Duty

Estate of Hudson By Caruso v. Tibble , 2018 IL App (1st) 162469, appeal denied sub nom. Estate of Hudson v. Tibbie, 98 N.E.3d 29 (Ill. 2018)

Posted on Updated on

The First District reversed a trial court opinion that granted summary judgment to an attorney.   The trial court held that an attorney hired by the administrator of an estate did not owe a duty to the estate, only the administrator.   The First District reversed and held that the symbiotic relationship between and administrator and an estate meant that the attorney owed duties to both.

Estate of Hudson By Caruso v. Tibble , 2018 IL App (1st) 162469, appeal denied sub nom. Estate of Hudson v. Tibbie, 98 N.E.3d 29 (Ill. 2018)

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

Johnson v. Stojan Law Office, P.C. , 2018 IL App (3d) 170003, reh’g denied (Feb. 22, 2018), appeal denied sub nom. Johnson v. Stojan Law Office, P.C, 98 N.E.3d 51 (Ill. 2018)

Posted on Updated on

The Third District affirmed the grant of summary judgment on a legal malpractice claim brought against a lawyer related to a trust dispute.  It held that the lawyer did not owe a duty to a beneficiary of a trust because the possibility that he could benefit from the trust is insufficient to create a duty.  The court also held that the plaintiff never actually became a trustee to whom the attorney would owe a duty because the trust was amended before the plaintiff would have become a trustee.

Johnson v. Sojan Law Office, P.C., 2018 IL App (3d) 170003, reh’g denied (Feb. 22, 2018), appeal denied subnom. Johnson v. Stojan Law Office, P.C., 98 N.E. 3d 51 (Ill. 2018)

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

 

Tagliasacchi v. Morrone, 2017 IL App (1st) 171178-U

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the dismissal of a third-party malpractice claim. The court held that the attorney for an estate owes her duty to the estate in the event of a conflict among estate beneficiaries, which was the case here. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not show that the primary or direct purpose of the retention of the defendant attorney was to benefit her, and the attorney owed no duty to the plaintiff.

Tagliasacchi v. Morrone, 2017 IL App (1st) 171178-U

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

 

 

 

Mareskas-Palcek v. Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein, LLP

Posted on Updated on

The First District affirmed the dismissal of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty claims against a lawyer and law firm that allegedly closed a real estate sale the day after their client died. The court held that the executor of the estate of the client was the proper party to bring the claim and that the plaintiffs, who were beneficiaries of trusts that were to receive the sale proceeds, did not have standing to bring suit. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not the lawyer’s clients and were not owed a duty by the lawyer because the primary purpose for the lawyer’s retention was not to benefit plaintiffs.

Mareskas-Palcek v. Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein, LLP

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

Geraci v. Cramer

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished decision, the Fifth District affirmed the dismissal of claims against attorneys.  Many of the claims were dismissed because they were time barred.   The court focused on the fact that the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff has sufficient information to be on inquiry notice that he might have a claim.   Other claims were dismissed because an attorney hired by a condominium association did not have an attorney client relationship with or owe a duty to the individual members of the association.

Geraci v. Cramer

 

Recent Illinois Case: Mustafa v. NSI International, Inc.

Posted on Updated on

The Northern District dismissed a legal malpractice claim in which a former employee attempted to sue her employer’s attorney. The court held that the attorney owed no duty to the former employee and that the claim was time barred.

Mustafa v. NSI International, Inc.,  2016 WL 6778888

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

Recent Illinois Case: Moreno v. Martin

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the Second District affirmed the dismissal of legal malpractice and breach of contract claims. The court held that the legal malpractice claim was properly dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead that the attorney owed him a duty to give the “missing” advice because the lawyer’s retainer agreement limited the scope of his representation. The court held that the allegations in the complaint conflicted with the terms of the retainer agreement and the terms of the retainer agreement control. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the complaint failed to plead that the plaintiff had fully performed his obligations under the contract.

Moreno v. Martin, 2016 IL App (2d) 150729-U

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