 lette%

'%om Repon!ent c to #tto%ne$ a$ne Rhine" hich !%o&e 'o%me%

!8e Rhine ot o' Cae No. 2014 Ch06759 .

After #ntonia Ha$,partner Sara Buc6 received service of summons

naming her and Hays as a defendant in case 1o. '8 CH"?!, Hays

directed Buc6 to direct a letter? to counsel for the *laintiffComplainant,


6/19

former Circuit Court $udge, 7ayne 2hine and to threaten him &ith a

frivolous 2ule > sanction motion unless Andre& Hays, Sara Buc6, and

AN5=NIA HAS were&ithdra&n from case 1o '8 CH"?!, as

defendant(s# in order to cover up their professional misconduct and

criminal conduct.(Assisting Mar6 Stoller, under the color of la& to defraud

his father the complainant out of @",, )y falsely coaching Mar6 Stoller

to claim that the said @",, that he defrauded his father out of &as a

giftD &hen the respondents 6ne& or should have 6no&n that the @",

that Mar6 Stoller had defrauded his father out of &as clearly not a gift

evidenced )y the fact that the Complainant, Christopher Stoller had filed

four criminal complaints against Mar6 Stoller asserting that the @",

&as stolen )y his son.

5he 2espondent, #ntonia Ha$,Andre& Hays, Sarah Bac6,

unla&fully represented Mar6 Stoller and all of his other clients since forming

the firm, Hays La& Firm LLC, &hich &as not registered nor licensed &ith

the 0llinois Supreme Courta %ei%e! b$ Rle 721(c) a o' /eptembe% 1"

2014. 2ecently the conseEuences of a la& firm-s failure to o)tain a 2ule

'(c# certificate of registration &ere addressed in Ford Motor Credit

Company v. Sperry,Appellate Court of 0llinois, Second %istrict, 1o. '/'/

8"', %ecided4 1ovem)er >, '>. 0n 0llinois, it is &ell esta)lished that only

(


7/19

persons duly admitted to practice la& in this state may appear on )ehalf of

other persons. 5he normal effect of a person-s unauthori3ed practice on

)ehalf of a party is to reEuire the dismissal of the cause or to treat the

particular actions ta6en )y the representative as a nullity.D Patt-Holdampf,

>>;. app. >% at ;>, 0ll. %ec. ;, ;! 1.9.ed. Ford Motor Credit

Company v. Thomas B. Sperry1o. '/'/8"' %ecided 1ovem)er >, '>,

Appellate Court of 0llinois, Second %istrict. 5o enforce court orders entered

)y unlicensed and therefore unregulated la& firms &ould a)rogate the state

purpose of the 2ule '(c# certificate of registration". 5he 2espondent

violated A2%C 2ule ?.? Unauthori3ed *ractice of La&.

5he 2espondents &or6ing out of the unlicensed la& firm of Hays Firm

LLC had no right to represent, Mar6 Stoller in case 1:. 1o. '8

CH"?! )efore Septem)er '', '8 as &ell 6no&n to #ntonia Ha$.

5he A2%C should reEuire that the 2espondent Hays La& Firm LLC.,

( 5he 0llinois Supreme Court has promulgated certain rules on the discipline ofattorneys and their admission to the state )ar. 5hese rules provide the reEuirementsfor those &anting to attain a license to practice la& in the state. See ;; 0ll. '% 2.. 5he rules also provide for additional reEuirements for those see6ing to practice

la& through a professional corporation. See "" 0ll. 'd. 2.'. For instance, rule'(a# reEuires that the corporation do nothing that &ould violate the standards ofprofessional conduct applica)le to attorneys. See "" 0ll. 'd. 2. '()#. 2ule '(c#reEuires each corporation that see6s to practice la& to register &ith the 0llinoisSupreme Court. See "" 0ll. '% 2. '(c# 1o corporation or association or limitedlia)ility company shall engage in the practice of la& in 0llinois or open or maintain anesta)lishment for that purpose in 0llinois, &ithout a certificate of registration issued )y

this courtD "" 0ll 'd. 2. '(c#. 5he Complainant &as inured and harmed )ythe Hays Firm for their failure to register.


8/19

send a letter to all of their clients and inform them that they are or &ere not

licensed to practice la& &ithin the State of 0llinois )efore Septem)er ,

'8 and to void all orders that have )een entered )y the 2espondent

Hays La& Firm LLC )efore Septem)er '', '8.

5he A2%C should reEuire that the Hays La& Firm disgorge itself of all

of the attorney fees that have )een paid to the unregistered Hays la& Firm.

0ncluding all attorney fees paid to Hays )y Mar6 Stoller )efore Septem)er

'', '8.

5he 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,,Andre& Hays, Sarah Buc6 and the

Hays La& firm 2espondents &ere served &ith Admissions in $uly of '8

in &hich they failed to respond deeming all admissions as admitted,

including the most damning admission , Admit that Mar6 Stoller (8># has

conspired &ith his attorney(s# Andre& Hays, #ntonia Ha$, Sarah Buc6

and to defraud his father out of @",D SeeExhibit C.

Andre& Hays, #ntonia Ha$,authori3ed, revie&ed and approved

2espondent Sarah Buc6-s drafting of Mar6 Stoller-s (perured# affidavit

&hich is made in )ad faith mar6ed as Exhibit . See Christopher Stoller-s

attached conflicting affidavit Exhibit E, &hich contradicts the Mar6 Stoller-s

affidavit, &hich has no& for the A2%C created a Euestion of factD that can

and must )e decided at a evidentiary hearing conducted )y the 0nEuiry

/


9/19

Board. 5he Christopher Stoller, "? affidavit should )e given significant

&eight )ecause it is more li6ely that his affidavit.

5he 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,in this misconduct case 6no&ingly

and &illfully created a fraudulent document, the perured Affidavit of Mar6

Exhibit

5he 2espondents first filed Mar6Gs perured Affidavit Exhibit &ith the

0llinois Securities %epartment on Fe)ruary >, '8. 5he false Affidavit

Exhibit &as fraudulent (A2%C 2ule ;.8# )ecause it contained a &illful

misrepresentation that &as calculated to em)arrass, hinder, or o)struct the

court in the administration of ustice.D 5he 2espondents &ere acting &ith

intent to o)struct the 0llinois Securities %epartment in the administration of

ustice )y coaching their client, Mar6 Stoller, into falsely admitting (Exhibit

)that the @",. that MA2+ received &as a gift. CH20S5:*H92 into

givinghim under the false pretense that MA2+ &ould invest the @",.

into securities that &ould give CH20S5:*H92 a ' return on his

investment. After the 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,&as successful in

defeating the Christopher StollerGs Complaint &ith the 0llinois Securities

%epartment, &hich stated that MA2+ defrauded CH20S5:*H92 out of

@",. )y MA2+ claiming that he &ould invest ChristopherGs

@",. into securities &ith a high rate of return for CH20S5:*H92.

.


10/19

5he 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,then, su)mitted MA2+GS perured

Affidavit to the A2%C on August '', '8.

THERE / :R+#-E C#/E TH#T RE/:+NENT #NT+N# H#3/ ,EN;#;E N

:R+,E//+N#-


11/19

Mar6Gs Fe)ruary >, '8 affidavit Exhibit and ChristopherGs Affidavit

Exhibit E, &hich refutes each and every perured statement of MA2+

mar6ed asExhibit E.

Iiven the respective motives of CH20S5:*H92 &ho had nothing to

gain )y peruring himself &hen he s&ore that MA2+ defrauded him out of

@",. and had filed four complaints &ith la& enforcement agencies

stating that CH20S5:*H92 &as in fact defrauded out of @",. )y

MA2+ is pro)a)le that the Affidavit of CH20S5:*H92 (Exhibit E#

accurately reflects the echange )et&een himself and MA2+. 0t is pro)a)le

that the Affidavit of MA2+ (9hi)it %# contain the false representations.

0n light of the long history of 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,in th&arting the

administration of ustice in the underlying La& %ivision case, there eists a

reasona)le )elief that the alleged false misrepresentation(s# that &ere

orchestrated )y 2espondent &ho-s associate, Sarah Buc6 drafted Mar6Gs

Affidavit (9hi)it %#, &ere made &illfully and not innocently. 0t is clear that

2espondent #ntonia Ha$,had the motive to ma6e the false affidavit

(9hi)it %# for MA2+ representation in order that they might protect

themselves, their firm and their partners. 0t is reasona)le to conclude that

2espondent #ntonia Ha$,&illfully made the misrepresentation in order to

11


12/19

hinder and o)struct the Court in its administration of ustice in violation of

A2%C 2ule ;.8. 5here eists a reasona)le )elief, )ased upon the facts

&hich have )een articulated, that 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,committed

the professional charged. 5he standard of pro)a)le cause has )een met.

2espondent #ntonia Ha$, and filing Mar6Gs false s&orn pleading

(9hi)it %# attached hereto falls under the category of violating the A2%C

2ules ;.8 5he filing of false s&orn pleadings ( 9hi)it %# andor an attorney

representing a party &ho attests to the false s&orn pleading falls under the

category of professional misconduct and is punisha)le )y the A2%C.

0t is clear from the response of 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,that she

failed to demonstrate the full acceptance and recognition of the

seriousness of her professional misconduct. Hard&y a ood re!ommendat$on

for a mana !um &aude from oyo&a Dn$8ers$ty Ch$!ao ?1..()+

HERE,+RE" Complainant prays that the 0nEuiry Board immediately

assign this matter to a hearing, panel, that a date for hearing )e

immediately set, that the hearing )e conducted and that the panel ma6e

findings of fact, conclusions of la& and a recommendation for such

discipline as is &arranted )y its findings.

+

Chr$stopher Sto&&er

12


13/19

(04 *+ ,rand Apt 414

Ch$!ao% I&&$no$s (0(3.

312-/34 .1

ERIFICATION

I% the unders$ned% state that I ha8e made reasona6&e $n8est$at$on $n the fa!ts !onta$ned

here$n and !ert$fy th$s p&ead$n pursuant to se!t$on 1-10. of the I&&$no$s Code of C$8$&


14/19

I here6y !ert$fy that th$s mot$on $s 6e$n depos$ted w$th the D+S+ erome ar"$n '$re!tor Attorney Adm$ss$ons

I&&$no$s Attorney #e$strat$on astern '$str$!t

and '$s!$p&$nary Comm$ss$on 21. S+ 'ear6orn St

130 N+ #ando&ph Street% Su$te 100 Ch$!ao% I&&$no$s (0(04

Ch$!ao% I&&$no$s (0(01

>ames Comey

'$re!tor of I Ch$!ao

2111 *+ #oose8e&t #d+

Ch$!ao% I& (0(0(

312-/2.-32

Ch$!aoE$e+f6$+o8

Fa!hary 5+ ardon

Dn$tes States Attorney =ff$!e

Northern '$str$!t of I&&$no$s% astern '$8$s$on

21. S+ 'ear6orn St% th&oor

Ch$!ao% I&+ (0(04

312-33-300

$sa Mad$an

I&&$no$s Attorney ,enera&

100 *+ #ando&ph St+

Ch$!ao% I&&$no$s (0(01

Mai8 F(a:+ Di;ision

:+/T#-N/:ECT+N/ER>CE4.H#RR/+N"R00


15/19

GHII5 A

1


16/19

GHII5

1(


17/19

GHII5 C

1


18/19

GHII5 '

1/


19/19

GHII5

1.

Andrew T. Hays, Antonia Hays, Sarah E. Buck

Documents

Transcript of Andrew T. Hays, Antonia Hays, Sarah E. Buck