Articles Posted in Legal Malpractice

Published on:

Illinois has a rule that allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case once. The plaintiff can then refile the case. The rule does not allow multiple dismissals. In Webster Bank v. Pierce & Associates, P.C., No. 16 C 2522 (N.D. IL March 14, 2019), the court denied a defendant law firm’s motion for summary judgment because the law firm had violated the refiling rule.

The Illinois single refiling rule provides that if:

the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, * * * the plaintiff, his or her heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after * * * the action is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-217. This provision is understood to “permit[] one, and only one, refiling of a claim.” Flesner v. Youngs Development Co., 145 Ill.2d 252, 254 (1991). The single refiling rule is considered to be an extension of res judicata. Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The one-refiling rule is thus the extension of the doctrine of res judicata to a class of cases in which the decision deemed to be res judicata is a dismissal without prejudice.”)

Published on:

This case, Alerding Castor Hewitt, LLP v. Paul Fletcher, et al, 16-cv-02453 (S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division) (April 18, 2019) illustrates the necessity of obtaining expert testimony to support a claim. Fletcher brought a malpractice claim against his former counsel after counsel sued for legal fees. Fletcher alleged that the attorneys were negligent when they represented him in a civil forgery case. The court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the attorneys.

Fletcher could not show that any alleged error by the attorneys proximately caused his loss because he had no expert testimony to support his claims:

To establish the applicable standard of care, Alerding Castor has presented an expert report from attorney David C. Jensen. Jensen’s thorough report discusses his review of the record from the Forgery Lawsuit in light of the applicable standard of care. Dkt. 130-3. Jensen concludes that Alerding Castor exercised ordinary skill and knowledge in litigating the Forgery Lawsuit and met the standard of care they were obligated to provide in its representation of Defendants. Id. at 16. Jensen’s conclusions are amply supported by the facts in the record.

Published on:

This is a legal malpractice action arising out of a real estate purchase. Viktoriya Bakcheva retained the Law Offices of Stein & Associates to represent her in the purchase of a condominium unit. She alleged that the lawyers did not properly investigate the transaction because the Unit at issue had a second floor above the first floor. The problem – the second floor was not as described in the condominium documents or the certificate of occupancy. (It would appear that a prior owner of the unit had added an additional floor to the unit without obtaining a permit or the permission of the condominium association. As one might imagine, the lawyers’ motion for summary judgment was denied. They appealed and did no better in the Appellate Division.

The explanation:

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice cause of action. Although the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact in opposition. Specifically, the plaintiff submitted evidence that she had informed the defendants, prior to the closing, that the main portion of the apartment was on the seventh floor of the building and that the apartment included a second level. According to the plaintiff, the defendants committed malpractice because they failed to recognize the illegality of the second level, since neither the certificate of occupancy nor the approved condominium offering plan authorized the existence of an eighth floor to the condominium (see id.).

Published on:

May an insurance company sue the defense firm that it hired where it alleges that the defense firm did not meet the standard of care? In Florida, according to Arch Insurance Company v. Kubicki Draper, 4-D17-2889, the insurance company may not file suit because it lacks privity with the law firm.  The insurance company alleged that it hired the firm to defend a case for one of its insureds. The law firm allegedly failed to raise the statute of limitations defense, which caused the insurance company to incur a loss.

The privity defense holds that a plaintiff cannot sue a defendant unless he was “in privity” with that defendant. Here, even though the insurance company hired the law firm to defend its insured, there was no privity because the law firm was responsible only to its client, the insured. The court rejected the insurance company’s public policy arguments:

The insurer nevertheless argues public policy and common sense dictate that an insurer should be able to pursue legal malpractice claims against defense counsel retained to represent its insureds. According to the insurer:

Published on:

I often receive phone calls and emails from people who believe that they have a legal malpractice claim against their current lawyer. Most of these claims are not malpractice claims, often because the underlying matter or lawsuit is not finished.

So, someone calls and says that her lawyer missed court dates, forgot to take a deposition and did not disclose an expert on time. My question is this: “How much money did you lose because of that alleged mistake by the lawyer?” Very often, the answer is (a) the case is still pending and I hired a new lawyer to fix the mistakes of the former lawyer or (b) I settled the case and received a settlement payment.

If the answer is “a”, there is no legal malpractice case as this time, although there may be a case in the future.

Published on:

The case is Davis v. Cohen & Gresser, 2018 NY Slip Op 02542, a legal malpractice case filed against a law firm.

Davis alleged that the law firm allowed the statute of limitations to run on RICO claims by failing to name to key parties in a lawsuit. The court ultimately concluded that the statute of limitations had run on the claims. However, the law firm greatly strengthened its position by producing a copy of a carefully drafted engagement letter. The engagement letter demonstrated that the law firm was not retained to handle the RICO action.  Further, the law firm never filed an appearance in that lawsuit.

New York allows the statute of limitations to be tolled where there is a continuous representation of the client by the law firm. Davis attempted to argue that the continuous representation doctrine applied to his case. However, as the court explains, the engagement letter and the court record demonstrated that there was no continuous representation:

Published on:

The case is Alexander Prout v. Anne C. Vladeck & Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C., 18 CV 260 (S.D. New York June 10, 2018). Prout alleged that he retained Vladeck to represent him in connection with claims against his former employer, Invesco. He further alleged that Vladeck advised him to reject Invesco’s settlement offer of $1.0 million and to instead file litigation. According to Prout, Vladeck failed to timely file his claims and some of those claims (Family Medical Leave Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act) were barred by the statute of limitations. As a result, he was forced to accept a reduced settlement amount. The facts of the underlying employment law claims are complex and the opinion sets those facts out in some detail. The court concluded that the allegations stated a claim for legal malpractice under New York law because the lawyer allegedly allowed the statutes of limitations to run on the FMLA and Sarbanes-Oxley (Whistleblower) claims.

For further information on legal malpractice claims, please consult our webpage on legal malpractice. https://www.clintonlaw.net/legal-malpractice.html

Published on:

The case is Tebbens v. Levin & Conde, 2018 IL App (1st) 170777. Tebbens believed that his former divorce counsel made an error in drafting the marital settlement agreement and drafted an agreement that was not consistent with what the parties had verbally agreed to.  This is a tough case to win as Tebbens signed the agreement. The defense would ask why he did not read what he had signed. However, Tebbens made a further and fatal error to his malpractice claim.

The Divorce statute allows a lawyer to file a fee petition before the judge who heard the divorce. Here Levin & Conde filed such a fee petition. Tebbens made the mistake of alleging malpractice in his response to the fee petition. The court ruled against him and awarded fees. Then Tebben sued for malpractice. The problem is that the doctrine of res judicata barred his claim because the malpractice issue has already been heard and decided in the fee petition case.

This is a litigation blunder that I have personally witnessed on several occasions. As the Eminem song says “you get one shot, one opportunity” to allege legal malpractice. “Don’t let it slip.” You won’t get a second chance.

Published on:

This case, KLIGER-WEISS INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, v. RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C., Appellant. 2015-06404, Index No. 606457/14., 2018 NY Slip Op 01456, was recently decided by the New York Appellate Division. KWI sued its former lawyers for legal malpractice for failing to include a so-called “evergreen” provision in a settlement agreement in an underlying software licensing dispute. The evergreen provision would have renewed the agreement every year. The explanation:

In 2001, the plaintiff, Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. (hereinafter KWI), entered into an agreement (hereinafter the 2001 agreement) to license and market certain software from STS Systems, LTD, a predecessor in interest to Epicor Retail Solutions Corporation (hereinafter Epicor). In relevant part, the 2001 agreement contained a provision providing for automatic one-year renewals of the 2001 agreement (hereinafter the evergreen provision). In 2004, Epicor’s predecessor in interest commenced an action against KWI and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (hereinafter the federal action) seeking, inter alia, to terminate the 2001 agreement due to alleged breaches by KWI. In early 2007, KWI retained the defendant to negotiate a settlement of the federal action, which resulted in a settlement agreement (hereinafter the 2007 settlement agreement). KWI alleges that it instructed the defendant to incorporate the evergreen provision into the 2007 settlement agreement, but that the defendant, unbeknownst to KWI, failed to do so.

In 2011, Epicor commenced an arbitration proceeding against KWI seeking to terminate the 2007 settlement agreement due to KWI’s alleged uncured breaches. The defendant represented KWI in the arbitration, which resulted in a 2013 determination that the 2007 settlement agreement did not contain an evergreen provision.

Published on:

This issue comes up every now and then. An attorney files a collection lawsuit against a client and obtains a judgment against the client. (Here the client did not appear and a default judgment was entered). Later, the client reviews the attorney’s work and files a legal malpractice lawsuit. May the lawyer argue that the legal malpractice case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata? Here the answer is “No.”

The court includes a discussion of res judicata:

The purpose of this common law doctrine is to “relieve the parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94; 101 S Ct 411; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980). “For the sake of repose, res judicata shields the fraud and cheat as well as the honest person. It therefore is to be invoked only after careful inquiry [as to whether foreclosing plaintiff’s case would protect] the interests served by res judicata.” Brown v Felsen, 442 US 127, 132; 99 S Ct 2205; 60 L Ed 2d 767 (1979). “The burden of establishing the applicability of res judicata is on the party asserting the doctrine.” Richards v Tibaldi, 272 Mich App 522, 531; 726 NW2d 770 (2006).