About • Advertise • Archive • Contact • Search • Subscribe
Serving the Loop and Near North neighborhoods of downtown Chicago
Bluesky Facebook Nextdoor Vimeo X RSS

New MTCA board member suspended in 2005 by Illinois Supreme Court

Daniel Starr repaid $23,799 to landlord defrauded in scam

1-Mar-09 – The lawyer appointed recently to fill a vacant seat on the Marina Towers Condominium Association board of directors was suspended for six months in 2005 by the Illinois Supreme Court.

More recently, an Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission hearing panel recommended censure in another complaint against Daniel Starr, a lawyer who specializes in landlord and tenant law.

Starr was unanimously approved on February 19 by the MTCA board to fill a seat left open by Sandra Lapping, who died on July 3, 2008.

The suspension, preventing Starr from practicing law for six months, was for his involvement in a fraudulent scheme to delay an eviction.

The case involved a woman in the northwest Chicago suburb of Hoffman Estates, Teresa Calcagno, who rented a townhouse in 1997 from James Robertson. When rent payments stopped, Robertson filed for eviction. The court sided with Robertson but when the sheriff arrived to evict Calcagno, he was given a document showing someone else, James Jakubosky, now lived in the house and had not been properly served with the complaint. This meant that Robertson had to re-file an amended complaint, adding Jakubosky as a defendant.

On behalf of Jakubosky, Starr filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which were denied. Neither Jakubosky or Calcagno appeared at their two-day eviction trial in November 1997, and the jury again sided with Robertson.

Despite documentation such as telephone bills addressed to him at the townhouse, Jakubosky later testified that he did not live there. Furthermore, he said he had never authorized Starr to represent him and had never even met Starr.

When Robertson’s attorney learned that Jakubosky did not live at the townhouse, he filed for sanctions against Starr. At his hearing in 1998, Starr admitted he knew that Calcagno was perpetrating a scam upon Robertson. Starr was ordered to pay Robertson’s attorney’s fees of $23,799. The court ruled that Starr filed “an unauthorized appearance on behalf of a non-existing occupant for the purpose of delaying an eviction as part of a fraudulent scheme to retain possession of a leasehold.”

Timeline

  • January 27, 1997 – Teresa Carol Calcagno signs a contract to buy a townhouse in Hoffman Estates from James Robertson. Until she has the money to buy it, Calcagno gets to live in the townhouse and pay rent. She makes a couple of rent payments, then two checks bounce.

  • July 7, 1997 – Robertson files for eviction. Calcagno consults with Daniel Starr, a friend of hers who had represented her on other matters. Suspecting a scam, Starr does not actually file an appearance on her behalf. But he does give her legal advice and contacts Robertson’s attorney for her.

  • October 15, 1997 – The sheriff comes to the townhouse to evict Calcagno but is presented with an affidavit showing someone else, in addition to her, now lives there and has not been properly served with the complaint. The new tenant, they claim, is James Jakubosky, father of Calcagno’s child. Although his name appears on phone bills addressed to the Hoffman Estates townhouse, Jakubosky is actually living at the time with his girlfriend in Rosemont.

  • Shortly after that, Robertson re-files his complaint, adding Jakubosky as a defendant. Calcagno asks Starr to represent Jakubosky, which he agrees to do but he does not actually meet with Jakubosky.

  • November 7, 1997 – With Jakubosky presumably served with the complaint, Starr files an appearance and jury demand on his behalf. At this point, he has spoken with someone by telephone claiming to be Jakubosky, but he has not actually met him. He files two motions to dismiss the complaint, which are denied.

  • November 24-25, 1997 – Neither Calcagno or Jakubosky attend their two-day eviction trial. Starr cross-examines Robertson but presents no evidence. The jury returns a verdict in favor of Robertson. Calcagno, Jakubosky, and anyone else they may be forgetting have to leave the townhouse.

  • December 1997 – The eviction has been delayed because Calcagno has filed for bankruptcy. During the discovery process, Robertson’s attorney learns the truth about Jakubosky, that he did not live at the townhouse. On December 24, Robertson files for sanctions against Starr. Starr files a response on January 6, 1998.

  • March 18, 1998 – On the first day of the sanctions hearing, Mr. Starr and Mr. Jakubosky meet for the first time. When Jakubosky is called as a witness, Starr repeatedly insists on speaking with him first, but the court does not allow it. On the stand, Jakubosky testifies he has never met Starr, never lived at the Hoffman Estates townhouse, never signed an affidavit swearing he lived there, and never authorized Starr to represent him. He says he didn’t even know about his eviction trial until after it was over. According to the ARDC, Starr himself will later admit that he knew Calcagno was perpetrating a scam upon Robertson.

  • July 16, 1998 – Starr files to strike the motion for sanctions because the plaintiff’s attorney has not properly signed it. The judge simply gives the attorney enough time to sign the motion.

  • July 2000 – After nine days of hearings and several witnesses over several months, a judge orders Starr to pay Robertson’s attorney’s fees of $23,904.25. “This court specifically finds that [Starr] failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts prior to filing an appearance on behalf of Mr. Jakubosky on November 7, 1997….Mr. Starr received all the information regarding Mr. Jakubosky…from Ms. Calcagno, an individual who he did not trust and who he knew was engaged in a fraudulent scam.”

  • Starr appeals, again on the grounds that the motion for sanctions had not been properly signed. He loses the appeal and pays the penalty in full. He does not have to pay Robertson’s filing fee for the initial complaint, and so sanctions are reduced to $23,799.25.

  • July 14, 2003 – An ARDC hearing panel recommends a 60-day suspension stayed entirely by probation. Both sides appeal.

  • December 28, 2004 – An ARDC review board recommends a six-month suspension with no probation.

  • May 20, 2005 – The Illinois Supreme Court suspends Starr from the practice of law for six months, effective June 10, 2005.

According to ARDC documents, Starr has estimated that 80 percent of his work is with evictions. He told the ARDC he has handled thousands of evictions through the course of his career, which dates back to 1978. He describes his most common client as “a middle-aged black woman who is a single mother.”

Conflict of interest complaint results in pending censure

In April 2008, an ARDC hearing panel voted to recommend censure of Starr over two conflict-of-interest complaints. A censure is similar to a reprimand. It is currently just a recommendation and has not been voted on by the Illinois Supreme Court.

This case dated back to April 2004, when Starr met with a man, Rufus Sparks, who asked Starr to represent him in a dispute with a mortgage company. He also wanted Starr to represent Tinika Sims, who he said was his girlfriend and lived with him at a house in Calumet City that the mortgage company wanted back. Starr did not actually meet with Sims, and she later denied being Sparks’s girlfriend.

According to ARDC documents, Sparks was able to rent a vacant house to Sims for $1,500 per month – with an option to purchase the house – and a $5,000 down payment, despite not actually owning the house. He simply came across the vacant house in 2003, allegedly told Sims he was the owner, and got her to sign a lease agreement.

Sims eventually had to move out of the house. But Starr was able to delay her eviction by claiming Sparks had not been properly served and the case needed to be re-filed.

It is alleged that Starr knew at the time that Sparks did not live at the property and did not own it.

Starr continued to represent Sims even though she had retained her own attorney. The ARDC was concerned that Starr was representing two clients, each having conflicting interests.

While the ARDC did not fault Starr for filing an appearance on behalf of Sims before actually meeting her, it says he should have talked to her before the next court date seven days later. And when he learned that Sims had hired another attorney, he should not have filed a response to a motion on her behalf, or attempted to settle the case for her. He did not actually speak with Sims until more than a month later, says the ARDC, when Sims discharged him as her attorney.

While noting evidence of good character and a good reputation for honesty, the ARDC hearing board wrote in its report that Starr showed no remorse for the misconduct in 2008, or even the misconduct that resulted in suspension three years earlier.

“We are astounded by [Starr’s] attempt to minimize his prior misconduct. Rather than acknowledging his prior misconduct, he spent a significant amount of time seemingly arguing that the findings of misconduct were incorrect. He believes it is significant that the Hearing Board found no misconduct, and that the Review Board found misconduct in a 2-1 decision. He even goes so far as to argue that the Review Board’s decision violated the applicable standard of review. Respondent fails to give any weight to the most important fact, namely that the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the Review Board’s decision and imposed a six month suspension.”

The sanction imposed in 2000, wrote the hearing board, “is significant and should not be taken lightly. Respondent’s failure to give the Court’s ultimate decision the weight it deserves is nothing short of appalling, and demonstrates Respondent’s complete failure to understand the nature of his prior misconduct.”

Starr defends his actions, welcomes concerns from Marina City residents

Speaking with Marina City Online on Friday, Starr defended his actions, saying he has done “a pretty good job for his clients” and that “any attorney in my shoes would have done the same.”

He says he has heard from other attorneys who have told him they would have done nothing different, telling him, “If that’s unethical, we’re all guilty.”

Starr, who purchased a unit after renting at Marina City for 19 years, says he is pleased to be a board member. He says the board represents 15 sets of ears to which unit owners have access. “I would welcome anyone who has any concerns to call me. I’m just one vote but maybe I can help. At least give me a chance.”

He says he’s heard from residents who are embarrassed by recent publicity. “We shouldn’t be embarrassed. That’s what makes us unique. We’re always going to have some controversy.”

He says there’s been a lot of animosity involving the board, an “us against them” attitude. “But we’re all in this together. Hopefully, we can solve our problems.”