Jim Dey | No expert needed to determine if this lawyer is in a jam

Cook County resident Iavor Stoyanov got what he thought was a hot stock tip on a bank from his lawyer.

So he gave Al-Haroon Husain — and Husain’s Park Ridge law firm — $400,000 to buy shares in the Credit Union Mortgage Utility Banc Inc.

No shares were forthcoming, and the would-be investor began to smell a rat.

Ultimately, he sued Husain and his law firm for “professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and spoiliation of evidence.”

Husain not only denied the charges, but claimed his denials were backed up by three experts who he said had reviewed the transaction and concluded Husain had done nothing wrong.

So imagine the trial judge’s surprise — and consternation — when he learned there were no experts and that Husain and his law firm had repeatedly “fabricated their expert witness disclosures.”

Yeah, that’s right. They made them up, the judge concluded, “from whole cloth.”

Judge don’t like it when the lawyers who appear before them tell whoppers.

In this case, Judge Patrick Sherlock concluded the misconduct required Husain’s “default” on the lawsuit filed against him. Sherlock awarded Stoyanov $400,000 in damages, $160,000-plus in prejudgment interest and nearly $24,000 in legal fees to be paid by Husain.

Not content with one “bench-slapping,” Husain appealed the ruling against him to the First District Appellate Court in Cook County.

Last week, a unanimous three-judge panel delivered another beat-down, finding that “Husain made up the disclosure three times” and affirmed the trial judge’s default rulings and damages.

Based on the appellate court’s review of the facts, it’s no surprise the trial judge ruled as he did and that the appellate court affirmed the trial judge.

What’s striking is how Husain sought to persuade the appellate court that he had done nothing wrong.

Lawyers, of course, are famous for their skill in coming up with benign explanations for obvious misbehavior. That’s their stock and trade.

So Husain was only doing what comes naturally when he tried to explain himself.

Although the trial judge charged Husain was guilty of an “abuse of the discovery process” by “fabricating evidence to support his case,” Husain conceded only an “error in presentation” that did “not rise to the level of sanctionability.”

In other words, he sought to minimize his conduct. But he not only erred in his presentation but signed his name to the court filings.

That means something in the courts, specifically that “to the best of (Husain’s) knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry (the document) is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.”

Husain’s alleged three experts begged to differ.

The first said “she had never been contacted” by Husain. The second said she had “spoken with” Husain but said she had never reviewed any of the relevant documents that would have allowed her to reach an opinion.

The third said he had reviewed relevant documents but never reached any conclusions about them.

That, essentially, cooked Husain’s goose before the trial and appellate judges. He also can expect to hear from the state’s lawyer’s Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.

The ARDC already is familiar with Husain. The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports he was “disbarred” from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Illinois’ Northern District for “altering documents and reusing client signatures.” He also was suspended from practicing law for one year in June 2020 “for making false statements.”