Published on:

By

QUAD CITY BANK & TRUST v. ELDERKIN & PIRNIE, PLC, Iowa: Court of Appeals 2015 – Google Scholar.

This is an unusual legal theory in a legal malpractice case. In the underlying case, the plaintiff bank brought a case against an accounting firm on the ground that the accounting firm had failed to detect improper transactions by one of the bank’s lending clients. The lending client had apparently falsified its inventory reports, leading the bank to believe that there was more inventory than in fact existed. The bank’s claim in the legal malpractice case was that had it received accurate information from the auditing firm, the bank would have been able to foreclose on the loan sooner and it would have mitigated its losses. The underlying case went poorly for the bank because the bank’s expert witness was barred from testifying at trial. The court summarized the facts as follows:

“The case against [the accounting firm] proceeded to trial, but [the accounting firm] successfully moved to have the bank’s sole expert witness excluded from testifying because the expert was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding the standard of care applicable to [the accounting firm]. See Quad City Bank & Trust v. Jim Kircher & Assocs., P.C., 804 N.W.2d 83, 93-94 (Iowa 2011) (upholding the district court’s ruling excluding the bank’s expert from testifying because he was not qualified to offer an opinion as to the applicable standard of care). The case proceeded to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of [the accounting firm], and that verdict was upheld on appeal. Id.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In re Krull :: 2015 :: Iowa Supreme Court Decisions :: Iowa Case Law :: Iowa Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a reprimand to an attorney, Douglas Krull, who was also a part-time magistrate. As a lawyer Krull represented a woman against her ex-husband in her efforts to modify child custody arrangements. As a magistrate, Krull signed a search warrant allowing the police to search the home of his client. Because the custody case was deemed “related” to the criminal case, Krull violated the Code of Judicial Ethics because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Its difficult to understand how the attorney could have failed to recognize the problem that signing a warrant to allow the police to search his client’s home would case. At the very least, he could count on an angry call from the client (or soon to be former client).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Ill. State Bar Ass’n Mut. Ins. Co. v. Law Office of Tuzzolino & Terpinas :: 2015 :: Supreme Court of Illinois Decisions :: Illinois Case Law :: Illinois Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.

This is an important decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in which it held that ISBA Mutual (the legal malpractice insurer for many lawyers in Illinois) could rescind a policy where one partner of a firm falsely responded to a question on the renewal application.

Although ISBA Mutual is the insurer for most Illinois lawyers it is also highly litigious, often bringing coverage lawsuits against lawyers based on their answers to questions in the renewal application. Legal malpractice policies are claims made policies under which the insurer agrees to insure the lawyer or law firm (or both) for any claims made during a one-year period. The insurer typically sends a questionnaire to the lawyer in which it requests that the lawyer identify any claims that are outstanding or have not been reported to the insurer. In the case, the parties alleged that a former client named Colleta had a legal malpractice claim against Tuzzolino. The opinion’s summary is as follows:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Olszewski v. Jordan :: 2015 :: Connecticut Supreme Court Decisions :: Connecticut Case Law :: Connecticut Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.

This case is from Connecticut and, obviously, is not binding in Illinois. It holds that a divorce attorney cannot assert an equitable lien on marital property in a marital dissolution action.

Published on:

By

FERRIS, THOMPSON & ZWEIG, LTD. v. Esposito, Ill: Supreme Court 2015 – Google Scholar.

This mundane dispute between two law firms quarreling over a referral fee reached the Illinois Supreme Court. Because the underlying case was a workers compensation case, the Defendant law firm argued that the dispute should have been resolved by the Workers Compensation Commission. The Supreme Court, affirming the Appellate Court, held that the dispute presented an issue of contract, which should be resolved by the Circuit Court.

This is the key language:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Beery v. Chandler, Dist. Court, ED Missouri 2015 – Google Scholar.

Plaintiff sued his former personal injury lawyer for legal malpractice, alleging that the lawyer negligently advised him to reject a settlement offer. The lawyer sued for legal fees under breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment theories. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that the lawyer was not licensed in Missouri.  Plaintiff noted that the Missouri state court had denied the lawyer a lien on the recovery on the ground that the lawyer was not licensed.

The district court rejected that argument apparently on the ground that the lawyer was licensed in Illinois and appears to have done work on the case. There is some suggestion that the lawyer indicated on his stationery that he had an office in Missouri.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

2nd Circ. Holds JPMorgan To Faulty Mayer Brown Loan Deal – Law360.

The allegations are that Mayer Brown, which represented General Motors, drafted a release of JP Morgan’s UCC lien. JP Morgan did not object after the release of the lien was filed. Interestingly, the law firm that represented JP Morgan did not object to the documents prepared by Mayer Brown.

The Second Circuit, after a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court, held that JP Morgan lost is secured creditor status and became an unsecured creditor.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Todd A. Duckson v. Continental Casualty Company, 14-1465 MJD/JJK (D. Minn. 12 8 2014).

Lawyers often get into trouble with legal malpractice insurers when they become involved in outside businesses. Most legal malpractice policies exclude coverage of any lawsuit arising out of non-legal business activity. Here, an attorney became involved in the sale of interests of a real estate fund, known as Capital Solutions Monthly Income Fund LP.

Duckson was an attorney with Hinshaw & Culbertson, a law firm with its main office in Chicago, Illinois. Duckson sued Continental alleging that Continental breached its duty under a legal malpractice insurance policy to provide coverage to Duckson. In particular, Duckson alleged that Continental had a duty to defend him and indemnify him in response a lawsuit brought against Duckson and Hinshaw in California state court. The case is referred to as the Shoor action.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This case was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in October 2014.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice when they failed to preserve a cause of action under the Illinois Securities Law against an investment firm. Plaintiffs alleged that the lawyers failed to file a rescission claim in a timely fashion causing it to be barred under the statute of limitations. A rescission claim allows the buyer to undo the purchase and obtain a refund of the purchase price. A complicating factor was the settlement of the underlying securities case for $3.2 million.

The main issue in the appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court was section 13(A) of the Illinois Securities Law, 815 ILCS 5/13(A) and how that section impacted the damage claim of the plaintiffs. That section provides:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In the appeal captioned, Stevens v. McGuirewoods, LLP, 2014 IL App (1st) 13-3952, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of McGuirewoods. The Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in applying collateral estoppel to bar the claims.

In their complaint against McGuireWoods, the plaintiffs alleged that the law firm breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs by failing to assert claims against Sidley Austin LLP (Sidley). McGuireWoods moved for summary judgment on the ground that in the underlying case the trial judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Sidley.

The plaintiffs were former minority shareholders of Beeland Management LLC. They hired McGuireWoods to bring both individual and derivative claims on their behalf and derivative claims on behalf of Beeland against Beeland’s managers and majority shareholder. In the litigation, the plaintiffs eventually sued Sidley for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. (In a derivative claim, the shareholder stands in the shoes of the corporation and files a lawsuit against someone who has allegedly breached a duty to the corporation.).

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