Legal Malpractice Claims Do No Always Require An Expert

Novack and Macey LLP
Contact

Novack and Macey LLP

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.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Novack and Macey LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Novack and Macey LLP
Contact
more
less

Novack and Macey LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.