You are on page 1of 8

ATTORNEY ADMISSIONS

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


EASTERN DIVISION
---------------------------------------------------
)
In the Matter of: )
)
) No:
)
)
)
)
)
Sarah Elizabeth Buck 6199585, )
Respondent )
---------------------------------------------------
TO
Sarah Buck 6199585,
Hays Firm LLC,
55 W. Wacker Drive,
14
th
Floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60601
NOTICE OF FILIN! ATTORNEY COM"LAINT
"LEASE TA#E NOTICE that on the $$$$$$$$$ %a& '( Au)u*t +,-., I fied
!ith the "erk of the "ourt the attached #ttorne$ %iscipinar$ "o&paint


"hristopher Stoer
6'(5 )* +rand #pt (1(
"hica,o, Iinois 6'6-9
-1.-8-( 9/1/
1
ATTORNEY ADMISSIONS
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
---------------------------------------------------
)
In the Matter of: )
)
) No:
)
)
)
)
)
Sarah 0i1a2eth Buck, 6199585, )
Respondent )
---------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEY MISCOND/CT COM"LAINT
-
A!AINST
SARAH B/C#
3he Respondent, Sarah 0i1a2eth Buck
.
, is char,ed !ith coachin, a cient to
ie in a "i4i "ook "ount$ "ase "ase No* 1( "5 '6/59 !here Ms Buck and her
partner6s) #ttorne$ #ndre! 5a$s and #ntonia 5a$s ha4e co&&itted o2struction of
1 It shoud 2e noted that the "o&painant has aso fied an Iinois #ttorne$
%iscipinar$ "o&paint !ith the #R%" a,ainst Ms* Buck 1( IN '---.*
5o!e4er the "har,es 2ein, asserted in this co&paint are distin,uisha2e fro&
the #ttorne$ discipinar$ char,es that current$ ha4e 2een raised 2$ the
co&painant 2efore the #R%"*
. Sarah Buck is an #d7unct 8rofessor at 9ent :a! Schoo !ho teaches draftin, of
peadin,s to third $ear a! students !ho has a2dicated her duties and 2rou,ht
disrepute to hersef and the 9ent :a! Schoo*
.
7ustice, en,a,ed in conduct that Ms. Buck knows is criminal or fraudulent, and a
Prohibited Transaction. With knowingly and willfully assisting their client Mark Stoller to
commit a crime or fraud in Cook County Civil Case No. 2014 CH06759 Exhibit 1.
The Respondent is charged ith extortion! ob"ect o# "$stice and
itness ta%pering.
"ARTIES
Re*0'1%e1t
Sarah Buck2
C'30lai1a1t
Chri*t'0her St'ller
4
BAC#!RO/ND FACTS
#ttorne$s; #ndre! 5a$s, #ntonia 5a$s and Respondent
Sarah Buck, represent , Mark Stoer, (- the son of "hristopher Stoer, 65 the
co&painant in "ook "ount$ "ase No. 2014 CH06759 !here Mark Stoer is
- *
-
char,ed !ith defraudin, his father out of <6/,''', aided and a2etted 2$ the said
respondents !ho are na&ed defendants* See E5hibit - 6C'30lai1t7
Respondent Buck is e=tortin, the attorne$ for&er >ud,e )a$ne Rhine
representin, "hristopher Stoer, fro& >u$ /, .'1( to #u,ust .., .'1( !ith threats
of inti&idation and has caused hi& to !ithdra! fro& the representation of
"hristopher Stoer 2$ threatenin, to fie a Rue 1-/ Sanction co&paint a,ainst
Mr* )a$ne Rhine, a for&er "ook "ount$ >ud,e for .( $ears* #s a direct resut of
Respondent Buck threats Mr* Rhine has fied a re?uest to !ithdra! fro& the case
and a re?uest to !ith dra! the a&ended co&paint, !hich "hristopher Stoer !as
,i4en ea4e to fie 2$ the tria court >ud,e* "hristopher Stoer o27ects to the
!ithdra!a of the a&ended co&paint for !hich ea4e !as ,i4en to a&end 2$ the
"ook "ount$ 3ria "ourt*
The civil case o. !"#$ C%"&'() involves a scheme whereby the
*efendant Mark Stoller $+, the com,lainant-s son defrauded his father, out
of his entire retirement funds of .&',"""."". /n ovember of !"#+ Mark
Stoller who lives in Phoeni0, 1ri2ona called his father and told him that he
could get his father a !"3 return on his .&',"""."", Christo,her Stoller
would merely send to him all of his money. Mark Stoller also claimed that
his father could have his money back at any time. 1fter Mark Stoller
received Christo,her Stoller-s .&',"""."", Mark Stoller ke,t the money and
(
would not return the money when Christo,her Stoller re4uested it. See
attached Civil 5aw suit Com,laint. Christo,her Stoller filed four criminal
com,laints against his son, Mark Stoller for defrauding him out of his
money. The first was filed with the /llinois orth 5ake Police *e,artment
6e,ort o. #$7"#$"+. The second was filed with the /llinois Securities
*e,artment Consumer Com,laint. The third was filed with the /llinois
1ttorney 8eneral Senior Citi2en 9raud *ivision. 1nd the fourth was filed
with the :nited States Postal /ns,ection Mail 9raud 6e,ort.
*es,ite this egregious fact ,attern that clearly evidences that Mark
Stoller defrauded his father out of his .&',""" Sarah Buck and her ,artner
1ndrew %ays concocted a fraudulent defense for Mark Stoller and told him
to say that the .&',"""."" was a ;gift< and that he would not have to ever
return the money to his father
$
. Mark Stoller admitted to Christo,her Stoller
that Sarah Buck and 1ndrew %ays coached him to say it was a gift.
Then Sarah =li2abeth Buck and 1ndrew %ays then conducted a
cam,aign to intimate the '! year old attorney, former >udge 6hine, of
Christo,her Stoller with threats to file a frivolous 6ule #+' in order to
destroy former >udge 6hine-s re,utation and Ms. Buck has succeeded in
( See attached %efendant;s Motion to 3ransfer to the :a! %i4ision drafted 2$
Sarah Buck at pa,e t!o @ 1 A3he present &atter arises fro& a ,ift of <6/,'''
!hich !as transferred fro& "hristopher Stoer 6A8aintiffB) to his son*
%efendant no! seeks the return of those funds fro& %efendant*B E5hibit +
5
driving Mr. 6hine out of the case o. !"#$ C%"&'() see attached Motion
to Withdraw Exhibit 2.
Ms. Buck has also coerced and tam,ered with a ,otential witness
against her, 1ttorney Wayne 6hine.
Ms. Buck coached her client, Mark Stoller falsely assert that the
.&',"""."" was a ;gift< when in fact Ms. Buck knew or should have known
from the fact ,attern in the case that no father would give a gift of
.&',"""."" to their son and then file criminal com,laints against his son for
failing to return the .&',"""."" if in fact, the father actually gifted the
.&',"""."" to the son.? Secondly it is not even ,robably that a &( year old,
disabled father, the com,lainant, would gift his . last .&',"""."" to his son
in order for the father to then live in ab@ect ,overty.
:nder any circumstances, Ms. Buck took unlawful advantage of a disabled
&( year old father, coached her witness Mark Stoller to lie, tam,ered with
another witness, Wayne 6hine, '!, attorney for Christo,her Stoller, and
e0torted Wayne 6hine with threats of a 6ule #+' Sanction unless he were
to withdraw his amended com,laint and withdraw from re,resenting the
Com,lainant in case Cook Count Case o. !"#$ C%"&'().
Ms. Buck and Mr. 1ndrew %ays took a ,age out of *efense attorney
Beau Brindely-s ,lay book. See attached Chicago Tribune article dated
9riday, 1ugust !!, !"#$. =0hibit +.
6
8HEREFORE2 "o&painant pra$s that the #ttorne$ #d&issions
i&&ediate$ assi,n this &atter to a hearin,, pane, that a date for hearin, 2e
i&&ediate$ set, that the hearin, 2e conducted and that the pane &ake findin,s of
fact, concusions of a! and a reco&&endation for such discipine as is !arranted
2$ its findin,s*
*
"hristopher Stoer , "o&painant
6'(5 )* +rand #pt (1(
"hica,o, Iinois 6'6-9
-1.-8-( 9/1/
/
Certi(icate '( Maili1)
I here2$ certif$ that this &otion is 2ein, deposited !ith the C*S* 8osta Ser4ice as
first "ass &ai, on #u,ust .5, .'1(, in an en4eope addressed to:
#ndre! 5a$s Chicago7&ent College of 'a
#ntonia 5a$s (&( W 1dams St, Chicago, /5 &"&&#
Sarah Buck, #tt: Harold J. Krent , %ean
Hays Firm LLC,
55 W. Wacker Drive,
14
th
Floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60601
>ero&e :arkin %irector #ttorne$ #d&issions
Iinois #ttorne$ Re,istration 0astern %istrict
and %iscipinar$ "o&&ission .19 S* %ear2orn St
1-' N* Randoph Street, Suite 15'' "hica,o, Iinois 6'6'(
"hica,o, Iinois 6'6'1
>a&es "o&e$ :isa Madi,an
%irector of DBI "hica,o Iinois #ttorne$ +enera
.111 )* Roose4et Rd* 1'' )* Randoph St*
"hica,o, I 6'6'6 "hica,o, Iinois 6'6'1
-1.-8.9-5/-.
"hica,oEie*f2i*,o4
Fachar$ 3* Dardon Mai Draud %i4ision
Cnites States #ttorne$ Gffice 8osta Inspection Ser4ice
Northern %istrict of Iinois (-- )* 5arrison, Roo& 5'19'
.19 S* %ear2orn St, 5
th
Door "hica,o, I 6'669-..'1
"hica,o, I* 6'6'(
-1.--5--5-''

"hristopher Stoer
8