Ex-GOP nominee for AG Thomas DeVore should be suspended for improper client relationship, panel says
A former Republican nominee for Illinois attorney general, downstate lawyer Thomas DeVore, should have his law license suspended for 60 days for a series of infractions, including having a sexual relationship with a client whom he represented in challenging Gov. JB Pritzker's COVID-19 restrictions in 2020, a legal disciplinary hearing board has recommended.
DeVore, who became well-known for spearheading legal fights over pandemic mandates before his unsuccessful 2022 run for attorney general, began dating a married Springfield salon owner shortly after sending letters challenging the pandemic mandates to government agencies on her behalf in May 2020, according to an Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission hearing board report issued Monday.
The two began a sexual relationship sometime that June, though the exact date was disputed in testimony before the board at a December 2024 hearing.
DeVore argued the sexual relationship with Riley Craig began after his initial work for Craig ended and before his work representing her in other legal matters began. But the hearing board found evidence showing 'an unbroken continuation of his attorney-client relationship,' including DeVore preparing pleadings in Craig's divorce case filed by a law firm associate.
'The evidence is uncontroverted that (DeVore and Craig) engaged in a consensual sexual relationship, but even consensual sexual activity between an attorney and a client constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest because the attorney's emotional involvement with the client creates a significant risk that the attorney's independent professional judgment will be impaired,' the hearing board wrote.
The relationship violated Illinois Supreme Court rules governing conflicts of interest for attorneys, the board found.
The state Supreme Court ultimately has the power to decide whether to impose the hearing board's recommended suspension or take other disciplinary action.
DeVore, who has remained active in state Republican politics, said Tuesday he doesn't plan to appeal the board's recommendation and said he wouldn't comment further out of respect for the process.
In its report, the board said DeVore showed 'genuine remorse for and insights gained from his misconduct' and 'total cooperation with this disciplinary proceeding,' adding that 'four witnesses, including an attorney and a judge, gave compelling testimony about (his) character for truthfulness and respected reputation in the community.'
The report indicates the ARDC began looking into DeVore's conduct in 2021, but Craig, at the time, 'reported that she was not (his) client when their sexual relationship began.' She also made a similar statement on social media during DeVore's attorney general campaign a year later, the report said.
While the report noted Craig displayed 'an admitted willingness to act in furtherance of her own interests' and 'threatened to change her story to the ARDC to cause (DeVore) to lose his law license,' the board nevertheless found there was 'clear and convincing evidence' to prove their sexual relationship began after their attorney-client relationship.
The hearing board also found DeVore in 2021 helped Craig launch a hair care product business but failed to put proper legal safeguards in place.
DeVore and Craig entered into an operating agreement and took out $600,000 in loans for the business. However, the hearing board found DeVore was at fault for not informing Craig of her right to retain independent counsel and that Craig never gave 'written informed consent to the transaction's essential terms and the lawyer's role in the transaction.' Both are safeguards required when a lawyer enters into a business transaction with a client.
That summer, the board noted, DeVore 'asked (Craig) to see her branding contract, advised her about her misunderstanding of its meaning and effect, and then took steps to help her achieve her business goals.'
The board wasn't convinced by DeVore's 'attempt to reframe this interaction as 'business advice' from a boyfriend to his girlfriend,' the report said. 'A lawyer does not simply change hats between attorney and businessman when giving legal advice on a business matter. He remains bound to his ethical obligations while providing legal services, even if the client also relies on his business expertise.'
The relationship between DeVore and Craig had ended in early 2023, months after he lost the attorney general's race to incumbent Democrat Kwame Raoul. That spring, the business venture with Craig also was failing.
Their company's bank was declining to extend its loan without seeing 'a substantial business plan,' according to the report.
With the business deteriorating alongside their personal relationship, the pair met in May 2023 to discuss how to address the debt and other company issues.
DeVore testified that at the meeting Craig said 'she would cause him to lose his law license by changing her story to the ARDC' about when their relationship began, according to the report. Craig, however, testified that 'she only recalled threatening … 'that if he didn't stop acting the way he was acting at that time, (she) would make sure people knew (she) was his client first,'' the report says.
In the following days and weeks, Craig made her own complaint to the ARDC and filed for personal bankruptcy to avoid paying the company's debt, according to her testimony.
The day after Craig filed for bankruptcy, DeVore sent an email to her and a company vendor that was owed $30,000, pointing out the personal bankruptcy case wouldn't prevent the vendor from collecting its payment from their company.
In the email, which was signed 'Attorney at Law' and included his firm's contact information, DeVore wrote that Craig was 'ignorant of pretty much anything; hence, why she was treated like a child with lack of access to the finances,' according to the report, adding that the vendor was 'dealing with a petulant child who has no idea what to say or do.'
The hearing board found that by sending the email, DeVore violated a Supreme Court rule prohibiting attorneys 'from engaging in conduct, while representing a client, that has no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, burden, or delay a third party' — in this instance, Craig. The board said it was unmoved by DeVore's 'explanation that he took off his lawyer hat while writing this email,' the report says.
DeVore also filed a lawsuit against Craig seeking to dissolve their company and, later, an order of protection petition against her, 'asserting harassment, stalking, and interference with his personal liberty' and alleging Craig 'falsely accused him on social media and in unsolicited communications' to customers and others 'of illegal, unethical, or inappropriate behavior,' the board's report said.
Because there was a stay in place stemming from Craig's bankruptcy case, the board found DeVore's lawsuit violated a rule barring attorneys from bringing frivolous actions, though the board didn't find enough evidence to prove filing the order of protection violated Supreme Court rules.
DeVore also violated other rules by directly contacting Craig about her bankruptcy case even though she was represented by another attorney by then. He also engaged in conduct that was 'prejudicial to the administration of justice,' including taking actions that led the bankruptcy judge to issue sanctions against him, the hearing board said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
3 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests. National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. Confrontations began Friday when dozens of protesters gathered outside a federal detention center demanding the release of more than 40 people arrested by federal immigration authorities across Los Angeles, as part of Trump's mass deportation campaign. Trump said that federalizing the troops on Saturday was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California. Newsom said Trump's recent decision was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Some of the previous National Guard deployments have preserved peace amid violent crackdowns from local law enforcement or threats from vigilantes, but sometimes they have intensified tensions among people who were protesting for civil rights or racial equality. On rare occasion, presidents have invoked an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act, which is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. Other times they relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances, which is what Trump did on Saturday. Here is a look at some of the most notable deployments: George Floyd protests in Los Angeles in 2020 Almost five years ago, Newsom deployed approximately 8,000 National Guard troops to quell protests over racial injustice inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Well over half of the troops deployed in California were sent to Los Angeles County, where police arrested more than 3,000 people. City officials at the time, including then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, supported Newsom's decision. Rodney King protests in 1992 Some have compared Trump's decision on Saturday to George H.W. Bush's use of the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992, after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. In just six days the protests became one of the deadliest race riots in American history, with 63 people dying, nine of whom were killed by police. Syreeta Danley, a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings. Danley said that at the time it seemed like law enforcement cared more about property damage affecting wealthier neighborhoods than the misconduct that precipitated the unrest. She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police 'had the green light to continue brutalizing people.' The National Guard can enforce curfews like they did in 1992, but that won't stop people from showing up to protest, Danley said. 'I have lived long enough to know that people will push back, and I'm here for it,' Danley said. Watts protests in 1965 There were deadly protests in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 in response to pent-up anger over an abusive police force and lack of resources for the community. Over 30 people were killed — two-thirds of whom were shot by police or National Guard troops. Many say the neighborhood has never fully recovered from fires that leveled hundreds of buildings. Integration protests in the 1950-1960s In 1956, the governor of Tennessee called the state's troops to help enforce integration in Clinton, Tennessee, after white supremacists violently resisted federal orders to desegregate. President Dwight Eisenhower called the Arkansas National Guard and the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in 1957 to escort nine Black students as they integrated a previously white-only school. A few years later, the Maryland National Guard remained in the small town of Cambridge for two years after Maryland's Democratic Gov. J Millard Tawes in 1963 called in troops to mediate violent clashes between white mobs and Black protesters demanding desegregation. Selma, Alabama, voting rights protest in 1965 National Guard troops played a pivotal role in the march often credited with pressuring the passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965, when nonviolent protesters — including the late congressman John Lewis — calling for the right to vote were brutally assaulted by Alabama State Troopers in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. Two weeks later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops to escort thousands of protesters along the 50-mile (81-kilometer) march to the state Capitol. Johnson's decision was at odds with then-Gov. George Wallace who staunchly supported segregation. ___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen resigns to take job with conservative nonprofit
Colorado Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, listens to opening day proceedings on the first day of the 2025 session of the Colorado Legislature on Jan. 8, 2025, at the Colorado Capitol. (Lindsey Toomer/Colorado Newsline) Senate Minority Paul Lundeen announced Monday that he is resigning from the Legislature to join the leadership of a conservative nonprofit. His resignation is effective immediately. 'Serving Colorado has been an honor and blessing,' the Monument Republican said in a statement. 'I am grateful to the people of Senate District 9 for the opportunity to fight for policies that empower individuals, protect our communities, and promote prosperity. As I transition to a national platform, I am eager to continue advocating for personal freedom, economic opportunity, and common-sense conservative values.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX He will lead the American Excellence Foundation, an organization that awards grants to advance conservative public policy. Lundeen served as a state representative from 2015 to 2018 and as a senator since 2019. He is term-limited and could not seek re-election in 2026. Before his time in the Legislature, he served on the State Board of Education, including as chair for two years. He worked on an array of education-related policies while in office. The Senate Republican caucus will meet on Thursday evening to select a new minority leader. A vacancy committee of Republicans from Senate District 9 will also need to meet to select a replacement for Lundeen. In a statement, Gov. Jared Polis thanked Lundeen for his public service. 'Paul has always found ways to work across the aisle, and do what is best for the people he has served,' the Democrat wrote. 'We've often found common ground on the issues that matter most to Coloradans, like education, public safety and growing our economy. Senator Lundeen has spent decades in public service, in addition to his time leading small businesses, and his presence and leadership will be missed at the Capitol.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to pursue a new murder trial against Richard Glossip but without the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his capital conviction in a rare victory for a death row prisoner. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's decision to retry Glossip, 62, on a first-degree murder charge came out of a status conference hearing. Drummond said in a news release that the evidence still implicates Glossip in the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. Glossip, a motel manager working for Van Treese, has maintained his innocence while on death row for almost three decades. While Drummond, a Republican, has not agreed with Glossip's innocence claims, he was supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in February, when the majority of justices agreed, as Drummond put it, that "it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial." Drummond said Monday that he would ensure Glossip now receives an impartial trial. "While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence," Drummond said in a statement. "After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction." Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, had previously indicated that Glossip would not be eligible for the death penalty now if he were to be retried. Drummond said he would seek a life sentence for Glossip at his next trial. "While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today," he added. The continuation of the state's prosecution against Glossip resumes a twisting case that saw him dodge death several times with nine separate execution dates that had to be postponed. Various courts delayed the executions as he appealed, while state corrections officials also came under scrutiny a decade ago for botched execution attempts. But Glossip's case had been championed in recent years by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma legislators after an independent report they commissioned in 2022 found that "no reasonable jury hearing the complete record would convict Glossip of first-degree murder." The report centered on the state's primary witness, Justin Sneed, who had confirmed to the report's investigators that he had discussions with multiple family members about "recanting" his testimony over an 11-year period. Investigators also said the district attorney's case file included documentation describing how the state provided Sneed information "so he could conform his testimony to match the evidence" from other witnesses. Glossip's original 1998 conviction was overturned in 2001, when a state appeals court found that the evidence against him was weak. But the state took him to trial again, and a second jury found him guilty in 2004. At Glossip's trial, Sneed, a motel handyman, admitted that he had killed Van Treese, but said that it was at Glossip's direction and that he had been promised $10,000. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed received a life sentence while Glossip was given the death penalty. Prosecutors said Glossip orchestrated the plot because he was embezzling from the motel and feared being fired. The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out Glossip's capital conviction in a 5-3 ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, presumably because he was involved in the case when he was on a federal appeals court that includes Oklahoma. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority's ruling that prosecutors "knew Sneed's statements were false" and that "because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip's guilt of capital murder, the jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was necessarily determinative here." "Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed's testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury," she added. After the Supreme Court's decision, Glossip was moved off death row, but was held without bail in the Oklahoma County Detention Center on a first-degree murder charge. A next court date in Glossip's case is scheduled for June 17. Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, did not immediately comment about the prosecutors' decision, but he welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling in February that spared his longtime client from the death chamber. "He had nine execution dates, three last meals, and obviously, to finally get relief has been huge for him," Knight said, "and he's thrilled beyond words." This article was originally published on
