Fathers’ rights attorney Jeffery Leving suspended from practicing law for charging excessive fees

02.10.2024 19:59

Chicago Sun-Times

A Chicago lawyer whose firm charged clients hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal services despite accomplishing little in their cases has been suspended from practicing law for two months by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Jeffery M. Leving, 72, was issued a five-month suspension by the court in September that's to begin on Oct. 11. However, the court further ordered Leving’s suspension stayed after 60 days, with a two-year period of probation to follow.

Leving will also have to pay undetermined court costs and successfully complete a “Professionalism Seminar” led by the state’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which regulates lawyers in Illinois.

Editor's note

Editor’s note:

While we were reporting this story, we learned that Jeffery Leving — the subject of this article who is also an advertiser and has contributed op-eds to the Sun-Times — attempted to prevent the Sun-Times from publishing “any negative content” about him, his law office or staff as part of an advertising contract. The newsroom was not informed and never agreed to such an arrangement. The contract was not authorized and the Sun-Times is returning any money from the ads. – Executive Editor Jennifer Kho

Leving has developed a national reputation for his advocacy on behalf of fathers in custody battles through frequent appearances on television and radio. He didn't respond to requests for comment.

Leving’s “Dads’ Rights” law firm primarily represents fathers in divorce and child custody matters. The firm promotes itself in frequent ads — including in the Sun-Times — and commercials and bills itself as “The Premier Chicago Family Law Firm." Leving has occasionally contributed op-ed columns to the Sun-Times.

The ARDC found he charged excessive legal fees totaling more than $440,000 in eight domestic relations matters between June 2014 and October 2021.

“The fees were unreasonable for a variety of reasons, including the results actually obtained by the Firm,” the ARDC wrote in a petition to the state Supreme Court to discipline Leving in July.

The ARDC wrote that Leving had provided “partial refunds” to the clients and made changes to his firm’s retention agreement since a complaint was filed by the oversight body last year that accused Leving of violating the state’s rules of professional conduct.

In its petition, the ARDC noted that his “conduct was not an isolated incident, taking place over at least seven years and involving eight clients.”

In one instance, Leving’s firm charged a father nearly $10,000 to represent him in a child support matter but did little work. The ARDC found “the approximate three months of representation did not warrant the Leving Firm’s retention of the $6,000 it received … or the additional $3,900 it attempted to collect.”

In another case, a client ultimately had to represent himself in a divorce proceeding because he lacked funds to hire another attorney after paying Leving’s firm nearly $60,000 in legal fees and owing another $80,000.

In the complaint filed against Leving last year, the ARDC accused the firm of excessively charging clients for the services of several attorneys, including at an initial meeting, which quickly consumed clients’ retainers.

Each time a new client retained the firm's services, a required meeting was held that included an intake attorney who first talked with the client, the firm’s managing attorney, a less experienced “mentee attorney” and a more experienced “mentor attorney," the ARDC wrote.

“All four attorneys bill separately for the time spent attending this initial meeting," the regulatory body noted.