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

plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneynegligenceliabilitystatuteappealtrialmalpracticewillstatute of limitationslegal malpractice

plaintiffdefendantattorneynegligenceliabilitystatuteappealtrialmalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpractice

Related Cases

Lopez v. Clifford Law Offices, P.C., 362 Ill.App.3d 969, 841 N.E.2d 465, 299 Ill.Dec. 53

Facts

Jose Lopez retained the Clifford Law Offices to represent him in a wrongful death action after his daughter drowned. The firm, through attorney Thomas K. Prindable, informed Lopez that they could no longer represent him and incorrectly stated that the statute of limitations was two years instead of the correct one year. After the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations, Lopez attempted to file a wrongful death action, which was dismissed due to the late filing. Lopez subsequently filed a legal malpractice action against the Clifford firm and the referring attorney, William King.

Lopez retained the Clifford Law Offices to represent him in a wrongful death action after his daughter drowned.

Issue

Did the trial court err in dismissing the legal malpractice action against the Clifford Law Offices based on the argument that the plaintiff's consultation with another attorney constituted a superseding cause that relieved the firm of liability?

Rule

In Illinois, the elements of a legal malpractice action include the existence of an attorney-client relationship, a negligent act or omission constituting a breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. The court also considers whether the negligence of a subsequent attorney can be deemed a superseding cause that relieves the original attorney of liability.

In a legal malpractice action, ordinary negligence principles apply.

Analysis

The Appellate Court found that the Clifford defendants' incorrect legal advice regarding the statute of limitations was a proximate cause of Lopez's legal injuries. The court determined that the consultation with another attorney did not break the causal chain because that attorney did not undertake representation and thus had no duty to correct the prior attorney's incorrect advice. The court emphasized that the original attorney's negligence in providing incorrect advice could have contributed to the plaintiff's failure to timely seek replacement counsel.

The Appellate Court found that the Clifford defendants' incorrect legal advice regarding the statute of limitations was a proximate cause of Lopez's legal injuries.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the malpractice action, concluding that genuine issues of material fact regarding causation precluded dismissal and that the plaintiff's reliance on the incorrect advice was reasonable.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the malpractice action.

Who won?

Jose Lopez prevailed in the appeal because the Appellate Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing his malpractice claim, as there were unresolved factual issues regarding the causation of his legal injuries.

Jose Lopez prevailed in the appeal because the Appellate Court found that the trial court erred in dismissing his malpractice claim.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Horne v. Peckham, 97 Cal.App.3d 404, 158 Cal.Rptr. 714, 207 U.S.P.Q. 527

Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d 961

In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,521, 50 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1058

McDonald v. Emory Healthcare Eye Center, 391 Fed.Appx. 851

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Hadnot, 101 S.W.3d 642, 4 A.L.R.6th 763