BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of: RUFUS LYNWOOD COOK,
Commission No. 2012PR00164
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 509302. In the Matter of: BARBARA REVAK,
Commission No. 2012PR00165
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 2320258
FILED - December 18, 2012
COMPLAINT
Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Marcia Topper Wolf, pursuant to Supreme Court rule 753(b), complains of Respondents Rufus Cook ("Respondent Cook") and Barbara Revak ("Respondent Revak") and alleges that the 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, and which subjects Respondents to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:
1. Respondent Cook has been licensed to practice law since 1959 and Respondent Revak has been licensed to practice law since 1974. They are partners in the law firm Cook, Revak & Associates ("CRA"). In or about September 2004, Respondents agreed to represent Alzine Davis ("Davis") in claims Davis had against CCC Development Corporation ("CCC) and against Charles Newsome ("Newsome") and Charles Price ("Price") for their alleged mismanagement of properties owned by CCC and for their alleged misappropriation of corporate funds. Davis paid CRA $2,500 to investigate her claims.
2. Davis told Respondents that Newsome, Price and Davis each held a one-third interest in CCC, which was incorporated in or about 1997, and whose primary purpose was the ownership and development of real estate. In or about 1998, CCC acquired title to three properties located in Chicago, Illinois, at, respectively, 4501 S. King Drive, 5850-5858 S. King Drive, and 5027 S. Drexel.
3. In or about January 2005, Davis met with and spoke on the telephone with Respondent Revak regarding the above-summarized disputes Davis was having with Newsome and Davis. Based upon Respondents' investigation of her claims, as reported to Davis by Respondents, Davis agreed to retain the services of CRA, Cook and Revak, to pursue her claims. On February 16, 2005, Davis entered into a contingency fee agreement with CRA (the "2005 Fee Agreement"). RespondentRevak signed the 2005 Fee Agreement on behalf of CRA.
4. The 2005 Fee Agreement provided, in part:
Client wishes to pursue a lawsuit against CCC Development Corp., and against Charles Newsome and Charles Price, individually, in order to recover monies or properties due her as a shareholder of CCC, and to recover damages from Newsome and Price for their mismanagement of CCC Development Corp., and their wrongful taking of corporate funds.(introductory paragraph) If attorney determines to prosecute the matter to final judgment, attorney agrees to perform or secure the performance of all necessary legal service to judgment, or to obtain settlements satisfactory to client and attorney. Should it be necessary to prosecute or defend an appeal, any such work will be undertaken by attorney subject only to a separate agreement between the parties. No appellate services are covered by this agreement.
(par. 2)
Client agrees to pay attorney for services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement a sum equal to 33 1/3% of the gross amount of any sum of money or other consideration received, recovered or obtained on client's behalf with respect to the same claim, either by final judgment or by any compromise or voluntary settlement thereof. This sum is separate and apart from any attorney's fees which may be awarded by the court to counsel and the said 33 1/3% shall not be reduced by any court-awarded attorney's fees.
(par.3)
5. On or about March 11 2005, CRA filed a complaint for damages in the Circuit Court of Cook County, against CCC, Newsome and Price, as well as a Newsome/Price partnership, C&C Properties. The case was docketed as: Davis v.
