Fraud

Hill v. Simmons

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District held that a complaint against a lawyer was properly dismissed as time-barred.   The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy were properly subject to the two year attorney statute of limitations, and that the statute began to run when the plaintiff learned of the lawyer’s alleged misrepresentations.

Hill v. Simmons, 2017 IL App (1st) 160577-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Damian v. Carey

Posted on

The Northern District of Illinois refused to dismiss a legal malpractice case on collateral estoppel grounds. In the underlying case, the malpractice plaintiffs were held liable for committing intentional fraud.  In so holding, the court rejected the malpractice plaintiffs’ defense that they had reasonably relied on their attorneys’ advice finding, to the contrary, that they had ignored their attorneys’ advice. In the malpractice action, the Northern District of Illinois recognized that plaintiffs faced an uphill battle proving causation in light of the underlying court’s finding that the plaintiffs had ignored their attorneys’ warnings, but declined to apply collateral estoppel because the underlying court did not analyze the adequacy of the attorneys’ representation.

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

Damian v. Carey, 2016 WL 851992

 

Recent Illinois Case: Navar v. Tribler, Orpett and Meyer, P.C.

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of three claims against lawyers. A breach of contract claim was properly dismissed because the plaintiff failed to identify a specific contract term that was breached. The malpractice claim was properly dismissed because the complained of acts involved judgment and not malpractice. The fraud claim was properly dismissed because predictions of future events do not constitute fraud. The Appellate Court also affirmed the trial court’s refusal to allow a further amendment.

Navar v. Tribler, Orpett and Meyer, P.C., 2015 IL App (1st) 142641-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Saleh v. Azulay Seiden Law Group

Posted on Updated on

Consumer fraud act claim against attorney dismissed because the act does not apply to attorneys.

Saleh v. Azulay Seiden Law Group,  2015 IL App (1st) 140768-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Banks v. Casson

Posted on Updated on

This recent case involved a dispute between attorneys over failure to pay a lawyer referral fee.  The attorneys never obtained signed written consent from the client for the referral fee, as required by Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. Nonetheless, the attorney who was allegedly owed the fees filed a lawsuit, seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty (under a joint venture theory) and fraud.  The First District affirmed dismissal, holding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim failed because the “joint venture” was based on an unenforceable agreement.   The fraud claim was time barred.

Banks v. Casson, 2015 IL App (1st) 133141-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Workforce Solutions v. Pettinger

Posted on Updated on

The following recent case affirmed dismissal of a fraud claim that a party filed against the opposing counsel in a lawsuit:

Workforce Solutions v. Pettinger, 2015 IL App (1st) 121265-U.

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

Los Amigos Supermarket, Inc. v. Metro. Bank and Trust Co., 306 Ill. App. 3d 115, 713 N.E.2d 686 (1st Dist. 1999)

Posted on Updated on

Los Amigos Supermarket, Inc. v. Metro. Bank and Trust Co., 306 Ill. App. 3d 115, 713 N.E.2d 686 (1st Dist. 1999)