Avvo.com is a website that rates lawyers. Most lawyers have profiles on the site, even if you do not “claim” the profile. Here, a client criticized a lawyer on Avvo and the lawyer made the mistake of responding to the review in detail. The problem was that the response allegedly revealed confidential information.
The ARDC alleges:
The case is captioned Walter Duemer v. Edward T. Joyce and Associates, P.C., 2013 IL App (1st) 120687.
This case involved a fee dispute between Joyce, the attorney, and his former clients. In 2002, Joyce agreed to represent the plaintiffs in securities litigation with Deloitte & Touche, Jeffries Company, EPS Solutions and Enterprise Profit Solutions Corporations in connection with plaintiffs’ purchase of EPS stock. The fee agreement provided for “a contingent fee equal to twenty-five (25) percent of any and all money or other benefits recovered on the claims.” In the underlying case, plaintiffs obtained settlements with some defendants and obtained an arbitration award against EPS. However, EPS’s insurers refused to pay the arbitration award.
In 2007, Joyce retained Morgan Lewis to file suit against the insurers of EPS.
In Illinois, a lawyer is not required to obtain legal malpractice insurance. If you want to know if your lawyer has legal malpractice coverage, you should go to www.iardc.org and review the lawyer’s listing under “Lawyer Search.” Obviously, if the lawyer has insurance coverage, you have a better chance of obtaining a financial recovery if there is an error or omission by the lawyer. Lawyers who have insurance have also passed muster with the insurance company, which does some research on each lawyer it covers.
For lawyers, having insurance means that the lawyer can obtain defense counsel in the event of a lawsuit or ARDC grievance.
Before you hire a lawyer, you should check with the ARDC website and determine if your lawyer has insurance.
Steinmetz v. WOLGAMOT, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 1st Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.
In 1997, Dr. Steinmetz enrolled in a program known as AEGIS, which the defendants informed him would protect his assets and reduce his tax liabilities. The IRS disagreed and sent Dr. Steinmetz a deficiency notice on December 31, 1999. Years later the doctor sued the promoters of the tax shelter for fraud and his lawyer for legal malpractice.
The trial court granted the lawyer’s motion for summary judgment and the appellate court affirmed. In Illinois, the discovery rule applies. The plaintiff must bring his case within two years of the discovery of the legal malpractice. Here, the plaintiff claimed that he was unaware of the problem for many years (while his tax controversy with the IRS was being resolved). The Court disagreed. It held that the statute of limitations was triggered on December 31, 1999, when he received the Notice of Deficiency from the IRS. Because the doctor did not bring his case until December 2005, his claim was barred.
Opinion – this article appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on Tuesday August 13, 2013.
By Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
The ARDC has charged a 2007 Northern Illinois graduate, Reema Bajaj, for her role in criminal conduct, namely pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of prostitution, lying to the ARDC and failing to answer some questions accurately in her application to be a member of the Illinois bar. According to the ARDC complaint, which can be found on its website, Ms. Bajaj engaged in sex acts for money. In 2011, she was charged with prostitution by the States Attorney of DeKalb County. The case has received extensive coverage from the website abovethelaw.com and other media outlets. I have never met Bajaj and know of this case only through media reports.
The case is captioned, Klever Belisario Miranda v. Michael H. Said, 11-0552, Supreme Court of Iowa, July 19, 2013.
This is an immigration malpractice case. Plaintiffs were two citizens of Ecuador who entered the United States without documents. Their son, Cesar, joined them in 1995. They gave birth to another child, Ronaldo, in 1998.
In 2005 Klever received notice of a removal order. He consulted with Said. Said allegedly advised him to return to Ecuador and have his son Cesar sponsor him and Nancy for citizenship once Cesar obtained citizenship. He advised Cesar to use form I-130, which permits a citizen to sponsor a relative’s application for citizenship. Further, he advised the plaintiffs to use form I-601, which permits an applicant who is otherwise ineligible, to be admitted into the country based on “extreme hardship” to a qualifying relative.
Grace v. Law, 2013 NY Slip Op 5383 – NY: Appellate Div., 4th Dept. 2013 – Google Scholar.
This is a New York case in which the defendant lawyer raised an important issue: in a legal malpractice case is the plaintiff required to exhaust all of his appeals in the underlying litigation before she can bring the legal malpractice action?
The answer is “No.” The plaintiff is allowed to resolve or abandon the underlying case.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has disciplined a lawyer for posing as a client of a lawyer on a website and posting a false negative review.
Comment: This is another example of poor judgment in internet activity being used to punish a lawyer.
The case is captioned:
Matter of O’Hare (2013 NY Slip Op 05320).
The New York Appellate Division has suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year for creating an online profile on a lesbian dating site. The lawyer who is male was also convicted of attempted aggravated harassment.
The Court described the facts as follows: “The underlying facts, which are undisputed, are as follows: the respondent, using the internet, went to a dating site for lesbians and created a sham posting by impersonating a woman whom he knew years ago; he used both his home and work computers for this activity. The respondent was aware that the sham posting would likely cause embarrassment to the woman, who was a mother of three.”
Recently, the undersigned encountered an arbitration clause drafted by a successful Chicago law firm.
I will quote the relevant language in full and then discuss what the language means for a client. I am not in any way criticizing the clause or the lawyers who drafted it.
“This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of Illinois and any disputes concerning the Agreement, our fees that relate in any way to our representation, including any claims relating to our billings for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence or malpractice or other disputes over our representation, shall be resolved under Illinois law in Chicago, Illinois through a summary procedure involving limited discovery in which we will jointly appoint a qualified arbitrator who specializes in such matters to promptly resolve any disputes through arbitration, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. These limitations shall be imposed on any arbitration: (i) five (5) depositions, thirty (30) interrogatories, forty (40) document requests and fifty (50) requests for admissions per side; (ii) pre-hearing briefs totaling fifteen (15) pages per side; (iii) post-hearing briefs totaling twenty-five (25) pages per side; (iv) no more than three (3) days for hearing testimony and argument. Because this procedure for dispute resolution involves a waiver of [Client’s] rights and ours, we jointly acknowledge that this alternative procedure for dispute resolution waives our respective rights to seek relief through litigation or to have a trial by jury or to conduct full discovery or to appeal or to otherwise exercise rights available in litigation, rather than through arbitration. It is therefore, important that this matter be carefully discussed with independent counsel and only after that review has been completed can we jointly agree to this alternative dispute-resolution procedure. In the event agreement cannot be reached on a suitable arbitrator, we shall jointly seek the assistance of the American Bar Association for the selection of a suitable person. (Emphasis supplied).
Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog