Standing

Short v. Grayson

Posted on Updated on

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss legal malpractice claims. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that his attorneys committed malpractice by failing to bring derivative claims in the underlying action because the plaintiff had sold his stock in the relevant company before initiating the underlying litigation and, thus, lacked standing to bring any derivative claims on its behalf. The court further dismissed a claim that the plaintiff alleged should have been asserted against an individual because the statute of limitations on that claim had expired before the defendant attorney took over the underlying case for the plaintiff. The court denied the motion as to the plaintiff’s various other claims generally holding that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to survive the motions to dismiss.

Short v. Grayson , No. 16 C 2150, 2017 WL 977001 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2017)

Recent Illinois Case: Barry v. Galloni

Posted on Updated on

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s determination that a judgment in favor of an intended beneficiary against a lawyer who forged a witness’s signature on a will — resulting in the intended beneficiary losing the benefit of the will – could not be discharged in the lawyer’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.

Barry v. Galloni, 2016 WL 245912

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

Recent Illinois Case: Johnson v. Komie

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District held that the sole shareholder of a corporation who retained an attorney to represent him as an individual did not have standing to assert a malpractice claim where only the corporation suffered an injury. The court also held that, even if the individual did have standing, summary judgment still was proper because the attorney did not owe a duty to the corporation.

2015 IL App (1st) 14-3300-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Stevens v. McGuireWoods LLP

Posted on Updated on

The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s holding that individual malpractice claims were barred because plaintiff-minority shareholders were not directly injured by malpractice suffered by a corporation. The court reversed the Appellate Court’s holding that the case be remanded for consideration of whether a derivative claim was barred because the plaintiffs no longer held stock in the corporation at issue and, therefore, did not have standing to bring a derivative claim.

Stevens v. McGuireWoods LLP, 2015 IL 118652

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