Damage

Killian v. Minchella, 2017 IL App (1st) 163429-U, appeal denied, 98 N.E.3d 65 (Ill. 2018)

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice case. The court examined whether unpaid judgments constituted damages to the plaintiff. Although the court noted that an unpaid judgment could damage a malpractice plaintiff, it held that the malpractice complaint failed to state a claim because it failed to allege that the plaintiffs had paid or would have to pay a judgment in excess of what they would have paid in the absence of negligence.

The court also affirmed on statute of limitations grounds. It held that the entry of a non-final summary judgment order put the plaintiff on notice of the alleged malpractice. Thus, the statute began to run at that time. The court rejected the argument that the statute of limitations did not run until the summary judgment became final and appealable.

Killian v. Minchella, 2017 IL App (1st) 163429-U, appeal denied, 98 N.E.3d 65 (Ill. 2018)

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

R.F. Techs., Inc. v. LeClair Ryan, P.C., No. 17 C 1886, 2018 WL 835349 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2018)

Posted on Updated on

The Northern District held that a complaint that alleged that lawyers’ malpractice caused a client to pay more to settle a case than it otherwise would have had to pay adequately plead proximate cause and damages.   The court also refused to take judicial notice of an order assessing sanctions against the malpractice plaintiff and, therefore, held that there was no evidence to support unclean hands and in pari delicto defenses at the motion to dismiss stage.

R.F. Techs., Inc. v. LeClair Ryan, P.C.

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

Laurent v. Johnson

Posted on Updated on

The Third District affirmed the grant of summary judgment in a legal malpractice case.  The court held that plaintiff had no evidence that she would have been successful in the underlying case within a case but for the legal malpractice because she failed to satisfy the “discrepancy rule” for an insurance case.  The court also held that there was no evidence that the settlement of the underlying case was depressed by the alleged malpractice because the plaintiff settled her underlying case before the court dismissed it.  Thus, there was no evidence of either causation or damage.

Laurent v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (3d) 160627

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

West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Schumacher

Posted on Updated on

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim because it did not adequately allege causation and damages.   The court held that the allegations as to how the malpractice plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying litigation but for the attorney’s malpractice were insufficiently specific to state a claim.

West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, Case No. 14-2731, 2016 WL 7395708 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016)

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

Recent Illinois Case: Bachewicz v. Holland & Knight

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a law firm.

The court held that the case was time-barred despite the plaintiff’s argument that he did not know the amount of his damages until less than two years from the time he brought his claim. The court held that it is not necessary to know the amount of damages for the statute of limitations to begin to run.

The court also held that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment because he did not identify the documents that allegedly led him to discover his damages.

Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim arising out of a transfer of real estate with which the defendants assisted because the plaintiff admitted that the transfer occurred after the attorney-client relationship had terminated.

Bachewicz v. Holland & Knight, 2016 IL App (1st) 153394-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Goldfine v. Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Perlman

Posted on

The Illinois Supreme Court addressed malpractice damages arising out of the negligent failure to preserve an Illinois Securities Law Claim. The Court held that, had the lawyers properly preserved the Securities Law Claim, statutory damages would have been awarded. Thus, actual damages in the malpractice action included the statutory damages, such as interest and attorneys’ fees, that would have been awarded pursuant to the Securities Law Claim.

The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that such damages were barred by Illinois’ prohibition on awarding punitive damages against attorneys. The Court also held that interest should be awarded from the date of the purchase of stock through the date that the plaintiff settled the underlying claim, not through the date of the malpractice judgment. Finally, the court held that interest should be calculated before the underlying settlement is deducted from the malpractice damages.

Goldfine v. Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Perlman, 2014 IL 116362

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

Recent Illinois Case: Hyatt Johnson USA 2004 LLC v. Goldsmith

Posted on

In this unpublished order, the First District affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants.

The malpractice claims related to the drafting of investment documents and settlement documents. The Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of the claims based upon the investment documents. The plaintiffs asserted that the documents resulted in the appointment of a receiver and sought to recover the fees paid to the receiver. The court, however, held that the plaintiffs were not damaged because there was no evidence that the receiver’s fees were greater than the fees that would have been paid to a manager.

The court also held that the criminal theft of funds from the entity was an intervening cause prohibiting the plaintiffs from establishing proximate cause because there was no evidence that the theft was foreseeable.

The court reversed summary judgment on the malpractice claims related to the settlement documents. The court held that if the defendants’ negligence in drafting the settlement documents allowed funds to be transferred to an entity not entitled to the funds, the plaintiffs will be able to prove “specific and identifiable damages” associated with their efforts to recover those funds.

Hyatt Johnson USA 2004 LLC v. Goldsmith, 2016 IL App (1st) 151622-U 

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