When you go before a Judge, the lawyer you hire is often seen as a reflection of you. Recently there was an allegation against a Chicago family law attorney, Kurt Muller, that certainly paints him in a bad light. We don’t know if it’s true, but he has been censured before for unethical conduct (go to iardc.org and look up his name). If it’s not true then it’s crazy that someone would make this up. If it is true it’s shameful. Here are the recent charges:
DECISION FROM DISCIPLINARY REPORTS AND DECISIONS SEARCH
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
KURT ALEXANDER MULLER,
TODD ADAM WALTERS,
Commission No. 09 CH 47
Commission No. 09 CH 48
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Meriel Coleman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondents Kurt Alexander Muller (”Respondent Muller”), who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on July 15, 1986, and Todd Adam Walters (”Respondent Walters”), who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on May 2, 1995, and alleges that Respondents have engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:
(Conduct intended to harass or burden xxxx)
- On April 27, 2006, xxxx (”xxxx”) initiated divorce proceedings against xxxx (”xxxx”) by causing to be filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The matter was assigned the case number of 06 D 4687 by the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
- On January 9, 2007, Respondents Muller and Walters filed their appearances on behalf of xxxx in case number 06 D 4687.
- On January 29, 2007, Respondents, on behalf of xxxx, filed a document entitled Petition For Issuance of a Rule to Show Cause, Petition for Temporary Child Support, and A Petition for Temporary Child Support in case number 06 D 4687.
- On or about February 2, 2007, the Honorable David Delgado conducted a hearing in case number 06 D 4687 to determine whether xxxx should be held in civil contempt.
- On or around February 2, 2007, after Judge Delgado adjourned the proceedings in case number 06 D 4687 and left the bench, Respondent Muller, Respondent Walters, xxxx, xxxx, and his attorney, Barbara Lusky, continued to have discussions about the case.
- During the course of the discussions on or around February 2, 2007, Respondent Muller and Respondent Walters taunted xxxx by telling him that there would be a significant amount of homosexual activity in jail, that xxxx would be a good target for inmates desiring sexual acts during his incarceration, and that he would be subjected to extensive cavity probes.
- During the course of the discussions on or around February 2, 2007, Respondent Walters taunted xxxx by telling him that “Bubba would insert a probe up your penis.”
- During the course of the discussions on or around February 2, 2007, Respondent Muller and Respondent Walters taunted xxxx by singing “Jail House Rock” to him.
- At the time Respondent Muller and Respondent Walters made the statements referenced in paragraphs 6 through 8, above, they knew or should have known that the statements served no substantial purpose other than to harass, embarrass or injure xxxx.
- By reason of the conduct described above, Respondents have engaged in the following misconduct:
- asserting a position or taking other action on behalf of a client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another in violation of Rule 1.2(f)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
- using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, in violation of Rule 4.4 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
- conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and
- conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.
WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.
Respectfully submitted,Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary CommissionBy: Meriel Coleman
Again, we don’t know what is true against him and what is not, but for the ARDC to publish this seems to indicate that they believe it happened. If so we think he should lose his license to practice law, especially when you consider his past inappropriate behavior.
Since 2001, findgreatlawyers.com has been the leading resource for Illinois attorney referrals and legal guidance. If you would like our help please contact one of our lawyers via our on-line form or call (800) 517-1614. We are based in Chicago, but help people find attorneys for legal matters throughout Illinois. All inquiries are free and confidential.