June 24, 1997                                certified mail 
                                             #Z 314 856 234

                                                  

Mr. Joseph Tecson
CHUHAK & TECSON
225 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois  60606

Dear Mr. Tecson:

Thank you for returning our $7,500.00 refundable retainer and our file. It mitigates, at least, some of the financial damage done to us.

The file that you returned is missing an order that J. Laurence Kienlen obtained on June 3, 1997. Please mail the original order to us.

In your June 17, 1997 letter (Exhibit A), you state that Renee said that we fired three of our prior attorneys because they were incompetent or dishonest -- and now we are dissatisfied with your firm. When we hire people and they show us that they are incompetent and/or dishonest, we fire them. That is why we fired your firm on June 13, 1997. You infer that we have done something odd. What do you do in this kind of situation?

We are not talking about firing a bad $5.00 an hour car wash attendant. We are talking about lawyers who charged us more than $200.00 an hour and who had fiduciary duties to us. If we had not followed the course of our litigation and researched the law attendent to our case, we would never have known how incredibly incompetent the work was.

In the short time we were with your firm, Kienlen told Renee that Judge Siracusa's furnace was paid for by an attorney who appears before him; on the record, Kienlen and Alvin Meyers agreed between themselves that we could withdraw our amended complaint and have 30 days to file a second amended complaint; off the record, Kienlen and Meyers agreed that they would not prepare an agreed order although that is what the judge directed; nevertheless, the judge signed the order; and the work on our case was being performed contrary to our agreements. Who would not have been dissatisfied?

The trust we put in our lawyers, and the more than $60,000.00 we paid them, resulted in our lives being made a mess of for over four years, and our being unable to put closure on our father's death. After getting out of Concentration Camp, his entire family murdered, my father spent the rest of his life standing on his feet for fifteen hours a day, seven days a week, working in his deli to accumulate an estate he intended to leave his family. He did not know that the $750.00, his wife paid Ronald Silbert of Young, Hauslinger & Rosen for his will, was only a down payment for legal fees that were to occur on his death and would result in needless suffering for his family. Even a non-lawyer with basic knowledge of probate law, who reads my father's will, can see Silbert's purpose.

Kienlen's proposed strategy attests to the remarkable level of incompetence we consistently encountered. At your firm, Kienlen put his strategy and agreement to perform most of the work, into writing. Later he admitted, in writing, that he never intended to honor our agreements. Disclosing and objecting to this type of conduct does not put our integrity in question. Our experiences reflect on the competence and integrity of the lawyers and the legal profession.

You state that we had Judge Perivolidis removed. Perivolidis' behavior forced us, and others, to file for changes of judge. He repeatedly ridiculed Renee in open court; allowed an attorney, without standing, to threaten and harass Renee during the proceedings; he heard a matter which he knew, or should have known, he had no jurisdiction over. He behaved outrageously and caused himself to be removed.

In your letter, you state that we criticized and were dissatisfied with Judge Siracusa. Do you believe it is wrong to be dissatisfied with judicial impropriety and a disregard for judicial duties, the law and justice? Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and trial, should we not expect or demand it? Should we just allow ourselves to be part of the long line of victims of Cook County judges? Anyone who doesn't complain is irresponsible.

You say that we repeatedly expressed a desire to have Siracusa removed from our case. Your statement is incorrect. We assume you are relying on Kienlen's version of the story and Kienlen has proven that he cannot be trusted. We first expressed getting a change of judge, shortly after Kienlen and Meyers failed to prepare an agreed order as the judge directed. Next, on June 4th, 1997, in Renee's letter to you.

You say Renee misinterpreted what members of your firm said and about the nature of the work done. Renee encountered no difficulty understanding what Kienlen or Bernau said or the nature of the work done. Kienlen recognized that the firms representing Margaret Kalish have per se conflicts of interest, yet he advised us to let them continue litigating, and advised us not to ask the court to appoint a special administer. Bernau made it obvious that she was unfamiliar with the case law for our situations. From the beginning, Kienlen understood the reason why we did not want Bernau working on our case. Kienlen said anything necessary to get us to sign on with him. He admitted, in writing, that he never intended to honor his agreements. All of the problems we encountered at your firm resulted from Kienlen's fraudulent behavior.

If you do not take internal measures against Kienlen for his fraudulent and predatory practices, he will continue to do so. His behavior detracts from your firm's reputation.

Thank you for your good wishes.  


Very truly yours,



Michael Kalish           Renee Kalish

cc: b.c.            

Copyright© 1997 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
		    All rights reserved.