Metzger v. Brotman
| Decision Date | 27 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-20-1218 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 201218,191 N.E.3d 657,455 Ill.Dec. 350 |
| Parties | Donald L. METZGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenn BROTMAN, Terence M. Heuel, Mark Fitzgerald, Keith E. Roberts Jr., Johnny A. Fairman, II, Robert M. Henderson, and Eileen W. Donahue, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Donald L. Metzger, of Chicago, appellant pro se.
Steven R. Splitt and Jonathan M. Wier, of Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, of Chicago, for appellees.
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Donald L. Metzger, appeals orders of the circuit court of Cook County granting the dismissal of his fraud complaint pursuant to a section 2-619.1 ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2018) ) motion, denying his motion to disqualify defendants’ counsel, and denying his motion to reconsider and vacate. On appeal, plaintiff contends that (1) the complaint properly pled an independent cause of action for fraud on the court and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to disqualify defendants’ attorneys based on conflict of interest. Additionally, during the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the statement of facts contained in defendants’ brief for several reasons. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 The litigation at issue in this case stems from a 2008 complaint filed with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) against plaintiff, a former Illinois attorney, and subsequent related proceedings before the ARDC and our supreme court, after which plaintiff was disbarred. The charges against plaintiff stemmed from his representation of an elderly client, Harriet Rozier, and the initial complaint to the ARDC was filed by an attorney representing one of Rozier's heirs, who claimed that plaintiff breached his fiduciary duties and collected an unreasonable fee. Specifically, one of Rozier's heirs contended that plaintiff depleted Rozier's estate with his legal and nonlegal fees, which were inflated. In response, plaintiff denied all allegations of misconduct and further that Rozier specifically hired him to represent her in legal matters and nonlegal matters related to managing her health and affairs, all to be billed at his regular hourly rate.
¶ 4 Briefly stated, according to plaintiff's complaint, he met Rozier in 1982, and in 1993, she told him that she wanted him to draft a new will for her. Rozier told plaintiff she was willing to pay his standard rate for services related to her care, whether legal or nonlegal, and that she wanted his assistance because he was like family. In August 1994, plaintiff drafted Rozier's will, which named him executor and successor trustee of Rozier's trust. Plaintiff's hourly rate was $200, and he "took care" of Rozier during her subsequent illness; the hours worked totaled about $35,000 per month in fees. Rozier died in May 2004, and her assets were used to pay expenses and plaintiff's deferred fees. Rozier's nieces and nephews, as contingent residual beneficiaries, were not entitled to any financial benefit from Rozier's trust. In February 2007, one of Rozier's nephews hired an attorney to inquire about the estate, and in February 2008, a complaint was made to the ARDC.
¶ 5 On August 25, 2010, the administrator of the ARDC's Client Protection Program, defendant Eileen W. Donahue, filed a three-count complaint against plaintiff, alleging that he engaged in several forms of misconduct, including that plaintiff obtained an unreasonable fee and engaged in dishonest conduct, and the matter was set for a hearing. The hearing board consisted of defendants Kenn Brotman, the chair, Terence M. Heuel, and Mark Fitzgerald. On November 3, 2011, the hearing board issued an order concluding that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct and on May 4, 2012, its report and recommendation was filed. On May 24, 2012, plaintiff filed exceptions with the review board, which heard oral arguments on May 10, 2013. The review board consisted of defendants Keith E. Roberts Jr., Johnny A. Fairman II, and Robert Henderson. On June 17, 2013, the review board incorporated the hearing board's report, affirmed the hearing board's factual findings and the findings of misconduct and recommended disbarment. Plaintiff sought leave to file exceptions in the Illinois Supreme Court, and on September 25, 2013, the supreme court denied the petition and disbarred plaintiff. In re Metzger , Ill. S. Ct., M.R. 26210 (Sept. 25, 2013).
¶ 6 We note that the record filed with this appeal does not contain any copies of the ARDC complaint, reports of proceedings, deposition testimony, or written findings or orders of the ARDC's hearing board, review board, or supreme court that relate to this matter, although plaintiff refers to them heavily throughout his briefs in his statements of facts. Nor does our review of the record indicate that such information was provided to the circuit court although plaintiff relied on statements contained in those documents to support the allegations raised in his complaint throughout the circuit court proceedings. Additionally, we note that defendants have referenced the hearing board's report in its brief, which is the subject of plaintiff's motion to strike, which we will address below.
¶ 7 Plaintiff subsequently filed a 114-page, three-count complaint alleging fraud on the court in the circuit court of Cook County on May 24, 2019: count I against the individual members of the ARDC's hearing board that heard his case: Brotman, Heuel, and Fitzgerald; count II against the members of the ARDC's review board that reviewed his appeal: Roberts, Fairman, and Henderson; and count III against the administrator, Donahue.1 Plaintiff alleged that defendants committed fraud on the court when they made numerous false statements of material fact; the complaint alleged a total of 38 false statements. Plaintiff contended in his complaint, and continues to argue on this appeal, that when the members of the hearing board served in that capacity, conducted the hearing, and wrote and issued their report, they were acting as officers of the court. He further argued that when such report was compiled and tendered to the review board, the hearing board members willfully and recklessly disregarded the truth and created a "false narrative" that was relied on by the review board and the supreme court. Plaintiff maintained that such intentionally false statements were intended to be relied on and to deceive the review board and the supreme court and thus interfered with the court's performance of "impartial adjudication," which resulted in his disbarment. He contended throughout the proceedings before the review board, supreme court, circuit court, and this appeal that such order disbarring him was unfounded and caused him injury by damaging his reputation and employability and deprived him of his livelihood of practicing law.
¶ 8 Plaintiff made similar allegations against members of the review board, contending that they committed fraud on the court by submitting their report to the supreme court as officers of the court, knowing that it contained the false statements from the hearing board report that they knew to be false. He also made similar allegations against Donahue, contending that when she wrote and issued her report to the ARDC as an officer of the court, she knew that both the reports of the hearing board and review board contained false statements that she knew to be false. Plaintiff asserted that Donahue's report to the ARDC resulted in the approval of an "unfounded" $100,000 claim to Rozier's heirs. Plaintiff additionally contended that Donahue's counsel "willfully and wantonly made disparaging, defamatory, reprehensible statements regarding his honesty and integrity in the performance of his employment, statements that she knew were false or that she made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity despite a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity." He further alleged that such statements were published to the ARDC and the general public, were not privileged, and proximately resulted in injury to him. Plaintiff sought the following remedies: (1) vacatur and a setting aside of the hearing board's report, the review board's report and the administrator's report; (2) an order commanding defendants to inform the Illinois Supreme Court of the circuit court's order that the various reports contained false statements that consisted of fraud upon the court and further that the order of September 25, 2013, disbarring him was void; (3) an order commanding the administrator's counsel to inform the ARDC of the entry of the circuit court's order that the report contained false statements and that she committed fraud upon the court and further that the April 11, 2014, award to Rozier's heirs was void; (4) compensatory damages from defendants totaling $8.5 million; and (5) punitive damages from defendants totaling $26 million.
¶ 9 Defendants, represented by ARDC attorneys Steven Splitt and Jonathan Wier, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2018) ) on July 26, 2019.2 In their motion, defendants argued that (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the findings of the ARDC's hearing board and review board, the Illinois Supreme Court's order of plaintiff's disbarment, or the order of the ARDC approving a claim under the Client Protection Program, warranting dismissal of the complaint with prejudice under section 2-619(a)(1) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1) (West 2018)); (2) alternately, plaintiff's claims against the hearing board and review board members were barred by judicial immunity, warranting dismissal with prejudice under section 2-619(a)(9) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2018)); (3) alternately, plaintiff's claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial