Published on:

By

We receive many calls and other inquiries from former clients of other firms who believe that their lawyer made an error or committed legal malpractice. Here are few suggestions for those who wish to call us.

First, make sure that you have proof that the lawyer agreed to represent you. Proof can be an engagement letter or a cancelled check. A cancelled check is often the best proof because it prevents the lawyer from arguing that there was no attorney-client relationship.

Second, make sure you have a record of what the lawyer sent to you in writing. All too often written communications have been lost or thrown away by clients, preventing us from understanding how the relationship deteriorated.  Those written communications are critical. We often must spend lots of time tracking them down. Lawyers who have made an error often are reluctant to turn over their files.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Kadlec v. Sumner, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 2nd Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

This is an opinion affirming the dismissal of a contribution claim against an accounting firm.

The executor of an estate sued the lawyer for the estate, alleging that the lawyer failed to timely file estate tax returns and that the estate suffered a financial loss as a result. The lawyer then filed a contribution claim against the accounting firm. The trial court dismissed the contribution claim on the ground that the statute of limitations for accounting malpractice had expired.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Kramer v. AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, NA, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2013 – Google Scholar.

Magistrate Cole has written an opinion denying a motion to disqualify an attorney for a plaintiff class in a class action.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ari Karen. The defendant is the American National Bank. The Bank claimed that Karen formed an attorney-client relationship with the Bank by exchanging confidential information with one of the bank’s management consultants at a seminar. Magistrate Cole rejected the claim and concluded that the Bank’s consultant did not provide credible testimony.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is captioned In the Matter of Thomas M. Dixon, 71S00-1104-D1-196.

The Indiana Supreme Court dismissed all charges against Thomas Dixon, an attorney who represented 85 pro-life protestors in proceedings before Judge Jenny Pitts Manier.  Judge Manier is married “to Professor Edward Manier, who was a tenured professor at Notre Dame and taught there for 48 years.”

Dixon filed a motion for a change of judge. He sought Judge Manier’s recusal “based on her husband’s alleged advocacy in favor of pro-choice causes and academic freedom for Notre Dame, along with Judge Manier’s failure to disclose this alleged advocacy. [Dixon] argued that his clients were arrested because they acted on beliefs about abortion and academic freedom for Notre Dame that were directly contrary to the beliefs allegedly advocated by Professor Manier during her career….In addition [Dixon] cited Judge Manier’s allegedly erroneous rulings in [a prior case involving abortion-rights protestors.].”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The case is captioned In the Matter of Joseph Stork Smith, 29S00-1201-D1-8.

The Indiana Supreme Court disbarred an attorney for “revealing confidential information relating to his representation of a former client by publishing the information in a book for personal gain.”  The lawyer also allegedly had a sexual relationship with the client. In the book, the lawyer revealed “such details as his negotiations regarding bail and plea agreements, conversations with a police detective, conversations with [client] pertaining to the charges and her incarceration, [client’s] mental and physical state, the source of funds for restitution, discussions about his fees, and personal thoughts about [client] and about the matters.”

The Indiana Supreme Court rejected the claim that the lawyer obtained the client’s consent before disclosing the confidences.  The Indiana Supreme Court was especially concerned that the confidential information was revealed for personal financial gain.  The main violation alleged was Rule 1.9(c)(1) and (2) which prohibit disclosures of information concerning former clients.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Fink v. SHELDON BANK, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 3rd Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

Illinois has long followed the actual innocence rule, which holds that a criminal defendant may not sue his former attorney for legal malpractice unless he can prove that he was actually innocent of the crime.

A plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must prove a case-within-a-case, that is he must prove that, but for the lawyer’s negligence he would have won the underlying case. In the criminal context, the word “won” means “actual innocence.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE v. HOFF & HERRAN, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Illinois Attorney Lien Act of 1909 (yes, that is not a typo) provides that an attorney can place al lien on a claim that his client places with him for collection. Liens are typically asserted in contingent fee cases. A lawyer who is paid by the hour usually does not have a lien because he has already been fully compensated.

The typical lien situation is one where a claimant hires a lawyer to sue someone. Filing suit is not enough for an attorney lien. Instead, the lawyer must serve the party “against whom” the client has a claim. That means that the lawyer must serve the adverse party with a copy of the lien. There is no requirement that the lawyer serve his own client with the lien.

Continue reading →
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 →
Contact Information
111 W Washington St, #1437
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312.357.1515

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

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