Published on:

By

In this case, a taxi driver was advised by his bankruptcy lawyers to file a Chapter 7 case. The lawyers apparently failed to realize that the taxi driver owned a taxi medallion and that, in a Chapter 7 case, the medallion would be sold by the Trustee to cover the taxi driver’s debts.

The case is unusual because the debtor obtained new counsel who converted his case from Chapter 7 (liquidation) to Chapter 11 (reorganization). Successor counsel also filed a legal malpractice claim in the bankruptcy court. That court held that the first set of bankruptcy lawyers were liable and awarded economic damages. The decision is summarized below:

On September 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued the PFC. PFC at 27. In the PFC, the Bankruptcy Court found that Defendants committed malpractice by advising Plaintiff to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7. PFC at 18. Specifically the Bankruptcy Court found that: (1) Defendants were aware that Plaintiff owned a taxicab and taxi medallion prior to Plaintiff filing under Chapter 7 bankruptcy, (2) Defendants acknowledged that advising Plaintiff to file under Chapter 7 was error given Plaintiff’s assets, (3) Defendants made numerous errors in preparation of the Chapter 7 petition and failed to adequately correct those errors, (4) Defendants “abandoned” Plaintiff by failing to address the Trustee’s motions or advise Plaintiff of his right to convert to a favorable chapter which led to substantial administrative expenses, and (5) Defendants’ negligent representation was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. PFC at 14-20.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is captioned Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company v. Thomas W. Burkhart, et al., 2015 IL App (4th) 140936-U.

An attorney, Thomas Burkhart, represented Robert and Elizabeth Wilson in a real estate transaction and related litigation. That litigation ultimately resulted in a jury verdict of $30,000 for the Wilsons. Opinion ¶ 9. The proceeds were deposited with the Bank of Edwardsville.

In 2005, trouble arose when Burkhart filed a motion in the state court case seeking $35,806.85 in legal fees, apparently $5,806.85 more than the amount of the jury verdict. The Wilsons responded with a counterclaim for negligence and legal malpractice. Burkhart tendered the defense of the claims to ISBA Mutual, which agreed to pay for Burkhart’s defense.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: MCZ DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2015 – Google Scholar

This case involves allegations that the law firm (Dickinson Wright) committed legal malpractice in connection with work on a proposed “Indian casino project” in Oklahoma.

During the representation Plaintiffs requested that the law firm “to provide an opinion on any issues that might preclude the proposed gaming project from successfully moving forward.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: GOESEL v. BOLEY INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD., Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2015 – Google Scholar

This case concerns an appeal by a law firm of a decision by the district court to reduce a contingent fee award.

The parties agreed to a contingent fee under which the lawyers would receive one-third of any award and the expenses would be covered by the clients.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: Janousek v. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 2nd Div. 2015 – Google Scholar

Illinois has a two-year statute of limitations period which applies to legal malpractice claims. Here, the Appellate Court held that the two-year statute operated to bar claims against a law firm that allegedly assisted its client in a breach of fiduciary duty.

Facts:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This case is captioned 2015 CO 61, Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the Town of Minturn: J. Tucker, Trustee v. Town of Minturn.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that a non-attorney trustee of a trust may not proceed pro se before the water court. The court reasoned that Tucker, a non-attorney, was acting not on his own behalf but was representing the rights of other people. Other courts have reached the same result. A trustee is a fiduciary who acts on behalf of others. He cannot act pro se for others. Instead, the trustee needs to retain a lawyer to represent the trust.

The ruling is consistent with long-standing practice and ethics rules. The trustee cannot proceed pro se because he is not licensed and may lack the training and experience to obtain the best result for his clients, the trust and its beneficiaries.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This case is captioned Bode & Grenier, LLC v. Carroll L. Knight.

Carroll Knight retained the law firm, Bode & Grenier, LLC, to assist it with litigation and regulatory matters arising out of an oil spill of 100,000 gallons of oil on Carroll Knight’s property in Toledo, Ohio. The lawyers agreed to represent Carroll Knight on an hourly fee basis. After two years of litigation, Carroll Knight fell behind on its legal bills and entered into an agreement with the law firm. The agreement contained three components: (a) a retention letter; (b) a Promissory Note obligating Carroll Knight to pay $300,00o in past due legal fees; and (c) a Confession of Judgment.

On May 2, 2008, the firm filed an obtained a Confession of Judgment in the amount of $302,500.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: LOANVEST I, LLC v. Utrecht, 235 Cal. App. 4th 496 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2015 – Google Scholar

The plaintiff sued its former attorneys for legal malpractice. The attorneys then moved to dismiss under the provisions of California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. The Anti-SLAPP statute allows the defendant to file a motion to dismiss where the complaint arises from activity exercising the rights of petition and free speech. The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.

On appeal, the lawsuit was reinstated by the California Court of Appeals.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: Davidson v. GUREWITZ, Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 2015 – Google Scholar

In recent years, there have been several attempts by dissatisfied family law litigants to sue lawyers appointed by the courts to serve various roles. This case involves an attempt to sue a court-appointed child’s representative for legal malpractice. This is now the third decision holding that the child’s representative has absolute immunity from a legal malpractice lawsuit. The court reasoned that the child’s representative was appointed by the court and was therefore immune.

The policy reason to grant absolute immunity is to protect the court’s ability to appoint a child’s representative. The child’s representative is appointed by statute and must confer with the child and make evidence based legal arguments on behalf of the child. Were the court to allow everyone who lost a custody case to sue the child’s representative, so the theory goes, it would make it difficult to have a child’s representative appointed.  Slippery Slope arguments are usually rejected by courts because every class of defendant in every case has, at one time or another, made such an argument. Prior decisions in Illinois rejecting similar claims are Vlastelica v. Brend, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587 and Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2009).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Source: PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC v. JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015 – Google Scholar

This is a decision affirming an arbitrator’s award of legal fees to Jenner & Block. The case is a typical attorney-client fee dispute, but here the Court enforced the parties’ arbitration clause.

The fee dispute arose out of patent litigation handled by Jenner & Block for Parallel Networks. Jenner & Block ultimately withdrew from the litigation after locating successor counsel for Parallel Networks. Jenner & Block cited the client’s failure to pay invoices on a timely basis and its lack of economic resources to continue the litigation.

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

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 – 2026, The Clinton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design