Case Within a Case

Cwik v. Law Offices of Jonathan Merel, P.C.

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished order, the First District held that the plaintiff had failed to allege that he would have won his underlying petitions but for the defendant lawyer’s malpractice.   The court held it was not enough for the plaintiff to allege that he would have defeated the underlying defendant’s motions to dismiss but for the lawyer’s negligence, he needed to allege that he ultimately would have succeeded on the petitions themselves.

Cwik v. Law Offices of Jonathan Merel, P.C., 2017 IL App (1st) 153143-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Recent Illinois Case: Rawal v. Newland and Newland LLP

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice case for failure to plead proximate causation. The court held that the complaint did not adequately plead that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying litigation but for the defendants’ malpractice because the allegations of success were conclusory and the plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to prove the “case within a case.”

Rawal v. Newland and Newland LLP, 2016 IL App (1st) 151940-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Recent Illinois Case: MCZ Development Corp. v. Dickinson Wright

Posted on Updated on

The Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, dismissed this legal malpractice case, in part, because the plaintiffs: (a) had been successful in underlying litigation and thus could not prove their case within a case; and (b) had not yet suffered actual damages because a final determination had not been issued in another underlying case.

MCZ Development Corp., et al. v. Dickinson Wright, PLLC, et al., 2015 WL 7008134

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Recent Illinois Case: Rodi v. Horstman

Posted on Updated on

This case involves alleged malpractice within malpractice, i.e., a lawyer retained to prosecute a complaint against a lawyer was himself accused of malpractice. The court held that, because the first case was barred by the statute of limitations, the second lawyer’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal from its dismissal did not cause any loss.

Rodi v. Horstman, 2015 IL App (1st) 142787

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Fabricare Equip. Credit Corp. v. Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, 328 Ill. App. 3d 784, 767 N.E.2d 470 (1st Dist. 2002)

Posted on Updated on

Fabricare Equip. Credit Corp. v. Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, 328 Ill. App. 3d 784, 767 N.E.2d 470 (1st Dist. 2002)

First Nat. Bank of LaGrange v. Lowrey, 375 Ill. App. 3d 181, 872 N.E.2d 447 (1st Dist. 2007)

Posted on Updated on

First Nat. Bank of LaGrange v. Lowrey, 375 Ill. App. 3d 181, 872 N.E.2d 447 (1st Dist. 2007)

Sheppard v. Krol, 218 Ill. App. 3d 254, 578 N.E.2d 212 (1st Dist. 1991) (rejecting loss of chance theory)

Posted on Updated on

Sheppard v. Krol, 218 Ill. App. 3d 254, 578 N.E.2d 212 (1st Dist. 1991) (rejecting loss of chance theory)