Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
The Missouri Court of Appeals recently decided an appeal of a legal malpractice case, Turubchuk v. Boock, 737 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. E.D. 2026). Plaintiff accused his lawyer of dropping meritorious claims. Because the claims lacked merit, there was no legal malpractice. In essence, the courts said that the defendant lawyers acted correctly under the circumstances. The underlying case was a personal injury case. 
1. Statement of Facts, Procedural History, and Trial Court Decision
- Statement of Facts: In August 2005, Liliya Turubchuk, Ludmila Nemtsova, Irina Turubchuk, and Aleksey Turubchuk (who was killed) were involved in a severe single-vehicle accident on an Illinois interstate. The road was being repaved by a joint venture of contractors, E.T. Simonds Construction Company (ETS) and Southern Illinois Asphalt Company, Inc. (SIAC).
The plaintiffs hired an attorney and filed a federal lawsuit against the contractors in 2007. The joint venture held a $1 million policy with Bituminous Insurance Company. The defense attorney, Richard Green, represented that this $1 million policy was the only available coverage, a detail mirroring his formal Rule 26 discovery disclosures. Relying on this, the plaintiffs settled all claims for the $1 million policy limit in 2009. It was later revealed that SIAC had separate, individual insurance policies that were never disclosed. - Procedural History: In 2012, represented by new counsel, the plaintiffs sued the contractors again in Illinois federal court, asserting fraud and misrepresentation claims over the hidden insurance policies. Attorneys Jamie Boock, Matthew Rossiter, and their firm (the Respondents/Defendants) stepped in to represent the plaintiffs. Right before trial, the attorneys advised the plaintiffs to dismiss their intentional fraud claims and proceed strictly on a negligent misrepresentation theory. The plaintiffs agreed, won an $8.2 million jury verdict, but lost it entirely on appeal when the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment.
In October 2023, the plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice lawsuit in Missouri state court against Boock and Rossiter. They alleged that the attorneys were negligent in dropping the underlying intentional fraud and constructive fraud claims against SIAC. - Trial Court’s Decision: The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, presided over by Judge Bruce F. Hilton, ruled heavily in favor of the defendant-attorneys. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs could never prove “but for” causation because the dropped Illinois fraud claims were legally meritless anyway—specifically, there was zero evidence SIAC (the principal) authorized or knew about attorney Green’s (the agent’s) alleged insurance fraud.
The trial court:- Granted the defendants’ motion to strike significant portions of the plaintiffs’ summary judgment responses for violating Missouri’s strict formatting and evidence rules (Rule 74.04), deeming those defense facts admitted.
- Denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay the proceedings to gather more discovery because they failed to attach a mandatory supporting affidavit.
- Granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-attorneys.
2. Appellate Court Decision
The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed the trial court’s rulings on all counts, leaving the defense victory intact. Presiding Judge Robert M. Clayton, III delivered the opinion, rejecting the plaintiffs’ three main arguments:
- Striking of Responses Affirmed: The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in striking the plaintiffs’ factual responses. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ denials “fall woefully short” of Rule 74.04(c)(2). For example, a single denial response spanned seven pages with 46 sub-parts, rambling into legal conclusions, introducing extra facts, and improperly citing raw deposition text rather than pointing to clear facts.
- Summary Judgment Affirmed: The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo but refused to overturn it. Because the plaintiffs’ brief failed to cleanly match specific paragraphs in the summary judgment record—instead pointing broadly to a voluminous stack of unorganized exhibits and discovery—the court ruled that addressing their argument would force the court to impermissibly act as the plaintiffs’ advocate.
- Denial of Stay Affirmed: The court confirmed that under Missouri Rule 74.04(f), a party seeking to delay summary judgment for more discovery must provide an affidavit describing exactly what evidence will be uncovered and how it creates a genuine factual dispute. Because the plaintiffs provided no affidavit and only listed generic depositions they wished to take, the trial court acted properly.