In re Marriage of Newton, 955 N.E.2d 572

Contemnors-appellants Grund, Leavitt, and Grund & Leavitt petition Hadley for attorney fees; the court disqualified them due to a conflict of interest and denied fees, then found them in contempt for not stepping aside.
Disqualification arose from Rule 1.9 because Grund previously represented David in the same divorce proceeding, creating a substantial relationship and presumed confidential information.
Hadley had a retainer/fee petition under 501 and 508 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act; the court ultimately denied fees due to disqualification, and Grund and Leavitt were held in contempt for failing to withdraw.
The circuit court found an attorney-client relationship existed between David and Grund at the initial consultation, which fed the 1.9 conflict analysis and disqualification.
The contract with Hadley was deemed unenforceable under 508(c)(3) because it violated Rule 1.9, and thus no enforceable basis for fees existed.
Grundy and Leavitt appealed the contempt order; the appellate court reviews the contempt and underlying disqualification de novo as questions of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt finding was proper	Grund and Leavitt contend contempt was improper.	David argues contempt was correctly grounded in disobedience to a disqualification.	Contempt upheld; refusal to step aside violated the disqualification order.
Whether the fee denial was proper under 508(c)(3)	Hadley’s attorneys seek fees under §508.	Disqualified attorneys should still recover under §508(a) if contract valid.	Fee contract void ab initio; §508(c)(3) bars enforceability due to Rule 1.9 violation.
Whether Grund and Leavitt have standing to appeal	They seek review of contempt and underlying disqualification/fees.	Contempt appeal appropriate and standing preserved by final contempt order.	Grundy and Leavitt have standing; contempt final and reviewable.
Whether Rule 1.9 barred representation of Hadley	Conflict existed; representation violated Rule 1.9.	No clear rebuttal to conflict; consent not obtained.	Rule 1.9 violation; disqualification upheld; representation void.

In re Marriage of Gutman, 232 Ill. 2d 145 (2008) (contempt judgments final and reviewable)
SK Handtool Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 246 Ill. App. 3d 979 (1993) (contempt review includes underlying disqualification)
In re Estate of French, 166 Ill. 2d 95 (1995) (disqualification orders not immediately appealable)
King v. King, 52 Ill. App. 3d 749 (1977) (attorney may not recover fees after representing conflicting interests)
Nuccio v. Chicago Commodities, Inc., 257 Ill. App. 3d 437 (1993) (attorney-client relationship can arise at initial interview)
In re Estate of Kirk, 292 Ill. App. 3d 914 (1997) (principle that attorneys may not recover fees after representing adverse interests)