Published on:

By

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. RISEBOROUGH, Ill: Supreme Court 2014 – Google Scholar.

The Illinois Statute of Repose bars claims against a lawyer arising out of actions that occurred more than six years before the case was filed. In this case, an insurance company (Evanston) sued two lawyers and alleged that the lawyer defendants wrongfully entered into a settlement agreement on behalf of Evanston’s insured.

The lawyer defendants moved to dismissed based upon the Statute of Repose. (735 ILCS 5/13-214.3 (West 2008). The trial court granted the motion, but the Illinois Appellate Court reversed. It held that the statute of repose did not apply because Evanston was not a client of the lawyer defendants.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Huang v. Brenson, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist. 2014 – Google Scholar.

This opinion affirmed the dismissal of a legal malpractice action filed against a lawyer who defended a legal malpractice case.  This case is unusual because there are two underlying cases, an immigration matter and the legal malpractice case arising out of the immigration matter.

Plaintiff John Huang is an immigration lawyer. The defendant was Ian Brenson, who defended Huang in a legal malpractice action.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Former Top Leaders of Dewey & LeBoeuf Are Indicted – NYTimes.com.

The New York Times is reporting that the former leaders of Dewey Ballantine have been indicted for deceiving banks and other investors with false accounting information. This is a sad end for a once great law firm. For those who were partners of the firm (or shareholders) the firm’s demise has caused significant litigation and grief.

 

Published on:

By

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNNAMED ATTORNEY, No. 2012–SC–000388–KB., December 19, 2013 – KY Supreme Court | FindLaw.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky has issued a private reprimand to an “Unnamed Attorney” as a result of that attorney’s conduct in settling a case. Specifically, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that Unnamed Attorney was retained to represent another attorney in a disciplinary matter. Unnamed Attorney negotiated a settlement of the dispute between his attorney client and the complaining witness, referred to as Jane Doe. The terms of the settlement included a payment of $30,000 to Jane Doe. Additonally, Unnamed Attorney inserted the following provision in the settlement agreement:

Specifically, paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement stated:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Davis v. Fenton, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2014 – Google Scholar.

Chief Judge Castillo has stayed an unusual legal malpractice case pending the outcome of arbitration. The case is highly unusual because it was filed by Kelli Dudley a lawyer who defends against foreclosures.  In this case her client alleges that her former foreclosure defense attorney, Ernest Fenton, engaged in violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, as well as common law legal malpractice.

The district court followed well-settled law in enforcing an arbitration clause in the engagement letter and staying the case in favor of arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court also rejected claims that the Defendant had waived the arbitration clause.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

YCB INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. UCF TRADING CO., LTD., Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2014 – Google Scholar.

This is an opinion by Judge Holderman who held that a judgment creditor cannot force a judgment debtor to assign a potential legal malpractice claim to the creditor. Here, upon obtaining the judgment YCB asked UCF to assign to YCB any legal malpractice claims against UCF’s former counsel, Schopf & Weiss. This is a potentially ugly result for the lawyers, who defended their client before they withdrew, only to risk being thrown to the wolves to fund a settlement. Judge Holderman rejected the proposed assignment.

While Illinois law allows the assignment of a claim held by the debtor, it does not allow the assignment of a potential or unasserted claim. The court explained that under Illinois law permits assignments of claims.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is captioned Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd., 2014 IL App (2d) 130129. The plaintiff law firm entered into a written agreement with the defendant, another lawyer, under which two workers’ compensation cases were referred to defendant’s law firm. Under the agreement, plaintiff was to receive 45% of the legal fees recovered in the cases with the defendant receiving the remaining 55%.

When the cases concluded, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff law firm and the plaintiff filed a breach of contract action. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have brought the case before the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission and not in the circuit. The trial court rejected this claim and entered a monetary judgment for breach of contract. The Appellate Court, in a written opinion dated February 5, 2014, affirmed in all respects.

The Appellate Court construed the Worker’s Compensation Act and held that the Commission has the authority to resolve questions relating to the amount of the fee award, but did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the referral fee dispute.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Cabrera v Collazo 2014 NY Slip Op 00622.

This is an opinion of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The facts were simple. The attorney missed the applicable statute of limitations and the client’s claim was barred. In such cases, the lawyer is liable for legal malpractice if the client can prove that, but for the attorney’s error, he would have won the underlying case.

Here, the lawyer’s estate raised an unusual defense. The attorney defendant passed away before the statute of limitations on the client’s claim ran. The lawyer’s estate is really making this argument: the lawyer passed away while the client’s claim was still viable, therefore, the client could have chosen another lawyer and filed the claim in timely fashion.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Frechtman v. Gutterman, 2014 NY Slip Op 00437, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, a lawyer received an irate letter from his client in which his services were terminated. The lawyer sought to sue for defamation. The trial court dismissed the defamation case and the Appellate Division affirmed.

The letter contained the following statements: “We do not believe you adequately represented our interest,” “We believe your failure to act in our best interest in reference to certain matters upon first engaging in the matter may equate to misconduct, malpractice, and negligence,” “We believe that your future representation on this matter only became necessary, as a result of mistakes and oversights made by you acting as counsel,” and “[w]e believe that we should not pay for the value of services for which any misconduct or counsel oversight relates to the representation for which fees are sought.”

The trial court held that the statements above were merely statements of opinion, not statements of fact, and, thus, were not actionable. The court found the use of the phrase “we believe” significant. The court further held that statements by a client discharging a lawyer are absolutely privileged.  Finally, the court also held that a qualified privilege would apply and that the plaintiff did not allege malice sufficient to overcome the privilege.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE.

A lawyer, Betty Tsamis, and the ARDC have agreed to a reprimand to settle a disciplinary complaint. There were two counts in the complaint. Count I alleged that Tsamis inadvertently converted settlement funds because of poor bookkeeping practices.  Count II gathered news attention. Count II alleged that Tsamis violated client confidentiality in responding to a negative review on the Avvo.com website.

The Joint Stipulation states: “ On April 10, 2013, Rinehart (the client) posted a second negative client review of Respondent on AVVO. Respondent replied to his post and revealed confidential information about his case. Respondent’s reply to Rinehart’s second posting contained information relating to her representation of Rinehart and exceeded what was necessary to respond to Rinehart’s accusations.”

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