Methodology & Statistical Disclosure

What This Measures

The cumulative dollar value of assets that were not voluntarily disclosed by the opposing party and were subsequently identified through digital forensics, financial analysis, or discovery enforcement in matters handled by Jonathan D. Steele.

Methodology

• Scope: Matters personally handled by Jonathan D. Steele at Beermann LLP.
• Definition of "hidden": Assets not disclosed on the opposing party's initial Financial Affidavit (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13.3.1) or sworn discovery responses that were later identified through investigation.
• Asset types included: Undisclosed bank accounts, cryptocurrency wallets, real property, investment accounts, business interests, stock options, deferred compensation, and retirement accounts.
• Valuation: Based on fair market value at the time of identification or, for financial accounts, the account balance at the date of the most recent available statement.
• Time period: Cumulative across all applicable matters from 2019 through 2024.

Limitations

• Not every divorce involves hidden assets. This figure reflects cases where non-disclosure was identified.
• The dollar figure is cumulative, not per-case.
• "Identified" does not mean "awarded." Final division of identified assets is determined by the court under 750 ILCS 5/503 (equitable distribution).

What This Measures

The percentage of contested custody (allocation of parental responsibilities) cases in which Jonathan D. Steele's client received a favorable outcome as defined below.

Methodology

• Sample size: n=47 contested custody matters.
• Time period: January 2019 through December 2024.
• Definition of "contested": Cases in which both parties sought a different allocation of parenting time or significant decision-making responsibilities, and the dispute was resolved through judicial intervention, mediation, or negotiated settlement after litigation commenced. Agreed/uncontested matters are excluded.
• Definition of "favorable": The client received equal or greater parenting time than the opposing party's proposal, and/or the client received sole or joint significant decision-making authority consistent with the client's stated objectives at the outset of representation.
• Resolution types included: Court orders after hearing or trial, mediated agreements reached during pending litigation, and negotiated settlements after filing of a petition.
• Matters personally handled: Only cases where Jonathan D. Steele served as lead counsel.

Limitations

• "Favorable" is defined relative to the opposing party's proposal, not an absolute standard. A result may be "favorable" even if it does not match the client's ideal outcome.
• Custody outcomes depend on facts specific to each family, including the best-interests factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.7. No attorney can guarantee a particular outcome.
• The sample size (n=47) reflects the volume of contested custody work during the stated period. Results should not be extrapolated beyond this dataset.
• Cases that were dismissed, withdrawn, or where the client changed attorneys before resolution are excluded from the calculation.