On Jan. 21, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations had not expired on a malpractice claim as time did not accrue until the trial court entered judgment.
Initial users of the ARDC's self-assessment program for lawyers who don't carry malpractice insurance are giving the program high marks, the commission reports.
There's a six-year statute of repose for legal malpractice - unless the alleged act or omission isn't discovered until the client dies. Estate planning lawyers want more protection.
Filing a breach of contract claim triggers the limitations period for a legal malpractice claim against the attorney who assisted in drafting the contract.
By Zachary J. Freeman, Thomas M. Staunton, & Arthur W. Friedman
December
2015
Article
, Page 32
A look at the unique malpractice risks - including the third-party beneficiary rule and the extended statute of repose - faced by estate planning lawyers.
A lawyer who was disciplined for posting a YouTube video of police buying drugs from his client has filed a federal lawsuit challenging his suspension.
On February 21, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the time limits for claims against attorneys arising out of the performance of professional services apply to actions by non-clients, resolving a split among the districts of the appellate court.
Res judicata and collateral estoppel can be powerful defenses in litigation malpractice cases, even when the lawyer was not a party to the underlying action. But they aren't without limitations.
Should shareholders who have no relationship with a corporation's lawyer be able to bring a legal malpractice suit on behalf of the entity? This author says "no."
An Illinois Appellate Court found that a prior court's resolution of an issue arising under federal patent law was sufficient to allow a state court to claim subject matter jurisdiction where there were no other remaining issues arising under federal patent law.
A plaintiff who sued a lawyer for malpractice in the preparation of a quitclaim deed was too late because any injury occurred when the deed was prepared, not later when her husband died.
In Union Planters, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a legal malpractice plaintiff need not prove a "case-within-a-case" in an action arising out of transaction-based legal malpractice.
On November 10, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County finding, in a legal malpractice suit, that the contingent fee arrangement between the parties was not void, and that jurisdiction over the malpractice claim rested exclusively with the federal courts.
On August 20, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County finding that the defendant had committed legal malpractice.
