Expert Witness

Legal Malpractice Claims Do No Always Require An Expert

Posted on Updated on

The Second District Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision in Bruning & Associates v. Michael Eversman granting summary judgment to a law firm on its claim for fees and denying the defendant’s malpractice counterclaim.  Bruning & Assocs., P.C. v. Eversman, 2021 IL App (2d) 200502-U.  The defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for extra time to retain an expert to respond to the summary judgment motion.  The Appellate Court held that the defendants’ failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191 was sufficient grounds to deny his motion requesting time to retain an expert.  The court also found that the defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the marital settlement agreement that plaintiff advised him to enter into was unreasonable and failed to raise a genuine issue of fact with respect to any of the other issues he raised.

Bruning & Associates v. Michael Eversman, 2021 IL App (2d) 200502-U.

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