Conspiracy

Conspiracy Requires Knowing the Co-Conspirators, Malpractice Requires Knowing the Underlying Outcome

Posted on Updated on

Natalja Vildziuniene (“Vildziuniene”) sued attorney Bradley Foreman (“Foreman”) for conspiracy to commit fraud and legal malpractice.  Specifically, she alleged that Foreman conspired to defraud her, breached the duty of care, and represented her in various court proceedings without her knowledge.  Foreman moved successfully to dismiss these counts and Vildziuniene appealed.  The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed.  With respect to the conspiracy to commit fraud, it stated that Vildziuniene’s accusations were a “mere characterization of acts as a conspiracy.” Id. at ¶47.  Moreover, “there were no allegations that Foreman knew the other defendants, spoke with the other defendants, or knew anything about the allegedly fraudulent purpose behind these” supposedly fraudulent transactions.  Id. at ¶50.  Regarding the alleged malpractice, the Appellate Court noted that “there are no allegations as to what happened in any of the cases in that Foreman allegedly represented plaintiff” such as whether Vildziuniene even prevailed in those matters.  Id. at ¶54.  It was therefore impossible to ascertain whether she would have prevailed in the underlying actions but for Foreman’s negligence.

Vildziuniene v. Rieff, 2019 IL App (1st) 181324-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Hill v. Simmons

Posted on Updated on

In this unpublished opinion, the First District held that a complaint against a lawyer was properly dismissed as time-barred.   The court held that the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy were properly subject to the two year attorney statute of limitations, and that the statute began to run when the plaintiff learned of the lawyer’s alleged misrepresentations.

Hill v. Simmons, 2017 IL App (1st) 160577-U

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Farwell v. Senior Servs. Assocs., Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110669, 970 N.E.2d 49

Posted on Updated on

Farwell v. Senior Servs. Assocs., Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110669, 970 N.E.2d 49 (malicious prosecution requires malice independent of desire to serve client)

Salaymeh v. InterQual, Inc., 155 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 508 N.E.2d 1155 (5th Dist. 1987)

Posted on Updated on

Salaymeh v. InterQual, Inc., 155 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 508 N.E.2d 1155 (5th Dist. 1987)

Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 344 Ill. App. 3d 15, 799 N.E.2d 756 (1st Dist. 2003)

Posted on Updated on

Thornwood, Inc. v. Jenner & Block, 344 Ill. App. 3d 15, 799 N.E.2d 756 (1st Dist. 2003)

Grimes v. Saikley, 388 Ill. App. 3d 802, 904 N.E.2d 183 (4th Dist. 2009)

Posted on Updated on

Grimes v. Saikley, 388 Ill. App. 3d 802, 904 N.E.2d 183 (4th Dist. 2009)

Bosak v. McDonough, 192 Ill. App. 3d 799, 549 N.E.2d 643 (1st Dist. 1989)

Posted on Updated on

Bosak v. McDonough, 192 Ill. App. 3d 799, 549 N.E.2d 643 (1st Dist. 1989) (evidence insufficient to establish conspiracy)