Stevens v. Sharif

Posted on Updated on

The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against a lawyer, in part, because she failed to allege the existence of an attorney client relationship.   The fact that the plaintiff was represented by other counsel made it implausible that the defendant lawyer represented her.   The court further held that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.   The claim accrued when the underlying bankruptcy court made its initial decision; accrual did not depend upon the result of the subsequent appeal.

Stevens v. Sharif, No. 15 C 1405, 2017 WL 449175 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2017)

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

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In this unpublished opinion, the First District held that a complaint against a lawyer was properly dismissed as time-barred.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: Hexum v. Parker

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the Third District held that the trial court erred when dismissing a legal malpractice claim on collateral estoppel grounds. The court held that the issues in the plaintiff’s underlying divorce case were different from the issues in his malpractice case against his divorce attorney.

Hexum v. Parker, 2017 IL App (3d) 150514-U

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

Recent Illinois Case: Short v. Grayson

Posted on Updated on

The Northern District of Illinois enforced an arbitration clause in an attorney retainer agreement.  In doing so, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it was against public policy to enforce an arbitration agreement in an attorney retention agreement where the lawyer fails to fully explain the clause.

Short v. Grayson, No. 16 C 2150, 2016 WL 7178463 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2016)

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

Recent Illinois Case: Webb v. Maclin

Posted on

In this unpublished opinion, the Fifth District reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on statute of limitations and statute of repose grounds.  The Appellate Court held that there was an issue of fact regarding when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged wrong; therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate with respect to the statute of limitations.   The court also held that summary judgment was inappropriate on the statute of repose because there was an issue of fact as to when the defendant’s last act of negligence occurred.

Webb v. Maclin, 2016 IL App (5th) 150230-U

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

 

Milan v. Korein

Posted on Updated on

The Southern District of Illinois dismissed malpractice claims against a client’s first set of lawyers as time barred because the allegations in the complaint revealed that the client knew of his claims more than two years prior to filing suit. However, the plaintiff’s malpractice claims against his replacement attorneys were not dismissed; the court gave the pro se plaintiff leeway in pleading a malpractice claim based on allegations that the replacement lawyers pressured him to settle the underlying suit.

Milan v. Korein, Case No. 15-cv-0747-MJR-DGW, 2016 WL 7230394 (S.D. Ill Dec. 14, 2016)

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

Recent Illinois Case: Jaos v. Vold

Posted on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal of a malpractice complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619.

The court held that there was an issue of fact as to whether the defendant lawyer adequately advised the plaintiff about the effect of liens on a business the plaintiff was purchasing.  The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the issue was so clear that no expert testimony on the issue was required.

Jaos v. Vold, 2016 IL App (1st) 152539-U

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