Preview
Law Division Motion Section Initial Case Management Dates for @@+PN@sS031(4
BIC, E,F.H,R,X,Z) will be heard In Person.
All other Law Division Initial Case Management Dates will be heard via Zoom
For more information and Zoom Meeting IDs go to https.//www.cookcountycourt,org/HOME?Zoom-Links?Agg4906_SelectTab/12
Court Date: 4/3/2024 10:00 AM FILED
1/29/2024 2:41 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS !R!S Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION COOK COUNTY, IL
2024L001037
MAROTT, LLC, Frank Martire and Calendar, A
Sebastiano Ottolino, 26169668
Plaintiffs,
v Case No.:
Richard Jones and Richard Jones JURY DEMAND (12)
& Associates,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE
COME the Plaintiffs, Marott, LLC, Frank Martire and Sebastiano Ottolino, by their
attorneys, Collins Bargione & Vuckovich, and for their Complaint against Defendants Richard
Jones and Richard Jones & Associates, state as follows:
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
1 Marott, LLC (“Marott" or "Plaintiff’) is an Illinois limited liability company.
2. Marott is the owner of a building located at 833-837 Grand Avenue in Chicago,
Illinois (“Property”). Plaintiffs Frank Martire (“Frank”), Sebastiano Ottolino (“Nino”) and Connie
Ottolino ("Connie") are the members of Marott. Connie is the manager of Marott. At all relevant
times, Frank and Nino were over 60 years old. The term “Plaintiffs” as used in this Complaint
refers to Marott, Frank and Nino.
3 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone P.L.C. (“Miller Canfield”) is a law firm with
an office located at 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, Illinois 60606.
4 Defendant Richard Jones (“Jones”) is a lawyer licensed to practice law in Illinois.
At all relevant times, Jones was an attorney practicing in Cook County, Illinois and operating a
law firm called Richard Jones & Associates (“Law Firm”). Jones and the Law Firm are collectively
“Defendants.”
5 This Court has personal jurisdiction, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209, over both
Defendants in that Defendant Jones is a resident of Illinois and a lawyer licensed to practice in
Illinois. Additionally, the attorney-client relationship which is the basis for this lawsuit was formed
in Illinois and Defendants’ specific conduct which is the subject of this lawsuit occurred in Illinois.
Further, during Defendants’ representation of Plaintiffs, Defendants sent invoices to Plaintiffs
stating that Defendants’ business address was 100 West Northwest Highway, Suite 201 in Mt.
Prospect, Illinois.
6 This Court is the proper venue for this lawsuit in that the legal representation and
the transactions which are the basis for this lawsuit occurred in Cook County, Illinois. Defendants
represented Plaintiffs in lawsuits which were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County and
Plaintiffs and Defendants are both located in Cook County, Illinois.
7 On October 11, 2007, Marott and an entity called Red Star Outdoor, LLC (“Red
Star”) entered into a written billboard lease agreement in which Red Star leased the Property “for
the purpose and use of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising structures, including fixture
connections, lighting, signs, copy and any equipment and accessories.” (“billboard lease’).
8 A true and correct copy of the billboard lease is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and by
this reference, the billboard lease is incorporated herein. (Exhibit 1.)
9 The initial term of the billboard lease was for ten years, measured from the “Rent
Commencement Date.” (Exhibit 1, section 2.)
10. The initial term of the billboard lease automatically renewed for another ten year
term unless Marott or Red Star provided “written notice to the other at least sixty (60) days, but
no more than One Hundred Eighty 180 days prior to the termination of the Option Term of its
intent to not renew” the lease. (Exhibit 1, section 2.)
11. The execution date of the billboard lease and the commencement date of the
billboard lease are two different dates.
12. Prior to December 2017, Frank Martire and Connie Ottolino of Marott determined
that Marott would not renew the billboard lease with Red Star based, in part, on the economic
terms of the existing lease and their plan to have a new tenant who would execute a lease on terms
which were economically favorable to Marott.
13. On January 25, 2018, Frank Martire of Marott sent a letter to Red Star concerning
the status of the lease. The letter stated that Red Star was not in compliance with the billboard
lease and requested whether Red Star intended to renew the billboard lease. (Exhibit 2.)
14. Prior to the expiration of the period to inform Red Star that it would not renew the
billboard lease, Marott hired the law firm of Miller Canfield and attorney Sanford Stein for the
purpose of having Stein prepare and deliver a timely written notice to Red Star stating that Marott
was exercising its option to not renew the billboard lease and to prepare necessary documents
relating to the non-renewal of the billboard lease.
15. A written representation agreement was executed between Marott and Miller
Canfield. Stein executed the representation agreement on behalf of the Miller Canfield law firm.
(Exhibit 4.).
16. Marott paid Miller Canfield an initial retainer of $10,000.00 in 2017. Overall,
Marott paid Miller Canfield approximately $70,000.00 dollars for legal services relating to the
non-renewal of the billboard lease and ensuing litigation arising from Stein and Miller Canfield’s
failure to properly and timely provide notice to Red Star of the non-renewal of the billboard lease.
17. On January 30, 2018, Stein of Miller Canfield sent a letter to Scott Goldstein of
Red Star. (Exhibit 5.) In the letter, Stein stated, in part, that the ten year option period had not
begun and that Red Star was expected to comply with the terms of the billboard lease and “prepare
to vacate the premises by the end of March.” (Exhibit 5.)
18. On February 9, 2018, Red Star, by its attorneys, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,
responded to the January 30, 2018 letter in writing. The substance of the response was that Red
Star disagreed with Marott’s position regarding the time period to terminate the renewal provision
in the billboard lease. (Exhibit 6.)
19. On February 21, 2018, Stein of Miller Canfield responded to the February 9, 2018
letter, with another letter, stating, in part, “that the Rent Commencement date was triggered in
April 2008.” Stein’s letter also stated that “Marott therefore stands on its position that the Lease
expires as of March 31, 2018.” (Exhibit 7.)
20. On March 8, 2018, Stein of Miller Canfield sent another letter to Red Star’s
attorneys, stating the billboard lease “expires as of March 31, 2018” and also stating that Marott
expected Red Star to vacate the Property “immediately thereafter.” (Exhibit 8.)
21. On March 28, 2018, Red Star filed a lawsuit against Marott in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois in which it sought equitable relief against Marott and damages, Case No.
2018 CH 03961 (“Red Star Litigation’). Included in the equitable relief sought by Red Star was
an action for declaratory judgment in which Red Star sought a declaratory judgment that Marott
failed to exercise its option to not renew the lease. (Exhibit 9 at 16.)
22. In the Red Star Litigation, Red Star filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
with respect to its claims for declaratory judgment.
23. On August 31, 2020, the Honorable Anna H. Demacopoulos entered an order
granting the Motion. In ruling, Judge Demacopoulos determined that Stein’s letter of January 30,
2018 did not properly exercise Marott’s option to not renew the billboard lease because the January
30, 2018 letter was “not sufficiently specific, certain, or unconditional. Nowhere does it
affirmatively state Marott is exercising its option not to renew the lease.” Judge Demacopoulos
also determined that the January 30, 2018 letter was not timely because it was delivered on January
31, 2018 and the “option not to renew expired on January 30, 2018.” (Exhibit 11.)
24. As a result of the briefing which occurred on Red Star’s Motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiffs terminated Miller Canfield and Stein’s representation of Marott.
25. In June 2018, Marott terminated Miller Canfield and Stein and hired attorney Jones
and his Law Firm.
26. Prior to hiring Defendants, Connie, Nino and Frank of Marott met with Jones to
discuss the case and certain information about the case and the manner in which attorneys’ fees
would be charged. The meeting occurred on or about February 1, 2020. In the meeting Richard
assured Connie and Nino that: 1) he was an experienced commercial litigator and that 2) it was his
opinion that the sign lease was unenforceable and 3) that he would be able to conclude the case
with a successful outcome and that attorneys’ fees would not exceed $20,000.00- $40,000.00.
During the meeting, Jones was informed that Plaintiffs did not want the Red Star Litigation to
continue, that they wanted to settle the case and that fees charged by Defendants for representation
would be paid from the personal funds of Frank, Nino and Connie because the Property did not
produce sufficient funds to cover the expense of litigation.
27. On June 13, 2018, Defendants filed an appearance for Marott in the Red Star
Litigation
28. Defendants represented Plaintiffs from approximately June 2018 until January 29,
2022 at which time Defendants’ representation of Marott was terminated.
29. During Defendants’ representation of Marott, Defendants engaged in overbilling,
charged unreasonable fees and sent invoices containing improper block billing in violation of Rule
1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; engaged in financial exploitation of Marott and its
principals, Frank and Nino in violation of Illinois law; and failed to provide appropriate
representation within the standard of care. For example, Defendants improperly prosecuted claims
for fraud against Red Star which were based on an alleged false statement made by a representative
of Red Star to a third party, not Plaintiffs, and caused Plaintiff to unnecessarily incur fees and to
incur a liability for Red Star’s legal fees based on a fee-shifting provision contained in the billboard
lease. Defendants also pursued a property damage claim, contrary to instruction from Plaintiffs,
for the sole purpose of charging fees, and not benefitting Plaintiffs.
30. Defendants' unnecessary and excessive billing regarding the failed fraud claim
against Red Star, referenced above, is only one ofa multitude of fraudulent and unnecessary billing
entries made by Defendants in order to defraud and financially exploit Plaintiffs, and also include
the following:
a. Inflating bills by charging Marott for legal work performed nearly every day of the
week for a two year period;
Inordinate and over-billing relating “case administration” and “review of emails”;
Defendants prosecuted fraud claims which were barred by the applicable statute of
limitations;
Defendants failed to complete a settlement with Red Star which Plaintiff Frank
Martire had reached with representatives of Red Star in or around 2020 and instead
prosecuted counterclaims which caused the settlement to fail. Jones’ purpose and
motivation in prosecuting counterclaims was based on self-interest rather than the
best interest of his clients, to earn excessive fees and prevent the Red Star Litigation
from settling so he could continue to charge fees.
Jones failed to properly plead and investigate counterclaims for breach of contract,
which claimed that the lease was not enforceable and asserted unsubstantiated
claims of fraud, causing these claims to be dismissed because of Jones’
incompetence. Jones then spent needless time and charged unnecessary fees
evaluating an appeal of his improperly plead counterclaims.
Jones allowed the counterclaims to be dismissed with prejudice and then sought to
refile the same claims which were previously dismissed with prejudice in the Law
Division in Circuit Court of Cook County. These ill-fated Law Division claims
were then dismissed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3).
Jones’ actions caused Plaintiffs to be charged unnecessary and unreasonable fees
for claims which should never have been brought or refiled in the Law Division.
Defendants charged Plaintiffs in excess $350,000.00 to file mainly failed pleadings
and did not ever conduct any discovery or otherwise diligently represent Plaintiffs.
Jones advised Plaintiffs to transfer the real estate owned by Marott to a new entity
but failed to advise Plaintiffs that such a transfer (during the Litigation) required
adequate consideration and therefore violated the applicable standard of care. Or,
in the alternative, Jones intentionally advised Plaintiffs to transfer the property so
as to cause additional litigation so that he could charge unreasonable fees to
Plaintiffs.
Altering and manipulating time entries on invoices in order to financially exploit
their elderly and disabled client.
Recording a lien or otherwise encumbering the Property without a judgment or
enforceable lien.
31. All of the foregoing is in direct contravention of the engagement agreement
between Defendants and Plaintiff Marott and Jones’ express assurances to Frank and Nino.
COUNT I - LEGAL MALPRACTICE
32. Plaintiff Marott incorporates the Preliminary Allegations, paragraphs 1-31, as
though fully set forth. The Plaintiff in this Count is Marott.
33. At all relevant times, Jones had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in his
representation of Marott.
34. Jones also had a duty to appropriately and completely inform Marott and
communicate with Marott (Frank, Connie and Nino) about the case and to enable them to make
decisions and select a course of action which would be in the best interests of Marott, as required
by Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 and 1.0.
35. Jones also had a duty to perform only those legal services which were necessary for
the goals of representation as established by Marott and charge a reasonable fee only for necessary
services.
36. Jones also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in representing Marott
with respect to its defenses and claims involving Red Star.
37. At all relevant times, Jones, as a lawyer licensed to practice in Illinois, was subject
to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and was required to perform legal services for Marott
in a manner which was consistent with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
38. Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, in substance, that a lawyer
shall only charge and collect a reasonable fee and may only charge for services which are
necessary.
39. Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, in substance, that a lawyer
must reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be
accomplished and also requires a lawyer to explain a matter to a client to reasonably permit a client
to make informed decisions regarding representation.
40. Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to provide
competent representation.
41. Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to act with
diligence when representing a client.
42. Rule 1.7(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from
engaging in the representation of a client when there is a significant risk that the representation
will be materially limited by the lawyer’s personal interest.
43. The Rules of Professional Conduct establish a standard of care which lawyers in
Illinois must follow in their representation of clients.
44. Jones acted negligently and below the standard of care in his representation of
Marott in one or more of the following ways:
a. Jones failed to properly inform Connie, Nino Ottolino and Frank of Marott that the
counterclaims which he wanted to prosecute would thwart settlement and therefore
failed to provide sufficient and necessary information to them to make an informed
decision, contrary to Rule 1.4.
b. Jones incorrectly persuaded Connie and Nino that a permit for a sign license had
been forged by Red Star and attempted to prosecute a claim for alleged forgery and
fraud which was either not forgery or was not material to the claims pending in the
Red Star Litigation because the alleged forgery and fraud was not a
misrepresentation made to Marott and therefore not a basis for a viable cause of
action but to a third party, even if it occurred. The advice was incorrect, contrary to
tule 1.1. Moreover, the sole purpose of prosecuting the claim was the fees was
Jones’ self-interest in charging fees, not to benefit Marott, contrary to Rule 1.7.
Defendants wanted to be paid for representation and services which were not
necessary. Further, Jones failed to explain the consequences of pursing such a
claim, including the risk of fee-shifting, in violation of Rule 1.4.
The fees charged by Jones to prosecute the meritless fraud claim were unnecessary
and excessive, in violation of Rule 1.5, with numerous entries referring to “case
administration” and “review of pleadings,” but which accomplished nothing.
Jones charged excessive and unreasonable fees, $350,000.00, for alleged services
performed for Marott in the lawsuit, in violation of his fee agreement and Rule 1.5
which were not necessary (the filing of previously dismissed claims in the Law
Division) and because he did not advance the Red Star litigation, charging more
than $350,000.00 without conducting any discovery or otherwise acting diligently,
in violation of Rule 1.3.
Jones’ advice to transfer the real estate owned by Red Star to a related entity for no
consideration was not in compliance with the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act,
was not within the standard of care, and was contrary to Rule 1.1.
10
45. As a proximate result of Jones’ negligence, Marott has been damaged in an amount
of $350,000.00 plus interest and additional damages caused to Marott in the form of fees which it
would not have had to pay or incur but for Defendants’ failure to timely settle the Red Star
Litigation.
WHEREFORE Marott, LLC respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Defendant Richard in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs.
COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY/FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION
46. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1-31 of the Preliminary Allegations of this
Complaint as though fully set forth. This claim is brought by Frank and Nino.
47. Beginning in or around June 2018, Jones accepted Frank and Nino as clients and
agreed to provide services and advice to Frank and Nino.
48. At the moment that Jones formed an attorney client relationship with Marott, Frank
and Nino, he owed a fiduciary duty to them in which he was required act with the utmost care and
loyalty, to act in their best interests and not place his individual interests above the interests of
Plaintiffs.
49. At all relevant times, Illinois law prohibited the financial exploitation ofelderly by
a person who owed a fiduciary duty to the elderly persons. 720 ILCS 5/17-56 (“Statute”).
50. The Illinois statute regarding financial exploitation defines an elderly person as a
person who is 60 years old or older. 720 ILCS 5/17-56(b).
51. The Statute prohibits a person who owes a fiduciary duty to an elderly person from
illegally using or misusing assets of the elderly person through deception. 720 ILCS 5/17-
56(b)(iii).
11
52. Jones breached his fiduciary duty which he owed to Plaintiffs in one or more of the
following ways:
Jones engaged in a conflict of interest, in violation of Illinois Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.7, in that he prosecuted non-viable counterclaims and defenses, and
advised Marott to undertake separate legal actions, for the purpose of maximizing
his billing and not based upon the best course of action for Marott, including
advising against settlement which would have minimized litigation with Red Star
so as to avoid fee shifting provisions contained in the billboard lease.
Jones failed to advise Frank and Nino that transferring the Property from Marott to
another entity without adequate consideration could cause further litigation and
Jones only recommended this course of conduct in order to cause more litigation
and fees to be paid to him and his law firm.
Jones failed to inform Marott about the status of the case and the viability of claims
and defenses, and in particular the likelihood that the separate Law Division action
would fail, in order to understand the best course of action to pursue. Jones did so
without regard to the best interest of Marott, Frank and Nino but for the sole purpose
of his personal gratification, i.e., to charge Marott, Nino and Frank the most fees
possible.
Jones’ invoices were deceptive and contained material misrepresentations of fact
in that they contained false billing entries for work which was not done or time
which was not expended for the services identified in the invoices. The invoices
also contained block billing and vague entries such as “case administration” so as
12
to obstruct Plaintiffs from receiving full information about the services and discover
the fraudulent billing.
Unlawfully recorded a lien against the Property or otherwise encumbered the
Property without a judgment or enforceable agreement.
At all relevant times, the Statute, referenced above, existed which prohibited
financial abuse of elderly individuals and provided for not only criminal penalties
but also civil liability. 720 ILCS 5/17-56(g).
Frank and Nino were elderly and victims of Jones’ financial exploitation in that
Jones owed a fiduciary duty to Frank and Nino during the time period when Jones
was the lawyer for Plaintiffs.
Defendant Jones violated the statute and therefore breached his fiduciary duty
Defendants.
As Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Jones was in a position of trust with Frank and Nino and
owed them the duties that a reasonably prudent lawyer, acting under the same or
similar circumstances, owes to his or her client.
Despite the foregoing duties owed to Frank and Nino, Jones knowingly, and by
deception, obtained control over Nino’s and Frank’s assets and property and used
them for his own pecuniary gain, including control over assets through filing
unnecessary actions and claims and engaging in unreasonable, deceptive and
excessive billing.
As a result of the foregoing, Defendants are liable for financial exploitation (720
ILCS 5/17-56(g)) and 755 ILCS 5/2-6.2(e)).
13
53. As a result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiffs have been damaged
in an amount in excess of $50,000.00.
54. Defendants should be disgorged of all fees paid to him and Plaintiffs should be
awarded attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter.
WHEREFORE Marott, LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor
of Marott, LLC and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus costs and
attorneys’ fees, plus disgorgement of all fees and for other and further relief to which Plaintiffs
may be entitled.
/s/ Adrian Vuckovich
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Adrian Vuckovich (av@cb-law.com)
COLLINS BARGIONE & VUCKOVICH
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-7813
Attorney No.: 65611
14
BILLBOARD LEASE AGREEMENT 833-837 W. Grand
THIS: BILLBOARD LEASE AGREEMENT (The “Agreement”) is made
entered
into this 11" and
day of October, 2007;- by and between Merott, LLC an Illinois
Lithited. Liability Co, (the “Landlord®) and Red Star Outdoor, L.L.C, an
limited Hiability company (the “Tenant”). Landlord is the owner of that certain realIlinois
the "P roperty”), located at 833-837 W, Grand Ave. Chicago IL, having the Permanen
estate
t
tty Index Number (P.1.N.) of 17-08: 252-006-001 00.. Landlord hereby
Tenant, and Tenant lea leases: tp
fromsesLandlord the West Wall and roof over
the: Pioperty shown. in. the. diagram and desoriptiono n the attache and ona portion.of
d EXHIBIT A (the
“Bremises”), for the and, use of erecting: and maintaining outdoor
structures, including fixture connections, light signs, y and any: pment and
accessories as Tenant may place thereon (collectively) the (“Sign”), togeth er with fiee
acovgs to the Premises and use of the. Premises.to construct, iniprove,
ang sy, illuenin maintain, supplement, post,
repair , or-feinove the Sign. It is agreed that Tenant
fethain the owtier off the. Sigs and that, notwithst
the and
fact. the.
ing same: ma
constitute real estate fixtures, Tenant bas the right fo remove said Signat
ternt of this, L,
the term:
oval
subsequent renewal: 8, oF after the expirationof
the: Sign, the Premises
editing
iLea
e
be restored to its, ofigitial condition
notiial wear'and-tear. Tetant shall build the Sign in ageordance with the buildi
ofthe City of Chicago
ng codes
pertaining to: the ol istruction of signs, Tenaiit is‘responsibie
A ae et pen to the Sig
and nshall pay all Fine 8 Within 5 days of receipt
if
1 Rent; Tenant shall Landlord rentin the ammount Eightoen Thoussind Dollars. wed
Nos100-($18;000, )y (thie “Ren
per yeart”
comme)
ncing upon the installation of thi: first
advertiser (the “Rei nt Commencement Date” ”) payable in twelve. (12). equal
installments. of One Tho usand Five Hundred Dollars and No/100 ($1300.00) ca. ‘Reit
shall increase by 3% earh year of the Term after the first-year.
4 Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for.a period of ten
(10). years from the Rent. i ent Date. Thereafter, this Agresment will
automatically renew for one (1) addi tional like term (the “Additional Option Term
wiless Tenant or Landlord provides write notice to:the otherat: least sij
ho fiiore'than One Hindied Eighty (180) days'ptior to the terminationof (60) days but
Option. Term
Of ity intent not to. renew: For a period of twelve (12) months following the expirationof
this Agreement, Landlord grants Tenant the right : of first. tefiusal fo match any offer for
the Use oF the premises,
3. ‘Tenant's Rights: Tenant may immediately cancel this ent and receive
unexpired term ofthis Agreeme
greemnent nt if, in Tenant's o lon: a) the
view of the Sign or any advertising copy thereon becomes entirel
y or ly obstructed
b)Tenant-is unable to obtaiti of mainta any necessar
in y pennit forthe erection
use and/or
maitfeiance of the Sign o) Tenant is prevented from o
neighboring property. If Tenant is prevented from utilizing the P, the Premises by a
remises as prescribed
EXHIBIT
SM
:_|
herein due to governmental interference, Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent will abate until
such time as the condition ceases to exist. Landlord grants Tenant the right to utilize
Landlord’s Electric to illuminate the Sign for a fee of $65 per month until such time as
Tenant may obtain a separate electrical service for which Tenant will be billed di 7
All costs to run electricity to the Sign shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. Tenant
shall forward all final waivers of lien for any work sub contracted by Tenant at the
Property,
4. Landlord’s Covenants. Landlord shall not cause nor permit any other
advertising signs other than the Tenants to be placed on or to utilize the West wall.
Landlord and Landlord’s tenants, agents, employees or other persons acting on
Landlord’s behalf, shall not place or maintain any object on the property or any
neighboring property owned or controlled by the Landlord which, in Tenants sole
opinion, would obstruct the view of the advertising copy on the Sign.
5. Quiet Enjoyment. —_ Landlord represents and warrants that it has full right and
power to execute and perform this Agreement and to grant the estate demised herein,
6. Subletting and Assigning. Tenant may assign or transfer this
provithat Tenant
ded delivers written notice of same to Landlord no later than the
effective
date of such event.
1 Notices, All notices required herein shall be written and sent via overnight
courier to either Landlord or Tenant at their respective addresses
Entire Agreement. It is understood that this Agreement contains the entire
Agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior :
representations, understanding and agreement relating to the Premises. No modifications,
waiver or amendment of this Agreement will be binding upon either party unless in
writing and signed by both parties hereto.
9 Severability. The inva of lidi
any provisiontyof this Agree will
ment
not impair
or affect in any manner the validity or enforceability of this the rest of this Agreement,
10. Attorneys’ Fees. _In the event of any dispute regarding this Lease, whether or
not such dispute results in legal proceedings, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the non prevailing party.
11, Tenant Default. In the event Tenant fails to perform under the terms of this
Agreement, Landlord shall provide written notice to Tenant of such failure and Tenant
may cure such failure within sixty (60) days from the date of such written notice of
nonmonetary defaults, and ten (10) days from the date of such written notice of monetary
defaults.
12. Indemnification and Insurance. Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord
harmless from and against any and all liability resulting from bodily injury or physical
em
herein due to governmental interference, Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent will abate until
such time as the condition ceases to exist. Landlord grants Tenant the right to utilize
Landlord’s Electric to illuminate the Sign for a fee of $65 per month until such time as
Tenant may obtain a separate electrical service for which Tenant will be billed directly.
All costs to run electricity to the Sign shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. Tenant
shall forward all final waivers of lien for any work sub contracted
by Tenant at the
Property.
4, Landlord’s Covenants. Landiord shall not cause nor permit any other
advertising signs other than the Tenants to be placed on or to utilize the West wall.
Landlord and Landlord’s tenants, agents, employees or other persons acting on
Landlord’s behalf, shall not place or maintain any object on the property or any
neighboring property owned or controlled by the Landlord which, in Tenants sole
opinion, would obstruct the view of the advertising copy on the Sign.
§ Quiet Enjoyment. Landlord represents and warrants that it has full right and
powerto execute and perform this Agreement and to grant the estate demised herein.
6 Subletting and Assigning. Tenant may assign or transfer this Agreement,
provided
that Tenant delivers written notice of same to Landlord no later than the
effective date of such event.
1. Notices. All notices required herein shall be written and sent via overnight
courier to either Landlord or Tenant at their respective addresses
8 Entire Agreement. It is understood that this Agreement contains the entire
Agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes all ptior
representations, understanding
and t relating to the Premises. No modifications,
waiver or amendment of this Agreement will be binding upon either party unless in
writing and signed by both parties hereto.
9 Severability. The invalidity of any provision ofthis Agreement will not impair
ot affect in any manner the validity or enforceability of this the rest of this Agreement,
10. Attorneys’ Fees. _In the event of any dispute regarding this Lease, whetheror
not such dispute results in legal proceedings, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the non prevailing party.
il, Tenant Default. In the event Tenant fails to perform under the terms of this
Agreement, Landlord shall provide written notice to Tenant of such failure and Tenant
may cure such failure within sixty (60) days from the date of such written notice of
nonmonetary defaults, and ten (10) days from the date of such written notice of monetary
defaults.
12. Indemnification and Insurance. Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord
harmless from and against any and all liability resulting from bodily injury or physical
ao
4
Property damage or other liability caused by the displaying of advertising copy caused by
or resulting from the negligence acts of Tenant, Tenant’s agents or employees in the
Proper.
painting, midinteriance, repair and/or removal of the Structures. and signage on the
roperty, or by reason of any advertising
copy
: displayed. Tenant agrees: that it: shall
maintain comprehensive general ability insurance in the sum of One Million and
No/100:Dollars ($1,060,000.00). Tenant shall name Landlord as an additional insured.
ser
13, Land Development. Landlord may cancel this. Agreetnent upon one hundred
(180) days prior written. notice (the “Cancellation. Notice”) to Tenant that either
L or-@. thid, par » Will develop the Premises and said development requires the
demolition of the building on the Property and the removal of the Sign. The Cancellation
Notice will be effective (the “Cancellation Effective Date”) at such time a8 work at the
Prontises.requites the removal of the Sign, ot if thé Tenant deems any: advertising on the
Sign have become obstructed from view dueto construction. Within fourteen
after the Cancellation Effective: Date, Tenant will remove its Sign fromthe Premises,
(14) days
14, Advertisement copy, Ténaht shall not post any advertisement for Gentleman’s
elubs.
.
Landlord; Marott, Luc Tenant: Red Star Outdoor, LLC
833-W, Grand Ave. 770 N. LaSalleSt.
Cage, Th, 60622 5" Floor
180, TL 60610
we hI Pas, By:
Its: he
\ : AWC
Sa
Marott LLC.
Frank Martire, member partner
516 N. Ogden Ave. #162
Chicago, IL. 60642
312-719-9669 Marottcorp@acl.com
January 25, 2018
Second Letter Of Notice
To Red Star Outdoor
770 N. LaSalle Drive #550
Chicago, IL. 60610
To Scotand
t Alt Others It May Concem:
'thas come to our attention that a 10 year agreement between Red Star
Outdoor and Marott LLC. is fast approaching the end, We have noted
from time to time that you have not complied with the terms in this
contract agreement. Currently, Red Star Outdoor ts not in compliance of
this agreement. Note, the permits have not been paid, and are not
up-to-date, Upon checking with the municipality, the permits have not
been current for at feast all of 2017, Please send proof of the requested
documentation Immediately to comply with this contract agreement.
Without this compliance the agreement between Red Star Outdoor and
Marott LLC, can and will be terminated no later than March 31, 2018,
Marott LLC. has been currently taking bids. Marott LLC. will give Red
Star Outdoor first right to renew a contract, if it matches, or beats the
highest bidder.
Marott LLC. has received bids, Currently, the highest bid is a minimum
of $6,000.00 per month, or 50% of the monthly proceeds, whichever Is
‘higher. Please let us knowif you plan to renew lease with new terms
and rates, match or beat this bid, or any higher Incoming bid, and
comply. All three options must be met, Please respond Immediately.
This fs Marott LLC. formal Notice to Red Star Outdoor. Current lease will
terminate no later than March 31, 2018.
Et,
Sins cel
Frank Martire, member partner / f
EXHIBIT
‘MICHIGAN: Ann Arbor
Detroit
» Grand Rapids
LLER
Foundedin 1852
by Sidney Davy Miller Kalamazoo
» Lansing ¢ Troy
FLORIDA: Tampa
ILLINOIS: Chicago
NEW YORK: New York
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. CANADA: Windsor
SANFORD
M, STEIN
TEL (312) 460-4217 225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600 CHINA: Shanghai
FAX (312) 460-4201 Chicago, Illinois 60606 ‘MEXICO: Monterrey
E-MAIL steins@millercanfield.com TEL (312) 460-4200 POLAND: Gdynia
FAX (312) 460-4201 Warsaw © Wroclaw
www.millercanfield.com
January 29, 2018
Frank Martire
Marott, LLC
516N Ogden
Chicago, IL 60642
Re: Engagement as Counsel
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Martire:
ask
It was a pleasure speaking with you today. If ‘you wishus to represent Marott, LLC, I
Standar d Terms of Engage ment it” and retum a
that you review this letter and the enclosed
signed copy of this letter to me.
ent does
Client. Our client in this matter will be Marott LLC (“Marott”). This engagem
of Marott or other
not give rise to a lawyer-client relationship between the firm and any affiliate
please let me know so
person or entity. If you wish us to represent any other person or entity,
that I can revise this engagement letter.
Scope of Engageme mt. We have been engaged to represent Marott in connection with a
Marott’ 's general counsel,
termination of lease with Red Star Outdoor LLC. Because we are not
Marott’s or its interests in
our acceptance of this engagement is not an undertaking to represent
any other matter. Because we are not your securities lawyers, we will not, unless you
about any disclosure
specifically ask us and we agree in writing to do so, be advising you
laws with respect to any of the
obligations you may have under federal, state or other securit ies
matters on which you have engaged us.
My time on
Staffing. I will be principally responsible for managing this engagement.
or more other
this engagem ent will be charged at $500 per hour. I will be assisted by one
I will be assisted by Larry Falbe,
members of our professional staff. At present, I anticipate that
this matter is subject to change,
whose work will be charged at $490 per hour. The staffing on
, and the specific
based on cost considerations, the workloads of our professional staff members
tasks to be performed, The firm periodically adjusts the rates of its professional personnel as
described in the attached Standard Terms of Engagement.
EXHIBIT
14
~
AND STONE, P.L.C.
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK
Frank Martire -2- January 29, 2018
month.
Billing and Payment. We customarily send invoices for fees and expenses each
if these payment
We expect payment of our invoices within 30 days. Please contact me
arrangements are not acceptable to you.
Preview
Law Division Motion Section Initial Case Management Dates for @@+PN@sS031(4 BIC, E,F.H,R,X,Z) will be heard In Person. All other Law Division Initial Case Management Dates will be heard via Zoom For more information and Zoom Meeting IDs go to https.//www.cookcountycourt,org/HOME?Zoom-Links?Agg4906_SelectTab/12 Court Date: 4/3/2024 10:00 AM FILED 1/29/2024 2:41 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS !R!S Y. MARTINEZ CIRCUIT CLERK COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION COOK COUNTY, IL 2024L001037 MAROTT, LLC, Frank Martire and Calendar, A Sebastiano Ottolino, 26169668 Plaintiffs, v Case No.: Richard Jones and Richard Jones JURY DEMAND (12) & Associates, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE COME the Plaintiffs, Marott, LLC, Frank Martire and Sebastiano Ottolino, by their attorneys, Collins Bargione & Vuckovich, and for their Complaint against Defendants Richard Jones and Richard Jones & Associates, state as follows: PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 1 Marott, LLC (“Marott" or "Plaintiff’) is an Illinois limited liability company. 2. Marott is the owner of a building located at 833-837 Grand Avenue in Chicago, Illinois (“Property”). Plaintiffs Frank Martire (“Frank”), Sebastiano Ottolino (“Nino”) and Connie Ottolino ("Connie") are the members of Marott. Connie is the manager of Marott. At all relevant times, Frank and Nino were over 60 years old. The term “Plaintiffs” as used in this Complaint refers to Marott, Frank and Nino. 3 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone P.L.C. (“Miller Canfield”) is a law firm with an office located at 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, Illinois 60606. 4 Defendant Richard Jones (“Jones”) is a lawyer licensed to practice law in Illinois. At all relevant times, Jones was an attorney practicing in Cook County, Illinois and operating a law firm called Richard Jones & Associates (“Law Firm”). Jones and the Law Firm are collectively “Defendants.” 5 This Court has personal jurisdiction, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209, over both Defendants in that Defendant Jones is a resident of Illinois and a lawyer licensed to practice in Illinois. Additionally, the attorney-client relationship which is the basis for this lawsuit was formed in Illinois and Defendants’ specific conduct which is the subject of this lawsuit occurred in Illinois. Further, during Defendants’ representation of Plaintiffs, Defendants sent invoices to Plaintiffs stating that Defendants’ business address was 100 West Northwest Highway, Suite 201 in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. 6 This Court is the proper venue for this lawsuit in that the legal representation and the transactions which are the basis for this lawsuit occurred in Cook County, Illinois. Defendants represented Plaintiffs in lawsuits which were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County and Plaintiffs and Defendants are both located in Cook County, Illinois. 7 On October 11, 2007, Marott and an entity called Red Star Outdoor, LLC (“Red Star”) entered into a written billboard lease agreement in which Red Star leased the Property “for the purpose and use of erecting and maintaining outdoor advertising structures, including fixture connections, lighting, signs, copy and any equipment and accessories.” (“billboard lease’). 8 A true and correct copy of the billboard lease is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and by this reference, the billboard lease is incorporated herein. (Exhibit 1.) 9 The initial term of the billboard lease was for ten years, measured from the “Rent Commencement Date.” (Exhibit 1, section 2.) 10. The initial term of the billboard lease automatically renewed for another ten year term unless Marott or Red Star provided “written notice to the other at least sixty (60) days, but no more than One Hundred Eighty 180 days prior to the termination of the Option Term of its intent to not renew” the lease. (Exhibit 1, section 2.) 11. The execution date of the billboard lease and the commencement date of the billboard lease are two different dates. 12. Prior to December 2017, Frank Martire and Connie Ottolino of Marott determined that Marott would not renew the billboard lease with Red Star based, in part, on the economic terms of the existing lease and their plan to have a new tenant who would execute a lease on terms which were economically favorable to Marott. 13. On January 25, 2018, Frank Martire of Marott sent a letter to Red Star concerning the status of the lease. The letter stated that Red Star was not in compliance with the billboard lease and requested whether Red Star intended to renew the billboard lease. (Exhibit 2.) 14. Prior to the expiration of the period to inform Red Star that it would not renew the billboard lease, Marott hired the law firm of Miller Canfield and attorney Sanford Stein for the purpose of having Stein prepare and deliver a timely written notice to Red Star stating that Marott was exercising its option to not renew the billboard lease and to prepare necessary documents relating to the non-renewal of the billboard lease. 15. A written representation agreement was executed between Marott and Miller Canfield. Stein executed the representation agreement on behalf of the Miller Canfield law firm. (Exhibit 4.). 16. Marott paid Miller Canfield an initial retainer of $10,000.00 in 2017. Overall, Marott paid Miller Canfield approximately $70,000.00 dollars for legal services relating to the non-renewal of the billboard lease and ensuing litigation arising from Stein and Miller Canfield’s failure to properly and timely provide notice to Red Star of the non-renewal of the billboard lease. 17. On January 30, 2018, Stein of Miller Canfield sent a letter to Scott Goldstein of Red Star. (Exhibit 5.) In the letter, Stein stated, in part, that the ten year option period had not begun and that Red Star was expected to comply with the terms of the billboard lease and “prepare to vacate the premises by the end of March.” (Exhibit 5.) 18. On February 9, 2018, Red Star, by its attorneys, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, responded to the January 30, 2018 letter in writing. The substance of the response was that Red Star disagreed with Marott’s position regarding the time period to terminate the renewal provision in the billboard lease. (Exhibit 6.) 19. On February 21, 2018, Stein of Miller Canfield responded to the February 9, 2018 letter, with another letter, stating, in part, “that the Rent Commencement date was triggered in April 2008.” Stein’s letter also stated that “Marott therefore stands on its position that the Lease expires as of March 31, 2018.” (Exhibit 7.) 20. On March 8, 2018, Stein of Miller Canfield sent another letter to Red Star’s attorneys, stating the billboard lease “expires as of March 31, 2018” and also stating that Marott expected Red Star to vacate the Property “immediately thereafter.” (Exhibit 8.) 21. On March 28, 2018, Red Star filed a lawsuit against Marott in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois in which it sought equitable relief against Marott and damages, Case No. 2018 CH 03961 (“Red Star Litigation’). Included in the equitable relief sought by Red Star was an action for declaratory judgment in which Red Star sought a declaratory judgment that Marott failed to exercise its option to not renew the lease. (Exhibit 9 at 16.) 22. In the Red Star Litigation, Red Star filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to its claims for declaratory judgment. 23. On August 31, 2020, the Honorable Anna H. Demacopoulos entered an order granting the Motion. In ruling, Judge Demacopoulos determined that Stein’s letter of January 30, 2018 did not properly exercise Marott’s option to not renew the billboard lease because the January 30, 2018 letter was “not sufficiently specific, certain, or unconditional. Nowhere does it affirmatively state Marott is exercising its option not to renew the lease.” Judge Demacopoulos also determined that the January 30, 2018 letter was not timely because it was delivered on January 31, 2018 and the “option not to renew expired on January 30, 2018.” (Exhibit 11.) 24. As a result of the briefing which occurred on Red Star’s Motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs terminated Miller Canfield and Stein’s representation of Marott. 25. In June 2018, Marott terminated Miller Canfield and Stein and hired attorney Jones and his Law Firm. 26. Prior to hiring Defendants, Connie, Nino and Frank of Marott met with Jones to discuss the case and certain information about the case and the manner in which attorneys’ fees would be charged. The meeting occurred on or about February 1, 2020. In the meeting Richard assured Connie and Nino that: 1) he was an experienced commercial litigator and that 2) it was his opinion that the sign lease was unenforceable and 3) that he would be able to conclude the case with a successful outcome and that attorneys’ fees would not exceed $20,000.00- $40,000.00. During the meeting, Jones was informed that Plaintiffs did not want the Red Star Litigation to continue, that they wanted to settle the case and that fees charged by Defendants for representation would be paid from the personal funds of Frank, Nino and Connie because the Property did not produce sufficient funds to cover the expense of litigation. 27. On June 13, 2018, Defendants filed an appearance for Marott in the Red Star Litigation 28. Defendants represented Plaintiffs from approximately June 2018 until January 29, 2022 at which time Defendants’ representation of Marott was terminated. 29. During Defendants’ representation of Marott, Defendants engaged in overbilling, charged unreasonable fees and sent invoices containing improper block billing in violation of Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; engaged in financial exploitation of Marott and its principals, Frank and Nino in violation of Illinois law; and failed to provide appropriate representation within the standard of care. For example, Defendants improperly prosecuted claims for fraud against Red Star which were based on an alleged false statement made by a representative of Red Star to a third party, not Plaintiffs, and caused Plaintiff to unnecessarily incur fees and to incur a liability for Red Star’s legal fees based on a fee-shifting provision contained in the billboard lease. Defendants also pursued a property damage claim, contrary to instruction from Plaintiffs, for the sole purpose of charging fees, and not benefitting Plaintiffs. 30. Defendants' unnecessary and excessive billing regarding the failed fraud claim against Red Star, referenced above, is only one ofa multitude of fraudulent and unnecessary billing entries made by Defendants in order to defraud and financially exploit Plaintiffs, and also include the following: a. Inflating bills by charging Marott for legal work performed nearly every day of the week for a two year period; Inordinate and over-billing relating “case administration” and “review of emails”; Defendants prosecuted fraud claims which were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; Defendants failed to complete a settlement with Red Star which Plaintiff Frank Martire had reached with representatives of Red Star in or around 2020 and instead prosecuted counterclaims which caused the settlement to fail. Jones’ purpose and motivation in prosecuting counterclaims was based on self-interest rather than the best interest of his clients, to earn excessive fees and prevent the Red Star Litigation from settling so he could continue to charge fees. Jones failed to properly plead and investigate counterclaims for breach of contract, which claimed that the lease was not enforceable and asserted unsubstantiated claims of fraud, causing these claims to be dismissed because of Jones’ incompetence. Jones then spent needless time and charged unnecessary fees evaluating an appeal of his improperly plead counterclaims. Jones allowed the counterclaims to be dismissed with prejudice and then sought to refile the same claims which were previously dismissed with prejudice in the Law Division in Circuit Court of Cook County. These ill-fated Law Division claims were then dismissed pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3). Jones’ actions caused Plaintiffs to be charged unnecessary and unreasonable fees for claims which should never have been brought or refiled in the Law Division. Defendants charged Plaintiffs in excess $350,000.00 to file mainly failed pleadings and did not ever conduct any discovery or otherwise diligently represent Plaintiffs. Jones advised Plaintiffs to transfer the real estate owned by Marott to a new entity but failed to advise Plaintiffs that such a transfer (during the Litigation) required adequate consideration and therefore violated the applicable standard of care. Or, in the alternative, Jones intentionally advised Plaintiffs to transfer the property so as to cause additional litigation so that he could charge unreasonable fees to Plaintiffs. Altering and manipulating time entries on invoices in order to financially exploit their elderly and disabled client. Recording a lien or otherwise encumbering the Property without a judgment or enforceable lien. 31. All of the foregoing is in direct contravention of the engagement agreement between Defendants and Plaintiff Marott and Jones’ express assurances to Frank and Nino. COUNT I - LEGAL MALPRACTICE 32. Plaintiff Marott incorporates the Preliminary Allegations, paragraphs 1-31, as though fully set forth. The Plaintiff in this Count is Marott. 33. At all relevant times, Jones had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in his representation of Marott. 34. Jones also had a duty to appropriately and completely inform Marott and communicate with Marott (Frank, Connie and Nino) about the case and to enable them to make decisions and select a course of action which would be in the best interests of Marott, as required by Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 and 1.0. 35. Jones also had a duty to perform only those legal services which were necessary for the goals of representation as established by Marott and charge a reasonable fee only for necessary services. 36. Jones also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in representing Marott with respect to its defenses and claims involving Red Star. 37. At all relevant times, Jones, as a lawyer licensed to practice in Illinois, was subject to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and was required to perform legal services for Marott in a manner which was consistent with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. 38. Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, in substance, that a lawyer shall only charge and collect a reasonable fee and may only charge for services which are necessary. 39. Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, in substance, that a lawyer must reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished and also requires a lawyer to explain a matter to a client to reasonably permit a client to make informed decisions regarding representation. 40. Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to provide competent representation. 41. Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to act with diligence when representing a client. 42. Rule 1.7(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from engaging in the representation of a client when there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s personal interest. 43. The Rules of Professional Conduct establish a standard of care which lawyers in Illinois must follow in their representation of clients. 44. Jones acted negligently and below the standard of care in his representation of Marott in one or more of the following ways: a. Jones failed to properly inform Connie, Nino Ottolino and Frank of Marott that the counterclaims which he wanted to prosecute would thwart settlement and therefore failed to provide sufficient and necessary information to them to make an informed decision, contrary to Rule 1.4. b. Jones incorrectly persuaded Connie and Nino that a permit for a sign license had been forged by Red Star and attempted to prosecute a claim for alleged forgery and fraud which was either not forgery or was not material to the claims pending in the Red Star Litigation because the alleged forgery and fraud was not a misrepresentation made to Marott and therefore not a basis for a viable cause of action but to a third party, even if it occurred. The advice was incorrect, contrary to tule 1.1. Moreover, the sole purpose of prosecuting the claim was the fees was Jones’ self-interest in charging fees, not to benefit Marott, contrary to Rule 1.7. Defendants wanted to be paid for representation and services which were not necessary. Further, Jones failed to explain the consequences of pursing such a claim, including the risk of fee-shifting, in violation of Rule 1.4. The fees charged by Jones to prosecute the meritless fraud claim were unnecessary and excessive, in violation of Rule 1.5, with numerous entries referring to “case administration” and “review of pleadings,” but which accomplished nothing. Jones charged excessive and unreasonable fees, $350,000.00, for alleged services performed for Marott in the lawsuit, in violation of his fee agreement and Rule 1.5 which were not necessary (the filing of previously dismissed claims in the Law Division) and because he did not advance the Red Star litigation, charging more than $350,000.00 without conducting any discovery or otherwise acting diligently, in violation of Rule 1.3. Jones’ advice to transfer the real estate owned by Red Star to a related entity for no consideration was not in compliance with the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, was not within the standard of care, and was contrary to Rule 1.1. 10 45. As a proximate result of Jones’ negligence, Marott has been damaged in an amount of $350,000.00 plus interest and additional damages caused to Marott in the form of fees which it would not have had to pay or incur but for Defendants’ failure to timely settle the Red Star Litigation. WHEREFORE Marott, LLC respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant Richard in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs. COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY/FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION 46. Plaintiffs realleges paragraphs 1-31 of the Preliminary Allegations of this Complaint as though fully set forth. This claim is brought by Frank and Nino. 47. Beginning in or around June 2018, Jones accepted Frank and Nino as clients and agreed to provide services and advice to Frank and Nino. 48. At the moment that Jones formed an attorney client relationship with Marott, Frank and Nino, he owed a fiduciary duty to them in which he was required act with the utmost care and loyalty, to act in their best interests and not place his individual interests above the interests of Plaintiffs. 49. At all relevant times, Illinois law prohibited the financial exploitation ofelderly by a person who owed a fiduciary duty to the elderly persons. 720 ILCS 5/17-56 (“Statute”). 50. The Illinois statute regarding financial exploitation defines an elderly person as a person who is 60 years old or older. 720 ILCS 5/17-56(b). 51. The Statute prohibits a person who owes a fiduciary duty to an elderly person from illegally using or misusing assets of the elderly person through deception. 720 ILCS 5/17- 56(b)(iii). 11 52. Jones breached his fiduciary duty which he owed to Plaintiffs in one or more of the following ways: Jones engaged in a conflict of interest, in violation of Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, in that he prosecuted non-viable counterclaims and defenses, and advised Marott to undertake separate legal actions, for the purpose of maximizing his billing and not based upon the best course of action for Marott, including advising against settlement which would have minimized litigation with Red Star so as to avoid fee shifting provisions contained in the billboard lease. Jones failed to advise Frank and Nino that transferring the Property from Marott to another entity without adequate consideration could cause further litigation and Jones only recommended this course of conduct in order to cause more litigation and fees to be paid to him and his law firm. Jones failed to inform Marott about the status of the case and the viability of claims and defenses, and in particular the likelihood that the separate Law Division action would fail, in order to understand the best course of action to pursue. Jones did so without regard to the best interest of Marott, Frank and Nino but for the sole purpose of his personal gratification, i.e., to charge Marott, Nino and Frank the most fees possible. Jones’ invoices were deceptive and contained material misrepresentations of fact in that they contained false billing entries for work which was not done or time which was not expended for the services identified in the invoices. The invoices also contained block billing and vague entries such as “case administration” so as 12 to obstruct Plaintiffs from receiving full information about the services and discover the fraudulent billing. Unlawfully recorded a lien against the Property or otherwise encumbered the Property without a judgment or enforceable agreement. At all relevant times, the Statute, referenced above, existed which prohibited financial abuse of elderly individuals and provided for not only criminal penalties but also civil liability. 720 ILCS 5/17-56(g). Frank and Nino were elderly and victims of Jones’ financial exploitation in that Jones owed a fiduciary duty to Frank and Nino during the time period when Jones was the lawyer for Plaintiffs. Defendant Jones violated the statute and therefore breached his fiduciary duty Defendants. As Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Jones was in a position of trust with Frank and Nino and owed them the duties that a reasonably prudent lawyer, acting under the same or similar circumstances, owes to his or her client. Despite the foregoing duties owed to Frank and Nino, Jones knowingly, and by deception, obtained control over Nino’s and Frank’s assets and property and used them for his own pecuniary gain, including control over assets through filing unnecessary actions and claims and engaging in unreasonable, deceptive and excessive billing. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants are liable for financial exploitation (720 ILCS 5/17-56(g)) and 755 ILCS 5/2-6.2(e)). 13 53. As a result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. 54. Defendants should be disgorged of all fees paid to him and Plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys’ fees incurred in this matter. WHEREFORE Marott, LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Marott, LLC and against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus costs and attorneys’ fees, plus disgorgement of all fees and for other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. /s/ Adrian Vuckovich Attorney for Plaintiffs Adrian Vuckovich (av@cb-law.com) COLLINS BARGIONE & VUCKOVICH One North LaSalle Street, Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-7813 Attorney No.: 65611 14 BILLBOARD LEASE AGREEMENT 833-837 W. Grand THIS: BILLBOARD LEASE AGREEMENT (The “Agreement”) is made entered into this 11" and day of October, 2007;- by and between Merott, LLC an Illinois Lithited. Liability Co, (the “Landlord®) and Red Star Outdoor, L.L.C, an limited Hiability company (the “Tenant”). Landlord is the owner of that certain realIlinois the "P roperty”), located at 833-837 W, Grand Ave. Chicago IL, having the Permanen estate t tty Index Number (P.1.N.) of 17-08: 252-006-001 00.. Landlord hereby Tenant, and Tenant lea leases: tp fromsesLandlord the West Wall and roof over the: Pioperty shown. in. the. diagram and desoriptiono n the attache and ona portion.of d EXHIBIT A (the “Bremises”), for the and, use of erecting: and maintaining outdoor structures, including fixture connections, light signs, y and any: pment and accessories as Tenant may place thereon (collectively) the (“Sign”), togeth er with fiee acovgs to the Premises and use of the. Premises.to construct, iniprove, ang sy, illuenin maintain, supplement, post, repair , or-feinove the Sign. It is agreed that Tenant fethain the owtier off the. Sigs and that, notwithst the and fact. the. ing same: ma constitute real estate fixtures, Tenant bas the right fo remove said Signat ternt of this, L, the term: oval subsequent renewal: 8, oF after the expirationof the: Sign, the Premises editing iLea e be restored to its, ofigitial condition notiial wear'and-tear. Tetant shall build the Sign in ageordance with the buildi ofthe City of Chicago ng codes pertaining to: the ol istruction of signs, Tenaiit is‘responsibie A ae et pen to the Sig and nshall pay all Fine 8 Within 5 days of receipt if 1 Rent; Tenant shall Landlord rentin the ammount Eightoen Thoussind Dollars. wed Nos100-($18;000, )y (thie “Ren per yeart” comme) ncing upon the installation of thi: first advertiser (the “Rei nt Commencement Date” ”) payable in twelve. (12). equal installments. of One Tho usand Five Hundred Dollars and No/100 ($1300.00) ca. ‘Reit shall increase by 3% earh year of the Term after the first-year. 4 Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for.a period of ten (10). years from the Rent. i ent Date. Thereafter, this Agresment will automatically renew for one (1) addi tional like term (the “Additional Option Term wiless Tenant or Landlord provides write notice to:the otherat: least sij ho fiiore'than One Hindied Eighty (180) days'ptior to the terminationof (60) days but Option. Term Of ity intent not to. renew: For a period of twelve (12) months following the expirationof this Agreement, Landlord grants Tenant the right : of first. tefiusal fo match any offer for the Use oF the premises, 3. ‘Tenant's Rights: Tenant may immediately cancel this ent and receive unexpired term ofthis Agreeme greemnent nt if, in Tenant's o lon: a) the view of the Sign or any advertising copy thereon becomes entirel y or ly obstructed b)Tenant-is unable to obtaiti of mainta any necessar in y pennit forthe erection use and/or maitfeiance of the Sign o) Tenant is prevented from o neighboring property. If Tenant is prevented from utilizing the P, the Premises by a remises as prescribed EXHIBIT SM :_| herein due to governmental interference, Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent will abate until such time as the condition ceases to exist. Landlord grants Tenant the right to utilize Landlord’s Electric to illuminate the Sign for a fee of $65 per month until such time as Tenant may obtain a separate electrical service for which Tenant will be billed di 7 All costs to run electricity to the Sign shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. Tenant shall forward all final waivers of lien for any work sub contracted by Tenant at the Property, 4. Landlord’s Covenants. Landlord shall not cause nor permit any other advertising signs other than the Tenants to be placed on or to utilize the West wall. Landlord and Landlord’s tenants, agents, employees or other persons acting on Landlord’s behalf, shall not place or maintain any object on the property or any neighboring property owned or controlled by the Landlord which, in Tenants sole opinion, would obstruct the view of the advertising copy on the Sign. 5. Quiet Enjoyment. —_ Landlord represents and warrants that it has full right and power to execute and perform this Agreement and to grant the estate demised herein, 6. Subletting and Assigning. Tenant may assign or transfer this provithat Tenant ded delivers written notice of same to Landlord no later than the effective date of such event. 1 Notices, All notices required herein shall be written and sent via overnight courier to either Landlord or Tenant at their respective addresses Entire Agreement. It is understood that this Agreement contains the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior : representations, understanding and agreement relating to the Premises. No modifications, waiver or amendment of this Agreement will be binding upon either party unless in writing and signed by both parties hereto. 9 Severability. The inva of lidi any provisiontyof this Agree will ment not impair or affect in any manner the validity or enforceability of this the rest of this Agreement, 10. Attorneys’ Fees. _In the event of any dispute regarding this Lease, whether or not such dispute results in legal proceedings, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the non prevailing party. 11, Tenant Default. In the event Tenant fails to perform under the terms of this Agreement, Landlord shall provide written notice to Tenant of such failure and Tenant may cure such failure within sixty (60) days from the date of such written notice of nonmonetary defaults, and ten (10) days from the date of such written notice of monetary defaults. 12. Indemnification and Insurance. Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all liability resulting from bodily injury or physical em herein due to governmental interference, Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent will abate until such time as the condition ceases to exist. Landlord grants Tenant the right to utilize Landlord’s Electric to illuminate the Sign for a fee of $65 per month until such time as Tenant may obtain a separate electrical service for which Tenant will be billed directly. All costs to run electricity to the Sign shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. Tenant shall forward all final waivers of lien for any work sub contracted by Tenant at the Property. 4, Landlord’s Covenants. Landiord shall not cause nor permit any other advertising signs other than the Tenants to be placed on or to utilize the West wall. Landlord and Landlord’s tenants, agents, employees or other persons acting on Landlord’s behalf, shall not place or maintain any object on the property or any neighboring property owned or controlled by the Landlord which, in Tenants sole opinion, would obstruct the view of the advertising copy on the Sign. § Quiet Enjoyment. Landlord represents and warrants that it has full right and powerto execute and perform this Agreement and to grant the estate demised herein. 6 Subletting and Assigning. Tenant may assign or transfer this Agreement, provided that Tenant delivers written notice of same to Landlord no later than the effective date of such event. 1. Notices. All notices required herein shall be written and sent via overnight courier to either Landlord or Tenant at their respective addresses 8 Entire Agreement. It is understood that this Agreement contains the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes all ptior representations, understanding and t relating to the Premises. No modifications, waiver or amendment of this Agreement will be binding upon either party unless in writing and signed by both parties hereto. 9 Severability. The invalidity of any provision ofthis Agreement will not impair ot affect in any manner the validity or enforceability of this the rest of this Agreement, 10. Attorneys’ Fees. _In the event of any dispute regarding this Lease, whetheror not such dispute results in legal proceedings, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the non prevailing party. il, Tenant Default. In the event Tenant fails to perform under the terms of this Agreement, Landlord shall provide written notice to Tenant of such failure and Tenant may cure such failure within sixty (60) days from the date of such written notice of nonmonetary defaults, and ten (10) days from the date of such written notice of monetary defaults. 12. Indemnification and Insurance. Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all liability resulting from bodily injury or physical ao 4 Property damage or other liability caused by the displaying of advertising copy caused by or resulting from the negligence acts of Tenant, Tenant’s agents or employees in the Proper. painting, midinteriance, repair and/or removal of the Structures. and signage on the roperty, or by reason of any advertising copy : displayed. Tenant agrees: that it: shall maintain comprehensive general ability insurance in the sum of One Million and No/100:Dollars ($1,060,000.00). Tenant shall name Landlord as an additional insured. ser 13, Land Development. Landlord may cancel this. Agreetnent upon one hundred (180) days prior written. notice (the “Cancellation. Notice”) to Tenant that either L or-@. thid, par » Will develop the Premises and said development requires the demolition of the building on the Property and the removal of the Sign. The Cancellation Notice will be effective (the “Cancellation Effective Date”) at such time a8 work at the Prontises.requites the removal of the Sign, ot if thé Tenant deems any: advertising on the Sign have become obstructed from view dueto construction. Within fourteen after the Cancellation Effective: Date, Tenant will remove its Sign fromthe Premises, (14) days 14, Advertisement copy, Ténaht shall not post any advertisement for Gentleman’s elubs. . Landlord; Marott, Luc Tenant: Red Star Outdoor, LLC 833-W, Grand Ave. 770 N. LaSalleSt. Cage, Th, 60622 5" Floor 180, TL 60610 we hI Pas, By: Its: he \ : AWC Sa Marott LLC. Frank Martire, member partner 516 N. Ogden Ave. #162 Chicago, IL. 60642 312-719-9669 Marottcorp@acl.com January 25, 2018 Second Letter Of Notice To Red Star Outdoor 770 N. LaSalle Drive #550 Chicago, IL. 60610 To Scotand t Alt Others It May Concem: 'thas come to our attention that a 10 year agreement between Red Star Outdoor and Marott LLC. is fast approaching the end, We have noted from time to time that you have not complied with the terms in this contract agreement. Currently, Red Star Outdoor ts not in compliance of this agreement. Note, the permits have not been paid, and are not up-to-date, Upon checking with the municipality, the permits have not been current for at feast all of 2017, Please send proof of the requested documentation Immediately to comply with this contract agreement. Without this compliance the agreement between Red Star Outdoor and Marott LLC, can and will be terminated no later than March 31, 2018, Marott LLC. has been currently taking bids. Marott LLC. will give Red Star Outdoor first right to renew a contract, if it matches, or beats the highest bidder. Marott LLC. has received bids, Currently, the highest bid is a minimum of $6,000.00 per month, or 50% of the monthly proceeds, whichever Is ‘higher. Please let us knowif you plan to renew lease with new terms and rates, match or beat this bid, or any higher Incoming bid, and comply. All three options must be met, Please respond Immediately. This fs Marott LLC. formal Notice to Red Star Outdoor. Current lease will terminate no later than March 31, 2018. Et, Sins cel Frank Martire, member partner / f EXHIBIT ‘MICHIGAN: Ann Arbor Detroit » Grand Rapids LLER Foundedin 1852 by Sidney Davy Miller Kalamazoo » Lansing ¢ Troy FLORIDA: Tampa ILLINOIS: Chicago NEW YORK: New York Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. CANADA: Windsor SANFORD M, STEIN TEL (312) 460-4217 225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600 CHINA: Shanghai FAX (312) 460-4201 Chicago, Illinois 60606 ‘MEXICO: Monterrey E-MAIL steins@millercanfield.com TEL (312) 460-4200 POLAND: Gdynia FAX (312) 460-4201 Warsaw © Wroclaw www.millercanfield.com January 29, 2018 Frank Martire Marott, LLC 516N Ogden Chicago, IL 60642 Re: Engagement as Counsel Dear Mr. & Mrs. Martire: ask It was a pleasure speaking with you today. If ‘you wishus to represent Marott, LLC, I Standar d Terms of Engage ment it” and retum a that you review this letter and the enclosed signed copy of this letter to me. ent does Client. Our client in this matter will be Marott LLC (“Marott”). This engagem of Marott or other not give rise to a lawyer-client relationship between the firm and any affiliate please let me know so person or entity. If you wish us to represent any other person or entity, that I can revise this engagement letter. Scope of Engageme mt. We have been engaged to represent Marott in connection with a Marott’ 's general counsel, termination of lease with Red Star Outdoor LLC. Because we are not Marott’s or its interests in our acceptance of this engagement is not an undertaking to represent any other matter. Because we are not your securities lawyers, we will not, unless you about any disclosure specifically ask us and we agree in writing to do so, be advising you laws with respect to any of the obligations you may have under federal, state or other securit ies matters on which you have engaged us. My time on Staffing. I will be principally responsible for managing this engagement. or more other this engagem ent will be charged at $500 per hour. I will be assisted by one I will be assisted by Larry Falbe, members of our professional staff. At present, I anticipate that this matter is subject to change, whose work will be charged at $490 per hour. The staffing on , and the specific based on cost considerations, the workloads of our professional staff members tasks to be performed, The firm periodically adjusts the rates of its professional personnel as described in the attached Standard Terms of Engagement. EXHIBIT 14 ~ AND STONE, P.L.C. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK Frank Martire -2- January 29, 2018 month. Billing and Payment. We customarily send invoices for fees and expenses each if these payment We expect payment of our invoices within 30 days. Please contact me arrangements are not acceptable to you.