Sometimes you are lucky just because you live in a certain place. In this case it is people in the Chicago area. They can avoid using the services of (the link is down, probably due to traffic):
Jay R. Grodner
Law Offices of Jay R. Grodner
625 Deerfield Road –Suite 406
Deerfield, IL 60015
Phone: (847) 444-1500
Fax: (847) 444-0663
30 N. LaSalle St. – Suite 1210
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 236-1142
Fax: (312) 236-6036
I have 30 years experience in handling paternity cases in Illinois in Public & Private Practice starting as a prosecutor prior to the admissibility of parental blood testing.
H/T Flopping Aces
Update: 8:29 AM
Mr. Grodner also appears to be “lead attorney in the Automobile Dealership Representation. Jay has over twenty-five years experience representing motor vehicle dealerships …” (This link also is not working presently.)
Perhaps these clients should be made keenly aware of Mr. Grodner’s proclivities. We just need to find out who they are. Since Mr. Grodner’s site is down, the only thing I find so far is a reference to The Cobalt Group, who have supplied an image Mr. Grodner uses on his site. They may have no other connection, of course.
Update: 12:06 PM
Mr. Grodner was censured by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, an agency of the Illinois Supreme Court, in 1983 for forging voter signatures. Here is a comment by Justice Simon, who thought the punishment should have been more severe:
SIMON, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The majority acknowledges that the conduct of the respondents was flagrant, and since it involved acts of forgery, their conduct constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. I concur in those observations. I dissent, however, because I do not believe the sanctions imposed were sufficient in view of the serious nature of the misconduct. Tampering by members of the bar with any aspect of our voting process deserves neither leniency nor indulgence.
The respondents’ conduct was planned and designed to mislead the officials in charge of voting procedures. They knowingly submitted fictitious names with the purpose of having them accepted by election officials as valid signatures of registered voters. The issue here is not, as the respondents would have us believe, whether the tax referendum in connection with which the fictitious names were submitted was important. Neither is it whether any one was hurt by their mischief, as the respondents contend should be asked. Rather the issue is whether the respondents intended to and did subvert the voting process, and whether they intended to and did mislead election officials into believing that signatures the respondents knew were fictitious were genuine.
…With respect to Mr. Grodner, I disagree with the majority that the fact that he had been admitted to practice for only three months when the roundtabling took place should serve as a mitigating factor. It must be apparent to all who examine this situation that one does not require a legal education or admission to the bar to know that what the respondents were doing was improper. The majority points out also in mitigation that Grodner was complying with the request of his superiors, but I am under the impression that the defense that “I was only following orders” was discredited both at the Nuremberg and the Watergate trials. I do not think it is asking too much of licensed attorneys to exhibit the good judgment to say “No” when they are importuned to engage in dishonest pursuits. Instead, Grodner and his co-respondents appeared to treat the activity in which they engaged as a joke. Grodner, too, occupied public office, and even if only for a short time, it was long enough to know that as a prosecutor he was expected to uphold the law, not violate it. The sanction of censure recommended for him by the Administrator is inappropriate, for it overlooks the obligation he undertook when he assumed the prosecutor’s office. I believe the Review Board’s recommendation that he be suspended for six months was a proper disposition.
It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Grodner did not benefit from his censure. He still believes he is above the law.
H/T (from his comment at BLACKFIVE) michaelinmi at AmeriCAN-DO Attitude