Tillery, Katz, Sprong want $800k judgment restored; File cross appeal against Carr
CHICAGO – Stephen Tillery, Steven Katz and Douglas Sprong ask U.S. Seventh Circuit appeals judges to restore $804,742.48 that District Judge David Herndon of East St. Louis subtracted from sanctions against their former partner Rex Carr.
They filed notice of cross appeal in October against Carr, who appealed a $635,171.23 sanction that remained after Herndon's subtraction.
They filed a day late but Herndon extended the deadline on Nov. 8, after Carr passed up a chance to object.
Herndon separately denied Carr's motion to set a payment schedule.
He wrote that the motion "involves issues that will be under consideration during the appeal, such as the validity and the amount of the monetary penalty imposed on Carr."
Carr, who estimates his life expectancy at six years, claimed he needed more than 10 years to pay the sanction.
He led the firm of Carr Korein Tillery, which broke up in 2003.
He and lawyers at the new Korein Tillery agreed on terms for
dividing future fees in pending cases, but disputes arose.
Carr filed a series of suits in different courts.
In one, Herndon ruled that he lacked jurisdiction but denied sanctions.
On appeal, Seventh Circuit judges ordered him to impose sanctions.
"The plaintiff is out of control and his lawyers are neglecting their duties as officers of the state and federal courts by failing to rein him in," Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote.
Tillery, Katz and Sprong requested reimbursement of $1,439,913.71 in legal fees.
Herndon disallowed most of it before entering judgment in May.
Carr moved to reduce the judgment, pleading financial ruin and old age, and Herndon denied the motion.
Carr moved to adopt a payment plan at $25,000 down and $5,000 a month.
Herndon denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction pending appeal, but he strayed from the procedural point to share a premonition.
He wrote that he "has no authority to compel Tillery, Katz and Sprong to accept a particular mode of execution of their judgment over their objections."
"Carr's proposed payment plan does not provide for full satisfaction of the judgment within Carr's remaining life expectancy of approximately six years," Herndon wrote.
"In this connection it seems to the court to be worth noting that, although Carr has elected to appeal from the court's judgment of sanctions, to date he has made no attempt to give any security for the amount of the judgment during the pendency of his appeal, as is normally done to protect the interests of a judgment creditor during an appeal from a judgment."