Proximate Cause

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.)

Nachtrieb v. Law Offices of James M. Kelly, P.C. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160984-U

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the Second District affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim for lack of causation.  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert the underlying claim that his lawyer allegedly committed malpractice by failing to bring on his behalf.  Because the plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy and been discharged, the bankruptcy trustee owned the underlying claim.  As a result, the plaintiff’s lawyer could not have asserted it on the plaintiff’s behalf and, therefore,  did not damage the plaintiff by failing to do so.

Nachtrieb v. Law Offices of James M. Kelly, P.C., 2017 IL App (2d) 160984-U

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

 

Century-National Ins. Co. v. Schoen, 2017 IL App (1st) 163261-U

Posted on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim due to plaintiff’s inability to establish that the defendant lawyer’s conduct caused damages.

The suit alleged malpractice by two separate law firms who allegedly failed to give their insurance carrier client notice that the underlying plaintiff had made a policy limit settlement demand.  The underlying personal injury case was filed against an employer and employee.  The insurance carrier retained one law firm to represent the employer and a separate law firm to represent the employee.  During the underlying litigation, the plaintiff sent letters making policy-limit settlement demands  to both law firms.  The case did not settle and the plaintiff won a large jury verdict.  Thereafter, the employer assigned its rights against the insurance carrier to the underlying plaintiff, who brought a bad faith refusal to settle lawsuit against the insurance carrier.  The bad faith complaint’s allegations mentioned only the employer’s law firm and the employee’s law firm which also received the policy limit settlement demand letter.  The carrier settled the bad faith claim and then sued both law firms for malpractice.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the malpractice claim against the law firm not named in the bad faith complaint.  Even though the insurance carrier alleged it would have known of the settlement demand sent to the employer’s law firm if the employee’s law firm had given notice of the demand it received, the court held that was insufficient to establish causation.  The court further held that the employee’s law firm could not have proximately caused the insurance carrier’s injury because only the employer assigned its claim to the underlying plaintiff who brought the bad faith claim.

Century-National Ins. Co. v. Schoen, 2017 IL App (1st) 163261-U

 

Brown v. Bacon, 2017 IL App (1st)

Posted on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim due to the complaints failure to allege causation.   The court held that plaintiffs’ loss had either; (a) already occurred when he retained lawyers, and thus they did not cause it; or (b) was caused by another party’s breach of contract as to which he still retained a viable cause of action.

Brown v. Bacon

 

 

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.)

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: Klein v. Cavanaugh

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of the defendant attorneys. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that his lawyers improperly represented him and his employer at the same time and supported his employer’s board members who wanted to – and ultimately did – terminate the plaintiff’s employment. The court held that the lawyers’ conduct did not proximately cause any damages because the plaintiff would have been fired regardless of the lawyers’ breach of fiduciary duty.

Klein v. Cavanaugh, 2016 IL App (1st) 151285-U 

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