{"id":438,"date":"2013-11-07T21:43:49","date_gmt":"2013-11-07T21:43:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/?p=438"},"modified":"2021-12-21T20:04:59","modified_gmt":"2021-12-21T20:04:59","slug":"dismissal-of-legal-malpractice-claim-because-of-law-firms-judgmental-immunity-reversed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/dismissal-of-legal-malpractice-claim-because-of-law-firms-judgmental-immunity-reversed\/","title":{"rendered":"Dismissal of legal malpractice claim because of law firm&#8217;s &#8220;judgmental immunity&#8221; reversed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/Illinois.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/Illinois-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Illinois\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-434\" srcset=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/Illinois-300x300.jpg 300w, http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/Illinois-150x150.jpg 150w, http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/Illinois.jpg 325w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/attorneys.html?Attorney=Graham\">Christopher Graham<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/attorneys.html?Attorney=Kelly\">Joseph Kelly<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.il.us\/court\/Opinions\/AppellateCourt\/2013\/1stDistrict\/1123122.pdf\"><em>Nelson v. Quarles and Brady, LLP<\/em>, 2013 IL App (1st) 123122 (Sept. 30, 2013).<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Ken Nelson was the majority shareholder in two corporations &#8211; Ken Nelson AutoPlaza, Inc. (&#8220;AutoPlaza&#8221;) and Ken Nelson AutoMall, Inc. (&#8220;AutoMall&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>In 1989, Nelson entered into a stock purchase agreement with his business partner, Richard Curia, under which Curia had successive purchase options. If each option was exercised, Curia would purchase all of Nelson&#8217;s shares. Curia failed to exercise the first option, but did pay Nelson $200,000 for 25% of the AutoPlaza and AutoMall&#8217;s shares.<\/p>\n<p>In 1993, Nelson and Curia entered into a &#8220;Modification Agreement&#8221; which provided that the parties made a mutual mistake in determining the companies&#8217; shares fair market value and in determining the option payments. Under the &#8220;Modification Agreement&#8221;, Curia&#8217;s percentage share ownership increased to 47.7% for AutoPlaza and 43.3% for AutoMall, without Curia making any additional payments.<\/p>\n<p>Nelson alleges that in 2004: (1) he and Curia had an oral agreement under which Nelson would sell all his stock in both companies to Curia for $4.2 million; (2) Curia didn&#8217;t perform under the agreement; and (3) Curia instead tried to exercise the final purchase option under the 1989 agreement &#8212; essentially trying to procure all of Nelson&#8217;s shares for much less than $4.2 million.<\/p>\n<p>Nelson retained Quarles &amp; Brady and sued Curia in federal court seeking a declaration that the 1989 purchase option was unenforceable because of the parties subsequent agreements. Curia sought a declaration for specific performance regarding the 1989 purchase option.<\/p>\n<p>Curia won a partial summary judgment that Nelson was required to comply with the 1989 purchase option and sell his shares. Nelson moved for a stay while the appeal was pending, but the motion for a stay was denied. Nelson sold the shares under the order. The 7th Circuit ultimately reversed the trial court on appeal, but not before Curia had encumbered much of the companies&#8217; assets and taken out loans. Nelson subsequently settled with Curia, but was not able to regain majority ownership of the companies.<\/p>\n<p>Nelson sued Quarles &amp; Brady for legal malpractice, alleging, in pertinent part, that the firm&#8217;s &#8220;negligent and careless conduct included but is not limited to the complete failure to assert a meritorious cause of action against Curia on [plaintiff&#8217;s] behalf and the complete failure to assert meritorious defenses to Curia&#8217;s alleged causes of action.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Quarles &amp; Brady successfully moved to dismiss two amended complaints filed by Nelson for failure to state a cause of action. Nelson filed a third amended complaint which, unlike the previously dismissed complaints, included an affidavit from a legal malpractice expert that stated, in pertinent part, that Quarles &amp; Brady&#8217;s actions were professional negligence, not a mere error in judgment. Quarles &amp; Brady successfully moved to dismiss the third amended complaint just the same.<\/p>\n<p>On appeal, Nelson argues that the legal expert&#8217;s affidavit created a question of fact that precludes dismissal.<\/p>\n<p>The court began its analysis by stating that under Illinois law, &#8220;It is clear that an attorney is liable to his client only when he fails to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill; he is not liable for mere errors of judgment&#8221; and that &#8220;attorneys do not breach their duty to clients, as a matter of law, when they make informed, good-faith tactical decisions.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Nelson argued that the affidavit created a question of fact that precluded dismissal. Quarles &amp; Brady argued that the affidavit contained legal conclusions and shouldn&#8217;t be considered.<\/p>\n<p>The court ultimately avoided the issue of &#8220;judgmental immunity&#8221;, holding, in pertinent part, that Nelson alleged sufficient facts to state a viable claim for legal malpractice.<\/p>\n<p>Tags: Illinois, legal malpractice, judgmental immunity<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Christopher Graham and Joseph Kelly Nelson v. Quarles and Brady, LLP, 2013 IL App (1st) 123122 (Sept. 30, 2013). Ken Nelson was the majority shareholder in two corporations &#8211; Ken Nelson AutoPlaza, Inc. (&#8220;AutoPlaza&#8221;) and Ken Nelson AutoMall, Inc. (&#8220;AutoMall&#8221;). In 1989, Nelson entered into a stock purchase agreement with his business partner, Richard [&hellip;]<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=438"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3185,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions\/3185"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}