Legal Malpractice

The nature of legal malpractice cases varies from missed statutory deadlines to those of negligence in the handling of complex business transactions. Similarly, our firm has handled legal malpractice cases with a wide variety of underlying claims, from personal injury claims to sophisticated business transactions.

We have defense experience at every stage of the claim, from the inception of the claim, through trial or appeal if necessary. In addition to the litigation of legal malpractice claims, we have also represented lawyers in other types of claims, including representation before the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission disqualification proceedings, fee disputes and partnership matters.
Our firm has jury verdict experience in defending legal malpractice cases in both state and federal courts. Our firm also has extensive experience in the resolution of legal malpractice cases by means of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation. We always raise the option of mediation as a possible means to resolve cases postured for settlement or those which may involve exceptionally dangerous or sensitive issues.

Alholm, Monahan, Klauke, Hay & Oldenburg have been influential in shaping legal malpractice law. The firm has handled 25 appeals in legal malpractice cases before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and one appeal before the Indiana Supreme Court. We handled the oral arguments in all of those cases and were successful in 17 of those presentations. Illinois appeals were filed in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Appellate Districts. Included in these appeals was the case of Calhoun v. Rane, a case of first impression on the issue of punitive damages in a legal malpractice claim, involving claims of willful and wanton misconduct. In this appeal, our efforts resulted in a decision prohibiting punitive damages in legal malpractice claims, even in circumstances where willful misconduct is pled.

Also included in our appeals are the cases of Weisblatt v. Colky, which we believe is the leading Illinois case on the issue of termination of the attorney-client relationship where the attorney still had an appearance on file and Gavery v. McMahon, an opinion in which an attorney's prospective release for his own legal malpractice was upheld.
In Cedeno v. Gumbiner, the court affirmed a dismissal on behalf of the firm’s client, establishing for the first time in Illinois, that a mistake of law by the trial judge can constitute a proximate cause defense in a subsequent legal malpractice action. In the case of Thomas v. Simpson and Cybak, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the service of a summons and complaint constitutes an initial communication under the Fair Debt Collection Protection Act (FDCPA). In the firm’s most recent appellate success, the Fourth District upheld a summary judgment on behalf of our client where the underlying case involved a interpretation of the Tort Immunity Act. Governmental Interinsurance Exchange (GIE) v. Judge, et. al. Notably, the cases of Cedeno, Thomas and GIE have all been the subject of commentary in the legal press, some of which is available in our library.