An attorney accused of charging unreasonable fees arising out of a client’s property sale should have her case dismissed, an attorney-discipline panel has urged.

The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission Review Board suggested the action Tuesday for 56-year-old Barbara J. Revak, owner of the Law Office of Barbara Revak.

The panel’s recommendation reverses the Hearing Board’s finding that Revak should be suspended for four months and until she repays the money her former firm obtained from a real estate sale the board found it shouldn’t have used to calculate her client’s fees.

Revak, who has not previously been publicly disciplined, represented herself in the review process.

She could not be reached for comment.

In 2005, plaintiff Alzine Davis hired the law firm Cook & Revak to represent her in a suit against a real estate company in which she owned one-third interest. Revak worked at the firm with Rufus L. Cook until 2014, when he was disbarred for unrelated misconduct (M.R. 26581).

Davis, who served as the company’s treasurer but had no check-signing authority or other duties in connection with the position, believed her other shareholders were using corporate funds for their own interests and failing to pay her share of the profits upon selling the business’ corporate assets.

Her fee agreement with Cook & Revak provided that she would pay a third of the percentage of the “gross amount of any sum of money or other consideration received, recovered or obtained” on her behalf, and payment for any potential appellate work would have to come by way of a separate agreement.

The law firm filed a lawsuit against the real estate company in March 2005, and Revak participated in its litigation and trial. A judge ruled in Davis’ favor and awarded her damages in May 2007.

One of the company’s properties was for sale at that time, and the judge encouraged but did not order its sale. The property eventually sold for $2,370,000 in 2008 while Davis’ case was pending on appeal.

A few days later, Davis and Cook revised their fee agreement to indicate she would owe the firm 40 percent of her recovery to account for the appellate work. That same day, she issued a check to the firm for 40 percent of her proceeds from the property sale.

That July, Davis’ case reached a settlement, the terms under which her judgment was reduced. Davis paid the firm 40 percent of that recovery.

But between August 2008 and August 2010, Cook contacted Davis several times regarding fees he said she owed from the sale of another property.

Davis then complained to the ARDC, thinking her fee agreement only covered the damages recovery and not the property sale proceeds. The ARDC administrator eventually charged Revak with violating several rules of professional conduct arising out of the nature and amount of the fees her firm collected from Davis.

In August, the hearing board found that Revak had charged unreasonable fees and suggested her suspension plus restitution. It found that Davis’ fee agreement applied to a final judgment or settlement of her claim, and the property sale proceeds didn’t satisfy those terms.

Revak filed exceptions on the matter, arguing that Davis wouldn’t have received the proceeds but for her firm’s legal representation. She also contended Davis’ agreement provided that she would owe fees for both money or properties owed to her as a company shareholder and any damages she received for corporate fund mismanagement.

The review board agreed with Revak’s interpretation of the agreement.

“Based upon the use of ‘and,’ the contract’s terms expressly include both damages and other monies or properties as elements of recovery that [r]espondent’s firm was hired to pursue,” the panel wrote.

The board also noted that the only assets Davis’ company had were in the form of real estate, so “the essence of what Ms. Davis believed she was being cheated out of related to [those] properties and the income they were supposed to generate for the corporation and, thus, for her.”

Davis also wouldn’t have seen any proceeds from the real estate sales if it wasn’t for the firm’s legal representation, the board found, “because until she succeeded in her litigation against her co-shareholders, Ms. Davis was utterly deprived of any rights or interest she had in the corporate properties.”

The administrator contended that the property sold during Davis’ appeal was held in the corporation’s land trust until it was sold and her co-shareholders never divested her of her interest — which would make her share non-recoverable.

But the board disagreed. It found the record was clear that Davis was “virtually deprived of all of her rights as a corporate shareholder,” noting that only one co-shareholder could decide which one could act on behalf of the corporation despite all three signing the trust agreement.

And that, the panel found, could and did lead to Davis’ colleagues selling and mortgaging properties without her consent or knowledge.

“We also note that the co-shareholders took no action to sell [the properties] until Cook Revak sued them and, in fact, not until judgment was entered against them in the case,” the panel wrote.

“We thus find it impossible to separate [r]espondent’s successful representation of Ms. Davis from the final result of her representation — all of Ms. Davis’ rights as a shareholder were restored to her, including her right to her share of the proceeds from the sale of corporate properties, to which she had been deprived prior to the lawsuit.”

ARDC hearing boards act as the trial court in the attorney disciplinary process, while the review board functions as an appellate tribunal. The Illinois Supreme Court has the final say in most disciplinary cases.

Richard A. Green chaired Revak’s review board panel, which also included R. Michael Henderson and Charles E. Pinkston.

Both sides have until May 24 to file a petition before the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to file exceptions on the matter, In re Barbara Jean Revak, 12PR165.

Deputy Administrator James J. Grogan said the administrator intends to take such action.