Statute of Limitations

Recent Illinois Case: Janousek v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Posted on Updated on

The First District affirmed the grant of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the plaintiff’s suspicions that his attorney was aiding and abetting a client’s breach of fiduciary duty was sufficient knowledge to commence the statute. The court also held that the defendant attorneys did not improperly use the attorney client privilege to shield relevant information plaintiff needed to discover his claim.

Janousek v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 2015 IL App (1st) 142989

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

Recent Illinois Case: First Bank and Trust v. Crowley, Barrett & Karaba

Posted on Updated on

Dismissal based on the statute of limitations reversed. The Appellate Court held there were issues of fact regarding when the plaintiff bank was injured. The court explained that the bank was not damaged by an inaccurate legal description of real estate in a foreclosure judgment at the time the judgment was entered because the judgment was in the bank’s favor. Rather, the bank was damaged when it had to expend funds to correct the error.

First Bank and Trust Company of Illinois v. Crowley, Barrett & Karaba, Ltd., 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Rodi v. Horstman

Posted on Updated on

This case involves alleged malpractice within malpractice, i.e., a lawyer retained to prosecute a complaint against a lawyer was himself accused of malpractice. The court held that, because the first case was barred by the statute of limitations, the second lawyer’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal from its dismissal did not cause any loss.

Rodi v. Horstman, 2015 IL App (1st) 142787

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

Recent Illinois Case: Carlson v. Fish

Posted on Updated on

In this recent case, the legal malpractice plaintiff contended that he entered into a settlement agreement that was procured by fraud.   He later sued his attorneys for legal malpractice.   The First District upheld dismissal with prejudice based on the statute of limitations.   The Court held that the statute of limitations started running when the plaintiff knew or should have known that he had been defrauded, as opposed to when he advised by other lawyers that he may have a legal malpractice claim.

Carlson v. Fish, 2015 IL App (1st) 140526.

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

Sorenson v. Law Offices of Theodore Poehlmann, 327 Ill. App. 3d 706, 764 N.E.2d 1227 (2d Dist. 2002)

Posted on Updated on

Sorenson v. Law Offices of Theodore Poehlmann, 327 Ill. App. 3d 706, 764 N.E.2d 1227 (2d Dist. 2002) (rejecting continuous representation doctrine)

Hester v. Diaz, 346 Ill. App. 3d 550, 805 N.E.2d 255 (5th Dist. 2004)

Posted on Updated on

Hester v. Diaz, 346 Ill. App. 3d 550, 805 N.E.2d 255 (5th Dist. 2004) (concealment)

Witt v. Jones & Jones Law Offices, P.C., 269 Ill. App. 3d 540, 646 N.E.2d 23 (4th Dist. 1995)

Posted on Updated on

Witt v. Jones & Jones Law Offices, P.C., 269 Ill. App. 3d 540, 646 N.E.2d 23 (4th Dist. 1995) (no continuous representation rule)