Nelson v. Padgitt
2016 IL App (1st) 160571
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2011 Nelson hired attorney Donald Padgitt to negotiate an employment agreement with Launch and signed the agreement on June 6, 2011.
- Launch terminated Nelson on January 19, 2012, citing the employment agreement’s six‑month revenue target as the basis for termination for cause.
- Nelson sued Launch for breach of contract and fraud on October 31, 2012, attaching the employment agreement and the termination letter; Launch won summary judgment on December 4, 2014.
- Nelson filed a legal malpractice suit against Padgitt and his firm on July 7, 2015, alleging Padgitt failed to negotiate protections Nelson requested and that this caused his economic losses.
- The trial court dismissed the malpractice suit with prejudice as barred by the two‑year statute of limitations; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Nelson's malpractice claim accrue under the two‑year limitations period? | Nelson: accrual did not occur until after the underlying suit against Launch concluded because damages depended on that suit's outcome. | Padgitt: accrual occurred when Nelson was fired or when Nelson filed suit against Launch because injury was then known or discoverable. | Accrual occurred no later than when Nelson filed the Launch suit; malpractice suit filed after two years, so barred. |
| Whether damages were "speculative" so as to delay accrual | Nelson: damages were speculative until resolution of the Launch litigation. | Padgitt: damages were not speculative; economic loss from firing was apparent and tied to the agreement Padgitt negotiated. | Damages were not speculative in the sense required to delay accrual; existence of loss (not precise amount) was clear. |
| Whether Nelson's malpractice claim was separable from his claims against Launch | Nelson: malpractice is distinct and dependent on the Launch litigation outcome. | Padgitt: claims are inseparable — the asserted injury and contract text tie the loss to the attorney's work. | Claims are inseparable; knowledge of injury from Launch events placed Nelson on notice to investigate counsel's role. |
| Whether policy against premature malpractice suits requires tolling accrual here | Nelson: enforcing accrual strictly encourages premature malpractice filings and wastes resources. | Padgitt: statute of limitations controls; plaintiff must inquire when injury is plain. | Policy concerns acknowledged but do not override the statute; limitations period applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dancor Int’l, Ltd. v. Friedman, Goldberg & Mintz, 288 Ill. App. 3d 666 (Ill. App. Ct.) (limitations period begins when plaintiff has reasonable belief injury caused by attorney and duty to inquire arises)
- Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (Ill.) (existence of damages — not certainty of amount — controls accrual)
- Lucey v. Law Offices of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, 301 Ill. App. 3d 349 (Ill. App. Ct.) (malpractice accrual may be deferred when damages are purely speculative; accrual can occur before adverse judgment if injury is plainly obvious)
- Estate of Bass v. Katten, 375 Ill. App. 3d 62 (Ill. App. Ct.) (attorney neglect that directly causes legal expense can trigger accrual before final judgment)
- Warnock v. Karm Winand & Patterson, 376 Ill. App. 3d 364 (Ill. App. Ct.) (limitations does not begin until adverse judgment when connection to attorney error is not discoverable earlier)
- York Woods Cmty. Ass’n v. O’Brien, 353 Ill. App. 3d 293 (Ill. App. Ct.) (when attorney fees or damages are not clearly traceable to malpractice, accrual may be delayed)