Preview
12-Person(A,B,C,D,E,F,H,R,X,Z)
Law Division Motion Section Initial Case Management Dates for CALENDARS Jury 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: 5/28/2024 10:00 AM FILED
3/26/2024 9:18 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
COUNTY DEPARTMENT-LAW DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
2024L003234
JOHN W. MCGUIRE ) Calendar, D
Plaintiff, ) 26978903
)
v. ) Case No.:
)
DAVID A. HEMENWAY, individually )
and d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF )
DAVID A. HEMENWAY, P.C., ) Plaintiffs Demand Trial by Jury of
) 12 Persons
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT AT LAW
NOW COMES your Plaintiff, JOHN W. MCGUIRE (hereinafter also referred to as
“MCGUIRE”), by and through his attorneys, THE GOOCH FIRM, and as and for his Complaint
against the Defendants, DAVID A. HEMENWAY, individually and d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF
DAVID A. HEMENWAY, P.C., (hereinafter also collectively referred to as “HEMENWAY”)
states the following:
1. That Plaintiff, JOHN W. MCGUIRE, is a lifetime resident of the Chicago area and for
many years beginning in 1986 was employed by the Chicago Transit Authority. MCGUIRE
finally in 2013 rose to the position of General Manager of bus maintenance and in his last
position he was a “Mechanical Officer” for bus maintenance reporting directly to the Vice
President of vehicle maintenance.
2. MCGUIRE, as part of his duties, also supervised Donald A. Miller who is the General
Manager in the bus maintenance department of the Chicago Transit Authority. MCGUIRE
became Donald A. Miller’s immediate Supervisor, which is relevant to the issues regarding
the conflicts raised below.
Page 1
3. In July of 2016, Plaintiff was given the options of resigning his position at Chicago Transit
Authority or being terminated for alleged misconduct.
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
4. In early 2016, while disciplinary actions were being taken, MCGUIRE complained to a
senior Manager of the Chicago Transit Authorities Equal Opportunity Program alleging
that he was being targeted by his immediate Supervisor, Donald Bonds, who is an African
American because of MCGUIRE’S Caucasian race alleging reverse race discrimination
against Donald Bonds and the Chicago Transit Authority. Interestingly, the Chicago
Transit Authority scheduled this termination interview on the same day as the meeting with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Manager. However, it was earlier in the day. The
termination meeting took place several hours before the scheduled EEO intake interview
which in Plaintiff’s mind strengthened the mysterious circumstances over his sudden
discharge in office after almost thirty (30) successful years.
5. MCGUIRE accepted the Chicago Transit Authorities offer to allow him to resign and did
so in July of 2016.
6. MCGUIRE then consulted with, and retained on September 9, 2016, Defendant DAVID
A. HEMENWAY to represent him in what he believed was a state action based on the
Illinois Human Rights Act. HEMENWAY held himself out as concentrating his practice
in the field of Employment Law with past experience.
7. MCGUIRE and HEMENWAY met and entered into a written retainer agreement which is
attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 1” providing for HEMENWAY’S representation of
MCGUIRE against the Chicago Transit Authority and Supervisor Donald Bonds.
8. As implied in the aforesaid retainer agreement, HEMENWAY promised to use the skill,
care and knowledge of a reasonably well qualified attorney practicing law in the same
Page 2
geographic area (Chicago) as a reasonably well qualified attorney handling the same type
of matter would do “The Standard of Care”.
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
9. For reasons set forth in the following paragraphs, HEMENWAY, on more than one
occasion, violated the Standard of Care by negligent acts and omissions thereby
contributing to the damages claimed below.
10. HEMENWAY also decided to represent Donald A. Miller who was MCGUIRE’S
subordinate and sent MCGUIRE a “conflict” disclosure. However, the conflicts were
irreconcilable in representing both parties in as much as MCGUIRE had on more than one
occasion disciplined Donald A. Miller. Their defenses were too far different and in fact
MCGUIRE would be a witness against Donald A. Miller. HEMENWAY at no time
explained these various facts of the case to MCGUIRE rather only asked him to sign the
disclosure without giving him any advice whatsoever on the pros and cons of the suit being
combined with multiple Plaintiffs.
11. HEMENWAY, then without regard to the fact that the Illinois Human Rights Act allows
similar recoveries as a Federal Civil Rights Act suit or a Title 7 Discrimination in a
Workplace suit, still filed the matter in Federal Court incorporating not only the Illinois
Human Rights Act but Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in 1981 action. Not
recognizing that procedurally the Federal Courts are regularly much more stringent in such
things as filing deadlines than State Courts are.
12. That the representation of MCGUIRE began presumably immediately after signing the
Retainer Agreement and continued until September 16, 2020, and then continued
thereafter. During that period of time, for almost four (4) years, HEMENWAY had more
than enough time to conduct the necessary discovery and some of the appropriate witnesses
Page 3
by interviewing many employees retired and still working at the Chicago Transit Authority
and doing such other actions as were necessary to create a good solid cause of action.
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
HEMENWAY, in his own initiative, did little or nothing to furnish this information.
Finally, in late 2019 or early 2020, the Chicago Transit Authority filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment alleging that MCGUIRE had no evidence to support his claims of
reverse race discrimination or for the discharge due to MCGUIRE’S Complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity program of the Chicago Transit Authority.
13. In addition, the Chicago Transit Authority filed a Rule 56.1 Statement contesting material
facts in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
14. A good and valid defense to the Motion for Summary Judgment existed as MCGUIRE had
assembled a great deal of information regarding Chicago Transit Authorities methodology
and his treatment of him and HEMENWAY even obtained some favorable testimony
regarding the activities of Donald Bonds and others. All of which HEMENWAY ignored
in responding to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
15. In fact, HEMENWAY ignored the Motion for Summary Judgment and sought two
extensions for leave to file responsive pleadings. Both of which were granted. Finally, at
the time of his third request for an extension, the Federal Court denied the request for
extension and proceeded to issue a Memorandum, Opinion and Order granting the Motion
for Summary Judgment relying strictly on the Defendant’s statement of undisputed
material facts and attached exhibits. The Court made note at the time of its ruling that none
of the facts were in dispute because the Plaintiff did not file a timely response brief nor
Northern District of Illinois Rule 56.1 Statement, nor did HEMENWAY demonstrate
excusable neglect for his failure to do so. There were numerous facts in existence that
Page 4
would have allowed the Defendant herein to of created disputed material facts and issues
had he simply responded and had he simply conducted the necessary discovery of which
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
he had more than applicable time to complete.
16. The evidence that had been accumulated could have set forth and plead a prima facie cause
of action in the Federal litigation and Plaintiff believes based on the evidence he had
accumulated, and the testimony he could give, he would of sustained his burden before a
Jury receiving substantial rewards as he was no where close to retirement age and as a
result, lost several hundred thousands of dollars in income. Which would have not been
lost had Defendant HEMENWAY properly handled the matter and proceeded to trial.
17. Instead, HEMENWAY breached the Standard of Care in the ways set forth above in this
Complaint thereby causing the damages complained of herein.
18. The aforesaid Motion for Summary Judgment was issued on September 16, 2020. Rather
than telling Plaintiff that he (HEMENWAY) had been negligent in his representation in
recommending that MCGUIRE consult with an attorney handling Legal Malpractice
matters and instead, HEMENWAY convinced MCGUIRE that the Court was being
arbitrary and unreasonable in denying him an extension request and the matter should be
appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where it was likely to be reversed due to
the abuse of discretion by the Trial Judge.
19. Sadly, on December 21, 2021, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court’s decision granting the Chicago Transit Authorities Motion for Summary Judgment
on all claims. At that point by email, HEMENWAY told MCGUIRE that he only had two
options. One, to file a Motion to have a larger panel in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
hear the case (a Motion which is almost never granted according to HEMENWAY), or to
Page 5
file a Petition with the United States Supreme Court to have the Court hear the case.
HEMENWAY also told MCGUIRE that the Supreme Court will not take the case. In
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
response to the Defendant’s email, MCGUIRE wrote on December 27, 2021, to
HEMENWAY and asked, “Do we have any recourse with you?” and HEMENWAY
ignored this email. Not until March of 2022 did he even offer to return the attorney fees
that he had charged although stressing that he would need a payment plan because business
was bad.
20. At no time, until March of 2022, did HEMENWAY really admit to his wrongdoing as in
December he was still suggesting options within the Court system to MCGUIRE.
21. MCGUIRE, having lost years of valuable income, suffered damages in excess of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS due to loss of employment.
WHEREFORE, your Plaintiff, JOHN W. MCGUIRE, prays this Honorable Court enter
judgment on such verdict as a jury of twelve shall render together with costs of suit and such other
relief as may be deemed just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
THE GOOCH FIRM, on behalf of
JOHN W. MCGUIRE,
/s/Thomas W. Gooch
Attorney for Plaintiff
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY OF TWELVE (12) PERSONS.
/s/Thomas W. Gooch
Attorney for Plaintiff
THE GOOCH FIRM
209 S. Main Street
Wauconda, IL 60084
847-526-0110
office@goochfirm.com
Attorney No.: 24558
Page 6
Law Office of
DAVID A. HEMENWAY, P.C.
300 South Wacker Drive • Suite 1700B
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 663-4733 (Phone)
Employmentlaw@mac.com (312) 663-4743 (Fax)
September 9, 2016
BY E-MAIL MCGOOH66@YAHOO.COM
Mr. John McGuire
Re: Representation/Contract For Legal Services
Dear Mr. McGuire:
I regret the circumstances regarding your termination from the Chicago Transit
Authority (CTA). I will do my best to assist you in getting some compensation for this
poor treatment.
This is a contract for representation before the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and for negotiating an appropriate settlement agreement
with the CTA Neither you nor I are committed to filing a lawsuit, to filing any
appeals, or to taking any other action, although I anticipate being able to offer to
represent you in filing and pursuing a lawsuit against CTA if we are unsuccessful in
negotiating an appropriate settlement with the CTA.
The following describes the specific terms of this contract for legal
representation:
1. Scope of Representation
My services will include performing all legal services necessary to effectuate
the purposes of this representation contract, including, but not limited to, assisting
you in filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, representing you during the
EEOC Investigation, conducting any and all settlement discussions, and drafting
and/or reviewing any settlement documents, if applicable. If we do not reach a
settlement, neither you nor I are committed to taking any further action, although I
anticipate making myself available to represent you if you desire to pursue legal
claims with an administrative agency such as the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
EXHIBIT 1
Mr. John McGuire
September 9, 2016
Page 2
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
2. Attorneys Fees/Costs
I will charge you a flat fee of $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) for EEOC
representation, plus a contingency fee equal to 1/3 (33.3%) of the gross value of any
settlement. You are also responsible for costs incurred, which will likely be minimal
for the EEOC process. You will be credited with any amount you have paid me for
any amount you have paid me for attorneys fees and costs “off the top” prior to the
calculation of the contingency fee due.
“Gross value” means the pre-tax value of cash payments and the value of any
benefits received, including, but not limited to, heath, pension or other benefits.
The flat fee payment is due within two weeks of the date of this Agreement. If
the EEOC investigation process does not require me to spend at least 4 hours on your
behalf, I will refund any amount on a pro-rata basis based on my non-litigation hourly
rate of $250.00 per hour.
3. Your Obligation to Cooperate
You agree to provide me with all information and papers I request from you,
and to cooperate fully in any proceedings related to your legal claims covered by this
Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, attending scheduled meetings and
participating in telephone conferences requested by me, and otherwise cooperating
with me. You also agree not to intentionally misrepresent or conceal any facts when
communicating with me. You also agree not to communicate with any court,
administrative agency, with CTA, or with any news media representative, regarding
your legal claims, without my consent. You shall also refrain from posting any
information regarding your legal claims on any bulletin board, blog, newsgroup, list
serve, social networking site, or similar medium or forum, without my consent.
4. Nature of Legal Claims/Reasonable Settlement
Before entering into this agreement, you must agree that in light of the
uncertainty inherent in pursuing legal claims, and, in particular, employment-related
legal claims, you are willing to accept a reasonable settlement of your legal claims.
You understand that the reasonable value of your legal claims depends on the
probability of winning and on the amount of damages that would be awarded if you
were eventually successful in an administrative hearing or court lawsuit. You also
understand that perfect justice cannot be achieved in any legal system, and that the
pre-existing beliefs of investigators, judges and juries can affect the outcome of any
case. This means that there can be no guarantee of a favorable result for you.
You also understand that because our civil legal system primarily compensates
the victims of legal wrongs through awarding money damages, the attorney-client
relationship is created largely to achieve an economic result. The relationship
Mr. John McGuire
September 9, 2016
Page 3
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
created by this Agreement is designed to achieve an economic result, and you agree
that you will not reject a reasonable settlement offer. The amount of compensation
that constitutes a reasonable settlement offer can, and usually does, change during
the course of representation based on numerous factors, including availability of
evidence, perceived credibility of witnesses, and numerous other factors. You should
also understand that the CTA will almost certainly not admit that they have done
anything wrong as part of any settlement.
It is my opinion that a reasonable settlement amount is $100,000.00 (one
hundred thousand dollars). You are free to accept a lesser amount, and I may
recommend that you accept a lesser amount based on surrounding circumstances, but
by entering into this agreement, you are indicating that you understand that if you
are offered this amount and do not accept it, I may withdraw as your attorney.
5. No Tax Advice
I am not a tax lawyer. Therefore, I cannot advise you as to the proper tax
treatment of any money we recover, any attorney’s fees and expenses that the CTA
may agree to pay, or any attorney’s fees and expenses that you pay. I urge you to
talk to a qualified tax professional about the proper tax treatment of these matters if
and when it becomes relevant.
6. Termination of this Agreement
A. Your Right to Terminate. You have the right to terminate this
agreement at any time. However, you will remain obligated to pay me for any fees
and costs due me under this Agreement. If, after terminating this agreement, you
obtain a settlement or judgment in your favor on legal claims related to the scope of
this representation, I am entitled to be paid a pro-rata share of the settlement
reflecting the attorney time I expended on your behalf prior to your termination of
the agreement.
B. My Right to Terminate. Similarly, I retain the right to withdraw from
representing you at any time, if:
1. you do not cooperate with me as described in paragraph 3;
2. you indicate or demonstrate an intention to give false testimony,
or misrepresent or conceal any facts;
3. you direct me to file any paper, or insist on advancing any claim
or defense that I believe might subject me to sanctions;
4. you fail to honor any financial obligations set forth in this
agreement;
Mr. John McGuire
September 9, 2016
Page 4
FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234
5. you decline to accept a reasonable settlement offer or otherwise
demonstrates an intention to act unreasonably with respect to
settlement; or,
6. any other reason by which I am required or authorized to
withdraw by law or the rules of professional responsibility
governing attorney conduct.
10. Dispute Resolution/Choice of Law
You agree that the laws of the State of Illinois shall govern this Agreement, and
venue for any suit brought to enforce this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of
Cook County.
If you wish to hire me to be your attorney as described in this letter, please
sign and date this letter where indicated below. Once I receive the signed agreement
back from you, I will be your attorney as described in this agreement.
Very truly yours,
/s/David Hemenway
Accepted:
__________________________ Dated: ____________________________
John McGuire
Preview
12-Person(A,B,C,D,E,F,H,R,X,Z) Law Division Motion Section Initial Case Management Dates for CALENDARS Jury 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: 5/28/2024 10:00 AM FILED 3/26/2024 9:18 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS IRIS Y. MARTINEZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT-LAW DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 2024L003234 JOHN W. MCGUIRE ) Calendar, D Plaintiff, ) 26978903 ) v. ) Case No.: ) DAVID A. HEMENWAY, individually ) and d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF ) DAVID A. HEMENWAY, P.C., ) Plaintiffs Demand Trial by Jury of ) 12 Persons Defendants. ) COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES your Plaintiff, JOHN W. MCGUIRE (hereinafter also referred to as “MCGUIRE”), by and through his attorneys, THE GOOCH FIRM, and as and for his Complaint against the Defendants, DAVID A. HEMENWAY, individually and d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. HEMENWAY, P.C., (hereinafter also collectively referred to as “HEMENWAY”) states the following: 1. That Plaintiff, JOHN W. MCGUIRE, is a lifetime resident of the Chicago area and for many years beginning in 1986 was employed by the Chicago Transit Authority. MCGUIRE finally in 2013 rose to the position of General Manager of bus maintenance and in his last position he was a “Mechanical Officer” for bus maintenance reporting directly to the Vice President of vehicle maintenance. 2. MCGUIRE, as part of his duties, also supervised Donald A. Miller who is the General Manager in the bus maintenance department of the Chicago Transit Authority. MCGUIRE became Donald A. Miller’s immediate Supervisor, which is relevant to the issues regarding the conflicts raised below. Page 1 3. In July of 2016, Plaintiff was given the options of resigning his position at Chicago Transit Authority or being terminated for alleged misconduct. FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 4. In early 2016, while disciplinary actions were being taken, MCGUIRE complained to a senior Manager of the Chicago Transit Authorities Equal Opportunity Program alleging that he was being targeted by his immediate Supervisor, Donald Bonds, who is an African American because of MCGUIRE’S Caucasian race alleging reverse race discrimination against Donald Bonds and the Chicago Transit Authority. Interestingly, the Chicago Transit Authority scheduled this termination interview on the same day as the meeting with the Equal Employment Opportunity Manager. However, it was earlier in the day. The termination meeting took place several hours before the scheduled EEO intake interview which in Plaintiff’s mind strengthened the mysterious circumstances over his sudden discharge in office after almost thirty (30) successful years. 5. MCGUIRE accepted the Chicago Transit Authorities offer to allow him to resign and did so in July of 2016. 6. MCGUIRE then consulted with, and retained on September 9, 2016, Defendant DAVID A. HEMENWAY to represent him in what he believed was a state action based on the Illinois Human Rights Act. HEMENWAY held himself out as concentrating his practice in the field of Employment Law with past experience. 7. MCGUIRE and HEMENWAY met and entered into a written retainer agreement which is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 1” providing for HEMENWAY’S representation of MCGUIRE against the Chicago Transit Authority and Supervisor Donald Bonds. 8. As implied in the aforesaid retainer agreement, HEMENWAY promised to use the skill, care and knowledge of a reasonably well qualified attorney practicing law in the same Page 2 geographic area (Chicago) as a reasonably well qualified attorney handling the same type of matter would do “The Standard of Care”. FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 9. For reasons set forth in the following paragraphs, HEMENWAY, on more than one occasion, violated the Standard of Care by negligent acts and omissions thereby contributing to the damages claimed below. 10. HEMENWAY also decided to represent Donald A. Miller who was MCGUIRE’S subordinate and sent MCGUIRE a “conflict” disclosure. However, the conflicts were irreconcilable in representing both parties in as much as MCGUIRE had on more than one occasion disciplined Donald A. Miller. Their defenses were too far different and in fact MCGUIRE would be a witness against Donald A. Miller. HEMENWAY at no time explained these various facts of the case to MCGUIRE rather only asked him to sign the disclosure without giving him any advice whatsoever on the pros and cons of the suit being combined with multiple Plaintiffs. 11. HEMENWAY, then without regard to the fact that the Illinois Human Rights Act allows similar recoveries as a Federal Civil Rights Act suit or a Title 7 Discrimination in a Workplace suit, still filed the matter in Federal Court incorporating not only the Illinois Human Rights Act but Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in 1981 action. Not recognizing that procedurally the Federal Courts are regularly much more stringent in such things as filing deadlines than State Courts are. 12. That the representation of MCGUIRE began presumably immediately after signing the Retainer Agreement and continued until September 16, 2020, and then continued thereafter. During that period of time, for almost four (4) years, HEMENWAY had more than enough time to conduct the necessary discovery and some of the appropriate witnesses Page 3 by interviewing many employees retired and still working at the Chicago Transit Authority and doing such other actions as were necessary to create a good solid cause of action. FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 HEMENWAY, in his own initiative, did little or nothing to furnish this information. Finally, in late 2019 or early 2020, the Chicago Transit Authority filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that MCGUIRE had no evidence to support his claims of reverse race discrimination or for the discharge due to MCGUIRE’S Complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity program of the Chicago Transit Authority. 13. In addition, the Chicago Transit Authority filed a Rule 56.1 Statement contesting material facts in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. 14. A good and valid defense to the Motion for Summary Judgment existed as MCGUIRE had assembled a great deal of information regarding Chicago Transit Authorities methodology and his treatment of him and HEMENWAY even obtained some favorable testimony regarding the activities of Donald Bonds and others. All of which HEMENWAY ignored in responding to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 15. In fact, HEMENWAY ignored the Motion for Summary Judgment and sought two extensions for leave to file responsive pleadings. Both of which were granted. Finally, at the time of his third request for an extension, the Federal Court denied the request for extension and proceeded to issue a Memorandum, Opinion and Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment relying strictly on the Defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts and attached exhibits. The Court made note at the time of its ruling that none of the facts were in dispute because the Plaintiff did not file a timely response brief nor Northern District of Illinois Rule 56.1 Statement, nor did HEMENWAY demonstrate excusable neglect for his failure to do so. There were numerous facts in existence that Page 4 would have allowed the Defendant herein to of created disputed material facts and issues had he simply responded and had he simply conducted the necessary discovery of which FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 he had more than applicable time to complete. 16. The evidence that had been accumulated could have set forth and plead a prima facie cause of action in the Federal litigation and Plaintiff believes based on the evidence he had accumulated, and the testimony he could give, he would of sustained his burden before a Jury receiving substantial rewards as he was no where close to retirement age and as a result, lost several hundred thousands of dollars in income. Which would have not been lost had Defendant HEMENWAY properly handled the matter and proceeded to trial. 17. Instead, HEMENWAY breached the Standard of Care in the ways set forth above in this Complaint thereby causing the damages complained of herein. 18. The aforesaid Motion for Summary Judgment was issued on September 16, 2020. Rather than telling Plaintiff that he (HEMENWAY) had been negligent in his representation in recommending that MCGUIRE consult with an attorney handling Legal Malpractice matters and instead, HEMENWAY convinced MCGUIRE that the Court was being arbitrary and unreasonable in denying him an extension request and the matter should be appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where it was likely to be reversed due to the abuse of discretion by the Trial Judge. 19. Sadly, on December 21, 2021, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision granting the Chicago Transit Authorities Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims. At that point by email, HEMENWAY told MCGUIRE that he only had two options. One, to file a Motion to have a larger panel in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hear the case (a Motion which is almost never granted according to HEMENWAY), or to Page 5 file a Petition with the United States Supreme Court to have the Court hear the case. HEMENWAY also told MCGUIRE that the Supreme Court will not take the case. In FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 response to the Defendant’s email, MCGUIRE wrote on December 27, 2021, to HEMENWAY and asked, “Do we have any recourse with you?” and HEMENWAY ignored this email. Not until March of 2022 did he even offer to return the attorney fees that he had charged although stressing that he would need a payment plan because business was bad. 20. At no time, until March of 2022, did HEMENWAY really admit to his wrongdoing as in December he was still suggesting options within the Court system to MCGUIRE. 21. MCGUIRE, having lost years of valuable income, suffered damages in excess of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS due to loss of employment. WHEREFORE, your Plaintiff, JOHN W. MCGUIRE, prays this Honorable Court enter judgment on such verdict as a jury of twelve shall render together with costs of suit and such other relief as may be deemed just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, THE GOOCH FIRM, on behalf of JOHN W. MCGUIRE, /s/Thomas W. Gooch Attorney for Plaintiff PLAINTIFFS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY OF TWELVE (12) PERSONS. /s/Thomas W. Gooch Attorney for Plaintiff THE GOOCH FIRM 209 S. Main Street Wauconda, IL 60084 847-526-0110 office@goochfirm.com Attorney No.: 24558 Page 6 Law Office of DAVID A. HEMENWAY, P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive • Suite 1700B FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 663-4733 (Phone) Employmentlaw@mac.com (312) 663-4743 (Fax) September 9, 2016 BY E-MAIL MCGOOH66@YAHOO.COM Mr. John McGuire Re: Representation/Contract For Legal Services Dear Mr. McGuire: I regret the circumstances regarding your termination from the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). I will do my best to assist you in getting some compensation for this poor treatment. This is a contract for representation before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and for negotiating an appropriate settlement agreement with the CTA Neither you nor I are committed to filing a lawsuit, to filing any appeals, or to taking any other action, although I anticipate being able to offer to represent you in filing and pursuing a lawsuit against CTA if we are unsuccessful in negotiating an appropriate settlement with the CTA. The following describes the specific terms of this contract for legal representation: 1. Scope of Representation My services will include performing all legal services necessary to effectuate the purposes of this representation contract, including, but not limited to, assisting you in filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, representing you during the EEOC Investigation, conducting any and all settlement discussions, and drafting and/or reviewing any settlement documents, if applicable. If we do not reach a settlement, neither you nor I are committed to taking any further action, although I anticipate making myself available to represent you if you desire to pursue legal claims with an administrative agency such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EXHIBIT 1 Mr. John McGuire September 9, 2016 Page 2 FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 2. Attorneys Fees/Costs I will charge you a flat fee of $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) for EEOC representation, plus a contingency fee equal to 1/3 (33.3%) of the gross value of any settlement. You are also responsible for costs incurred, which will likely be minimal for the EEOC process. You will be credited with any amount you have paid me for any amount you have paid me for attorneys fees and costs “off the top” prior to the calculation of the contingency fee due. “Gross value” means the pre-tax value of cash payments and the value of any benefits received, including, but not limited to, heath, pension or other benefits. The flat fee payment is due within two weeks of the date of this Agreement. If the EEOC investigation process does not require me to spend at least 4 hours on your behalf, I will refund any amount on a pro-rata basis based on my non-litigation hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. 3. Your Obligation to Cooperate You agree to provide me with all information and papers I request from you, and to cooperate fully in any proceedings related to your legal claims covered by this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, attending scheduled meetings and participating in telephone conferences requested by me, and otherwise cooperating with me. You also agree not to intentionally misrepresent or conceal any facts when communicating with me. You also agree not to communicate with any court, administrative agency, with CTA, or with any news media representative, regarding your legal claims, without my consent. You shall also refrain from posting any information regarding your legal claims on any bulletin board, blog, newsgroup, list serve, social networking site, or similar medium or forum, without my consent. 4. Nature of Legal Claims/Reasonable Settlement Before entering into this agreement, you must agree that in light of the uncertainty inherent in pursuing legal claims, and, in particular, employment-related legal claims, you are willing to accept a reasonable settlement of your legal claims. You understand that the reasonable value of your legal claims depends on the probability of winning and on the amount of damages that would be awarded if you were eventually successful in an administrative hearing or court lawsuit. You also understand that perfect justice cannot be achieved in any legal system, and that the pre-existing beliefs of investigators, judges and juries can affect the outcome of any case. This means that there can be no guarantee of a favorable result for you. You also understand that because our civil legal system primarily compensates the victims of legal wrongs through awarding money damages, the attorney-client relationship is created largely to achieve an economic result. The relationship Mr. John McGuire September 9, 2016 Page 3 FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 created by this Agreement is designed to achieve an economic result, and you agree that you will not reject a reasonable settlement offer. The amount of compensation that constitutes a reasonable settlement offer can, and usually does, change during the course of representation based on numerous factors, including availability of evidence, perceived credibility of witnesses, and numerous other factors. You should also understand that the CTA will almost certainly not admit that they have done anything wrong as part of any settlement. It is my opinion that a reasonable settlement amount is $100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars). You are free to accept a lesser amount, and I may recommend that you accept a lesser amount based on surrounding circumstances, but by entering into this agreement, you are indicating that you understand that if you are offered this amount and do not accept it, I may withdraw as your attorney. 5. No Tax Advice I am not a tax lawyer. Therefore, I cannot advise you as to the proper tax treatment of any money we recover, any attorney’s fees and expenses that the CTA may agree to pay, or any attorney’s fees and expenses that you pay. I urge you to talk to a qualified tax professional about the proper tax treatment of these matters if and when it becomes relevant. 6. Termination of this Agreement A. Your Right to Terminate. You have the right to terminate this agreement at any time. However, you will remain obligated to pay me for any fees and costs due me under this Agreement. If, after terminating this agreement, you obtain a settlement or judgment in your favor on legal claims related to the scope of this representation, I am entitled to be paid a pro-rata share of the settlement reflecting the attorney time I expended on your behalf prior to your termination of the agreement. B. My Right to Terminate. Similarly, I retain the right to withdraw from representing you at any time, if: 1. you do not cooperate with me as described in paragraph 3; 2. you indicate or demonstrate an intention to give false testimony, or misrepresent or conceal any facts; 3. you direct me to file any paper, or insist on advancing any claim or defense that I believe might subject me to sanctions; 4. you fail to honor any financial obligations set forth in this agreement; Mr. John McGuire September 9, 2016 Page 4 FILED DATE: 3/26/2024 9:18 AM 2024L003234 5. you decline to accept a reasonable settlement offer or otherwise demonstrates an intention to act unreasonably with respect to settlement; or, 6. any other reason by which I am required or authorized to withdraw by law or the rules of professional responsibility governing attorney conduct. 10. Dispute Resolution/Choice of Law You agree that the laws of the State of Illinois shall govern this Agreement, and venue for any suit brought to enforce this Agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of Cook County. If you wish to hire me to be your attorney as described in this letter, please sign and date this letter where indicated below. Once I receive the signed agreement back from you, I will be your attorney as described in this agreement. Very truly yours, /s/David Hemenway Accepted: __________________________ Dated: ____________________________ John McGuire