In this unpublished opinion, the First District vacated the order granting leave for an interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 308. The court held that the issues presented — when can an attorney be liable to a non-client, and is the discovery rule applicable to the statute of repose — were not appropriate for interlocutory review.
The court held that the first issue, as decided by the trial court, involved questions of fact, not questions of law, and therefore did not qualify for Rule 308 review. As to the second issue, the court held that Rule 308 review was inappropriate because there were no substantial grounds for difference of opinion regarding the statute of repose; the discovery rule does not apply.
Thus, even though the appellate court’s discussion of the statute of repose implicitly held that the trial court incorrectly denied summary judgment, the appellate court dismissed the appeal because it did not involve the “exceptional circumstances” required for an appeal pursuant to Rule 308.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)