Published on:

By

A qui tam case is a case in which a plaintiff, usually a former insider, sues his former employer on behalf of the United States and alleges that the United States was defrauded. The plaintiff is referred to as a “relator.” The relevant statute is the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3729, which allows qui tam actions on behalf of the United States to allow the United States to recover where the government was defrauded. In many cases, the United States takes the case over and proceeds to judgment. The individual relator is then awarded a fee for bringing the fraud to the attention of the United States.

This is an unusual qui tam action, United States of America, Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. Quest Diagnostics, Unilab Corp., Second Circuit, 11-1565-cv, in which the Second Circuit upheld the disqualification of the defendant’s former general counsel from acting as a plaintiff against his former employer. The attorney, Mark Bibi, for several years was the general counsel for a corporation that was later purchased by the Defendant.

The Bottom Line:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

KELLEY & WITHERSPOON, LLP v. Hooper, Tex: Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2013 – Google Scholar.

When the claim is that a lawyer breached the duty of care and thereby lost a case, the plaintiff must prove a case within a case, that is, that but for the lawyer’s negligence the plaintiff would have won the underlying case.

The Hooper case is a routine legal malpractice case in which the lawyers allegedly failed to sue the correct defendant in an auto accident case. At trial the jury found the law firm negligent and awarded damages of $235,000.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Par

via Malm v. MOMKUS McCLUSKEY, LLC, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a link to an unpublished decision denying a motion for Rule 11 sanctions in a legal malpractice. The client was sued in connection with a business transaction in the Northern District of Georgia. In 2009, the law firm withdrew from the representation. The court gave the client until May 4, 2009 to get a new attorney.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

RAFOOL v. Evans, Dist. Court, CD Illinois 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is a legal malpractice case where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant lawyers were negligent in failing to instruct the plaintiff to draw on a letter of credit prior to filing bankruptcy. The court held that there was no legal malpractice because the letters of credit were the property of the bankruptcy estate.  The letters of credit could have been assumed by the bankruptcy trustee.   The opinion also provides a thorough discussion of the law relating to letters of credit.

Thus, this is a case where the lawyers did not cause any damage to the plaintiff because the letters of credit were the property of the bankruptcy estate.

Published on:

By

McClintock v. West, Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Illinois courts have held that a guardian ad litem is immune from a lawsuit from one of the parties. A guardian ad litem is a lawyer appointed by the court in a family law case usually to protect the interests of a minor child. Family law litigants often become frustrated with the guardian ad litem. Here the frustrations mounted after the guardian submitted a fee petition.

This case is unusual in that the guardian was appointed to protect the interests of the plaintiff husband, who was suffering from extreme depression. Here, the plaintiff’s causes of action of negligence, fraud and legal malpractice were dismissed on the ground that the guardian ad litem was immune from suit. The court held that the negligence and fraud causes of action were barred by quasi-judicial immunity.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Koch v. PECHOTA, Dist. Court, SD New York 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is an immigration malpractice case where the lawyers were hired to represent a woman to help her obtain a green card. They apparently succeeded in that effort. Later, the plaintiff was deported. She sued the lawyers for legal malpractice, arguing that they failed to prevent the deportation.

The defendant lawyers argued that the representation ended when the green card was issued. Therefore, under their logic, they did not commit legal malpractice by failing to prevent the deportation of the plaintiff.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

800 SOUTH WELLS COMMERCIAL, LLC v. HORWOOD MARCUS AND BERK CHARTERED, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

Plaintiff alleged that Horwood Marcus & Berk (HMB) aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by Nicholas Gouletas and John Cadden.

Legal malpractice is governed by a two-year statute of limitations in Illinois. 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b). Breaches of fiduciary duty are governed by a five-year statute of limitations. The question presented was which statute of limitations applies when a lawyer is alleged to have aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff argued that the two-year statute of limitations only applies in legal malpractice cases. The court, relying on the plain language of Section 13-214.3(b) disagreed because the text of the statute does not refer specifically to legal malpractice claims.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

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:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

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