Documents

M v. G Complaint

Description
2 foreclosure attorney suing each other
Categories
Published
of 10
110
Categories
Published
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  the firm, but instead devoted a substantial amount of his time and effort to The Law Offices of  Sandor Grossman, Ltd.3. Matton now bring this action against Grossman to: a. remedy Grossman's breaches of his fiduciary duties to Matton; b. obtain a declaration that Matton is entitled to an amount equal to one-half of theattorney fees received in connection with any firm case that Grossman took with him to his new firm and one-half of the costs advanced by their firm that arereceived in connection with any case that Grossman took with him to his new firm; c. obtain a declaration that Grossman, by virtue of his misconduct, has permanently forfeited any right he may have had to receive any attorney fees received from cases pending prior to the firm's dissolution that Matton has continued to handle; and d. order Grossman to provide a complete accounting of all attorney fees and expenses received in connection with any firm case that Grossman took with himto his new firm. PARTIES 4. Matton is an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois. 5. Grossman is a resident of Chicago and an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The Court has jurisdiction over Grossman because at all times relevant to thisaction, Grossman resided in and did business from Illinois, and Grossman owns real estate inIllinois. 7. Venue is proper in Cook County, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101, because, among other things, Grossman resides in and is doing business in Cook County and because the transactions out of which Matton's causes of action arose occurred in Cook County, Illinois. ã 2  a ffi IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COO  MEI IL INOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHA CEIRY DIVISIONDOUGLAS M. MATT®N,  } 2010 APR °°   PM I°   lRCUi;I I  CUU i or COOK Plaintiff, rQQUtNT Y.11.1.1 0 ' } CHANCERY DIV. vs. } l o: 1 t)f:) i 4 t , wra SANDOR GROSSMAN, )  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED } Defendant.) } COMPLAINT Plaintiff  .  Douglas M. Matton ( Matton ), by and through his undersigned attorneys, complains of defendant Sandor Grossman ( Grossman ) as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This case arises out of Grossman's grave breaches of his duties to his law firm partner Matton. During their association, the law firm invested a substantial amount of resources to aid Grossman in building the law firm's securities practice. After that practice achievedsuccess -- once the practice had reached the point at which the Finn would finally receive a return on its investment -- Grossman abruptly ended his association with Matton and took theirfirm's securities cases with him to a new firm. Grossman is now refusing to provide Matton with the necessary books and records to wind up their law firm's affairs in violation of Grossman's obligations to Matton under Illinois law. 2. In addition, Grossman, while Matton's partner, repeatedly misused the law firm'sresources to pay for his own personal expenses, caused clients of the Firm to execute contingentfee agreements with The Law Offices of Sandor Grossman, Ltd., instead of the farm, and, uponinformation and belief, failed to devote all of his professional activities and skills to his work for  FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS Matton and Grossman Form Their Firm 8. In February 2008, Matton and Grossman formed Matton & Grossman, PC. (hereinafter Matton & Grossman or the Firm ). Matton & Grossman's articles of  incorporation were filed with the Illinois Secretary of State on February 11, 2008. Grossman & Matton was a professional corporation engaged in the practice of law. Matton and Grossman were the Finn's only two shareholders, and each of them owned a 50% share of the Firm. 9. Beginning on July 10, 2009, the Firm no longer operated as a professional corporation and instead operated as a partnership. Matton and Grossman each own 50% of theequity in the Firm. 10:  At all relevant times, the Fires law practice consisted primarily of (1) representing investors in securities arbitration matters against financial services firms pursuant to contingent fee agreements; (2) representing homeowners in default and foreclosure matters; and(3) representing individuals and businesses in other litigation and entertainment law matters. 11. During the approximately two years that Matton and Grossman practiced law together, the Firm invested a substantial amount of its resources to build the Firm's securities practice, which was Grossman's primary practice area at the Firm. Grossman Engages in Multiples Breaches of His Fiduciary Duties 12. Throughout 2009, in flagrant disregard of his fiduciary duties to Matton and to theFinn, Grossman charged numerous personal expenses to the Firm's credit card, including but not limited to vacations for himself to Mexico and high-end electronics for his home, for which Grossman failed to reimburse the Firm despite Matton's numerous demands that Grossman do SO, 3  13. Grossman's disregard of his fiduciary obligations was not limited to his use of Firm resources for personal purposes. As a . partner in the Firm, Grossman had a fiduciary obligation devote his entire practice of law to the Firm. In flagrant disregard of his fiduciary duties to Matton and to the Firm, Grossman caused clients of the Firm to execute contingent fee agreements with The Law Offices of Sandor Grossman, Ltd., instead of the Firm, and furtherfailed to take the steps necessary to protect the interests of both the Firm and Matton in these potential fees by having the clients execute fee agreements with the Firm and by serving the appropriate attorney's lien in favor of the Firm on the defendants in these cases. In addition, upon information and belief, Grossman devoted a substantial amount of his time and effort to The Law Offices of Sandor Grossman, Ltd. instead of to the Firm during 2009 and early 2010. 'h a Dissolution 9f t , J * e rm _ .- - . - 14. As discussed above, the Firm invested heavily in its securities practice. After theFirm's securities practice began achieving success -- once the practice had reached the point atwhich the Firm would finally receive a return on its investment -- Grossman decided to end his association with Matton. On February 17, 2010, Grossman told Matton that he no longer wanted to practice law together, and the parties dissolved the Firm on February 17.15. Upon dissolution, Grossman acknowledged, consistent with Illinois law, that Matton would be entitled to receive 50% of the attorney fees received in connection with any of  the cases that Grossman took with him to his new firm (hereinafter the M & G Cases ). However, Grossman is now refusing to comply with Matton's request to provide Matton with the necessary books and records to wind up the Finn's affairs in violation of Grossman's obligationsto Matton under Illinois law. 4
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x