ISBA Mutual Liability Minute

The Contractual Arbitration Limitation Period for Uninsured Motorist Insurance Policies

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:49:23 GMT

Even neophyte attorneys understand that their clients’ actions can be barred if they miss a statutory limitations period. However, experienced attorneys may forget that when handling claims against insurance companies under their clients’ uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage a contractual two-year limitation² will trump any longer statutory period. Failure to adhere to the two-year limitation period will terminate a claim as surely as a blown statute.

The Incredible Shrinking Limitations Period

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:40:31 GMT

Claims involving special defendants, such as municipalities, mass transit companies, school and port districts, are subject to a special one year limitations period. Certain claimants, including policemen, firemen, and guardsmen, must make claims for death benefits within a year of death. In some cases, a special notice requirement is also imposed, as early as six months from the triggering event. This article reviews the main instances of these special limitations periods.

Court Rejects the Fiduciary Duty Exception

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:58:59 GMT

Two recent cases out of the First District of the Appellate Court in Illinois have bolstered the right of attorneys to assert the attorney client and work product privileges to withhold documents in the context of a malpractice claim against them. In Garvey v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 Ill. App. LEXIS 132; 966 N.E. 2d 523 (1^st Dist. Mar. 1, 2012) and MDA City Apartments, LLC v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 2012 Ill. App. LEXIS 201 (1^st Dist. Mar. 22, 2012), the Court rejected the application of the “fiduciary-duty” exception to the attorney client and work product privileges. The opinions give instruction as to the underlying facts and factors which will frame and preserve an attorney’s asserted privilege as against his or her former client.

Illinois Attorney General Providing Debt Settlement Services

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:21:08 GMT

When elephants fight, the grass trembles.
— African Folk Saying

For the past several years, Illinois Attorney General ("IAG"), Lisa Madigan, and the State of Illinois have conducted a campaign against companies that purport to assist distressed homeowners and debtors in dealing with their debt situation.¹ The primary weapons in the IAG's arsenal are two statutes: the Mortgage Rescue Fraud Act, 765 ILCS 940/1 et seq. (eff. Jan. 1, 2007) ("MRFA"); and, the Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act, 225 ILCS 429/1 et seq. (eff. Aug. 3, 2010) ("DSCPA").

Balancing Act: The ARDC Is Monitoring The Balance On Your Client Trust Accounts

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:57:01 GMT

The Rules of Professional Conduct now requires attorneys to provide consent for the banks holding client funds to automatically report overdraws to the ARDC. This is an early detection system for possible financial malfeasance and a call for more discipline in managing and accounting for client funds.

Advice to Clients Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:44:14 GMT

The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Reliable Fire Equip. Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 1836 (Ill. Dec. 1, 2011). The opinion enforced prior precedent that an employer’s legitimate business interest should be considered in deciding whether a restrictive covenant should be enforced, but it rejected the previously set “tests” and “formulas” employed by Illinois appellate courts in determining whether a legitimate business interest exists. Illinois lawyers should carefully consider the Supreme Court’s decision and reconsider their previous opinions to clients regarding the enforceability of certain covenants.

What Can You Count On These Days?

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:54:12 GMT

Does a statutory limitations period stated in calendar years end on the anniversary date or the day before the anniversary date? Two recent cases, one withdrawn and one with an Illinois Supreme Court Justice’s pointed dissent, indicate that the answer you have been counting on may be subject to challenge.

In “Eligible” IOLTAs We Trust

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:21:17 GMT

Effective September 1, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court has amended Rule 1.15 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct respecting the safekeeping of client funds deposited in trust accounts. As professional fiduciaries, attorneys have long been required to keep their clients’ funds separate from their own. Now, the Supreme Court has limited the options for accounts to hold client funds, imposed new record keeping requirements on attorneys, and now requires banks to notify the ARDC when client accounts are overdrawn.

Lawyers Are Increasingly The Targets Of Email/Fraudulent Check Schemes

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:46:51 GMT

Lawyers are increasingly receiving emails from alleged potential foreign clients looking to collect debts from customers. More likely than not, the email is the first step in a fraudulent scheme which involves a deposit and withdrawal from your special client fund account. A basic knowledge of Article 4 of the UCC and simple precautions can help lawyers avoid becoming a victim of these schemes and protect against other potential fraudulent deposits into lawyer’s special accounts, including fraudulent settlement checks and retainer checks.

SNYDER v. HEIDELBERGER:
The Plaintiff Reposes... The Court Disposes

keith.weil@fitzmc.com (Joseph R. Marconi ) — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:10:15 GMT

Defense counsel engaged by ISBA Mutual Insurance Company (ISBAMIC)[2] recently obtained a highly favorable interpretation of the repose provision contained within Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, §735 ILCS 5/13-214.3 (legal malpractice) on behalf of one of its insureds. In Snyder v. Heidelberger, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 1097 (Ill. June 16, 2011), the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a Second District Appellate Court decision that had reinstated a plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim originally dismissed by the trial court, per the repose provision in that limitations statute.