In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the dismissal of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by an individual and affirmed the grant of summary judgment with respect to legal malpractice claims brought by an LLC.
As to the individual’s claims, the court affirmed the dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiff should have known of the defendant lawyer’s conflicted representation of the plaintiff when his lawyer wrote a letter to defendant’s lawyer on the issue. Moreover, the court noted that the two-year statute of limitations applies to any claim against a lawyer (even if it is not a legal malpractice claim) sounding in tort, contract or otherwise and arising out of professional services, even if the claim is brought by a non-client.
As to the LLC’s claim, the court held that there was no evidence that the lawyer’s conduct proximately caused any loss. There was no evidence that another lawyer representing the LLC would have acted differently and the plaintiff did not depose managing member of the LLC to try to adduce that evidence.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)