Firing One Attorney and Seeking Counsel from Another Strongly Suggests a Client is Aware of His Injuries
William Moser (“Moser”) retained Joseph Phelps of Rinella & Rinella, LTD (the “Defendants”) to represent him in the dissolution of his marriage. He executed a settlement agreement on October 26, 2006. On May 3, 2016, Moser sued the Defendants for legal malpractice. He alleged that the Defendants lied to him in order to make him sign the settlement agreement. Moser testified at his deposition a year later that he felt “in August of 2013 that they had ignored issues in the case” and “basically misrepresented… what was going on.” Id. at ¶10. Further questioning established that Moser knew of the Defendants’ alleged malpractice by February, 2014 and that the latest harm he suffered occurred in March, 2014 when he was forced to pay his ex-wife’s attorney’s fees.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Moser’s claims were time-barred by Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions. 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b). Their motion cited specific portions of Moser’s testimony wherein he “admitted to being fully aware of each of defendants’ alleged acts of negligence and resulting damages more than two years’ prior to the filing of his complaint” and an August, 2013 e-mail he had sent firing them “for cause.” Id. at ¶¶11-12. Moser countered that the issue was one for a jury, but the Court granted the motion given Moser’s explicit admissions in the record.
The First District affirmed, explaining that “the limitations period commences when the plaintiff is injured, rather than when the plaintiff realizes the consequences of the injury or the full extent of her injuries.” Id. at ¶26. Moser countered that the Defendants had fraudulently concealed their actions with reassurances that they were doing everything correctly, thereby delaying Moser’s discovery and pursuit of his claim and tolling the statute of limitations. But Moser had not presented any specific material misrepresenta-tions or omissions by the Defendants, and the First District found it “hard to imagine how plaintiff could have been lulled by defendants into not filing a claim when plaintiff was already in touch with another law firm when he fired defendants” in August, 2013. Id. at ¶43.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)