In re Marriage of Hipes

In re Marriage of Hipes, 2025 IL App (1st) 240601 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Aug. 5, 2025)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hipes, 2025 IL App (1st) 240601 (consolidated Nos. 1-24-0601 & 24-1131).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Caroline Hipes. Respondent-Appellant: Diego Lozano. Also at issue: Maria Alma Alvarado (Lozano’s mother and an attorney).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether an attorney-witness must be disqualified under the advocate‑witness rule (Ill. R. Prof. Conduct 3.7 (2010)) and for conflicts of interest (Rule 1.7).
- Whether contempt and sanctions were properly imposed for filing an appearance after disqualification.
- Whether attorney‑fee awards and statutory sanctions under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/506(b), 508(a), 508(b)) were appropriate and collectible given Lozano’s inability to pay.

3) Holding/outcome
- Court affirmed Alvarado’s disqualification.
- Contempt findings were purged and therefore moot.
- Sanctions against Alvarado and Lozano under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) were affirmed.
- Attorney‑fee awards against Lozano under 750 ILCS 5/508(a) and 506(b) were affirmed only to the extent collectible from existing assets (IOLTA funds, tax refunds, retirement distributions); the remainder of the fee awards requiring additional payment by Lozano were reversed due to inability to pay.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Disqualification: The trial court correctly applied Rule 3.7 because Alvarado had already testified at the predecree hearing and was likely to be a necessary witness on remand or in future hearings; continued advocacy would create an impermissible role conflict. Disqualification under Rule 1.7 was also warranted because Alvarado had personal interests (guaranteeing Lozano’s fees, expressed first‑person advocacy) that could materially limit her representation. The appellate court rejected Alvarado’s reliance on an ISBA opinion that might allow representation up to trial—actual witness status and conflict concerns controlled. The court also noted Rule 306(a)(7) barred Alvarado from seeking leave to appeal because she was not a party.
- Fees/sanctions: The court upheld §508(b) sanctions for violating the disqualification order and allowed fee awards under §§506(b)/508(a) but limited recovery to assets reasonably available to satisfy fees; awarding fees beyond a party’s ability to pay was improper.

5) Practice implications
- Attorneys who serve as witnesses (or who have personal interests in litigation outcomes, including fee guarantees) risk mandatory disqualification; don’t testify and simultaneously act as advocate.
- A post‑disqualification appearance can expose counsel and client to sanctions under the IMDMA. Courts may impose fee awards but will constrain enforcement to assets the judgment debtor can actually access (IOLTA, refunds, retirement distributions).
- Fee guarantees create conflict‑of‑interest exposure; document client relationships and obtain informed consents where feasible.
- Nonparties (including attorneys and witnesses) lack Rule 306(a)(7) appellate rights to challenge disqualification orders.