In re Marriage of Newton, 2011 IL App (1st) 90683

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Newton, 2011 IL App (1st) 090683 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., 4th Div., June 30, 2011).
- Petitioner-Appellee: David Newton. Respondent: Hadley Newton. Contemnors-Appellants: David J. Grund, Marvin J. Leavitt, and Grund & Leavitt, P.C.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether Grund and his firm were properly held in contempt for refusing to step aside after disqualification.
- Whether disqualified counsel could recover attorney fees for representation of the respondent given a conflict under Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9.
- Whether the retainer was enforceable under 750 ILCS 5/508(c)(3) (Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding Grund and Leavitt in contempt (fine of $100) for failing to comply with the disqualification order. The attorneys were disqualified under Rule 1.9 and were not entitled to any attorney fees; the retainer was unenforceable under 750 ILCS 5/508(c)(3).

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court found an attorney-client relationship existed between Grund and David and that Grund had knowledge of a conflict yet entered a retainer with Hadley. That conduct violated Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients).
- Under section 508(c)(3) of the Act, a retainer that violates a court rule is unenforceable; even apart from the statute, ordinary contract principles require a valid contract to recover fees and a contract entered in violation of ethical rules is void ab initio.
- Because the attorneys had no good-faith basis to continue representing Hadley after disqualification, their refusal to step aside justified contempt. The contempt determination and fine rendered the order final and appealable; legal questions were reviewed de novo.

5) Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Do not represent a new client where representation would materially implicate confidences or duties owed to a former client; Rule 1.9 violations can lead to disqualification and loss of fees.
- Fee agreements made in violation of court rules or ethics may be unenforceable under 750 ILCS 5/508(c)(3) and common-law contract principles.
- If disqualified, comply promptly with court orders to avoid contempt sanctions; resisting a disqualification order risks fines and appealable contempt judgments.
- Preserve records and written waivers where permissible (and obtain informed, written consent where ethical rules allow conflicts to be waived) to reduce exposure to later disqualification disputes.