ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

---------------------------------------------------
)
In the Matter of: )
)
) Supreme Court No:
)
)
)
Andrew Hays ) No 2014IN3330
Antonia Hays ) No 2014IN1
Sarah u!" ) No 2014IN3332
#espondents )
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TO"
Andrew Hays
Anton$a Hays
Sarah u!"%
Hays Firm LLC,
55 W. Wacker Drive,
14
th
Floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60601
NOTICE OF FILING A REPLY TO ANTONIA HAYS RESPONSE
PLEASE TA#E NOTICE that on S$%t$&'$( 2)* 2014% I f$&ed w$th the C&er" of
the A#'C the atta!hed Attorney '$s!$p&$nary #ep&y to Anton$a Hays No
2014IN3331 #esponse


Chr$stopher Sto&&er
(04) *+ ,rand Apt 414
Ch$!a-o% I&&$no$s (0(3.
312-/34 .010
1
ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
---------------------------------------------------
)
In the Matter of: )
)
) Supreme Court No:
)
)
)
An+($, Hays ) No 2014IN0
Anton$a Hays ) No 2014IN3331
Sarah u!" ) No 2014IN3332
#espondents )
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REPLY TO ATTORNEY ANTONIA HAYS
1
RESPONSE
2

1Anton$a Hays
Ms. Hays is a partner at Hays Firm LLC. She received her B. A. magna cum laude
from Loyola University Chicago (!!"# and her $. %. from Loyola University Chicago
School of La& ('((#. She is a mem)er of the *hi Beta +appa Society, the nation-s
oldest and most prestigious academic honor. Her practice includes the handling of
comple. and multiparty litigation involving estates and trusts, contractual disputes,
commercial disputes, construction/related issues, )reach of contract actions, and other
areas of civil litigation. Ms. Hays is a mem)er of the 0llinois Bar and is also admitted to
practice in the Federal %istrict Court for the 1orthern %istrict of 0llinois. She is a mem)er
of the 0llinois State Bar Association and Chicago Bar Association. Ms. Hays &as named
as a '( 0llinois 2ising Star )y Super La&yers maga3ine in the field of Business
Litigation. She can )e contacted at4 antonia-ays.-ays/i(&01o&.
25he Attorney 2egistration and %isciplinary Commission &as esta)lished )y the 0llinois
Supreme Court to deal &ith issues of professional misconduct of attorneys. 5he serious
allegations of professional misconduct that the Complainant has raised regarding the
2espondents are issues that are not )efore the 0llinois Court in No. 2014 CH06759 +
5he issues of professional misconduct raised )y this Attorney %isciplinary !omp&a$nt
2

In the se!ond para-raph of #espondent Anton$a Hays adm$ts that she $s 1a
partner of Hays 2$rm 33C+4 5hus under A#'C #u&e )+1
3
% )+2 Anton$a Hays $s
respons$6&e for a&& of the !har-es of profess$ona& m$s!ondu!t a&&e-ed $n
Comp&a$nant7s !omp&a$nt notw$thstand$n- the fa!t that #espondent Anton$a Hays
see"s to sh$e&d herse&f from the !har-es of profess$ona& m$s!ondu!t 6y !&a$m$n-
that #espondent Anton$a Hays 1do not re!a&& ha8$n- e8er spo"en w$th Mar"
Sto&&er+4 Nor does #espondent Anton$a Hays !&a$m that 7I ha8e 6een on matern$ty
&ea8e at a&& t$mes re&e8ant to Chr$stopher7s Sto&&er7s !omp&a$nt+4 9 2 pa-e 2 of
#espondent Anton$a Hays response &etter mar"ed as :;h$6$t 1+ #espondent adm$ts
that she $s a partner $n the three person &aw f$rm% Hays 3aw 2$rm and !annot
are $ssues that the Comm$ss$on $s so&e&y empowered to a!t upon under the I&&$no$s
#u&es of <rofess$ona& M$s!ondu!t and N=5 any State Court >ud-e+
3RULE 201" RESPONSI3ILITIES OF PARTNERS* MANAGERS* AND SUPER4ISORY
LA5YERS
?a) A partner $n a &aw f$rm% and a &awyer who $nd$8$dua&&y or to-ether w$th other &awyers
possesses !ompara6&e mana-er$a& author$ty $n a &aw f$rm% sha&& ma"e reasona6&e efforts to ensure
that the f$rm has $n effe!t measures -$8$n- reasona6&e assuran!e that a&& &awyers $n the f$rm
!onform to the #u&es of <rofess$ona& Condu!t+
?6) A &awyer ha8$n- d$re!t super8$sory author$ty o8er another &awyer sha&& ma"e
reasona6&e efforts to ensure that the other &awyer !onforms to the #u&es of <rofess$ona& Condu!t+
?!) A &awyer sha&& 6e respons$6&e for another &awyer@s 8$o&at$on of the #u&es of
<rofess$ona& Condu!t $f:
?1) the &awyer orders or% w$th "now&ed-e of the spe!$f$! !ondu!t% rat$f$es the !ondu!t
$n8o&8edA or
?2) the &awyer $s a partner or has !ompara6&e mana-er$a& author$ty $n the &aw f$rm $n wh$!h
the other &awyer pra!t$!es% or has d$re!t super8$sory author$ty o8er the other &awyer% and "nows
of the !ondu!t at a t$me when $ts !onseBuen!es !an 6e a8o$ded or m$t$-ated 6ut fa$&s to ta"e
reasona6&e remed$a& a!t$on+
3
e;p$ated herse&f from profess$ona& m$s!ondu!t &$a6$&$ty 6y !&a$m$n- she was on
matern$ty &ea8e wh$&e the sa$d m$s!ondu!t too" p&a!e+
5he 2espondent, Antonia Hays, provides irrefuta)le evidence that
she violated A2%C 2ules .' (d# A la&yer shall not counsel a client to engage, or
assist a client, in conduct that the la&yer 6no&s is criminal or fraudulent,Criminal,
Fraudulent and *rohi)ited 5ransactions. 7ith 6no&ingly and &illfully assisting their client
Mar6 Stoller to commit a crime
8
or fraud in Coo6 County Civil Case No. 2014 CH06759
(Exhibit 1 to complaint.)
The Repon!ent" #ntonia Ha$, p%o&i!e i%%e'(table e&i!ence
that he &iolate! #R)C R(le1.7* C+N,-.CT +, .NTERE/T* R0-E 1.7(a)*
-#23ER #/ 2.TNE//. 2UL9 8.4 52U5HFUL19SS 01 S5A59M915S
5: :5H92S 0n the course of representing a their client Mar6 Stoller,
6no&ingly4 (a# ma6e false statement(s# of material fact or la& to a third
person and A2%C 2ules ;.8
;.84 M0SC:1%UC5(a#,()#,(c#, (d# violating or attempt to violate the
2ules of *rofessional Conduct, 6no&ingly assist or induce another to do so,
or do so through the acts of another. #ntonia Ha$, Andre& Hays partner
Sarah Buc6 provided evidence against her of creating a false affidavit of
Mar6 Stoller mar6ed as Exhibit )
4<!= *aragraph (d# prohi)its a la&yer from 6no&ingly counseling or assisting a client to commit a
crime or fraud.
4
3AC#GROUND FACTS
2espondents Andre& Hays, Antonia Hays and
Sarah Buc6, represent , Mar6 Stoller, 8> the son of Christopher Stoller, "?
the complainant in Coo6 County Case No. 2014 CH06759 &here Mar6
Stoller is charged &ith defrauding his father out of @"A,(((, aided and
a)etted )y the said respondents &ho are named defendants. (See 9.hi)it
to complaint# 5he response of Sarah Buc6 clearly esta)lishes evidence of
her professional misconduct and clear violations of the 0llinois *rofessional
2ules of *rofessional Conduct.
ANDRE5 HAYS* #ntonia Ha$, SARAH 3UC# ENGAGED IN A
CO4ERUP AND THREATENED OPPOSING COUNSEL* FORMER
COO# COUNTY 6UDGE 5AYNE RHINE* 5ITH A RULE 17 MOTION
UNLESS SARA 3UC# 5AS IMMEDIATELY DISCHARGED AS
DEFENDANT FROM CASE No. 2014 CH06759 (/ee Exhibit 2 lette%
'%om Repon!ent 4(c5 to #tto%ne$ 2a$ne Rhine" 6hich !%o&e 'o%me%
7(!8e Rhine o(t o' Cae No. 2014 Ch06759 .
After #ntonia Ha$, partner Sara Buc6 received service of summons
naming her and Hays as a defendant in case 1o. '(8 CH("A?!, Hays
directed Buc6 to direct a letter
?
to counsel for the *laintiffBComplainant,
)
)
former Circuit Court $udge, 7ayne 2hine and to threaten him &ith a
frivolous 2ule >A sanction motion unless Andre& Hays, Sara Buc6, and
AN5=NIA HACS were &ithdra&n from case 1o '(8 CH("A?!, as
defendant(s# in order to cover up their professional misconduct and
criminal conduct.(Assisting Mar6 Stoller, under the color of la& to defraud
his father the complainant out of @"A,(((, )y falsely coaching Mar6 Stoller
to claim that the said @"A,(((, that he defrauded his father out of &as a
CgiftD &hen the respondents 6ne& or should have 6no&n that the @"A,(((
that Mar6 Stoller had defrauded his father out of &as clearly not a gift
evidenced )y the fact that the Complainant, Christopher Stoller had filed
four criminal complaints against Mar6 Stoller asserting that the @"A,(((
&as stolen )y his son.
5he 2espondent, #ntonia Ha$, Andre& Hays, Sarah Bac6,
unla&fully represented Mar6 Stoller and all of his other clients since forming
the firm, Hays La& Firm LLC, &hich &as not registered nor licensed &ith
the 0llinois Supreme Court a %e9(i%e! b$ R(le 721(c) a o' /eptembe% 1"
2014. 2ecently the conseEuences of a la& firm-s failure to o)tain a 2ule
A'(c# certificate of registration &ere addressed in Ford Motor Credit
Company v. Sperry, Appellate Court of 0llinois, Second %istrict, 1o. '/('/
(8"', %ecided4 1ovem)er >, '((>. 0n 0llinois, it is &ell esta)lished that only
(
persons duly admitted to practice la& in this state may appear on )ehalf of
other persons. 5he normal effect of a person-s unauthori3ed practice on
)ehalf of a party is to reEuire the dismissal of the cause or to treat the
particular actions ta6en )y the representative as a nullity.D Patt-Holdampf,
>>;. app. >% at (;>, 0ll. %ec. A(;, A;! 1.9.ed. Ford Motor Credit
Company v. Thomas B. Sperry 1o. '/('/(8"' %ecided 1ovem)er >, '((>,
Appellate Court of 0llinois, Second %istrict. 5o enforce court orders entered
)y unlicensed and therefore unregulated la& firms &ould a)rogate the state
purpose of the 2ule A'(c# certificate of registration
"
. 5he 2espondent
violated A2%C 2ule ?.? Unauthori3ed *ractice of La&.
5he 2espondents &or6ing out of the unlicensed la& firm of Hays Firm
LLC had no right to represent, Mar6 Stoller in case 1:. 1o. '(8
CH("A?! )efore Septem)er '', '(8 as &ell 6no&n to #ntonia Ha$.
5he A2%C should reEuire that the 2espondent Hays La& Firm LLC.,
( 5he 0llinois Supreme Court has promulgated certain rules on the discipline of
attorneys and their admission to the state )ar. 5hese rules provide the reEuirements
for those &anting to attain a license to practice la& in the state. See ;; 0ll. '% 2.
A(. 5he rules also provide for additional reEuirements for those see6ing to practice
la& through a professional corporation. See "" 0ll. 'd. 2.A'. For instance, rule
A'(a# reEuires that the corporation do nothing that &ould violate the standards of
professional conduct applica)le to attorneys. See "" 0ll. 'd. 2. A'()#. 2ule A'(c#
reEuires each corporation that see6s to practice la& to register &ith the 0llinois
Supreme Court. See "" 0ll. '% 2. A'(c# C1o corporation or association or limited
lia)ility company shall engage in the practice of la& in 0llinois or open or maintain an
esta)lishment for that purpose in 0llinois, &ithout a certificate of registration issued )y
this courtD "" 0ll 'd. 2. A'(c#. 5he Complainant &as inFured and harmed )y
the Hays Firm for their failure to register.
0
send a letter to all of their clients and inform them that they are or &ere not
licensed to practice la& &ithin the State of 0llinois )efore Septem)er ,
'(8 and to void all orders that have )een entered )y the 2espondent
Hays La& Firm LLC )efore Septem)er '', '(8.
5he A2%C should reEuire that the Hays La& Firm disgorge itself of all
of the attorney fees that have )een paid to the unregistered Hays la& Firm.
0ncluding all attorney fees paid to Hays )y Mar6 Stoller )efore Septem)er
'', '(8.
5he 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,, Andre& Hays, Sarah Buc6 and the
Hays La& firm 2espondents &ere served &ith Admissions in $uly of '(8
in &hich they failed to respond deeming all admissions as admitted,
including the most damning admission A, CAdmit that Mar6 Stoller (8># has
conspired &ith his attorney(s# Andre& Hays, #ntonia Ha$, Sarah Buc6
and to defraud his father out of @"A,(((D See Exhibit C.
Andre& Hays, #ntonia Ha$, authori3ed, revie&ed and approved
2espondent Sarah Buc6-s drafting of Mar6 Stoller-s (perFured# affidavit
&hich is made in )ad faith mar6ed as Exhibit ). See Christopher Stoller-s
attached conflicting affidavit Exhibit E, &hich contradicts the Mar6 Stoller-s
affidavit, &hich has no& for the A2%C created a CEuestion of factD that can
and must )e decided at a evidentiary hearing conducted )y the 0nEuiry
/
Board. 5he Christopher Stoller, "? affidavit should )e given significant
&eight )ecause it is more li6ely that his affidavit.
5he 2espondent #ntonia Ha$, in this misconduct case 6no&ingly
and &illfully created a fraudulent document, the perFured Affidavit of Mar6
Exhibit )
5he 2espondents first filed Mar6Gs perFured Affidavit Exhibit ) &ith the
0llinois Securities %epartment on Fe)ruary >, '(8. 5he false Affidavit
Exhibit ) &as fraudulent (A2%C 2ule ;.8# )ecause it contained a &illful
misrepresentation that &as Ccalculated to em)arrass, hinder, or o)struct the
court in the administration of Fustice.D 5he 2espondents &ere acting &ith
intent to o)struct the 0llinois Securities %epartment in the administration of
Fustice )y coaching their client, Mar6 Stoller, into falsely admitting (Exhibit
)) that the @"A,(((.(( that MA2+ received &as a gift. CH20S5:*H92 into
giving him under the false pretense that MA2+ &ould invest the @"A,(((.((
into securities that &ould give CH20S5:*H92 a '(H return on his
investment. After the 2espondent #ntonia Ha$, &as successful in
defeating the Christopher StollerGs Complaint &ith the 0llinois Securities
%epartment, &hich stated that MA2+ defrauded CH20S5:*H92 out of
@"A,(((.(( )y MA2+ claiming that he &ould invest ChristopherGs
@"A,(((.(( into securities &ith a high rate of return for CH20S5:*H92.
.
5he 2espondent #ntonia Ha$, then, su)mitted MA2+GS perFured
Affidavit to the A2%C on August '', '(8.
THERE ./ :R+4#4-E C#0/E TH#T RE/:+N)ENT #NT+N.# H#3/,
EN;#;E) .N
:R+,E//.+N#- <./C+N)0CT #R)C R0-E =.4
*ro)a)le cause is a level of reasona)le )elief, )ased on facts
that can )e articulated, that a person committed the offense charged. Here,
the actus reas is that a false representation &as made in Mar6Gs false
Affidavit that the money (@"A,(((.((# that MA2+ received from
CH20S5:*H92 &as a Cgift.D
5he mens rea is that the misrepresentation &as &illful and &as
calculated to hinder and o)struct the 0llinois Securities %epartment
0nvestigation of the Securities Complaint that CH20S5:*H92 filed. Again
2espondents filed the same Mar6 Stoller perFured Affidavit (9.hi)it %# in
2espondent-s response to the A2%C complaint. that the Complainant filed
against 2espondents during the pendency of the on/going Circuit Court
litigation. 2espondents filed the false Mar6 Stoller Affidavit &ith the A2%C
to th&art the A2%C investigation of 2espondentsG professional misconduct
and the A2%C administration of Fustice.
1o&, on the record )efore the A2%C there are t&o conflicting affidavits,
10
Mar6Gs Fe)ruary >, '(8 affidavit Exhibit ) and ChristopherGs Affidavit
Exhibit E, &hich refutes each and every perFured statement of MA2+
mar6ed as Exhibit E.
Iiven the respective motives of CH20S5:*H92 &ho had nothing to
gain )y perFuring himself &hen he s&ore that MA2+ defrauded him out of
@"A,(((.(( and had filed four complaints &ith la& enforcement agencies
stating that CH20S5:*H92 &as in fact defrauded out of @"A,(((.(( )y
MA2+ is pro)a)le that the Affidavit of CH20S5:*H92 (Exhibit E#
accurately reflects the e.change )et&een himself and MA2+. 0t is pro)a)le
that the Affidavit of MA2+ (9.hi)it %# contain the false representations.
0n light of the long history of 2espondent #ntonia Ha$,in th&arting the
administration of Fustice in the underlying La& %ivision case, there e.ists a
reasona)le )elief that the alleged false misrepresentation(s# that &ere
orchestrated )y 2espondent &ho-s associate, Sarah Buc6 drafted Mar6Gs
Affidavit (9.hi)it %#, &ere made &illfully and not innocently. 0t is clear that
2espondent #ntonia Ha$, had the motive to ma6e the false affidavit
(9.hi)it %# for MA2+ representation in order that they might protect
themselves, their firm and their partners. 0t is reasona)le to conclude that
2espondent #ntonia Ha$, &illfully made the misrepresentation in order to
11
hinder and o)struct the Court in its administration of Fustice in violation of
A2%C 2ule ;.8. 5here e.ists a reasona)le )elief, )ased upon the facts
&hich have )een articulated, that 2espondent #ntonia Ha$, committed
the professional charged. 5he standard of pro)a)le cause has )een met.
2espondent #ntonia Ha$, and filing Mar6Gs false s&orn pleading
(9.hi)it %# attached hereto falls under the category of violating the A2%C
2ules ;.8 5he filing of false s&orn pleadings ( 9.hi)it %# andBor an attorney
representing a party &ho attests to the false s&orn pleading falls under the
category of professional misconduct and is punisha)le )y the A2%C.
0t is clear from the response of 2espondent #ntonia Ha$, that she
failed to demonstrate the full acceptance and recognition of the
seriousness of her professional misconduct. Hard&y a -ood re!ommendat$on
for a 1ma-na !um &aude from 3oyo&a Dn$8ers$ty Ch$!a-o ?1..()+4
2HERE,+RE" Complainant prays that the 0nEuiry Board immediately
assign this matter to a hearing, panel, that a date for hearing )e
immediately set, that the hearing )e conducted and that the panel ma6e
findings of fact, conclusions of la& and a recommendation for such
discipline as is &arranted )y its findings.
+
Chr$stopher Sto&&er
12
(04) *+ ,rand Apt 414
Ch$!a-o% I&&$no$s (0(3.
312-/34 .010
4ERIFICATION
I% the unders$-ned% state that I ha8e made reasona6&e $n8est$-at$on $n the fa!ts !onta$ned
here$n and !ert$fy th$s p&ead$n- pursuant to se!t$on 1-10. of the I&&$no$s Code of C$8$& <ro!edure+
C-(isto%-$( Sto88$(
C$(ti/i1at$ o/ Mai8in9
13
I here6y !ert$fy that th$s mot$on $s 6e$n- depos$ted w$th the D+S+ <osta& Ser8$!e as
f$rst C&ass ma$& $n an en8e&ope addressed to:
>erome 3ar"$n '$re!tor Attorney Adm$ss$ons
I&&$no$s Attorney #e-$strat$on :astern '$str$!t
and '$s!$p&$nary Comm$ss$on 21. S+ 'ear6orn St
130 N+ #ando&ph Street% Su$te 1)00 Ch$!a-o% I&&$no$s (0(04
Ch$!a-o% I&&$no$s (0(01
>ames Comey
'$re!tor of 2I Ch$!a-o
2111 *+ #oose8e&t #d+
Ch$!a-o% I& (0(0(
312-/2.-)032
Ch$!a-oE$e+f6$+-o8
Fa!hary 5+ 2ardon
Dn$tes States Attorney =ff$!e
Northern '$str$!t of I&&$no$s% :astern '$8$s$on
21. S+ 'ear6orn St% )
th
2&oor
Ch$!a-o% I&+ (0(04
312-3)3-)300
3$sa Mad$-an
I&&$no$s Attorney ,enera&
100 *+ #ando&ph St+
Ch$!a-o% I&&$no$s (0(01
Mai8 F(a:+ Di;ision
:+/T#-.N/:ECT.+N/ER>.CE
4112.H#RR./+N"R00<50190
CH.C#;+ .- 60669?2201

14
:GHII5 A
1)
:GHII5
1(
:GHII5 C
10
:GHII5 '
1/
:GHII5 :
1.