Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer BlogBelow is a citation to a recent opinion by Magistrate Rowland in a case handled by the Clinton Firm.
Source: BAY GROUP HEALTH CARE, LLC v. GINSBERG JACOBS, LLC by MARY M. ROWLAND, Magistrate Judge | Leagle.com
Published on:
District Court Rejects Rooker-Feldman Defense to Legal Malpractice Claim
Source: Sheth v. Premier Bank, Dist. Court, WD Wisconsin 2015 – Google Scholar
The plaintiff in this case, Kamlesh Sheth, lost a state court foreclosure case. Sheth then sued a law firm for legal malpractice and the bank that obtained the judgment against him for fraud and other torts.
Sheth claimed that the defendant bank had agreed not to pursue a deficiency judgment against Sheth. Sheth cited an agreement between himself and the bank and drafted by the defendant law firm under which the Bank waived the right to pursue the deficiency if Sheth obtained a buyer for the property and the sales price was $1,100,000 and the buyer agreed to pay off the mortgage note. Sheth claimed that he met his obligations under the agreement and that the Bank had no right to seek a deficiency judgment.
Published on:
Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Against Lawyer who Defended Another Lawyer for 17 years
Source: LAMET v. Levin, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 3rd Div. 2015 – Google Scholar
This is a legal malpractice case that the Illinois court held was barred by the six-year statute of repose and also by the two-year statute of limitations. Lamet hired Levin in 1994 to represent him in a dispute with his landlord. Lamet’s landlord claimed that Lamet owed $34,000. Levin fought the litigation for 17 years. (Levin claimed that he was being charged for more square feet than he actually rented). Ultimately, in 2011, Levin recommended that the litigation be settled for the sum of $150,000.
Lamet then sued Levin for legal malpractice “essentially asserting that Levin should have advised him in 1994 to accede to his landlord’s demands and forgo defense of the lawsuit.”
Published on:
Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Against Lawyers
William Carlson and Willis Capital, LLC v. David J. Fish and the Fish Law Firm, P.C., Shawn M. Collins and The Collins Law Firm, P.C., 2015 IL App (1st) 140526.
This is a decision of the Illinois Appellate Court affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice lawsuit on the ground that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the lawsuit was filed.
The lawsuit arose out of a business dispute between William Carlson and his business partners in an entity known as Belvedere Trading, LLC. In 2006, Carlson had a “falling out” with his partners. In February 2008, Carlson agreed to mediate the dispute with his partners. He retained the defendant lawyers to represent him. On February 13, 2008, the parties held a mediation in which Carlson agreed to sell his interest in Belvedere for $17.5 million. The settlement agreement was signed on March 6, 2008. It is noteworthy that Carlson did not obtain an independent appraisal of the value of his interest in Belvedere before the mediation.
Published on:
Court Rejects Law Firm’s Argument Legal Malpractice Claim Was Barred By A Release
The case is Construction Systems, Inc. v. FagelHaber, LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 141700. The plaintiff sued FagelHaber for failing to perfect a mechanic’s lien resulting in the subordination of that lien to a mortgagee’s lien. The legal malpractice claim is straightforward. The more interesting question was whether the law firm could defend on the ground that it settled a fee claim against the client before the legal malpractice claim was filed.
In 2003, Construction Systems retained FagelHaber to serve mechanics lien relating to a real estate development. FagelHaber allegedly failed to perfect the lien because it failed to serve the lien on the Cosmopolitan Bank, which held a mortgage on the property. In January 2004, FagelHaber filed an appearance for Construction Systems in a lawsuit dealing with the mechanics’ liens. (The mechanics’ lien litigation).
In August 2004, FagelHaber withdrew as counsel for Construction Systems in the underlying mechanic’s lien litigation. In November 2004, FagelHaber and Construction Systems entered into a settlement agreement under which Construction Systems … “does hereby fully remise, release and forever discharge FagelHaber..of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, … existing at the date hereof or hereafter arising, both known and unknown, forseeable and unforseeable, …arising from or in connection with any matter,… including, without limitation, and Claims in connection with the legal services provided by FagelHaber to [Construction Systems] or the Indebtedness.”
Published on:
Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Possessory Lien Over Documents In the Cloud
What is an attorney’s possessory lien? It is a lien that an attorney can use to block the client from access to the file. The attorney, however, cannot enforce the lien in court. In a recent unpublished decision the Illinois Appellate Court held that a law firm can assert a possessory lien over a computer database held by a document management firm. The case is captioned Cronin & Company, Ltd. v. Richie Capital Management, LLC., 2014 IL App (1st) 131892-U. Cronin is a law firm that represented Richie Capital (and other parties) in litigation, in which Richie Capital was attempting to recover investment losses incurred when it invested in a Ponzi scheme.
In 2012, Richie authorized Cronin to retain a third-party vendor, Flex Discovery, LLC (d/b/a Landmark Legal Solutions). Landmark was retained to provide a hosting program “that would enable attorneys to access electronic databases containing documents produced in connection with the subject litigation.” ¶ 4.
In January or February 2013, the attorney-client relationship broke down and was terminated. There was a dispute over legal fees between Cronin and Richie Capital. Cronin asked Landmark to “‘hibernate’ the database it was hosting (take it off-line), so it could not be accessed. Cronin claimed it was asserting a retaining lien over its former client’s litigation file, which it argued included the database.” ¶ 5.
Published on:
Clinton – Leveraging Social Media Presentation
Published on:
June 16 – Law Bulletin Publishing Seminar “Ethics 2015”
Thanks to the Law Bulletin for allowing me to present at this Seminar. My topic was “Leveraging Social Media to Build Your Practice.” The Law Bulletin staff could not have been more helpful or accommodating.
Source: June 16 – Ethics 2015
Published on:
Seventh Circuit Shows Mercy To Lawyer Who Struggled With CM/ECF Filing
The case is Farley v. Koepp, 14-1695. The lawyer for the plaintiff had until March 11, 2013 to file a civil rights case. Here is what happened:
On March 8, 2013, the lawyer opened an electronic case file in the Southern District of Illinois. He then emailed a copy of the complaint and the civil cover sheet to the clerk’s office as required by the local rules. The clerk opened the electronic case file. As the court explains “on the next business day – Monday, March 11 – the attorney’s assistant tried to upload the complaint but encountered problems with the electronic payment system. It was not until Tuesday, March 12, that she successfully paid the filing fee and uploaded the complaint.”
The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case as untimely.
Published on:
You Need A Lawyer – Well, Maybe Not
Can an estate file a lawsuit without retaining a lawyer as counsel of record? The Sixth Circuit has held that it can if the pro se litigant (not a lawyer) is the sole beneficiary of the estate. The Court explained that if a creditor had a claim against the estate, the pro se beneficiary would not be allowed to proceed. The sole beneficiary can proceed pro se because no other parties have a financial interest in the outcome. The case is captioned Bass v. Leatherwood, 14-6321 (6th Cir. 2015).
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.