A Chicago lawyer whose firm charged clients hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal services despite accomplishing little in their cases has been suspended from practicing law for two months by the Illinois Supreme Court.Jeffery M. Leving, 72, was issued a five-month suspension by the court in September that's to begin on Oct. 11. However, the court further ordered Leving’s suspension stayed after 60 days, with a two-year period of probation to follow.Leving will also have to pay undetermined court costs and successfully complete a “Professionalism Seminar” led by the state’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which regulates lawyers in Illinois. Editor's note Editor’s note:While we were reporting this story, we learned that Jeffery Leving — the subject of this article who is also an advertiser and has contributed op-eds to the Sun-Times — attempted to prevent the Sun-Times from publishing “any negative content” about him, his law office or staff as part of an advertising contract. The newsroom and company leadership were never informed about the arrangement, which would violate our policies. The contract was not authorized and the Sun-Times is returning any money from the ads. – Executive Editor Jennifer Kho Leving has developed a national reputation for his advocacy on behalf of fathers in custody battles through frequent appearances on television and radio. He didn't respond to requests for comment.Leving’s “Dads’ Rights” law firm primarily represents fathers in divorce and child custody matters. The firm promotes itself in frequent advertisements — including in the Sun-Times — billings itself as “The Premier Chicago Family Law Firm." Leving has also contributed op-ed columns to the Sun-Times. It was Leving's radio ads that drew Brian Blaszczyk to hire the firm to represent him in a parentage matter in 2019."Just the fact that he was advertising that he was on fathers' side, father's rights," Blaszczyk told the Sun-Times when reached by phone.Blaszczyk said the initial attorney that he encountered at Leving's firm made it sounds like he had a simple case and that the $4,000 retainer he needed to hire the firm would cover much of his costs.But the bills kept coming — eventually totaling more than $56,000 — and attorneys at the firm told Blaszczyk it was because his case was particularly complex because it spanned multiple states. Blaszczyk said he had no prior experience hiring a lawyer and had no idea what to expect.When an attorney in Missouri reviewed Leving's firm's work, she told Blaszczyk that the fees were definitely not normal and suggested he reach out to the ARDC. Blaszczyk said he felt Leving's suspension was "barely a slap on the wrist."The ARDC found Leving charged excessive legal fees totaling more than $440,000 in eight domestic relations matters between June 2014 and October 2021.“The fees were unreasonable for a variety of reasons, including the results actually obtained by the Firm,” the ARDC wrote in a petition to the state Supreme Court to discipline Leving in July.The ARDC wrote that Leving had provided “partial refunds” to the clients and made changes to his firm’s retention agreement since a complaint was filed by the oversight body last year accusing Leving of violating the state’s rules of professional conduct.In its petition, the ARDC noted that his “conduct was not an isolated incident, taking place over at least seven years and involving eight clients.”In one instance, Leving’s firm charged a father nearly $10,000 to represent him in a child support matter but did little work. The ARDC found “the approximate three months of representation did not warrant the Leving Firm’s retention of the $6,000 it received … or the additional $3,900 it attempted to collect.”In another case, a client ultimately had to represent himself in a divorce proceeding because he lacked funds to hire another attorney after paying Leving’s firm nearly $60,000 in legal fees and owing another $80,000. In the complaint filed against Leving, the ARDC accused his firm of excessively charging clients for the services of several attorneys, including at an initial meeting, which quickly consumed clients’ retainers. Each client was required to attend a meeting that included an intake attorney who first talked with the client, the firm’s managing attorney, a less experienced “mentee attorney” and a more experienced “mentor attorney," the ARDC wrote. “All four attorneys bill separately for the time spent attending this initial meeting," the regulatory body noted.Another former client, whose case was also charged by the ARDC, told the Sun-Times he was reassured by an attorney at Leving's firm that his custody could be resolved in as little as four months. A year later, he said he found himself facing mounting legal bills that exceeded his monthly income. The former client, who reached out to the Sun-Times but asked that his name not be used, said he hoped his story would help protect other fathers. "He was the guy who fought for dads," the client said of hiring Leving's firm. "But if you're an advocate for fathers ... they should have done better."