Cases
Representative Cases: Secured a defense jury verdict in favor of J. Richard Hisaw
his law firm in a legal negligence case involving a foreclosed commercial property. The plaintiff asked for 500,000 in damages. Our attorneys achieved the jury verdict despite the fact that two of their three key witnesses, including their client, are deceased. Mr. Hisaw passed away unexpectedly on December 5, 2017. In addition, George Collins, who served as Mr. Hisaw's attorney
witnessed certain underlying events relevant to the dispute, passed away in October 2016.
In this case, the plaintiff, who is a chiropractic doctor,
her father owned a commercial property. They had a balloon payment at the end of their commercial mortgage that they didn't pay. The bank foreclosed on the property
obtained a deficiency judgment for 210,000 against the plaintiff, which she paid. The plaintiff claimed our client didn't advise her
she didn't otherwise know that she could have sold the property before the foreclosure occurred. The plaintiff estimated that she could have sold the commercial property for a 270,000 profit. Because of the foreclosure judgment against her, the lost value of the potential property sale
other expenses, the plaintiff sought 500,000 in damages.
The defense countered that Mr. Hisaw did in fact advise the plaintiff that she could
should sell the commercial property. The defense also asserted that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent when she refused repeated requests by her father to sell the property before
after the foreclosure suit had been filed. This defense was bolstered by the testimony of plaintiff's brother, who described various attempts by him
his father to convince the plaintiff to sell the property in light of the mortgage default. After eight days of trial, the jury reached a verdict in favor of J. Richard Hisaw
his firm, J. Richard Hisaw & Associates. The case is Maryanne Tadros v. Christine Marte, et al., 16 L 1191.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client in a hotly contested legal malpractice case. Johnson & Bell represented a commercial litigation firm based in Chicago
two of its partners who previously represented a woman who claimed she rightfully owned a gentlemen's club in Bridgeview, Illinois, following the death of her husb
. However, the woman's husb
did not officially appear on any of the ownership documents for the gentlemen's club as his lengthy criminal record prohibited him from obtaining a liquor license
officially owning the club. Consequently, a dispute arose between the woman
the person who officially owned the club. Johnson & Bell's client represented the woman
filed a lawsuit on her behalf to obtain ownership of the club. Johnson & Bell's client was eventually forced to withdraw from the case
the woman ended up settling the lawsuit regarding ownership of the club. Thereafter, she filed a lawsuit against her previous lawyers - Johnson & Bell's client -- claiming legal malpractice that she would have obtained more in settlement if not for the alleged negligence of her lawyers. The woman claimed she sustained 19 million in damages as a result of the alleged malpractice, which represents the value of the gentlemen's club.
After lengthy discovery
several years of litigation, Johnson & Bell was able to obtain summary judgment on behalf of the law firm
its partners. The woman who filed the legal malpractice claim testified at her deposition that she chose to settle the lawsuit regarding ownership of the gentlemen's club for reasons having nothing to do with any alleged malpractice by her lawyers. The court therefore found that the element of proximate cause was lacking in her legal malpractice claim
granted summary judgment to Johnson & Bell's client. The court also found that summary judgment was proper based on the two-year statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice claims. The court found that the woman was aware of the alleged negligence by her lawyers
that she had sustained damages in the form of increased attorney's fees more than two years prior to filing her legal malpractice claim.
Successfully defended Crimson AV, LLC against charges of patent infringement
misappropriation of trade secrets. In a case tried to a jury
presided over by Judge Joan H. Lefkow, Johnson & Bell represented Crimson AV, a small manufacturer
distributor of television wall mounts based in Glenview, IL that was sued by Peerless Industries, Inc. Peerless Industries claimed that Crimson AV's wall mount design infringed its patent
further claimed that the company had misappropriated its trade secrets obtained while Crimson AV's Chinese supplier had previously served as a manufacturer for Peerless Industries. The Johnson & Bell trial team had to overcome a prior ruling by the court that Crimson AV's products infringed the plaintiff's patent, leaving Johnson & Bell to prove that the plaintiff's patent was invalid. In addition, the court entered a discovery sanction against Crimson AV that shifted the burden of proof on the trade secrets claim. After two weeks of trial, the jury deliberated for two days
returned a verdict finding the patent invalid
finding no trade secrets were at issue. Peerless Industries sought over 4 million in damages plus fees. Peerless Industries was represented by Foley & Lardner.
Secured a defense verdict in favor of a matrimonial law firm wherein plaintiff sought over 2 million in damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had advised her to enter into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) in which her share of the marital estate was less than what she was entitled to
that the defendant had failed to adequately assess the extent of marital assets. Plaintiff claimed that her settlement accounted for less than 35% of the marital assets. Defense contended that the plaintiff's share of the true value of the marital assets exceeded 50% because of her ex-husb
's deferred compensation was valueless as it was completely unfunded. Defense argued that the plaintiff neither accounted for certain liabilities in the marital estate associated with her ex-husb
's business interests
that the plaintiff's claims were time barred under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice cases.
Obtained summary judgment in favor of our client, one of the top wine importers in North America. The complaint, filed by a competitor, consisted of nine counts, among them: unfair competition, conspiracy
trade secret theft, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty
tortious interference of contracts. It was filed against our client
one of its employees, who previously had been terminated by the Plaintiff from her job as Midwest Regional Sales Manager. In its complaint, the Plaintiff believed that his former employee violated some unknown ethical duty to not compete against him - even though the employee was never subject to a non-compete agreement. Plaintiff further charged that our client
the employee - prior to her termination -- conspired to inappropriately convince Plaintiff's wine suppliers to terminate their relationships with Plaintiff. However, six wine suppliers testified that their leaving Plaintiff had nothing to do with our client or its employee. In fact, two of the wine suppliers are pursuing legal action against the Plaintiff to recover sums Plaintiff still owes them. The Plaintiff could provide no evidence to support any of its other charges against our client
its employee. Given the lack of evidence, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the defense.
Successfully defended a real estate law firm being sued for malpractice. Our client represented the buyer of a golf course property. On the day before the deal was to close, the acquirer of the golf course told our client that, as part of the transaction, they had negotiated an additional 250,000 note which was to be secured by a mortgage on a separate vacant lot in Frankfort, Illinois. It soon became apparent that the signatures necessary for the mortgage on the 250,000 note
mortgage could not be procured in time for the closing. Our client proceeded with the closing of the transaction after being given assurances that proper signatures on the 250,000 mortgage would be provided soon after the closing. Our client followed up after the closing, but was unable to procure the necessary signatures
record the 250,000 mortgage. The property that was subject to the 250,000 mortgage was eventually sold pursuant to a tax sale
the buyer of the golf course was unable to collect on the 250,000 note
mortgage. The buyer then sued our client, seeking 1 million relating to lost profits associated with the property
other damages. The jury in the malpractice case returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff of less than 1200.
In re the Estate of O'Malley Case No. 09 P 1884. Jury trial finding the decedent's will
trust was invalid as it was made as a result of the undue influence of one of the decedent's children.
Received a favorable verdict in a federal court case defending the seller of an airplane. The purchaser of the airplane had alleged claims for breach of contract
fraud on the grounds that the plane was riddled with defects that were known to the seller
not disclosed prior to the sale. The purchaser of the plane sought damages in excess of 2 million. The defense offered to settle the matter for 25,000 prior to trial
the plaintiff asked for 2.5 million. At trial, the defense argued that the plane contained no more defects than would be expected for a used airplane
that the plane was always in an airworthy condition as deemed by the Federal Aviation Administration. The plaintiff contended that the airplane was not airworthy
that the plane had a substantial damage history that was not disclosed by defendant. After seven days of trial, the jury found in favor of defendant on the fraud claim
awarded only 40,696 for breach of contract.
Oak Brook Bank v. Crowley Barrett & Karaba, Case No. 04 L 1249 Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. Two-week jury trial. Defended a real estate law firm in this legal malpractice action where the lender sued its lawyers after a construction loan went sour. The plaintiff sought 17 million in damages
dem
ed the policy limits of 5 million for settlement. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty against all defendants. (2010). The case is on appeal.
Published Opinions: Atlas-Copco Mining v. Indie Energy, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111967 (N.D. Ill 2009) (summary judgment on behalf of equipment manufacturer on replevin claims
deficiencies on lease agreements, including award of attorney's fees)
Addison Ins. Co. v. Knight, Hoppe, Kurnick & Knight, LLC, 2009 Iowa App. (LEXIS 680 Iowa 2009) (affirming summary judgment on behalf of lawyers in legal malpractice claim because insurance company that paid underlying judgment did not have rights as subrogee)
Legacy, Inc. v. Tekserve POS, LLC, 2007 WL 772958 (N.D. Ill. March 12, 2007) (sanctions award on behalf of a small business whose former employee copied
downloaded business' confidential
proprietary information. The employee later attempted to discard evidence of his efforts)
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10366 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (dismissal of legal malpractice claim against Oregon attorneys based on improper venue grounds)
Dumas v. Sentinel Mortgage Corp., 2003 WL 22859807 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (summary judgment on behalf of mortgage broker in suit alleging claims under Fair Housing Act
Equal Credit Opportunity Act)
