Mandell v. Lew
2022 IL App (1st) 210229-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Steven Mandell sued his divorce attorney, Michael A. Lew, for legal malpractice after a 2014 dissolution judgment awarded Donna Mandell 60% of the marital estate and denied back rent from a Lake Geneva rental property.
- An April 18, 2012 interim order had awarded the Lake Geneva property to Donna and directed her to rent it out and split net rental profits; Steven alleges he never received the ordered rent.
- At the 2013 divorce trial Donna testified to property valuations based on appraisals (the reports were not admitted); Lew did not object to her testimony or present competing appraisals and raised the rent issue only in closing.
- Steven moved to reconsider and appealed the dissolution result; the appeals court affirmed the divorce judgment.
- In 2015 Steven filed malpractice claims alleging Lew failed to conduct discovery, retain valuation/forensic experts, object to hearsay, and pursue back rent. Steven’s expert (Starkopf) identified alleged deficiencies but expressly would not testify that, more likely than not, Steven would have been financially better off but for Lew’s conduct.
- The trial court granted Lew summary judgment, finding Steven lacked competent evidence of proximate cause and actual monetary damages; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mandell) | Defendant's Argument (Lew) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lew’s failures (late rent claim, no appraisals, no hearsay objections) amounted to legal malpractice | Lew’s omissions allowed Donna’s valuation and rental-withholding to go unchallenged, causing Mandell to receive a smaller share (≈$30,000 loss) | Even if mistakes occurred, Mandell cannot prove those errors proximately caused any monetary loss | Court: Even assuming negligence, Mandell failed to prove damages or causation; summary judgment proper |
| Whether plaintiff produced competent expert proof of proximate cause/damages | Starkopf identified alleged breaches and calculated possible rent, implying recoverable loss | Starkopf admitted he could not opine that Mandell would more likely than not have been in a better financial position absent Lew’s conduct | Court: Expert could not establish the necessary “case within a case”; absence of such opinion defeats malpractice claim |
| Whether damages alleged (rental arrears, alternative valuations) were speculative | Mandell: rent and property valuation differences are ascertainable and would show monetary loss | Lew: no evidence rent was unpaid and no proof alternative appraisals would favor Mandell; damages therefore speculative or nonexistent | Court: Existence of damages was speculative (no proof rent owed; no proof valuations were wrong); actual damages must be affirmatively established |
| Whether there remained triable issues of material fact precluding summary judgment | Mandell: factual disputes about what happened at trial and what Lew failed to do warrant a jury resolution | Lew: undisputed record and plaintiff’s expert testimony fail to show causation/damages as a matter of law | Court: No genuine issue on damages/causation; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (2005) (summary-judgment standard and requirement that malpractice plaintiff affirmatively establish monetary loss)
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 274 (2007) (summary-judgment review is de novo; construe record against movant)
- Mauer v. Rubin, 401 Ill. App. 3d 630 (2010) (malpractice requires proximate causation and a “case within a case”)
- Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck, Ltd., 368 Ill. App. 3d 41 (2006) (actual damages in malpractice are essential and never presumed)
- Cedeno v. Gumbiner, 347 Ill. App. 3d 169 (2004) (elements of legal malpractice claim)