Patterson Law Firm Prevails: Legal Malpractice Claims Dismissed
On October 24, 2022, Patterson Law Firm successfully defended against another attempt by legal malpractice defendants to dismiss claims against them. This significant case, filed in Cook County, Illinois, involved allegations that a lawyer and their firm failed to adequately protect the creative rights to the life stories of individuals intended for a proposed television program. A subsequent dispute over ownership led to litigation, where a court ruled that the plaintiffs had not properly secured these creative rights, resulting in their ownership by other parties. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendants.
Understanding Statute of Limitations and Repose in Illinois Malpractice Law
The defendants sought to dismiss the malpractice complaint, asserting that the case was barred by both the statute of limitations and the statute of repose. In Illinois, a legal malpractice claim must be initiated within two years from the date the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its wrongful cause (the statute of limitations). However, no malpractice claim can be brought in Illinois more than six years after the malpractice occurred (the statute of repose).
Plaintiffs contended they were unaware that their creative rights had not been properly protected until a date within the two-year statute of limitations period preceding the filing of their complaint. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to establish when the plaintiffs knew or should have known about the failure to protect their creative rights.
Court Rejects Dismissal Arguments on Malpractice Timing and Causation
Defendants argued that since the operating agreement they drafted for the venture was signed more than six years before the malpractice case was filed, the claim should be barred by the statute of repose. The court rejected this argument, holding that the alleged malpractice stemmed not from the drafting of the operating agreement itself, but from failures arising from noncompliance with the agreement. Therefore, the drafting of the agreement was not considered the triggering event for the statute of repose.
The court also dismissed the defendants’ challenge regarding the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to adequately demonstrate that the malpractice proximately caused their injuries. The court held that proximate causation in legal malpractice cases is generally a factual issue to be determined at trial.
Plaintiffs contended they were unaware that their creative rights had not been properly protected until a date within the two-year statute of limitations period preceding the filing of their complaint. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to establish when the plaintiffs knew or should have known about the failure to protect their creative rights.
Considering a Legal Malpractice Claim? Contact Our Illinois Attorneys
If you believe you may have a claim for legal malpractice but are concerned that too much time has passed, contact Kristi L. Browne at kbrowne@pattersonlawfirm.com. She can help you determine whether you still have time to file your claim and explore your legal options.
