A Chicago lawyer whose firm charged clients hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal services despite accomplishing little in their cases has been suspended from practicing law for two months by the Illinois Supreme Court.
Jeffery M. Leving, 72, was issued a five-month suspension by the court in September that’s to begin on Oct. 11. However, the court further ordered Leving’s suspension stayed after 60 days, with a two-year period of probation to follow.
Leving will also have to pay undetermined court costs and successfully complete a “Professionalism Seminar” led by the state’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which regulates lawyers in Illinois.
Leving has developed a national reputation for his advocacy on behalf of fathers in custody battles through frequent appearances on television and radio.
Leving’s “Dads’ Rights” law firm primarily represents fathers in divorce and child custody matters. The firm promotes itself in frequent advertisements — including in the Sun-Times — billing itself as “The Premier Chicago Family Law Firm.” Leving has also contributed op-ed columns to the Sun-Times.
Neither Leving nor Arthur Kallow, the firm’s litigation director, agreed to an interview or responded to specific questions on the case emailed by the Sun-Times. In a written statement, Kallow said, “Mr. Leving is very proud to have devoted his life’s work to fighting for fathers and protecting their children.”
It was Leving’s radio ads that drew Brian Blaszczyk to hire the firm to represent him in a parentage matter in 2019.
“Just the fact that he was advertising that he was on fathers’ side,” Blaszczyk told the Sun-Times when reached by phone.
Blaszczyk, whose case is detailed in the ARDC complaint, said the initial attorney that he encountered at Leving’s firm made it sound like he had a simple case and that the $4,000 retainer he needed to hire the firm would cover much of his costs.
But the bills kept coming — eventually totaling more than $56,000, the complaint states — and attorneys at the firm told Blaszczyk it was because his case was particularly complex because it spanned multiple states. Blaszczyk said he had no prior experience hiring a lawyer and had no idea what to expect.
When an attorney in Missouri reviewed Leving’s firm’s work, she told Blaszczyk that the fees were definitely not normal and suggested he reach out to the ARDC. Blaszczyk said he felt Leving’s suspension was “barely a slap on the wrist.”
The ARDC found Leving charged excessive legal fees totaling more than $440,000 in eight domestic relations matters between June 2014 and October 2021.
“The fees were unreasonable for a variety of reasons, including the results actually obtained by the Firm,” the ARDC wrote in a petition to the state Supreme Court to discipline Leving in July.
The ARDC wrote that Leving had provided “partial refunds” to the clients and made changes to his firm’s retention agreement since a complaint was filed by the oversight body last year accusing Leving of violating the state’s rules of professional conduct.
In one instance, Leving’s firm charged a father nearly $10,000 to represent him in a child support matter but did little work. The ARDC found “the approximate three months of representation did not warrant the Leving Firm’s retention of the $6,000 it received … or the additional $3,900 it attempted to collect.”
In another case, a client ultimately had to represent himself in a divorce proceeding because he lacked funds to hire another attorney after paying Leving’s firm nearly $60,000 in legal fees and owing another $80,000, the complaint states.
In the complaint filed against Leving, the ARDC accused his firm of excessively charging clients for the services of several attorneys, including at an initial meeting, which quickly consumed clients’ retainers.
Each client was required to attend a meeting that included an intake attorney who first talked with the client, the firm’s managing attorney, a less experienced “mentee attorney” and a more experienced “mentor attorney,” the ARDC wrote.
“All four attorneys bill separately for the time spent attending this initial meeting,” the regulatory body noted.
Another former client, whose case was also charged by the ARDC, told the Sun-Times he was reassured by an attorney at Leving’s firm that his custody case could be resolved in as little as four months.
A year later, he said he found himself facing mounting legal bills that exceeded his monthly income. The former client, who spoke with the Sun-Times but asked that his name not be used, said he hoped his story would help protect other fathers.
“He was the guy who fought for dads,” the client said of why he hired Leving’s firm. “But if you’re an advocate for fathers … they should have done better.”
In Kallow’s statement, he said if Leving’s disciplinary case had proceeded to a hearing, the firm planned to present “expert testimony” from a former Cook County judge in the Domestic Relations Division, but the statement did not indicate what the testimony would have said.
“In the interest of resolving the matter, the agreement was reached with the ARDC,” Kallow wrote.