Carlson v. Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
186 N.E.3d 478
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In 2008 William Carlson agreed to sell his one‑third interest in Belvedere Trading for $17.5 million via a mediated settlement that included nonreliance and mutual release clauses and a fee‑shifting term. Carlson later suspected his partners withheld an appraisal showing greater value.
- Carlson consulted multiple law firms: Collins (initial counsel for the 2007 dispute), Drinker (November 2008 meeting), Michael Best (consultations in Aug–Sep 2010 and Feb–May 2014), and Cronin (retained Nov 2010; later litigated to reopen the settlement and filed malpractice claims).
- Cronin filed malpractice and arbitration claims against others; various preclusion, statute‑of‑limitations, and Rule 201 discovery issues were litigated in related appeals. Appellate courts had previously affirmed dismissal of some claims and reversed a fee award.
- Carlson sued Michael Best in 2016 alleging malpractice for failing to advise him when statutes of limitations/repose would expire on potential malpractice claims against Collins and Drinker and for failing to advise that he had a claim against Michael Best.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Michael Best after finding (a) Carlson was on inquiry notice of malpractice against Collins by mid‑2008 (so Collins claims were time‑barred before Carlson first engaged Michael Best in 2010), (b) any Drinker claims remained viable when Michael Best’s representation ended and successor counsel could preserve them, and (c) no duty exists for a firm to affirmatively tell a client he has a malpractice claim against that firm.
- The court also denied Carlson leave to file a second amended complaint (proposed amendments concerned alleged 2008 malpractice barred by the six‑year repose) and denied further discovery because Carlson failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 191(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to file a 2d amended complaint should have been granted (alleging Michael Best represented Carlson in 2008) | Carlson: amendment would add facts and cure defects; Michael Best had earlier contact in 2008 | Michael Best: claims based on 2008 conduct are time‑barred by the six‑year statute of repose; Carlson judicially admitted he did not engage Best in 2008 | Denial affirmed — proposed amendment concerned time‑barred 2008 acts; Carlson’s deposition statement that he did not engage Best in 2008 was a binding judicial admission. |
| Whether the court erred by denying Carlson additional discovery before summary judgment | Carlson: needed depositions of prior counsel to oppose summary judgment on limitations/inquiry‑notice issues | Michael Best: discovery stay proper; Carlson failed to present a Rule 191(b) affidavit showing why depositions were needed | Denial affirmed — Rule 191(b) compliance required and absent; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Michael Best caused Carlson to lose malpractice claims against Collins (i.e., did Best’s advice/timing proximately cause loss) | Carlson: Best failed in Aug 2010 to advise timely about limitations, causing loss of Collins claims | Michael Best: Collins claims were already time‑barred because Carlson was on inquiry notice by June 2008 | Summary judgment affirmed — undisputed evidence (accountant conversation/email) put Carlson on inquiry notice in mid‑2008, so two‑year limitations ran before Best’s 2010 engagement. |
| Whether Michael Best caused loss of claims against Drinker | Carlson: Best should have advised of Drinker malpractice; Best’s conduct made those claims unrecoverable | Michael Best: Drinker claims remained viable when Best’s engagement ended; successor counsel could preserve them | Summary judgment affirmed — Drinker claims were still viable during and shortly after Best’s 2014 representation; subsequent counsel could and did preserve them, so Best did not cause loss. |
| Whether a law firm has a duty to inform a client that the client has a malpractice claim against that firm | Carlson: Best should have told him he had a claim against Best | Michael Best: no affirmative duty exists to notify a client of potential malpractice against the lawyer | Held for defendant — no duty to inform a client that he has a claim against the law firm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263 (1992) (four Loyola factors govern leave to amend pleadings)
- Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511 (1993) (summary judgment—construe filings against movant, in favor of opponent)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (2004) (triable issue exists when reasonable persons could draw different inferences)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (2014) (explains purpose and effect of statutes of repose)
- Sorenson v. Law Offices of Theodore Poehlmann, 327 Ill. App. 3d 706 (2002) (explains two‑year limitations and six‑year repose in legal malpractice context)
- Caponi v. Larry’s 66, 236 Ill. App. 3d 660 (1992) (defines judicial admission and its binding effect)
- Chmielewski v. Kahlfeldt, 237 Ill. App. 3d 129 (1992) (when deposition testimony may constitute judicial admission)
- Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill. 2d 353 (1995) (statute of limitations need not await full discovery of injury’s extent)