Access Care MSO, LLC (“Access”) hired Oberheiden Law Group, PLLC (“Oberheiden Law”) to advise it with respect to medical compliance issues in Texas and Illinois. It chose Oberheiden Law based on the firm’s web-based advertisements which stated that the firm had both Texas and Illinois practices. Despite these assertions, no Oberheiden Law attorney was licensed to practice in Illinois at the time Access retained the firm. Access eventually terminated the representation and sued Oberheiden Law and its principal, Nick Oberheiden, on multiple counts. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Northern District of Illinois granted in part.
To start, the court dismissed Access’ breach of contract claim. This is because “Texas courts have only allowed independent breach of contract claims against attorneys for excessive legal fees.” Id. at 3. It continued that Access “alleges only that […] Oberheiden Law did not provide” the agreed upon services, “which amounts to a legal malpractice claim” under Texas law. Id. Access’ claim for tortious interference with a contract was also dismissed. The court held there that Access did not explain how the defendants’ actions affected its contractual relationship with various Texas medical practices. Id. at 4.
Conversely, the Northern District declined to dismiss Access’ claim for violation of the Illinois Attorney Act (705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 205/1), which “prohibits an unlicensed attorney from advertising the provision of legal services in Illinois” and practicing law in the state without a license. Id. at 2. Here, Oberheiden Law’s website described the firm as “providing ‘Illinois health care fraud defense’” and Oberheiden as an “Illinois health care fraud defense attorney.” Id. Moreover, a non-attorney employee of Oberheiden Law and Oberheiden himself had personally provided legal advice to Access while in Illinois. The court refused to dismiss Access’ claim of fraud as well. It noted that Access specifically set forth four allegedly false statements from Oberheiden Law’s website and sufficiently explained why it relied on them. Id. at 5.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)