The Illinois Supreme Court has temporarily suspended the law license of prominent fathers’ rights attorney Jeffery Leving, who stands accused of overcharging his clients.
In July, Attorney Regulatory and Disciplinary Commission Administrator Lea Gutierrez initiated proceedings against Leving, president and sole owner of the Law Office of Jeffery M. Leving since 1986, concerning client billing from June 25, 2014, through October 2021. According to Gutierrez, Leving’s firm charged $443,555 to eight clients and collected $192,374, but “the fees were unreasonable for a variety of reasons, including the results actually obtained by the firm," Gutierrez said.
Gutierrez noted mitigating factors favoring Leving, such as a 40-year career without court discipline, as well as community service work and commendations linked to three presidents. She noted he changed the firm’s retainer agreement and gave partial refunds to each of the clients whose bills were involved in the complaint. She recommended the court suspend his license for five months and stay the suspension after 60 days, turning to two years of conditional probation.
The court made the suspension effective Oct. 11. It ordered Leving to complete the Commission’s Professionalism Seminar within 180 days, comply with court and professional conduct rules and reimburse the Commission for its cost in pursuing the discipline and any further costs at least 30 days before the end of the probationary period. On that same timetable, he is to reimburse the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any payments it had to make resulting from his conduct.
Other conditions include meetings with and quarterly reports submitted to the probation officer and notification requirements for any arrest or charge on allegations of violating any criminal or quasi-criminal statute.
Gutierrez noted her petition came on top of an eight-count complaint from her predecessor, Jerome Larkin, that was pending before the Commission Hearing Board. Attorneys Matthew Lango, Richard Gleason and Scott Renfroe represented both ARDC administrators in their respective filings.
Leving’s website promotes his firms “Dads’ Rights” branding. In addition to his work, more than a dozen attorneys are on staff at the firm, with what the site calls “a demonstrated record of success on behalf of fathers in custody disputes arising in divorce and paternity cases, in related matters such as domestic violence protection orders, and in post-decree matters such as child abduction, parent relocation and modification of child support orders.”
Gutierrez said Leving supervises every staff member at the firm and led mandatory bimonthly meetings to discuss billing with each attorney for their primary caseloads. The complaint detailed the firm’s billing and work history with the eight affected clients, including four- and five-figure retainer fees and additional billing for tens of thousands of dollars attributed to dozens of hours of labor on the part of attorneys, legal assistants, paralegals and private investigators. The clients either ended their contractual relationship with the firm or did not reach their stated goals through the legal process.
The changes Leving said he made to his firm’s retainer agreement include adjustments to minimum billing increments and staffing, specifically the use of investigators, among other tweaks. Leving consented to Gutierrez’s recommended penalty, and an ARDC hearing board granted approval.
Leving’s firm did not respond to a request for comment.