Understanding Legal Malpractice Claims and the Statute of Limitations in Illinois
In a significant ruling on October 3, 2022, Patterson Law Firm achieved a crucial victory, for the second time, by successfully defeating defendants’ efforts to dismiss a legal malpractice case. The core of the defendants’ argument was that the statute of limitations had expired before the claim was even filed. This case underscores the complexities of Illinois legal malpractice statute of limitations and when the clock truly begins to tick on such claims.
The plaintiff in this case alleged that their previous attorneys, representing them in a lawsuit against a former business partner, committed malpractice. Specifically, the malpractice stemmed from the attorneys’ failure to secure a court injunction to prevent the partner from withdrawing all funds from a joint account containing partnership proceeds. By the time the initial lawsuit concluded, the funds in question were irretrievably lost. This scenario is a common point of contention in many legal malpractice lawsuits in Illinois.
The Court's Stance on Accrual of Legal Malpractice Claims in Chicago and Illinois
The defendants moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the statute of limitations for malpractice had run out. The Court, however, clearly articulated the standard for determining when the statute of limitations begins for a malpractice claim: the clock starts when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know both that an injury has occurred and that it was wrongfully caused. This principle is fundamental to statute of limitations legal claims across various legal fields.
Crucially, the Court determined that questions of fact remained regarding when the plaintiff became aware that their injury was a direct result of the defendants’ wrongful conduct. The central question revolved around whether the plaintiff knew that the failure to protect partnership funds with an injunction had injured them, and if that injury was wrongfully caused by the previous legal representation. Consequently, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, highlighting the nuanced nature of establishing awareness in legal malpractice in Chicago.
Persistent Challenges and Patterson Law Firm's Unwavering Advocacy
Undeterred by the initial denial, the defendants filed a motion to reconsider, notably without introducing any new facts or legal precedents. The Court, in its denial of the motion to reconsider, emphasized that injury and the knowledge that the injury was wrongfully caused are distinct elements in determining when a claim for malpractice accrues.
The Court framed its questions precisely: did the plaintiff suffer an injury more than two years before filing the complaint, and if so, was that injury so unequivocally wrongfully caused that the plaintiff should have recognized the defendants’ partial responsibility? The Court’s ultimate conclusion was that genuine questions of fact existed concerning these issues, thereby preventing the granting of the motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to dismiss. This demonstrates Patterson Law Firm’s commitment to thorough legal analysis and tenacious advocacy for their clients, even in the face of persistent challenges.
