1 Justi ce M cG lynn p artic ipate d in ora l arg um ent. Justi ce Stewart was later substi tuted on th e pan el and has re ad the briefs and liste ned to the au diotap e of o ral argu men t. 1 NOTI CE Decisi on fi led 04 /27/ 07. The textof this dec ision m ay be changed or
corrected prior to the filing of a Petit ion for Re hea ri ng o r th e dispos it ion of

the s ame. NO. 5-04-0516 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

________________________________________________________________________ IVAN BRANT, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-Appell ee, ) S t. C lai r C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 03-L-418 ) RIC K ROSEN and R OSEN L AW ) FIR M , P.C ., ) ) Defendan ts-Appellants, ) ) and ) ) DWIGHT HARDI N, ) Ho nora ble ) Lloy d A. Cueto, De fend ant. ) Judge, presi ding.

________________________________________________________________________ JUSTI CE STEWART 1 delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: Two of the defendant s, Rick Rosen ( Rosen) and RosenLa w F irm, P.C. (law firm), appeal from the St. Cla ir County circuit court 's de nial of their motion t o dismis s the pl ainti ff Iv an B ra nt 's complaint

pursuant to the doc tri ne of forum non convenie ns . The defe ndan ts assert that St. Clair Cou nty, which is the cou nty where R osen resides a nd w here his law firm is locat ed, i s an inappr opriat e forum for the plai ntiff 's professi onal negl igence and fr au d cl ai ms ari si ng f

ro m th e de fen dan ts ' re pr es ent at io n of th e pl ai nt if

f. We af fi rm. BACKGROUND The plaintiff fi led a si x-count compl aint alle ging profes sionalneglige nce and fraud2

againstRo sen, the la w firm, an d the th ird defenda nt, Dw ight H ardin ( Ha rdin), w ho is employe d as a consul tant by the law firm. In t

he complai nt, t

he plaintiff al leged that he retained Rose n and the law firm to repres ent him in his cla im fo r dam ages again st his employer, Union Pacifi c Railr oad Company, for injuries h e rece ived d uring the co urse o f his emp loymen t. The pla inti ff alleged that bo th Rose n and H ardin told him that they were lice nsed, practi cing attorney s, even t hough Hardin was not an at torney . The plaintiff

alle ged that the de fend ants n eglige ntly "inst ructed and counseled" him to set tle hi s case against the railroad for les s than i ts fair value, fail ed to conduct an ade quate invest igati on into t he liability and d ama ge ev idenc e, and settled h is case with out filin g suit or conducti ng any discovery and before he at taine d maximum medical improve ment. The plaintiff al leged that he received su bstantially less in settl emen t for his case than it was w ort h an d, the refore, "suffere d signif

icant d ama ges in the form of i nappropri ate compensation forpast and f uture medical expenses, past and future wages, pain, suffering, disabi lity [,] and disfigurement." In additi on to the professi onal negl igence cl aims, t he plaintiff al so clai med that eac h defendantwas guilt

y of fr aud, i n that Ros en, i nd ividual ly and through t

he law firm and Hardin, mad e sev eral un true state men ts of m aterial fa ct. Those alle ged stat ements inc luded that Hardin was a n attor ney qual ifie d to repr esent t he plai ntiff

and that the pla inti ff was requir ed to accept

the rai lroad' s settlement offe r of $150,000 or be forcedto accept

$20,000 and reloca te to U tah as a secu rity guard. T he pla intiff als o all eged the def endants had misrepr esented

that hi s settlementinclud ed m edica l cove rage for him and h is family and that they h ad f

ully inv estig ated the c ase before reco mm end ing the s ettlem ent. In response to the plaintiff's first am ende d com plaint, the defe ndan ts file d a motion based upon forum non convenie ns , conte ndin g that th e com plaint sh ould be dismis sed under the Ill inois Supreme Court deci sion i n Dawdy v. Un ion P acific R.R. Co. , 207 Il l. 2d 167, 797 N.E.2d 687 (2003), "as havi ng little or no connection with the S tate of Illinois." In support3

of the moti on, the defendants atta ched Rosen's and Har din' s affidavits and fi led a memorandum of law . The defendan ts alleged that certain fac ts support e d a dis missa l, including the fol lowing: t hat the plaintiff was a res ident of Scott Cit

y, Missouri; that t

he pl ain tif f's wo rk injur y occurre d nea r Osa ge C ity, Misso uri; th at al l the wit nesses t o the pl ain tif f's wo rk injur y lived in M issouri; that t he plai ntiff

's medi cal treat

ment and phy sical therapy occu rred in M issouri; th at a ll the p laintiff' s tre ating phy sici ans were located in or
nearCap e G irardea u, M issouri; th at one of the defe ndan ts , Hard in , was a res ident of M is souri; thatRo sen n ever m et with the pla intiff o r any repr esen tative o f the ra ilroad in Illinois; and that Hardin never met anyone from the railroad in Illi nois. In his affi davit, Rosen averred t hat he was li censed to practi ce law in both I llinois and Misso uri and that hi s office was l ocated i n St. Cla ir County , Il linoi s. Rosen st ated that he and the law firm concentr ated their pr acti ce "in t he repr esent ation o f railroa d w orke rs in cl ai ms br oug htund erth e Fe der al Empl oy er s[ ' ] Li abi li ty Act(FE LA) [ (4 5 U. S. C. §51 et seq. (20 00) )]." Rosen admitt ed that the pla inti ff reta inedhim as his attorn ey in a po tential cla im aris ing fro m a n in

jury the plain tiff r ece ived wh ile w ork ing for the r ailro ad. Rosen also stated that Hardin was an FEL A consultant who worked for him and severalother l aw firms and that he reta ined Hardin to assis t him "i n neg otiat ing a s ettleme nt" of the pla intiff's claim againstthe rai lroad. According to Rosen's affidavit, "[a]l l of the witnesses, medical r ecords, and other evi dence" regarding the pl ainti ff 's work injury, treatment, and rec overy were locat ed in Missouri. Rosen averred t hat he di d not meet wit

h the pla inti ff

or any one from the railroad i n Illi nois. In Ha rdin 's aff

idav it, he s tated that h e live d in St. L oui s, Missouri, that he was the pre sident of the Organi zed Rail Labor Associat ion, I nc. (ORLA), and that ORLA 's of

fice was in his home. Hardin stat ed that , si nce 1982, he had worked with FELA lawyers f rom various parts of the Unite d States . Hardin ave rredthat most of his contacts w ith the plaintiff we re4

byphone from his home and t hat when he m et the plaintiff, "those meetings occur red prima rilyin St. L ouis a nd S cott C ity, Misso uri." A dditi ona lly, Hardin st ated that he had
seve ral me etings w ith repre sentativ es fro m the railroad , all of w hich o ccurre d in M issouri. In their m emo rand um in support of the moti on to dis miss, the defendant s argued t hat the case shoul d be dismis sed in favor of a forum in Missouri. The defendants did not pr ovide anyinformat ion about

the loc a tion wit

hin Missouriof either Scott City or Osage City , nor did they provide t he tri al court

with any informat ion about t

he relative congestion of the cou rt system s in S t. Cla ir C oun ty or an y othe r po tenti al fo rum . The plaintiff res ponded that Rosen resi ded in St. C lair Co unty and that he and his l aw firm maintained an office in St. Clair C ounty. Th e plaintiff alleged tha t "all docum entary evidence relevant to t

he legal malpractice case is likew ise loca ted in S t. Clair County, at the offices of attorn ey Ro sen in O'Fa llon, Illino is," and that the mo st critical ev idenc e w ould consistof Rosen's test imony and t he fil e tha t he ge nerate d and main tained in St. C lair C ou nt y. The plaintiff st ated thatthe documentar y evi dence concerning the railro ad's liability to th e pla intiff w as lo cate d at th e rail roa d's atto rne y's off ice in St. C lair C oun ty. In his resp onse , the plain tiff stated , "[T]h e utt er absur dity of suggest ing that

[the] plaintiff be force d to litigate his claim again st M r. Ros en an d his law firm i n a county other than St. Cla ir is demonstrat ed by t he fac t t hat [the] pl ai nt if

f hi re d Mr. Rose n an d hi s l aw firm, both of which are located in St. Clai r County." (Emphasis i n origi nal. ) The plai ntiff argued that the defendant s' s uggesti on that a legalmalpract ice cas e could not be con venie ntl y prosecut ed in the ve rycounty where the defe ndan t lawyer a nd h is law firm resided and whe re the alle ged negli gent repr esentation was render ed " defies cre dulit y. " Final ly , the plaintiff stat ed that i n order for the d efen dants to susta in their m otion, th ey wer e requ ired to dem onstra te that h is ch oice of foru m s ubs tanti ally inc onv enie nce d th em , "a burden which [the] defendants could never meet under these circumstances."5

The trial court conduc ted a heari ng o n the moti on to dis miss, during which t he defendants' attor

ney argued that the case h ad no conn ection to th e pl ai nt if f' s c hos en f

orum, St. Cla irCounty, other t han the fact s that

Rosen lived t

here and hi s law office was l ocated there. The defend an ts' att or ne y in fo rm ed th e c ou rt th at t he pl ain tif f li ve d i n S co tt C ity, M issouri, "which is r ig ht ou tsi de C ap e G ira rd ea u," M iss ou ri, a nd th at a ll th e p lai nt iff's medical treatment for the injuries he received was "in C ape G irard eau or the environs ther eof ." When the tri al court asked if t

he defendants belie ved that everything happe ned in M issouri, the attorney

responded affirmative ly , st ating t hat the re "were no cont acts at all in Ill inois [,] including no meetings" wit h eithe r Rosen or Hardi n. The plaintiff' s att orney

argued that t

he case pendi ng in St. Clair County was a l egal
m alp racti ce case "against Rick Rosen[, ] who represe nted or who all egedly repres ented a railroad worker who sett led thi s case for about two cent s on the dol lar [and] sold h is job in the process. " He assert ed that all t he rele vant ev idence and w itnesse s we re loca ted in S t. Clair Co unty and th at the o nly releva nt incid ents occurring outsi de St. Cl air County were that the plaintiff' s work injury occurred in Missouri and that Hardin misreprese n ted himsel f as
a lawyer and tal ked the pl ainti ff int o signi ng sett lement paper s in Missouri. He furt her claim ed t hat the locat ion of the work injur y was not

criticalbecause the railroad admitted liabi lity for t he p laint iff's w ork inju ry. The defendants ' at

torney responded t

hat because the plai ntiff

's c omplaint

alle ged legal malpract ice, the facts of the underlyi ng lawsuit

would be critical . The defendant s' attor ney arguedthat

all th e w itnes ses to the u nde rlying a ccid ent w ere in M isso uri. She di d no t n ame anyparticu lar w itness, state th e resi dence or work addres s of anyparti cular wit ness, or expla in the possible cont ent of any par ticul ar witnes s's likely t esti mony. She argued that both the privat e- and publi c-int erest factor s overwhelmingly favor ed a trans fer to Miss ouri, but she did not delin eate the n atur e of any p riva te or pub lic in teres t.6

The trial c our t den ied th e m otio n. The defe ndan ts filed a timely petitio n fo r leave to appeal, which this court deni ed. The defendant s then fi leda peti tion for leave to app eal to the Illinois S upre me C ourt. On M arch 30, 2005, the supr eme court i ssued an orde r vacat ing this cour t's denia l of le av e to ap peal a nd o rderin g that th e defenda nts be gran ted lea ve to app eal. Brant v. Rosen , 214 Ill. 2d 527 , 824 N.E .2d 2 80 ( 200 5). AN AL YS IS The defendants argue that the t rialcourt abus ed its discr etion in denying their motion to dismis s based on forum non convenie ns . The Ill inois courts have developed asigni ficant bodyof law conc erning the rule s that a p ply to pret rialmotions t o dismis s pursuant to the doctrine of

forum non convenie ns . The basic r ules ar e rarely disput ed. However, each forum
non conveniens case is un iqu e an d fa ct-in tens ive. Satkowiak v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. , 106 Ill . 2d 224, 228, 478 N.E.2d 370, 372 ( 1985) . The doctrine of forum non convenie ns is flexi ble, requir es an eval uation of the total ci rcumstance s rather thana concentr ationon any s ingle factor ( Peile v. Skelgas, Inc. , 163 Il l. 2d 323, 336-37, 645 N.E. 2d 184, 190 (1994)), and is grou nded in consider ations of fundamental fairne ss andsensibl e and effect ive judici al administ

rati on ( Dawdy , 207 Il l. 2d at 171, 797 N.E.2dat 693). The tri al court has broad discr etion in determi ning whether t he parti cular c ircumst ances require a transfe r, and its decisio n w ill be reversed only i f it is s hown to be an abuse of d iscre tion

. Blan d v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. , 116 Ill. 2d 217 , 223, 50 6 N.E .2d 1291 , 1293 (19 87). The trial court abus es its disc retion in balan cing th e relev ant forum non con veniens factors only where no
reaso nable person would t ake the vi ew ad opted b y the c our t. Lan genh orst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. , 219 Ill. 2d 430 , 442 , 848 N.E .2d 9 27, 9 34 ( 200 6). Byfiling a forum non con veniens mot io n, a de fe nd an t ad m its th at t he pl ain tif f's chosen venue is t ec h nical ly proper but

asks the court t o decli ne juri sdict ion in favor of anot her for um that can bet ter s erve the convenience of t he parti es and the e nds of justice.7

Dawdy , 207 Ill. 2d at 171-72, 797 N.E.2d at 693. The Illinoi s venue statute provides, "[E]very acti on must be commenced (1) in the county of r esidence of anydefe ndan t wh o is joined in go od faith and with probabl e cause for t he purpose of obt aining a judgmentagainst him or her and not

solely for

the purpos e of fixi ng venue in that county[] or (2) in the co unty in which the transaction or some par t thereof occurre d ou t of which the caus e of acti on
aro se." 735 ILCS 5/2-101 (West 2004) . In t he case at

bar, venue is prop er in St. Cla ir Co unty und er eithe r prov ision o f the sta tute. C learly , Ro sen a nd th e law firm a re bo th reside nts of

St. Cla irCounty and

were joine d in good fai th. Additionally, accordi ng to the alle gations of the complaint, at lea st some of t he trans acti ons from which the caus es of acti on
arose occurred in St. Cla ir County , because that i s the locat ion from which Rosen and hi s law firm rep rese nted the p laint iff o n th e un der lying F EL A c laim

. The Illinois S upre me C ourt h as rep eated ly noted th at alth ou gh the forum non conveniens doctrine gives t he tri al court

broad dis creti on to dis miss a cas e in favor of a m ore convenient

for um, that di scret ionary

power should not

be used to deny

a plai ntiff

his choi ce of forum unless exc eptional circum stances requ ire a tri al i n a mo re conven ie ntfor um. Langenhorst , 219 Ill . 2d at 442, 848 N.E.2d at 934. The co urts recognize that our legislature gives each plaintiff a st atutor y r ight t o choose the ve nue forthe vindi cati on of his r ights and that the pla inti ff's int er est in making that choice is " substantial ." First American Bank v. Guerine , 198 Ill. 2d 511 , 517 , 764 N.E .2d 5 4, 58 (20 02)

. The plaintiff's substan tial interest in choo sing th e loca tion fo r his law suit "rece ives somewhat less deference when nei ther t he plai ntiff

's r esidence nor the s ite of the acci dentor injuryis locate d in the chosen forum." Guerine , 198 Ill . 2d at 517, 764 N.E.2d at

59. When the plaintiff

choo ses the place wh ere he lives to p ursue his cau se of action , the co urts
reaso nably assu me that t he c hoi ce is con ven ient. Guerine , 198 Ill . 2dat 517, 764 N.E.2d at 59. Likewise, when the plaintiff chooses the si te of the accident or inj ury , the courts consider8

that choice t o be convenient because "t

he litigati on has the as pect of bei ng 'deci ded at ho me .' " Guerine , 198 Il l. 2d at 518, 764 N.E. 2d at 59 (quoting Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc. , 111 Ill. 2d 495 , 500 , 490 N.E .2d 6 94, 6 97 ( 198 6)). In the instant case, t he plai ntiff

's c hoice of forum is t

he sit e of the inj uryhe all eged in his co mp laint–th at he re ceive d an in adeq uate amount in settlement

as a res ult of t

he defendants ' pr ofessi onal negl igence and fr aud. Therefore, in thi s case, the pla inti ff's choice of fo rum i s e nt itle d t o s ubs tant ia l d ef er en ce . A s the Il linoi s Supreme Court stated i n Bru mm ett : "There is cl early

an over riding e leme nt of e ssentia l fairne ss in condoning the choice by an injured par

ty of the forum i n which the i njury was suffered. It al so makes for sensibl e and effect ive judicial administration fo r a clai m to be pursued in the forum whe re itarose. Where the plaintiff file s his cl aim at t

he situs of

his inju ry[,] there is
a cle ar nex us w it h the forum, and the pl ainti ff cannot be charged with for um shopping." Bru mm ett , 111 Ill. 2d at 50 0, 49 0 N .E.2 d at 6 97. The defe ndan ts argue that we should focus on the si te of the underlying injur

y, which is the work injur

y, inst ead of the injury alleg ed in th e pen ding com plaint. T hat arg um ent is withoutmerit. T he site o f the u nder lying w ork in jury is only tange ntial ly relevant to t

he plain ti ff's current

cause of act ion, be cause the railroad did not contest liabi lit y and t he pl ain tif f's clai m was settl ed prior to filing a ny laws uit. Furth er, the d efen dants mak e no c laim that liabi lit y coul d have been a cont ested i ssue in t he FELA clai m. The under lying work injury is on ly relevan t on the issue o f dam ages . The evide nce in this case w ill likely focus
on the defendants' alleged professional negli gence and fraudulent representations, not on the railro ad's c ond uct in cau sing the p laint iff's u nde rlying w ork inju ry. Given the defer ence accorded the pla inti ff's chosen forum, t he burden is on the defe ndan ts to show that the releva nt forum non convenie ns factors strong ly favor a transfer to a nother fo rum . Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 4 44, 84 8 N .E.2d at 935 . In ord er to su stain9

their burden of proof, the defendants were requir ed to show that the pla inti ff's chosen forum
was incon venie nt t o them and that another f

orum was more convenient to all t he parti es . Guerine , 198 Ill . 2d at

518, 764 N.E.2d at

59. The bedrock of

an y f orum non conveniens analysis is the consider ation of the balance between the private-inter est factor s affect ing the convenience of the litigants and the public-interest factors affecting the administ rati on of the courts. See Gu lf

Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U. S. 501, 508-09 , 91 L. Ed. 1055 , 1062 -63, 67 S. Ct. 83 9, 843 (194 7); Bland , 116 Ill. 2d at 22 3-2 4, 50 6 N .E.2 d at 1 294
. The privat e-int erest

factor s to be cons idered include the foll owing: (1) the
conve nience of the parties , (2) the rel ative ease of acces s to sour ces of te sti monial , do cu m en tar y, and realevidence, and (3) all t he other pr acti cal probl ems that make t he tri al of a cas e ea sy, exp editi ous , and inex pen sive

. Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 443, 848 N.E.2d at 935. The public- in teres t fact ors inc lude the se: ( 1) the interes t in dec iding cont roversi es lo ca lly, (2) the unfair

ness of i mposing the expe nse of a trial and the burden of juryduty upon reside nts of a forum with l ittle connection to t he litigati on, and (3) the admini strative diffi culti es pre sen ted b y add ing litiga tion to co nge sted cou rt do cke ts. Langenhorst , 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44, 84 8 N.E.2d a t 935 . "The se fac tors are releva nt con sidera tions f or bo th interstate and in trastate forum non convenie ns analysi s." Langenhorst , 219 Il l. 2d at 444, 848 N.E.2d at 935. Unless the bal ance of all th es e f

ac to rs s tro ng ly fa vo rs a de fe nd an t's alte rnati ve cho ic e of

for um, the p laint iff's c hoi ce o f fo rum sho uld rare ly be d istur bed

. Gu lf Oil Corp. , 330 U. S. at 507-08, 91 L. Ed. at 1062, 67 S. Ct. at 842-43; Langenhorst , 219 I ll. 2d at 444, 848 N.E.2d at 935. Applyi ng these fa ctors to the c ase at bar, we find t hat the defe ndan ts have fail ed to demonstrate that the balance of private

- and pu blic-interest factors stron gly fa vor s a tra nsf

er to a fo rum in M isso uri. Consideri ng the first p rivate-in terest factor, we have very little specifi c evidence a bout the conveni ence of the par ties other than the facts th at Ro sen a nd h is law firm re side in S t.10

Clair County, the plai ntiff' s chose n forum, and that Hardin lives and works in St. Louis, M issouri. Alt

hou gh t he p la in ti ff d oes not

live in St . Cl air C ounty , the defendants cannot prev ail on their

motion by arguing that

the pla inti ff

is i nconvenienced by

his own choice of for um. See Guerine , 198 Il l. 2d at 518, 764 N.E.2d at 59. Clearly, Rosen and his law firm
ar e n ot in co nv en ien ce d b y th e f ilin g o f th is l aw su it in th eir ho m e c ou nt y. Likewise, we find little su ppo rt for the defe ndan ts' motion in th e seco nd privat ei nterest factor

–the rel ative ease of acces s to sour ces of te sti monial, documentary , and rea l evidence. Alth oug h defenda nts who assert the ri ght to t ransfer a case base d upon forum non conveniens routi nely

provide t he court with affid avits from witness es de tailing the ir diffic ulty in atte nding a trial in the pl ainti ff's chosen forum, t he defendants in thi s case fai led to attac h
a single a ffida vit from a w itness a sserting that it w ould be in conv enien t to attend a trial in St. Clair County. The onlyaffidavi ts submi tted were from Rosen and Hardin, neithe r of wh om claim ed to be in con ven ienc ed b y a trial in St. C lair C oun ty. We also n ote tha t it is diffic ult to ass ess this factor w hen th e defenda nts faile d to pr ovide th e tr ial co ur t w ith an y sp ec ifi c in fo rm ati on ab ou t th e lo ca tio n o f a ny M issour i
co un ty. As a part of t

heir pr oof, defendant s asser ting a right

to tr ansfer venue should provi de the court wit

h the dis tances be tween the chos en and proposed for ums and t h e locat ions of witnesse s and other e vidence. This is necessar y so t hatthe court

can asses s the relative ease of access t o sources of

proof, as requir ed by t his factor. None of this inform ation was provided in this case. T he defe ndan ts allege d in the ir motio n that a ll the w itnesse s to the p lainti ff's wor k injury"re si de i n Miss our i. " Ev en if we agr eed with the defendants that t he proof of the under ly ing work injur

y were a pivotal f

actor, which we do not, t he defendants did n o t provide the trialcourt with the names, addresses, or l ikely testi mony of any particul ar witness to the work injur

y. The tri al court

was not free to speculat e about the possibl e inconveni ence11

to a group of unnamed witnes ses who would have to t ravel f r om unk now n loca tions in Misso uri to give unsp ecified testimo ny in St. Clair County. See Bird v. Luhr Brothers, Inc. , 334 Ill. App . 3d 1088 , 1094, 779 N.E.2d 907, 914 (2002). The defend ants alleged that the p laintiff received m edical treatmen t for his wo rk injuryfrom hospit als and phy sici ans in Je fferson Cit y and Cape Gir ardeau, Missouri, and that he receiv ed phys ica l therapy " in Missouri ." The defendant s provide d no informat ion, how ever, about the relative ease or inconveni ence of obtaining the testi mony of medical perso nnel w ho w ork in Jeffe rson C ity, Cape G irardea u, and poss ibly other Missouri cities. Itis n ot cle ar fr om th e r ec or d h ow m an y po ten tia l w itn es se s li ve or w or k i n J effe rso n C ity, Cape Girardeau, or some other locat ion within Missouri, the lik ely c on ten t o f th eir tes tim on y,
or how critical tha t evide nce w ould be to th e defense of th is professi onal negl igence and fraudcas e. The trial court was not free to speculat e about those matters, and neither are we. The defe ndan ts next argue that we shoul d consider "the wit nesses whose t esti mony mightbearupon the set tlement of the underlying FELA claim." The defe ndants as sert that the issue o f w hethe r they cou ld hav e settl ed the plain tiff's claim for m ore m oney "w ill implic ate testim ony f

rom the r epr ese ntati ves of th e rail roa d," who they cl aim are "s ituated in M issouri, n ot Illinois." I n sup port o f that a llegation , the de fend ants cite to the a ffida vits of Rosen and Hardin. In his a ffidavi t, Rosen averred, "All of the witnesses, medical records, and other eviden ce regarding Mr. B ra nt's inju ry, treatmen t, and re cove ry are loca ted in M isso uri." In Hardin' s affidavit, he averred t hat he had "s everalmeetings wit h a Union Pacific representati ve regarding Mr. Brant's claim" and that al l those meetings "occ urred in M isso uri." The defendants cite to no ot her evide nce in the re cord to supp ort this ar gum ent, and we find n othing else in our re view of the record . The defe ndan ts we re requ ired to present som ething mo re than a gen eral ass ertion th at they w ould call"repre sentatives of the railroad" who a re "situ ated i n Missouri. " Simply put, t he defendants ' conclusions add12

nothing to our resoluti on of this c as e because i t is entirely unclear which witness es the defe ndan ts wou ld call to testify about the settlement valu e of the un derl yin g FELA c la im, whe re those witn esses r eside, o r wh ether th ey wo uld suffer any inconveni ence if requ ired to testif y at a tria l in S t. Cla ir C oun ty. The defe ndan ts also a rgue that if it bec omes necessar

y for the jur y t o view the sce ne of the plainti ff's work injury , it would be more convenient for a M issouri j ury to accomplish that. We reject this argu men t as un wo rthy of an y weig ht. F irst, t he defendants do not exp lain why it

would be necessar

y t o their

defense for t

he jury to see t he locat ion of the pl ain tif f's work in

ju ry. They do not

alle ge that

the scene is re levant

to the s ettl ement value of the FE LA claim , and th ey do no t allege th at the sc ene is curren tlyin the s ame conditi on
as it was on the da te of th e w ork in jury. Seco nd, the railroad settled th e plain tiff's claim before any l awsui t was file d and did not c ontest liabi lit y. Finally, the defendant s do not expla in how a jury view of the scen e of th e w ork in jury will aid the juror s in deci ding the pl ain tif f's professi onal negl igence andfraud claim s. W e ack now ledge that the decisio n to allow a jury

to view the scene of an i njury is within the broad discr etion of the trial cou rt. Dawdy , 207 Ill . 2dat 179, 797 N.E.2d at 697. However, for purpos es of thi s appeal, we do not find any

abuse of dis creti on in the t rialcour t' s denialof the defendant s' mot ion based upo n th is fa ctor
. Ne xt, we ad dr es s the t

hi rdpr iv at e- in te re st

fac to r– al l t

he o th erpr actic al pr obl ems that make the trial of

a case eas y, expedit ious, and inexpensive. The defe ndan ts argu e that if th is
case is prose cuted in St . C lai r C ou nt y, Illinois, there is no subpoe na pow er available to secu re the atte ndance in I llinois of t he plai ntiff

's medi cal prov iders b ut that b oth R osen and H ardin
are subject

to compulsor

y pr ocess i n Missouri. However, since we have already found that the defendants did not pr esent r elia ble inf ormation a

bout the nature of

an y M iss ou ri w itn es s's testim ony, w e giv e tha t fac tor v ery little w eigh t.13

The de fe nd an ts f

ur th er ar gu e th at i f th e r ail ro ad ha d n ot ag re ed to se ttle th e p lai nt iff's FELA clai m before a lawsui t was fil ed, the plai ntiff would not have been able t o f ile t he FELA laws uit in Il linoi s, "given the l ack of v enue here." T he de fend ants ar e w rong . State
cour ts have concurr ent jurisdi ction wit h federalcourts over FELA actions. 45 U.S. C. §56 (2000). Under our venue statutes, a l awsuit may be filed against a railroa d in an y county in which it " is doi ng business." 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a) (West 2004). We take j udicia l noti ce that the railroad does busin ess in S t. Clair County. See Eagle Marine Industries, Inc. v. Union Pac ific R.R. Co. , 363 Ill . App. 3d 1166, 845 N.E.2d 869 (2006) ( the defendant railroad was enjoine d fro m o bstru cting a cro ssin g it o wn ed a nd c ont rolle d in Sau get, St . Cl ai r Co un ty, Illinois). Therefore, if Rosen had fi led a l awsuit pr ior t o sett ling th e pl ai nt if f' s FEL A cl ai m,
venue for that

lawsuit would have been proper in St. C lair Co unty, Illinois. T he issu e in this
case is not

whether a forum non con veniens motion would h ave been gran ted in t he underlying FEL A action . In this case, t he privat e- andpublic- interest fac tors must be appli ed to the p rofes siona l neglig ence and f raud action that is be fore th is cou rt. The defendants next argue that the publi c-int erest

factor s str ongly

favora trans fer to M issouri. The first

public- interest f

actor we must c onsider is the inte rest

in deci ding controver sies local ly . The defendant s argue that because the pla inti ff is a Miss ouri r esident and his un derlying w ork in jury occu rred in M issouri, an Ill inois jury has "no c onn ection " to this ca se. We disa g ree. Alt hough Rosen is l icensed to practi ce law in bot h Missouri and Illinois, he maintains his office in St. Cla ir Co unty, Illinois, an d as a result, the pe ople o f St. Clair Count y have a tremendous interes t in t he plai ntiff

's a llegations of professi onal neglige nce and fraud against one o f their re siden t attorne ys and h is law firm. In orde r for th is
case to b e de cide d lo cally, it sh oul d be dec ided in S t. Cla ir C oun ty, the locat ion where, accordi ng to the c omplaint , Rosen and his law fir m rep res ent ed themse lve s t o be FEL A lawyers, agreed t o repres ent the plaintiff, conducted t hat repr esentation, mai ntaine d a fil e,14

a nd made decisi ons that ultimately

resul ted in a

sett lement t

hat the plaintiff now cl aims i s inadequat e. While we certa inly do not make any j udgments concer ning the merits of the pl ain tif f's case or make any

predictions about

the outc ome, we recognize that t he gravamen of the plaintiff's com plaint c once rns co ndu ct occ urring in Illinois, n ot M issouri. Applyi ng the second public-interes t factor, we see no unfairness in impo sing the expense of a t

rialand the burde n of jury du ty upon the res idents o f St. C lair Co unty in this
case. It stands to r eason that St. Cla ir County

resi dent s shou ld hav e an a vid inte rest in decidi ng whether one of their own attorney s, hi s law fir m, and the law firm 's consultant are guilty of professi onal negl igence andfraud. Whateve r the out come of the case , the peop le with the greatest

reason t o decide t

he case most f

airly ar e tho se clos es t to th e c on tro ve rsy, the r esid ents of S t. Cla ir C oun ty. Under the third publi c-int erest factor , the defendants cite court conge sti on in St. Clair Co unty as a rea son for a tran sfer to a cou nty in M isso uri. As we previously noted, the defe ndan ts did not provide the trial court with any evidence of t

he relative c ourt conges tion in St. Cla ir County

or in any proposed for

um. We acknowledge that the defendant s included in the appendi x to their bri ef co pi es of docu men ts purp orting to show that the St. Cla ir County cour

t sy stem is more congeste d than any proposed for

um in Missouri . We decli ne to take j udicia l noti ce of these doc uments when they were never submit

tedto the tria l court. Even if we were to accept

the defendant s' a ssertions thatSt. Cla ir County is more conges ted, how ever, the congestion of the courts is but one part of

the pub li c- inte re st

an al y si s, an d we would not be pers uaded that the defendant s met their burden of pr oof. T he defendants have fail ed to meet t heir bur den of showing that a balancing o f th e relevant privat e- and publi c-int erest factor s str ongly

favors a t

ransfer from the p lai nt iff's chosen forum. As a consequenc e, we find t hat the tri al cour t did no t abus e its discre tion in denying the defendant s' mot ion to di smiss bas ed upon forum non convenie ns .15

To c omp le te our

an al y si s, how ev er , w e must consi der the de fendants'reli ance upon Merritt v. Hopkin s Gol den ber g, P.C

. , 362 Ill. A pp. 3 d 902 , 841 N.E.2d 1003 ( 2005), an opinionwe issued

after th e brief s we re filed but p rior to o ral argu men ts befo re this co urt in the prese nt case . The defe ndan ts request ed leave t o cite Merritt as su pp lem en tal au th or ity, and we granted their r equest. In Merritt , we considered an intrast ate forum non convenie ns motion file d and denied i n a Madison Co unt y lega l ma lpra ctice actio n. Merritt , 362 Il l. App. 3d at904, 841 N.E.2d at 1006. There, the underlyi ng case involved a wrongful-death-andsurviva l acti on that was file d in Alexander County and

settle d be for e tria l. Merritt , 362 I ll. App. 3d at 904, 841 N.E.2d at 1005- 06. In t he legalmalpract ice action, t he plai ntiff

s all eged that the defendant s settled the pla inti ffs ' claim for an in ade qua te am oun t. Merritt , 362 I ll. App. 3d at 904, 841 N.E.2d at 1005. The legal malpracti ce acti on was tri ed before a Madison Co unty jury

after the deni al of the defendant s' motio n to remove the cas e to Alexander C ou nt y, wh ere the plaintiff s lived, w here th e und erlying ve hicle accident occurred, where the estate of the chi ld-vi ctim was being admini ster ed, and where t he court a

pproved the sett lement i n the underlyi ng cas e. Merritt , 362 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 9 12, 8 41 N .E.2 d at 1 012
. In Merritt , we first

hel d thatthe pla inti ffs fail ed to prove t heir cause of act ion for l egal malpract ice and that t he d efe nda nts w ere e ntitle d to a ne w tr ial. Merritt , 362 Il l. App. 3d at 912, 841 N.E.2d at 1012. Additional ly , we held t hat the Madison County circuit court abus ed its di sc re tio n b y de nyi ng th e d ef en da nt s' for um non c onveniens motion and t hat, upon remand, the c ase sho uld be tr ans ferr ed to Ale xan der Co unt y. Merritt , 362 I ll. App. 3d at 913, 841 N.E.2d at 1012- 13. Our decisi on in Merritt rais es the ques tion of whether a le gal malpr acti ce acti on alle ging an ina dequ ate settlem ent must be trans ferred to the county where t he underlying injuryocc urre d. Merritt does not stand for the proposition that a legalmalpract ice actio n such as this case must be tried in the c oun ty wh ere th e un der lying injury oc cur red

. Merritt16

establ ishedno b right-line rule, an d w e did not inte nd to chan ge the basic r ules ap plicab le to forum non convenie ns cases by our decis ion in Merritt
. In Merritt , we simply

applie d the basi c forum non convenie ns rules to a fact ual
scen ario that i s distinguis hable fr om the case at bar, and after that applic ation, we concluded that the most approp riate foru m un der those circumstances was the county in which the underlying cause of act ion arose . Ho we ver, the re w ere ad ditiona l, impo rtant co nnec tions to that county that do not

exist in the c ase at bar: i n Merritt , venu e for th e underlying act ion
wo uld not have been pr oper in MadisonCo unty, the ac ciden t occu rred in A lex an de r C ou nt y, the plaintiff s lived in Alex ande r Co unty, the ch ild-victim 's estate was being probat ed there , the Alexander County

circuit court

had approved the settlement of the und erlying w rong fuldeath-and-survi val acti on, and the defendants ' exper t witnes s pract iced l aw from his offi ce in A lexa nde r Co unt y. Merritt , 362 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 9 12, 8 41 N .E.2 d at 1 012
. Bycontra st, in the in stant ca se, Ro sen d id no t file a la w su it c on ce rn in g t he pl ain tif f's underlying work injur

y i n any count

y, but had he done so, St. C lair Co unty would have been among the jurisdictions in w hich ven ue w as proper. A dd itio na lly, the pla inti ff li ves in one
coun tyin Missouriand his work injuryoccurred in another, and from the record, it appears that the witne sses t o the underlyi ng work injur y ar e scattered througho ut various M issouri countie s so that

no singl e Missouri c ounty has a particularly

strong c onnecti on to the c ase at bar. M oreo ver, R osen main tains his law p ractice in St. Clair C oun ty, his file concerni ng the sett lementof

th e p lai nt iff's c lai m is i n S t. C lai r C ou nt y, and th e railroa d's attorn ey and its file
are in St. Clair Cou nty. Further, the pla inti ff in thi s case has alle ged fraud, which was not alle ged in Merritt
. Because the fa cts of th e plain tiff's und erlying ca use o f actio n are s ignific antly differe nt from those in Merritt , the ruling in that case is di sti nguishabl e and does not c ontrol the out com e of

this c ase . We continu e to adher e to the basic r ules gover

ning forum non17

conveniens cases, and our deci sion i n Merritt did nothing to change those rules. CONCLUS ION For al l t he re as ons st at ed , w e affirm t he tri al court 's de nial of the defendant s' mot ion to dis miss based upon t he doctrine of forum non convenie ns .
Affirmed.

GO LD EN HE RSH and C HA PM AN , JJ., concur.NO. 5-04-0516 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ IVAN BRANT, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-Appell ee, ) S t. C lai r C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 03-L-418 ) RIC K ROSEN and R OSEN L AW ) FIR M , P.C ., ) ) Defendan ts-Appellants, ) ) and ) ) DWIGHT HARDI N, ) Ho nora ble ) Lloy d A. Cueto, De fend ant. ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion Filed : April 27, 2007

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable B ruce D. Stewart, J.

Honorable Richar d P. Goldenhers h, J. , and Ho nor able M eliss a A . Ch apm an, J ., Con cur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Jos hua G. V ince nt, T eres e A . Dr ew , Tim oth y G. S helto n, H insh aw & Cu lber tson , for 222 North La Sall e Street , Suit e 300, Chicago, IL 60601 (attorney s for Rick Rosen Ap pellants and Ro sen La w F irm, P .C.)

Warren Lupel, J onathan D. Sherman, Weinberg Richmond LLP, 333 West Wacker Dri ve, Sui te 1800, Chic ago, IL 60 606 ( attor ney s fo r Dwig ht Hardi n - ADOPTED ROSEN'S BRIEF)

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Th om as Q . Ke efe , Jr., T hom as Q . Ke efe , Jr., P .C., # 6 E xec utiv e W ood s C our t, for Bellevi lle, IL 62226 Appellee

___________________________________________________________________________________