Law Firm Settles Claim Related to its Failure to Timely File Post-Trial Motion

Type of Injury: Case Dismissed; Loss of Appellate Rights

Type of Case: Professional Liability

Settlement Amount: Confidential

On or about October 13, 2011, the defendant law firm entered into an for legal services wherein the plaintiffs authorized the defendant law firm to engage in the practice of law on their behalf regarding post-trial proceedings (in the matter of Pearson, et al. v. Pastry Partners, Inc., et al. (Case No. 06 L 008245)) including “posturing of the remaining post-trial circuit court proceedings for an ensuring appeal”, i.e., filing timely post-trial motions and post-judgment proceedings. However, on January 9, 2012, when a post-trial motion was due to be filed in that matter, the defendant law firm did not file a post-trial motion with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Further, the defendant law firm did not obtain either an order granting an extension that is entered on or before the deadline or file a post-trial motion on or before the deadline in order to preserve the trial court’s jurisdiction.

The post-trial motion was to be filed following a Final Judgment Order (Case No. 06 L 008245) was entered by Judge Budzinski setting forth, inter alia, the following:

• Plaintiffs are responsible for $493,704.66 (jury verdict, attorneys’ fees and costs) to the defendants in that matter with respect to Count I; and

• Plaintiffs are responsible for $228,960.49 to the defendants in that matter with respect to Count II.

On January 23, 2012, in Case No. 06 L 008245, Judge Budzinski, found that the trial court lost jurisdiction to consider/determine post-trial motions, denied the motion filed by the defendant law firm (on behalf of the plaintiffs) for leave to file a post-trial motion out of time.

NOTE: In order to compel the defendants to fully fund the settlement reached in July, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-2301 (Settlement of claims; payment). Only after the trial court set the matter for evidentiary hearing on October 16th and after the plaintiffs served notices to produce a representative from the defendant law firm and a representative from their insurance company at the evidentiary hearing was the settlement fully funded.

The above summary is specific to a particular case and is not intended as a projected outcome on any other matter.