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 →
Published on:

By

Randy M. Brown v. Universal Realty Group, et al. 2010 L 008953, 2014 IL App (1st) 1420241-U.

This is an unpublished opinion by the First District, Sixth Division, affirming a decision of the circuit court of cook county, which adjudicated an attorney’s lien of Brooks, Tarulis & Tibble (BT&T) to zero. Please note that I represented Randy Brown in this appeal.

The Illinois Attorney’s Lien Act, 770 ILCS 5/1 (2012) allows an attorney to place a lien on a client’s claim or cause of action. According to the opinion, Brown operated a Harold’s Chicken Shack restaurant in a building in Broadview, Illinois. The roof of the building collapsed, which destroyed Brown’s store. Brown, represented by Elizabeth Bacon, filed suit against the management company and the owners of the building. Ms. Bacon later joined BT&T. “On December 4, 2012, BT&T, by certified mail, served a notice of attorney’s lien on the attorney representing all defendants in the suit. The notice of attorney’s lien stated that Randy Brown, on or about September 12, 2011, had ‘placed in our hands’ the suit against defendants relating to the collapse of the building on January 15, 2009.  The notice of attorney’s lien further stated plaintiffs had agreed to pay BT&T ‘for all legal services rendered from whatever amount may be recovered,’ and to reimburse BT&T’s costs. The notice of attorney’s lien was served on December 5, 2012, as evidenced by a signed certified mail receipt contained in the record.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

It’s unethical for prosecutors to lend out letterhead to debt collectors, ABA opinion says.

The ABA has issued an ethics opinion (No. 469) which provides that prosecutors should not lend their stationery to debt collectors. Some prosecutors were lending their letterhead to debt collectors who were then using the letterhead to collect money from debtors. The obvious problem is that the use of this letterhead is designed to threaten people who cannot pay their bills with prosecution.

My reaction to this opinion is one of disbelief. Has our profession really sunk so low that we are letting debt collectors use official letterhead to collect money? Did it not occur to these prosecutors that it was a bad idea to use the imprimatur of their office to collect private debts? Are we not professionals who hold ourselves out to the public as the protectors of civil liberty and rule of law? Who were the people who thought this was a good idea?

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Former Navy SEAL, Author of Bin Laden Best Seller, May Face Costly Penalties, Lawyer Says – NYTimes.com.

The former Navy Seal who wrote a book on the Bin Laden raid has filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against his former lawyers. He alleges that the lawyers were negligent in failing to advise him that publishing the book would run afoul of government rules. The alleged errors may cost the former Navy Seal $4.5 million in royalties and the movie rights to the book.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Published on:

By

VISSING v. CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF AVIATION COMMISSIONERS, Ind: Court of Appeals 2014 – Google Scholar.

The malpractice lawsuit arose out of an effort to claim, by eminent domain, certain property, which was to be used to an airport. In 2009, the Clark County Aviation Board attempted to purchase land to expand the Clark County Airport.

The alleged error was the failure to object to the landowner’s attempt to file exceptions to an appraiser’s report in the applicable statutory period.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Dillon v. MURPHY & HOURIHANE, LLP, Dist. Court, ND California 2014 – Google Scholar.

The plaintiff brought the legal malpractice action in federal court in San Jose. The defendant law firm moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for transfer of the case to Illinois. The district judge denied both motions.

The court explained that the defendant had taken actions in California.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In a recent decision, Bluestein v. Central Wisconsin Anesthesiology, S.C., Nos. 13-3724, 14-1256 and 14-1257, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of Bluestein’s claim that she was wrongly terminated in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq. and other civil rights statutes.

The problem with the claim was that Bluestein was an owner of the practice and even voted on her own termination. There was and is well-settled law that owners cannot sue under the ADA or other civil rights statutes.

The district court found that “the undisputed facts demonstrated that Bluestein was an employer rather than an employee; … that she did not demonstrate that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA because she produced no evidence of a substantial limitation in a major life activity; ..”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Matter of Davis 2014 NY Slip Op 07080.

A bankruptcy lawyer was disciplined for allowing a third party to use his electronic login to file bankruptcy petitions. The pertinent part of the opinion states:

“At issue were four involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed between June and December 2011 against debtor Joseph Lipschitz; three of the petitions were filed by purported pro se creditor Manuel Goldsmith and the fourth was filed by Mendel Minko, also a pro se creditor [FN1]. Two of the petitions were filed with the Southern District and the other two were filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The first petition was withdrawn by the petitioner creditor and the subsequent three were dismissed for failure to [*2]prosecute.[FN2]

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

If true, this is an ugly awful tale in which a lawyer, Robert M. Stephenson, stole from trusts established by his parents for the benefit of his own children. The key allegations are set forth in the complaint:

“1. In May 2007, Respondent agreed to serve as trustee of the Robert McCreary Stephenson and Martha LaFon Stephenson Annual Exclusion Gifting Trust (“the children’s trust”), which had been created and funded in Florida at that time by Respondent’s parents, Robert McCreary Stephenson and Martha LaFon Stephenson.

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