Firm sued for judgment against insolvent client

Trial Notebook

By Steven P. Garmisa

Hoey & Farina

Posted October 5, 2020 11:32 AM

Sued for alleged legal malpractice based on a $4.2 million judgment against an insolvent client, the Chicago law firm Crane, Heyman Simon Welch & Clar argued for an exception to the Illinois rule that an unpaid judgment satisfies the “actual damages” requirement.The plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee who is handling the liquidation of Crane Heyman’s former client, World Marketing, contends the debtor was saddled with $4.2 million in liability to former employees because the law firm allegedly failed to advise it to …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

Another judge rejects 7th Circuit case on standing

Seven weeks after a district judge in New York rejected the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s approach to standing for breach-of-contract claims under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a judge in the District of Columbia added his thoughts on why Dinerstein v. Google, 73 F.4th 502 (7th Cir. 2023), is wrong.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Developments in med-mal law may signal change to health care

There is a great deal of attention paid to medical malpractice litigation and rightfully so because those cases are likely the most complex civil tort litigation with some of the highest stakes in terms of injury, emotion and damages.
By Patrick Eckler
Judge rejects ‘specific patient rule’ in case over false claims, kickbacks

Two of Allergan’s former sales representatives accused the pharmaceutical manufacturer of violating the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute by using a “speaker program” to give physicians illegal payments for prescribing two of its medications — Linzess and Viberzi — but the company insisted the complaint was defective because it didn’t “identify a specific patient to whom a doctor allegedly prescribed Linzess or Viberzi in exchange for a kickback.”
By Steven P. Garmisa
Estate plans should account for effective disposition of real estate

There is a huge drop in the number of people who are drafting their estate plans since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to USA Today, only 32% of adults acknowledge that they have an up-to-date estate plan.
By Erica Minchella
LinkedIn branding for lawyers: 5 easy, effective posting options

When I started using LinkedIn back in 2007, I knew it would become the huge success story that everyone now knows it to be today.
By Steve Fretzin
Court mulls over contract with survival clause

With no local precedent on the effect of a “survival clause” on the representations and warranties in an asset purchase agreement, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals looked to scholarly commentary and decisions from other jurisdictions when deciding whether the seller was entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Judge offers guidance for avoiding federal ‘trap’ in med-mal case

Joining a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a judgment against two “unwary litigants” who were blindsided by “surprise hurdles” created by a combined operation of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act, Circuit Judge Amul Thapar wrote separately “to explain how litigants can avoid these traps and preserve meritorious claims.”
By Steven P. Garmisa
Opinions shed light on how justices view shadow docket

The shadow docket has grown at the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, especially during President Donald J. Trump’s term. In a recent decision by the court, Labrador v. Poe, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh wrote concurrences, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent. They address issues of emergency applications in some detail.
By Daniel A. Cotter