In re Marriage of Hipes

Full Case Summary

Case Summary

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 240601, Nos. 1-24-0601 & 24-1131 (cons.)

Date Filed: August 5, 2025

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Caroline Hipes

Respondent: Diego Lozano

Judge: Honorable Marita C. Sullivan

Background

This case pertains to the dissolution of marriage between Caroline Hipes and Diego Lozano, focusing on parenting time issues regarding their daughter, F.L. The first appeal upheld restrictions on Lozano’s parenting time (In re Marriage of Hipes, 2023 IL App (1st) 230953).

Current Appeal Issues

• Disqualification of attorney Maria Alma Alvarado from representing Lozano due to her witness status and conflicts of interest.
• Contempt ruling against Alvarado for unauthorized second appearance.
• Order for appellants to pay fees for Hipes's attorney and appointed child representative.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found that Lozano's alcohol abuse posed a significant risk to F.L.'s health, resulting in restrictions on his parenting time, including sobriety monitoring requirements. The court awarded attorney fees against Lozano based on his ability to pay, with financial constraints acknowledged.

Disqualification Proceedings

On July 6, 2023, the court disqualified Alvarado based on the advocate-witness rule (Rule 3.7 of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct), which prevents an attorney from acting as both an advocate and a necessary witness. The court noted potential conflicts of interest due to Alvarado’s personal financial stakes in Lozano’s case. Her disqualification was affirmed on August 17, 2023, after she attempted to appeal.

Contempt Findings

The child representative filed motions against Alvarado, asserting that her unauthorized participation violated court orders. The court found both Alvarado and Lozano in contempt on December 6, 2023, but these findings were vacated after Alvarado’s attorney agreed to withdraw her second appearance.

Financial Matters

Attorney fees requested from Lozano included $12,075 for appellate work and $39,405.39 for the child representative's fees. The trial court determined that Lozano could not cover these expenses without jeopardizing his financial stability. Financial analyses revealed significant disparities between Lozano’s and Hipes's incomes, leading to the conclusion that requiring payment from Lozano was grossly inequitable.

Conclusion

The court upheld the disqualification of Alvarado and affirmed certain attorney fee awards, reversing those requiring future payments from Lozano due to his inability to pay. In summary, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, emphasizing the importance of balancing ethical representation against the financial realities of the parties involved.