Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneyappealpleamotionhabeas corpusmalpracticelegal malpracticepiracy
tortattorneypleamalpracticelegal malpracticepiracy

Related Cases

Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014
View Case »
Bell & Marra, pllc v. Sullivan, 300 Mont. 530, 6 P.3d 965, 2000 MT 206
View Case »
State v. Berrysmith, 87 Wash.App. 268, 944 P.2d 397
View Case »
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. 377, 134 S.Ct. 1058, 188 L.Ed.2d 88, Blue Sky L. Rep. P 75,066, 82 USLW 4127, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,832, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1986, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2332, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 564
View Case »
U.S. v. Mierzwicki, 500 F.Supp. 1331, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1233
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173

Facts

In 2002, Jose Herrera-Corral and his father-in-law pleaded guilty in federal court to drug conspiracy charges, with their plea agreements reserving the right to appeal a motion to suppress evidence. While his co-defendant appealed, Herrera-Corral did not, and later filed a habeas corpus petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to Hyman's failure to file an appeal. The court of appeals found that Hyman's actions constituted ineffective assistance, leading to the dismissal of the indictment against Herrera-Corral in 2007. Subsequently, he filed a legal malpractice suit against Hyman, which was dismissed by the circuit court.

In 2002, Mr. Herrera–Corral and his father-in-law, Fidel Robeles–Ortega, entered pleas of guilty in federal court to conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.

Issue

Did the circuit court err in dismissing the legal malpractice complaint against attorney Lawrence H. Hyman?

Did the circuit court err in dismissing the legal malpractice complaint against attorney Lawrence H. Hyman?

Rule

To establish a legal malpractice claim arising from a criminal conviction, a plaintiff must prove actual innocence of the underlying charges, in addition to the standard elements of attorney-client relationship, duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Where a legal malpractice case arises from a criminal conviction, the client must prove the additional element of his or her actual innocence of the criminal charges.

Analysis

The court applied the actual innocence rule, determining that Herrera-Corral could not plead or prove his actual innocence of the drug conspiracy charge. The dismissal of the indictment did not equate to a finding of innocence, and the court emphasized that an acquittal based on the exclusion of evidence does not establish actual innocence. Therefore, the court concluded that Herrera-Corral's legal malpractice claim could not proceed without this essential element.

Mr. Herrera–Corral cannot plead his actual innocence of the drug conspiracy charge. Therefore, he cannot state a cause of action in tort for legal malpractice arising from a criminal case.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the legal malpractice complaint, concluding that Herrera-Corral's failure to establish actual innocence precluded his claims.

The dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action was correct.

Who won?

Lawrence H. Hyman prevailed in the case because the court found that Jose Herrera-Corral could not establish the necessary element of actual innocence required to support his legal malpractice claim.

Lawrence H. Hyman prevailed in the case because the court found that Jose Herrera-Corral could not establish the necessary element of actual innocence required to support his legal malpractice claim.

You must be