The Res Judicata Defense to Legal Malpractice ClaimsBy Zachary J. FreemanFebruary 2014Article, Page 80Res 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.
Statute of repose bars legal malpractice claimBy Helen W. GunnarssonAugust 2011LawPulse, Page 382A 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.
Avoiding Legal Malpractice After Union PlantersBy Matthew S. DionneJune 2011Article, Page 306In 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.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims in patent infringement casesJanuary 2010Illinois Law Update, Page 16On 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.
Malpractice Top 40By Karen ErgerAugust 2009Column, Page 424A review of chart-topping lawyer errors.
Judicial estoppel does not protect against malpracticeNovember 2007Illinois Law Update, Page 576On August 17, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County dismissing the plaintiff's legal malpractice action pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil Procedure section 2-619 based on the theory of judicial estoppel.