McCarthy v. Taylor, 155 N.E.3d 359

Gerald McCarthy (plaintiff), a licensed attorney proceeding pro se, sued Marvin Gray (defendant), Reynolds’s attorney, alleging tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty relating to amendments to a living trust.
McCarthy previously lost related litigation contesting a handwritten amendment to the trust; that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
In the 2014 action McCarthy filed a five-count complaint; the circuit court dismissed the tortious interference claim under res judicata and dismissed the fiduciary-duty claim for failure to state a claim; McCarthy amended but the amended fiduciary claim was again dismissed.
Gray moved for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137; the circuit court found the tortious-interference claim frivolous and awarded Rule 137 sanctions, including attorney fees, to Gray (who was representing himself).
The appellate court affirmed dismissal and the Rule 137 violation but vacated the fee award, holding a pro se attorney cannot recover attorney fees under Rule 137; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
The Illinois Supreme Court held Rule 137 authorizes awarding attorney fees as sanctions to a pro se attorney who defends against frivolous claims, reversed the appellate court on that point, and remanded to determine the proper fee amount; the remainder of the appellate judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether Rule 137 allows awarding attorney fees to a pro se attorney defending a frivolous claim	McCarthy argued sanctions and fee award were improper (contested merits and procedural bases)	Gray argued Rule 137 permits sanctions including reasonable attorney fees to compensate a pro se attorney for time defending against frivolous litigation	Court: Rule 137(a) authorizes attorney-fee sanctions in favor of a pro se attorney defending frivolous claims; reversed appellate court on this point and remanded to calculate fees
2. Whether the tortious-interference claim was properly dismissed	McCarthy contested dismissal (argued merits/that relitigation was not barred)	Gray argued claim was barred by res judicata and was frivolous	Court: Affirmed dismissal under res judicata and that the tortious-interference pleading was frivolous for Rule 137 purposes

Hamer v. Lentz, 132 Ill. 2d 49 (1989) (held a pro se attorney could not recover attorney fees under FOIA fee-shifting provision; relied on in fee-shifting context)
State ex rel. Schad, Diamond & Shedden, P.C. v. My Pillow, Inc., 2018 IL 122487 (2018) (reiterated that pro se attorneys do not incur compensable attorney fees under statutory fee-shifting provisions)
Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (federal precedent denying fee awards to pro se attorneys under fee-shifting statutes)
Sundance Homes, Inc. v. County of Du Page, 195 Ill. 2d 257 (2001) (describes Rule 137’s purpose to curb frivolous pleadings)
In re Estate of Wernick, 127 Ill. 2d 61 (1989) (predecessor authority on penalizing frivolous pleadings)
Willard v. Bassett, 27 Ill. 37 (1861) (longstanding principle that an attorney cannot charge himself attorney fees for representing himself)