CLR has received complaints of improper billing practices by the law firm of Adamski & Conti and their attorneys Gregory A. Adamski and Karen Conti.

If you have any information on the law firm of Adamski & Conti and/or of their attorneys Gregory A. Adamski and Karen Conti, CLR would appreciate hearing from you.

Mr. Gregory Adamski has questioned our reporting the above information. To see a copy of his email in PDF format, click on Adamski email. You will need a free copy of Acrobat Reader to read this letter, which can be obtained at no charge by clicking on . [Note: We understand that PDF files are much slower to download, but they give a much clearer and more exact reproduction of the actual documents than other methods. It may take a few minutes for each document to fully download. It will be worth the wait.]

CLR has received at least three complaints relative to the attorneys Gregory A. Adamski, Karen Conti, and/or the law firm of Adamski & Conti. As time permits we will post information we have on this web-site regarding these issues, for the educational purposes of CLR members.

As a start, do you approve of your attorney filing a lawsuit against you as his client? While an attorney may have a right to reasonable attorney fees for work that has benefited his client, does he have a right to falsify the complaint for fees that he files against his client?

On or about April 2000, Gregory A. Adamski, Karen Conti, and the law firm of Adamski and Conti filed a complaint against Nancy Henderson, case no. 00-M1-118160. A complete copy of this complaint can be found here, obtained from the files of the Cook County Municipal Court.  CLR thanks its Court Observers and the court files for the information presented herein.

In said complaint, Karen Conti alleges that there was a written retention agreement (which we understand that the law requires), which they cannot locate. She then alleges an oral retention agreement (should we take this to mean that she does not know if there was a written retention agreement or an oral retention agreement?). Ms. Conti further alleges that the attorney fees were for "actual, necessary, and reasonable services", but her complaint does not substantiate this allegation, with business records attached to the complaint.

Attorney Karen Conti further submitted her affidavit, a copy of which can be found here. We call your attention to the fact that attorney Karen Conti notarized her own signature. It is CLR's understanding that a person may not be a notary for herself. Did attorney Karen Conti violate the Illinois Notary Public Act, which states that "5 ILCS 312/6-104(b). A notary public shall not acknowledge any instrument in which the notary's name appears as a party to the transaction."?

On or about August 21, 2000, attorney Gregory A. Adamski filed his affidavit with the court alleging that he had obtained an order from Judge Timothy Evans granting his motion to withdraw. A copy of attorney Adamski's affidavit, in pdf format, can be found here. The signature on this affidavit appears to have been signed not by attorney Gregory A. Adamski, but by someone whose initials are R.P. Could R.P. be the initials for Roberta Peluso? And did attorney George J. Vournazos notarize Roberta Peluso signature of Gregory A. Adamski as that of Gregory A. Adamski? Further as attorney George J. Vournazos is an attorney employed by the law firm of Adamski and Conti, did attorney Vournazos also violate the Illinois Notary Public Act?

Since a notary shall not acknowledge any instrument in which the notary has a connection, according to 5 ILCS 312/6-104(b), are any of the affidavits filed by attorneys Gregory A. Adamski or Karen Conti and presented to the court valid affidavits? CLR asks: did the above attorneys not know the law, or did they knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally commit a "fraud upon the court"?

Apparently Associate Judge John Laurie requested attorney Gregory A. Adamski to provide a copy of Judge Timothy Evans' order granting permission for Mr. Adamski to withdraw as Adamski alleged. Even though a judge issues an order of withdrawal, such order is void if the withdrawing attorney does not comply with Supreme Court Rule ("SCR") 13, regarding the proper withdrawal of an attorney, which we understand did not occur in this case, but which must be substantiated by the record of the case.

Attorney Gregory A. Adamski alleged that attorney Steven Komie was present at the court hearing granting leave to withdraw, but CLR understands that Mr. Komie has not confirmed that an Order of Withdrawal was granted. Ms. Henderson stated in her affidavit that she was present in court on the date that the order was supposed to have been issued, but that she has no knowledge of such an order being issued, and if such an order had been issued, it had never been served upon her, as required by Supreme Court Rule 13. Nancy Henderson's affidavit.

Mr. Adamski did not mention in his affidavit that two other attorneys were also present on the date that he alleged the Order of Withdrawal was granted. If such an Order of Withdrawal had been issued, then the two attorneys, representing parties before the court, also had to be served copies of the Order of Withdrawal, as directed by SCR 13. Were the two attorneys served with a copy of the purported order?

The two attorneys, Patrick C. O'Day and Charles I. Calisoff, filed affidavits that they had no knowledge of such an Order of Withdrawal being issued. Patrick C. O'Day's affidavit, Charles I. Calisoff's affidavit, obtained from the Court files.

On August 25, 2000 Mr. Adamski filed a "Motion to Enter Withdrawal Order Nunc Pro Tunc" [see footnote 1 for definition of nunc pro tunc] before Judge Timothy Evans. CLR understands that, on October 16, 2000, Judge Evans denied the "Motion to Enter Withdrawal Order Nunc Pro Tunc", apparently since the Order of Withdrawal had never been granted. Karen Conti had written a letter criticizing "Judge Evan's unwillingness to make decisions, set court dates, or move this case along". Did Karen Conti not obligate herself to report Judge Timothy Evans to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the Chief Judge of Cook County, and/or to the proper authorities, when she wrote this letter?

Judge Evans' order of October 16, 2000 is interesting in another way. It purports to grant an Order of Withdrawal to attorneys Gregory A. Adamski, Karen Conti, and the law firm of Adamski & Conti from the Henderson case, as attorneys of record. However, according to an inspection of the court files, Adamski never lawfully served Henderson. The order was issued without due process and is void.  Under Illinois law, Gregory Adamski, Karen Conti, and the law firm of Adamski & Conti are still lawfully the attorneys of record in case no. 94-D-13796. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that SCR's are law, and are binding upon the judge, the attorneys, and the litigants.

On October 16, 2000, attorney Gregory A. Adamski voluntarily dismissed his complaint against Nancy Henderson. In the order of voluntary dismissal, attorney Adamski stated that the court was fully advised in the premises.  Was the court fully advised? If the Laurie court was not fully advised in the premises, then has not attorney Gregory A. Adamski engaged in a fraud upon the Laurie court? Order of voluntary dismissal.

The courts have held that an attorney must, and has no discretion not to, report the possible misconduct of another officer of the court.  Has Judge John Laurie reported the possible misconduct of attorneys Gregory A. Adamski, Karen Conti, and George J. Vournazos to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission? Has each of the above attorneys reported the possible misconduct of the other attorneys to the Illinois Attorney and Disciplinary Commission? CLR understands that failure of any attorney to report the possible misconduct of another attorney is grounds for disciplinary action.

A copy of Ms. Gilbert's affidavit relative to the attorneys Gregory Adamski, Karen Conti, and the law firm of Adamski & Conti can be found at Gilbert's affidavit.

      Return to Home Page

Last updated May 1, 2001