Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
The case is Grayson v. Michael J. Korst, P.C., and Michael J. Korst, 16 c 1297 N. D. Ill. Grayson and his business partner were represented by the Defendants in a transaction in which Grayson and his business partner sold the business (a Domino’s franchise) to a buyer. Grayson alleged that Korst had a conflict in that he represented the company and the two partners and that their interests conflicted. Grayson claimed that Korst failed to notify him that he was entitled to a share of the sale proceeds.
There was also evidence in the record that Grayson was going through a divorce and tried to claim that his interest in the company had a negligible value so that he would not have to make payments to his soon to be ex-wife.
Ultimately, because the case involved complicated conflict issues, Grayson had a duty to obtain an expert. Because he had no expert, he had no ability to explain how the lawyer’s performance failed to meet the standard of care. The lawyer had had both business partners, including Grayson, sign a waiver of any potential conflict, which further weakened the case.
Result: summary judgment for defendants. This appears to be a case where the plaintiff decided not to retain an expert or could not find an expert who could give the necessary testimony. The result was a grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
Ed Clinton, Jr.