Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck: The Orphan Who Fought on Iwo Jima and Then Rewrote the Tax Math of Divorce

Attorney advertising. This profile was not paid for, commissioned, or reviewed by the firm before publication. Awesome Attorneys is not a lawyer referral service and does not endorse, recommend, or warrant any firm. Results described below are attributed to their published source; past results do not guarantee or predict the outcome of any future case. Nothing here is legal advice.

At a Glance

Firm	Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck LLP (the firm brands itself “SDF Law”; its own footer uses the comma, its body copy does not)
Founded	1981, by Donald Schiller and Joseph N. DuCanto — confirmed by the Illinois State Bar Association’s memorial to DuCanto. Charles Fleck came later, from the bench.
Offices	321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60654 (Chicago office, city proper). Also Lake Forest and Wheaton — both suburban and outside this profile’s scope.
Focus	Family law only: property division, maintenance, premarital and postnuptial agreements, parentage, child support, collaborative divorce, tax and financial planning in divorce, appeals
Size	36 practicing attorneys (37 counting general counsel), plus three non-attorney executives. Independently corroborated by Martindale’s count.
Distinctive edge	A partner who is a CPA and former U.S. Treasury senior trial attorney, and a partner who clerked fifteen years for two Illinois Supreme Court justices — both verifiable, both unusual
Signature result	The firm advertises none. See Section IV — that is deliberate, and it is to the firm’s credit.
Peer standing	Chambers High Net Worth 2026: Band 1, Illinois Family/Matrimonial, with four individually ranked lawyers. Verified at Chambers, on an unpaid profile.
Fee model	Not published (per the firm’s site)
Disciplinary record	No discipline located. The ARDC’s primary database could not be queried — see Section VIII. This is not a clearance.

I. An Orphanage Near Utica, Iwo Jima at Seventeen, and a Tax Chart

Joseph N. DuCanto spent his early childhood in an orphanage and foster homes near Utica, New York, enlisted in the Marine Corps at sixteen, and was assigned as a replacement to the Third Marine Division — H&S Company, 3rd Pioneer Battalion, attached to the 21st Marines — through the battle of Iwo Jima. He served twenty-eight consecutive months overseas, finishing with the First Marine Combat Engineers in North China, and was discharged in September 1946. He was five feet four inches tall, and according to the Chicago Sun-Times obituary his family cited, he joked that it made him a smaller target. He then took a degree from Antioch College and went to the University of Chicago Law School on a full scholarship. The Marine Corps later gave him its Commandant’s Award; the Illinois State Bar Association’s citation records that he was the first non-commissioned officer to receive it.

That is the origin of one half of this firm’s name, and it is verified twice over — in a suburban newspaper’s February 2013 obituary and in the ISBA’s own 2003 Laureate citation, two sources that had no reason to coordinate.

None of it appears anywhere on the firm’s website. We probed for a history page at five plausible addresses; all five returned 404. The “Our Firm” page names no founder and tells no founding story. The single sentence of origin content on the entire site is on the homepage: “Our firm was founded in 1981 with the premise that there’s a better way to practice family law.” The firm that has the best origin story in Chicago matrimonial law is the one that does not tell it. The history survives only in a dead man’s bio page and in obituaries written by other people.

What DuCanto did after the Marines is the part that actually built the practice. The ISBA’s Laureate citation puts it plainly: he recognized in the 1950s that a properly structured marital settlement carried tax advantages nobody was capturing, and he introduced the application of tax law to matrimonial practice. He published rather than hoarded it — annual Federal Income Tax Charts going back to 1977, which the ISBA says are still used by lawyers, judges, accountants and financial planners, and a body of articles and lectures aimed at making courts around the country understand the tax consequences of their own support orders. The ISBA further credits him as instrumental in the 1984 federal legislation that rewrote the tax treatment of divorce. That last is the ISBA’s characterization of causation, not something we could verify independently — the underlying statutory change is real; his singular role in producing it is a claim.

Donald Schiller, the other founder, was president of the Illinois State Bar Association in 1987–88 and founding president of ISBA Mutual Insurance Company. He died in 2024. The firm lists him as “In Memoriam: Donald Schiller (1942–2024),” Chair Emeritus — correctly labeled, with dates, which is better practice than this metro’s norm and worth saying so.

II. The Mechanism: The Accountant Is a Partner, Not a Line Item

The claim a large matrimonial firm usually makes is depth. The version of it here is specific enough to check.

Claire R. McKenzie is a senior partner and a Certified Public Accountant. Her bio records that she was a tax manager at one of the largest international accounting firms and a senior trial attorney for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, representing the Internal Revenue Service, before she practiced family law. She is admitted to the U.S. Tax Court. Her own page states the operational consequence directly: with her valuation, unreported-income and forensic accounting work held inside the partnership, “clients can reduce the time and costs of hiring outside experts.” In a practice where the fight is usually over what a closely held business is worth and what income is actually being reported, that is a structural difference rather than an adjective — the forensic accounting is done by a partner in the case rather than bought in on top of it.

Michele M. Jochner served fifteen years as a judicial law clerk to two justices of the Illinois Supreme Court — the late Hon. Mary Ann G. McMorrow and the late Hon. Charles E. Freeman — and is admitted to the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. Most claimed appellate capability cannot be checked. This one can: she is named counsel of record in the firm’s Illinois Supreme Court appearance discussed in Section IV. The capability is real and the court record proves it.

The firm also runs a law clerk program and commits associates to at least forty pro bono hours a year. Both are firm-stated; neither is quantified anywhere, and the clerk program’s cohort size and conversion rate are not published.

One mechanism claim we could not substantiate. We looked specifically for named, published treatises with a title and publisher attached to an SDF lawyer, and found none. Four attorneys appear in the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s 2025 contributors directory — as program speakers and a podcast guest, not as chapter authors. DuCanto wrote a monthly column in Chicago Lawyer from 2000 to 2008 that the ISBA says was later collected in book form, but the source names neither title nor publisher and we could not find them. If you are choosing this firm on the strength of published scholarship, ask for citations.

III. Practice Areas

Property division. Maintenance and alimony. Premarital and postnuptial agreements. Parentage and paternity. Child support. Collaborative divorce. Tax and financial planning in the context of divorce. Domestic violence and orders of protection. Sports and entertainment family law. Trial court litigation. Appeals.

Every practice-area page on the site is a family law page. Exclusivity is verified, not asserted.

IV. Track Record — Including the Half of It That Went Against the Client

Past results do not guarantee or predict the outcome of any future case.

The firm advertises no case results at all. We probed six plausible URLs for a results, verdicts or settlements page; every one returned 404, and the sitemap contains none. There are no dollar figures anywhere on the site. In a project that has spent a month finding Chicago firms advertising verdicts that were later reversed, remitted or never paid, a matrimonial firm that publishes no numbers has removed the entire category of problem. It is also the defensible choice in a practice built on client confidentiality. Credit where it is due.

The appellate record, which is checkable, is a genuine one. In In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, filed March 23, 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court’s counsel block reads: “Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP, of Chicago (Michele M. Jochner, Tanya J. Stanish, and Karen M. Schetz, of counsel), for appellee.” Opposing counsel were Leon I. Finkel, Peter Sullivan and Myra A. Foutris of Berger Schatz — a firm also profiled on this site, and one of the only two others in Chambers’ Band 1 for Illinois matrimonial work. The two best-credentialed matrimonial firms in Illinois argued against each other in the state’s highest court, and the opinion is public.

The outcome was mixed, and this profile is not going to round it up. The disposition reads: “Appellate court judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part. Circuit court judgment affirmed. Cause remanded.” Broken out:

• SDF’s client won the maintenance question. The court held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in reducing permanent maintenance from $35,000 a month to $27,500 a month.
• SDF’s client lost the fee question on further review. The appellate court had reversed the fee awards in his favor; the Supreme Court reversed that and reinstated them, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ordering him to pay $160,000 toward the other side’s attorney’s fees. A win his side held at the appellate level was taken back.

The published holding itself is the durable part: the court harmonized the Schneider “inability to pay” standard with section 508 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, finding that the two “complement, rather than contradict, each other.” That is a precedent Illinois family lawyers now argue from, and this firm was in it.

The firm has also been a defendant, and the way it won matters. In Ammar v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, LLP, a former client filed a pro se legal malpractice complaint in Cook County (No. 14 L 272) against the firm and Charles J. Fleck over their representation of him in a dissolution proceeding. The First District affirmed dismissal with prejudice in 2017 IL App (1st) 161456-U, and the firm’s name appears in the caption of the later published opinion at 2017 IL App (1st) 162931. The ground of dismissal as to this firm was the two-year statute of limitations, not the merits. The court’s own conclusion says the claim “was barred by the statute of limitations.” The firm was not cleared of malpractice; the claim was never reached. We state it that way because the record says it that way. There was no sanction, no fee disgorgement and no adverse judgment.

A disclaimer exists — which in this metro is itself notable. The firm’s Terms of Use, section 1.6, carries the sentence “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome,” alongside no-legal-advice and no-attorney-client-relationship language. Nearly every Chicago firm we have examined this month has none at all. The qualification: it is buried in Terms of Use behind a footer link rather than placed anywhere near marketing copy, and the page opens with the line “LAST UPDATED: [APRIL 23, 2024]” — square brackets intact, a drafting placeholder left in a binding terms document.

V. Client Voice — What There Is, Which Is Almost Nothing

This is a thirty-six-attorney firm, Band 1 in Chambers, more than four decades old. Its public client-voice record is close to empty, and that is the finding.

The site has no reviews or testimonials page; all three plausible URLs 404. Attorney bios carry a “Client Reviews” tab that renders no content. The one client-voice asset the firm publishes is a PDF linked from Donald Schiller’s bio, titled Don Schiller Reviews 2023. We downloaded it. It is one page containing exactly one testimonial, signed “-Melinda G.”:

“I am grateful for the honest, reliable and savvy expertise I could count on from Don Schiller and his firm. Don will tell you the truth and what to expect, even if it isn’t what you want to hear. … My only regrets from a painful time in my life are when I didn’t listen well enough.”

It is self-hosted, curated, initials-only and unverifiable, and a file named for a year that contains a single review is worth describing precisely rather than quoting as though it were a corpus. Off the firm’s own property: a senior partner’s Avvo profile carries one client review, posted in March 2016; a name partner’s carries none; Yelp shows twelve reviews for the Chicago office, but blocks automated access, so we obtained the count and no rating — and we make no claim about what those twelve say. No Google Business Profile rating surfaced at all.

Employee-side, Glassdoor shows 3.2 out of 5 across five reviews with 79% recommending, and Indeed 3.7 across seven. Those are small samples and we report them as such. One 2020 Indeed review by a self-identified former attorney is titled “Dishonest Attorneys” and alleges billing practices directed from above. We are not treating that as evidence of anything. We could not retrieve its verbatim text, it is anonymous and six years old, and it corresponds to no disciplinary finding, no sanction and no lawsuit we could locate. It is recorded here because suppressing it would be the same editorial failure as repeating it as fact.

VI. Beyond the Courtroom

The Schiller DuCanto & Fleck Family Law Center at DePaul University College of Law exists, and DePaul says so on its own domain — a center homepage, an about page, a news feed and an annual Family Law Symposium, with DePaul’s own text stating the center has operated more than two decades and “helped train DePaul Law students, connect them with the family law community in Chicago and beyond, and support meaningful reform in the field.” A named law school center is the rare firm credential that cannot be manufactured. What DePaul does not publish anywhere is the founding date, the donor, the gift, or any description of the relationship between the center and the firm. The naming is confirmed; the terms are not.

The firm attaches a superlative to it that we could not verify: that the center is “the largest center in the nation at an accredited law school” focused on family law teaching and research. DePaul’s own pages make no such claim, and we found no source for it.

DuCanto’s individual record is the best-documented and comes from outside the firm: supporter of the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, founder with his wife of a scholarship in memory of Justice Michael Bilandic for children of servicemen, founding member of the Chicago Police Memorial Foundation, boards of the Chicago Crime Commission and the Special Agents Association. He also taught family law as an adjunct at Loyola University Chicago for twenty-six years.

The firm lists pro bono work with eight legal aid organizations and four awards for it. None of the awards is dated and we confirmed none at the conferring organization. One partner’s “Community Involvement” section consists of five speaking engagements, every one of them from 1996.

VII. Credentials and Recognition

Independently verified at the conferring body. Chambers High Net Worth 2026 ranks the firm’s Illinois Family/Matrimonial department Band 1 — one of only three firms in that band in the state — with four individually ranked lawyers: Jason Sposeep (Band 1), Karen Pinkert-Lieb (Band 1), Meighan Harmon (Band 1) and Andrea Muchin (Band 2). We read this at Chambers, not from the firm. Worth noting: Chambers’ page carries its own unfulfilled “activate your profile” prompt, meaning the ranking is research-driven and the firm has not paid to enhance it.

Joseph DuCanto was a past national president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, confirmed in his obituary, and a 2003 ISBA Laureate — verified on the ISBA’s own site. Meighan Harmon states she was elected president of AAML’s Illinois chapter for 2011–2012, written in the past tense with dates, which is the correct way to make such a claim. Donald Schiller received the AAML Illinois chapter’s Judge Samuel Berger Award in 2011.

Claimed but not verified at the source. Best Lawyers and Best Law Firms recognitions are extensive on this site and we could not confirm any of them: the firm’s page slugs at bestlawyers.com returned 404 and the Best Law Firms co-brand returned 403. AAML fellowships for current attorneys are firm-stated only — both the national and Illinois AAML sites were unreachable. Treat all of these as the firm’s assertions.

Pay-to-play, kept separate. The firm leans heavily on Super Lawyers, Leading Lawyers Network, the National Trial Lawyers “Top 100” and “Who’s Who” listings. These are commercial programs whose revenue comes from the people they list. They are not peer review, and this profile does not treat them as such.

One claim is contradicted by the conferring body’s own roster. A partner’s bio states, in an undated paragraph written in the present tense about her current activities, that “the Illinois Supreme Court appointed Michele to serve as the Chair of its Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board.” The MCLE Board’s published roster lists the current chair as Hon. Vincent F. Cornelius, and lists Michele M. Jochner under former members: “Board service 2013-2024 — Board chair 2019-2021.” She chaired the board, and it was a real distinction; she stopped chairing it five years ago and left the board entirely in 2024. The bio’s undated present tense reads as current office and is not. Her other bar claims are correctly past-tensed.

And one number does not survive its own press release. The homepage and firm page headline “32 attorneys recognized among Best Lawyers in America 2027.” The press release body breaks it down as 26 in The Best Lawyers in America and 6 in Ones to Watch — a separate, explicitly junior list. The body is accurate; the headline that most readers will see is not.

VIII. What We Checked, and What We Could Not

No evidence of discipline was found in secondary sources. This is not a clearance, and we will not present it as one. The ARDC’s lawyer-search form accepts a properly constructed request — we harvested its anti-forgery token, held the session cookie and posted correctly, and the server returned a results page echoing our criteria back. It then reported no results. We ran the identical request for the surnames Smith and Johnson as a control. Both returned zero. A database that cannot find an Illinois lawyer named Smith is not returning trustworthy negatives, so no attorney at this firm has been checked against the primary register. Avvo’s mirror of state bar data reports “no misconduct found” for two of roughly thirty-six attorneys. That is not a firm-wide result. A targeted search for disciplinary news, sanctions and malpractice actions returned nothing beyond the Ammar case in Section IV.

All three name partners are gone, and only one of them is identified as such. Donald Schiller died in 2024 and is properly marked In Memoriam. Joseph DuCanto died in 2013 and does not appear on the team page at all. Charles J. Fleck is not on the roster; Avvo lists him as retired after fifty-eight years at the Illinois bar. Nothing improper about any of that — but a reader looking at a masthead of three surnames should know that none of the three practices there.

The accolades page is a time capsule. Most of its content is from 2017–2018, and it names at least twenty attorneys who have since left, including Fleck himself and one of the three lawyers on the firm’s Supreme Court brief. A prospective client browsing “Accolades” is largely reading about a firm that no longer exists.

The most substantively awkward defect is on a practice page, not a marketing page. The appeals page repeatedly uses “child custody judgment” and “visitation.” Illinois abolished both terms effective January 1, 2016, replacing them with “allocation of parental responsibilities” and “parenting time.” A firm that practices nothing but Illinois family law is publishing vocabulary its own governing statute retired more than a decade ago.

Smaller things, recorded because they are the texture of the same problem: the homepage renders the literal string “Add a button link here”; the accolades page gives the firm’s own name partner the wrong middle initial (“Charles R. Fleck” against Charles J. Fleck everywhere else, including two published opinions); a deceased founder’s credentials still read “Lecturer at Law, The Law School University of Chicago, 2001-present”; one bio lists membership in the “Illinois Bar Association,” an entity that does not exist; and a press release URL says 27 attorneys while its headline says 28.

Identity notes. One third-party profile of this firm reports forty-six lawyers; our count, corroborated by Martindale, is thirty-six practicing attorneys. Do not use the higher figure. The firm runs a second live property at a news subdomain carrying the same press releases as the main site.

IX. The Illinois Legal Backdrop, in Plain English

General information, not legal advice. Statutes below were verified as described in Methodology; outcomes turn on facts a lawyer has to look at.

Illinois does not recognize legal specialists. Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 7.4(b) states that “The Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law, nor does it recognize certifications of expertise in any phase of the practice of law by any agency, governmental or private, or by any group, organization or association.” Rule 7.4(c) bars a lawyer from stating or implying that they are “certified,” a “specialist” or an “expert” except to identify an actual certificate or award, and then only with a disclaimer that the Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize specialty certification and that it is not required to practice law in Illinois. Registered patent attorneys are the only carve-out. There is no Illinois board certification in family law — the state has no specialization program at all. One clarification, because this profile names an accounting credential in Section II: a Certified Public Accountant licence is an accountancy qualification, not a legal specialty certification, and Illinois recognises no legal specialty certification for any lawyer at this or any firm. No lawyer is described as a specialist, or as certified or expert in any field of law, anywhere in this profile, and a firm’s genuine forensic-accounting or appellate depth is a fact about what it does, not a credential Illinois permits anyone to claim.

There is one ground for divorce, and fault is not it. Under 750 ILCS 5/401, irreconcilable differences is the sole ground for dissolution in Illinois; the fault grounds were abolished by Public Act 99-90, effective January 1, 2016. Living separate and apart for six months creates a presumption that the requirement is met. One spouse must have lived in Illinois for ninety days before the case is filed.

Illinois divides marital property equitably, not equally. Under 750 ILCS 5/503, the court divides marital property in “just proportions” using statutory factors; Illinois is not a community property state, and there is no presumption of a 50/50 split. Non-marital property — generally gifts, inheritances and property owned before the marriage or excluded by valid agreement — is assigned to the spouse who owns it. Most of the real fighting in a substantial case is about which column an asset belongs in.

Maintenance runs on a formula, up to a ceiling. Under 750 ILCS 5/504, where the parties’ combined gross income is under $500,000 and the court decides maintenance is appropriate, the guideline amount is 33⅓% of the payor’s net annual income minus 25% of the payee’s, capped so the payee’s total does not exceed 40% of combined net income, with duration set by a multiplier keyed to the length of the marriage. The current net-income formula came in with Public Act 100-923, effective January 1, 2019, after the federal tax change that ended the maintenance deduction. Above that income ceiling, the guidelines do not apply and the court works from the statutory factors — which is exactly the territory this firm practices in.

Child support is an income-shares calculation. Public Act 99-764, effective July 1, 2017, replaced the old flat percentage-of-the-payer’s-income model with income shares, which starts from both parents’ incomes and the number of overnights.

“Custody” is not a word Illinois law uses anymore. Since January 1, 2016, 750 ILCS 5/602.5 governs the allocation of significant decision-making responsibilities and 5/602.7 governs parenting time. If a document, a website or a lawyer is still talking about custody and visitation, the vocabulary is a decade out of date.

Moving with a child has a mileage rule. Under 750 ILCS 5/609.2, relocation means a move of more than 25 miles if the child’s primary residence is in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry or Will County, more than 50 miles elsewhere in Illinois, and more than 25 miles if the move crosses a state line. It requires at least 60 days’ written notice to the other parent and to the court.

Orders of protection. Under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, 750 ILCS 60/, an emergency order can issue without notice and lasts 14 to 21 days; an interim order runs up to 30 days; a plenary order, after a full hearing, runs up to two years and can be renewed.

X. The Awesome Attorneys Assessment

The specific thing this firm has that its competitors do not is the accounting horsepower on the inside. Not “access to financial professionals” — a senior partner who is a CPA and a former Treasury trial attorney, and another partner who spent fifteen years inside the Illinois Supreme Court and is named in its reports. In a high-asset divorce, the money fight and the appeal are the two places the case is actually decided, and both of those capabilities here are held by partners rather than rented. That, plus a verified Chambers Band 1 department with four individually ranked lawyers on a profile the firm has not paid to enhance, is as much independent corroboration as this category produces.

The honest limitation is that the firm is nearly impossible to audit from the outside, and some of what it does publish is wrong. There is no history page, no results, one curated testimonial, an Avvo profile with a single 2016 review, and an accolades page mostly populated by lawyers who left. Its Best Lawyers headline inflates 26 into 32. A partner’s bio implies a current Illinois Supreme Court board chairmanship that ended in 2021. The appeals page still uses statutory terms Illinois abolished in 2016. None of that is about competence — the court record is real and the credentials that we could verify at the source came back clean and strong. It is about a firm that has stopped maintaining the only surface most clients will ever see.

This firm is right for the client whose divorce is fundamentally an accounting problem — a closely held business, disputed income, a valuation fight, or a case likely to be appealed — and who wants that horsepower inside the room rather than billed in alongside it. It is a weaker fit for someone who wants to research a firm thoroughly before signing, because there is very little here to research; and it is the wrong fit for a client who needs a small, low-overhead engagement, which is not what a thirty-six-lawyer Band 1 firm is built to deliver. Ask which partner will actually run the case, ask for the fee structure in writing, and verify any credential that matters to you directly with the body that confers it.

Methodology & Sourcing

Research conducted September 16, 2026. Entity status, addresses, roster, practice areas, accolades, community pages and terms of use were read directly from the firm’s own live pages as raw HTML rather than through a summarizer; the roster count was made by hand and cross-checked against Martindale. The DuCanto biography rests on two independent sources — a February 19, 2013 suburban newspaper obituary, which itself cites a February 14, 2013 Chicago Sun-Times obituary, and the ISBA’s 2003 Laureate Award citation — plus the ISBA’s own February 2013 memorial for service detail. One error in that ISBA memorial is noted rather than repeated: it describes a February 23, 2005 City of Chicago proclamation as marking the 50th anniversary of Iwo Jima; the battle was in 1945, making it the 60th. The 1981 founding and the identity of the founders come from the ISBA memorial and the firm’s own bio page for Donald Schiller. Charles Fleck’s arrival from the bench is reported from two single-source accounts that disagree on his exact judicial title, and the title is therefore not asserted here. In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, was read in full from the Illinois Courts PDF, including its counsel block and disposition. Ammar was read in full from the Illinois Courts Rule 23 order (2017 IL App (1st) 161456-U) and the published opinion at 2017 IL App (1st) 162931; the limitations ground for dismissal is quoted from the court’s own conclusion. Chambers band and individual rankings were read at chambers.com. The MCLE Board finding comes from the Board’s own published roster of current officers and former members. The DePaul center was confirmed on DePaul’s own domain. Best Lawyers, Best Law Firms and current AAML fellowships could not be verified — those sites returned 404, 403 or no content — and are reported as firm claims. Discipline was not verified: the ARDC’s search backend accepted authenticated requests but failed a two-name control test, so no attorney here has been checked against the primary register, and Avvo’s mirror covered only two attorneys. Statutes were verified against the Illinois Courts’ own published text for Rule of Professional Conduct 7.4, and, for the family law provisions, against current compilations carrying the governing Public Act notes — the Illinois General Assembly’s own site was unreachable on the research date for a fifth consecutive day, with a TLS certificate-verification failure, so 750 ILCS 5/401, 5/503, 5/504, 5/505, 5/602.5, 5/602.7, 5/609.2 and 750 ILCS 60/ rest on secondary repositories rather than primary text. Claims we could not verify are marked as unverified rather than softened or omitted.

Publisher Disclosure & Independence Notice

Awesome Attorneys does not endorse, recommend, or warrant any firm profiled on this site. Inclusion is not paid placement, and no firm pays to appear, to be positioned, or to have material removed. “Awesome Attorneys” is a brand name only; it is not a rating, ranking, certification or assessment of any lawyer’s ability. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no attorney-client relationship. Facts are current only as of the research date above, and firm addresses, rosters, credentials and case outcomes change. Verify anything you intend to rely on directly with the firm and with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.