Peoria-Tazewell Pathology Group, S.C. v. Sutkowski Law Office, Ltd
2022 IL App (3d) 200245-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Peoria‑Tazewell Pathology Group and its Pension Plan) sued Sutkowski Law Office and Edward Sutkowski for legal malpractice arising from plan administration spanning 1980–2014.
- Core allegation: defendants failed to eliminate a 62% hypothetical allocation group (intended for one doctor) after that doctor’s 2010 retirement, and later failed to address its application to a subsequent hire, causing the pension to lose tax‑qualified status.
- Key events: subsequent doctor inquired March 7, 2012; communications and calculations occurred in December 2013; plaintiffs executed an amendment eliminating the 62% group on December 27, 2013.
- Plaintiffs retained successor counsel in April 2014; IRS later issued compliance letters restoring tax status; the subsequent doctor sued plaintiffs (administrative claim May 19, 2015; federal suit Feb 5, 2016) and obtained summary judgment in 2017, settling May 6, 2017.
- Plaintiffs filed the malpractice suit December 29, 2015. Defendants moved under section 2‑619 to dismiss counts I–II as time‑barred under 735 ILCS 5/13‑214.3(b) (two‑year discovery limitations period) and (c) (six‑year repose); the trial court dismissed those counts with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2‑year limitations period in 735 ILCS 5/13‑214.3(b) bars the malpractice claims (accrual under the discovery rule) | Claims accrued no earlier than successor counsel’s retention in April 2014 or at the federal settlement in May 2017; earlier events only showed a possibility of damages, not a non‑speculative injury | Plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known of a wrongful, pecuniary injury by December 2013 (communications, calculations, and the amendment put them on inquiry); suit filed Dec 29, 2015 was too late | Held: accrual occurred before Dec 29, 2013; claims barred by the 2‑year discovery limitations period in §13‑214.3(b) |
| Whether claims are barred by the 6‑year repose period in 735 ILCS 5/13‑214.3(c) | Argued repose would start later (after successor counsel or after underlying litigation resolution) | Argued repose ran earlier based on the dates of defendants’ conduct and plaintiffs’ knowledge | Court declined to address §13‑214.3(c) because dismissal under §13‑214.3(b) was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (2005) (legal malpractice requires a pecuniary injury caused by attorney negligence)
- Eastman v. Messner, 188 Ill. 2d 404 (1999) (monetary damages are essential and never presumed in malpractice claims)
- Nolan v. Johns‑Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill. 2d 161 (1981) (discovery rule principles and duty to inquire once injury and cause are apparent)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (1981) (interpretation of "wrongfully caused" under discovery rule)
- Griffin v. Goldenhersh, 323 Ill. App. 3d 398 (2001) (monetary damages in malpractice must be affirmatively established)
- Palmros v. Barcelona, 284 Ill. App. 3d 642 (1996) (discussion of pecuniary injury concept in attorney malpractice)