Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Published on:

By

This case, Desetti v. Chester, (Virginia Supreme Court), June 4, 2015, holds that a criminal defendant cannot bring a legal malpractice claim against her former lawyer because she was not factually innocent of the charge.

Few legal malpractice cases succeed in the criminal context because the plaintiff (formerly the criminal defendant) must prove all the elements of a legal malpractice case and that he was factually innocent of the charged crime. The reason for this rule is to prevent the criminal from profiting from his crime. Very few criminal defendants can accomplish the task of demonstrating factual innocence.

In this case, Judy Gayle Desetti was convicted of felony assault arising out of an altercation between Judy, her son and a police officer. After she was convicted, Judy proved that her criminal defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to convey a plea bargain offer that would have reduced the charges to a misdemeanor. The attorney also allegedly failed to respond to the plea offer. He also failed to inform Desetti that a finding of guilty would entail a mandatory jail sentence of six months. Based on these shortcomings with her legal representation, Desetti received habeas corpus relief and her conviction was vacated.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Workforce Solutions v. Sara L. Pettinger and Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., 2105 IL (1st) 121265-U.

In 2006, Workforce sued Urban Services of America, Inc., for breach of contract when Urban allegedly failed to pay for $573,000 in services. In 2008, Workforce obtained a default judgment against Urban. The judgment could not be collected because Urban was insolvent. Workforce alleged in the current case that “Pettinger and the Firm fraudulently conspired with Urban to delay the proceedings in order to prevent Workforce from obtaining recovery of its 2008 judgment.”  Workforce also alleged that the defendants concealed a key document during discovery in the underlying case.

Workforce alleged that Pettinger unreasonably protracted and delayed the discovery process in the underlying case  “According to plaintiff, after ‘delaying the progress of the case and delaying discovery for over two years’ and after Urban transferred its assets to insiders, in May 2008, upon motion, Pettinger and the Firm withdrew their representation of Urban.” Shortly thereafter, Workforce obtained a default judgment against Urban for $1,305,668.56.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is captioned USF Holland, Inv. v. Radogno, Cameli and Hoag, P.C., Illinois Appellate Court, First District, 2014. The case arose out of an underlying personal injury case in which Holland was sued for damages after one of its trucks collided with a car in Indiana. The Radogno firm obtained summary judgment in the trial court and the Appellate Court affirmed.

The plaintiff, Keppen, sued Holland in Cook County. Holland hired the Radogno firm which filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Radogno explained that its strategy was to obtain a dismissal of the case, which would require the plaintiff to refile the case in Indiana. Radogno explained that Indiana juries typically awarded less money than did juries in Cook County, Illinois.

Unfortunately for Holland, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the Appellate Court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. That meant that the litigation would remain in Cook County.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Filed April 27.

The ARDC charged a lawyer handling a divorce, Justin Tedrowe, with wrongfully altering a form, obstructing justice and defrauding an opponent. Tedrowe sucessfully defended himself at trial.

An accusation that a lawyer altered a document could be very difficult to defend. The ARDC would show that the document was altered (after it was signed) and then the lawyer would have a difficult time defending the claim.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

One common story that I have observed over the years is that legal malpractice insurers frequently deny coverage on the basis that the attorney knew of his own error (or the possibility of a claim) prior to the policy period. The recently decided case, Synergy Law Group, LLC v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 2015 IL App (1st) 142070-U, is another unfortunate chapter in that story.

Legal malpractice policies are issued on a claims made basis. That means that the insurer agrees to cover any claims made during the policy period even if those claims result from an act that occurred before the policy period. However, the insurance policy always contains a clause that provides that there is no coverage if the Insured “had knowledge of the circumstances that gave rise to the Claim and reason to believe that a Claim might result” before the policy period.

In 2006, the attorney drafted a shareholders agreement for a company, GA, Inc. The agreement established a formula for repurchasing shares if either shareholder left the company. In 2008, Rena Zito, the minority (20%) shareholder left the company. GA exercised its option to repurchase her shares. GA offered the minority shareholder $56,335.47 for all of her shares. The minority shareholder responded that “under the formula established in the shareholders agreement, GA, Inc., owed [the minority shareholder] $56,335.47 per share” for a total of $1,126,707.40. Opinion ¶ 7.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This is an unpublished decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, captioned Ilija Vasilj v. Harvey Teichman, 2015 IL App (1st) 133955-U. The Appellate court affirmed a decision to grant summary judgment to the lawyer on statute of limitations grounds.

The complaint alleged that in 2007 Vasilj purchased the first floor of a building located at 2650 West Belden in Chicago, Illinois. The first floor was undeveloped, but the second and third floors had existing condominiums. Vasilj intended to develop 12 condominiums for resale. At the time of the purchase, “the second and third floors of the building were part of the existing Brau Haus Condominium Association … and subject to the Declaration of Condominium Ownership. The declaration did not include the first floor of the building as a part of the condominiums. The association, in an attempt to incorporate the first floor, passed the first amendment to the declaration which included the first floor in the association. However, the association did not record a new plat of survey reflecting the changes. The failure to record a new plat survey resulted in a defective title to Vasilj’s property. ¶ 6.

Vasilj alleged that he retained Teichman to represent him in the purchase of the Belden property and that “prior to closing, Teichman did not review the amendment to the declaration, nor did he know that a new plat survey was never filed and recorded with the amendment. The resulting defective title to Vasilj’s property would prohibit him from selling the condominiums that he would later develop. Unaware of the defective title, Vasilj closed on the Belden property and began development of the condominiums.” ¶ 7.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Paul v. Patton :: 2015 :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.

This opinion discusses an issue which comes up often – to whom does the estate planner’s duty lie? The typical fact pattern of these cases is as follows. A lawyer represents a parent who has several children. Later the parent dies and the children claim that the will or trust was not consistent with the parent’s intentions.

The first line of defense in these cases was that the lawyer owed no duty to the children. After all he had an attorney-client relationship with the parent, not the children. To accept this defense means that no estate planner could ever be sued for legal malpractice by the beneficiaries. In recent years, courts have steadily rejected the privity argument.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

KAYMARK v. Bank of America, NA, Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2015 – Google Scholar.

This is a case filed under the fair debt collection practices act. An attorney, acting on behalf of Bank of America, filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Kaymark. Kaymark brought a claim against the attorney and other parties under the FDCPA alleging that the lawyer violated the Act by seeking recovery of legal fees that had not as of yet been incurred.

This is the court’s discussion of the allegation:

Continue reading →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design