Plaintiffs, Rhonda Layne and Louis Iacovelli, retained defendants, William Feda, Timothy Mahoney, and McNamee and Mahoney, LTD, to represent them in a lawsuit against Adoption Ark and two of its employees. The plaintiffs allege that Adoption Ark, an adoption service, rescinded its authorization for plaintiffs to adopt a child through them on suspicion of Layne’s mental unfitness, despite Layne twice being deemed fit for parenthood by a psychiatrist. The plaintiffs sued Adoption Ark, but lost on summary judgment. They then sued the defendants for legal malpractice, alleging that the defendants had failed to file a timely post summary judgment motion to amend the complaint against Adoption Ark with new legal theories. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to plead sufficient facts to establish a cause of action, which the trial court granted.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that they did plead facts sufficient to show that they would have won on five different causes of action against Adoption Ark if the defendants had brought them. Id. at ¶ 15. The appellate court disagreed with respect to all potential claims, noting throughout their decision a “lack of specific allegations” and that the “conclusory” complaint “is not pled with… particularity and specificity.” Id. at ¶ 29, 32, 33. With respect to some of the facts the plaintiffs did provide, the Court described them as “mere characterization of a combination of acts.” Id. at ¶ 35.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)