Richard Sharif (“Sharif”) sued his former attorney, William Stevens (“Stevens”), for legal malpractice in an underlying matter. He alleged that Stevens failed to comply with discovery and failed to properly raise arguments that would have resulted in a more favorable outcome. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in Stevens’ favor on all counts. With respect to discovery, Sharif accused Stevens of not producing documents that Sharif tendered to him. Here, the District Court held that Sharif was actually to blame because he “did not give Stevens certain documents that should have been given to him.” Id. at 3. As to whether Stevens should have raised a particular argument, the Northern District found that Stevens had violated the standard of care owed to Sharif. However, the District Court still had to consider whether the court in the underlying matter “would have decided […] differently had the issue been properly raised.” Id. at 5. This is because a successful claim for malpractice requires that a plaintiff establish “but for the negligence of the attorney, the plaintiff would not have suffered actual damages.” Id. at 2. On that point, Sharif made “no argument that a reasonable court would have made a different decision.” Id. at 5.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)