FIFTH DIVISION SEPTEMBER 7, 2007

1-06-0341 TO DD E . WARN OCK a nd ELIZAB ETH H. W

AR NOCK , Pl ai nti f f s-A ppel l an ts, v. KA RM WINA

ND & PATTERSON Def endan t-App el l ee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Co o k C o un t y. No. 03 L 5204 Ho no r ab le Lee Pres ton, Judge Presidin

g.

OPINION UPON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING JUSTIC E TULL

Y del i vered th e opi

ni on of the c ourt : On May 1, 2003, plai

ntif fs -appell ants, Todd and Eli

zabeth W arnock (plai

ntif fs ) fi le d a l eg al mal pra cti cesui t ag ai ns t de f en da nt- appe l l ee , th e l

aw f i rm of Karm W i na nd & P atte rs on (d efenda nt ), as a re sult of a n unde rlying rea l est at e t ra nsac t ion. In t he und er lyi ng t ra nsac t ion, plaint iff s re t ained Ka re n Pat t er so n (P at t er so n), a pa rt ner at defend ant , t o r epr ese nt t hem in the sale of thei

r propert y i

n W in netka, Ill in ois, to To ny

and W in if red Brown (the Browns). The real est at e t ra nsac t ion d id no t clos e and t he Br ow ns filed suit aga inst p laintiffs. P laintiffs ret ained t he law firm o f Ar nst ein & Le hr t o r ep r es en t t he m in t he su it br o ug ht by t he Br o wn s. T he en d r es ult of the Brow n l i ti ga ti on wasan

ad ve rs e j udg men t en tere d a gai ns t plai nti f f s i n th e a moun t of $342,750, plus prej udgme nt in terest. Plai

ntif fs appeal ed and, whi

le the appeal

was pendi

ng, pla in tif fs ulti ma tely settled the Brown l

itigation f or $325,000.1-06-0341

2

Nin e m onths af ter t he adv

erse j udgme

nt was entered by

the ci rcuit court, pla

in tif fs fi le d this le gal ma lpractice sui

t again st defen

dant. Plai ntif fs al le ged that Patt erson fa

il ed to dr aft letter ag r ee men t s p r o pe r ly du r ing t he sa le o f t he ir p r o pe r t y, w hic h r es ult ed in t he ad ve r se jud gme nt in the Brown l itigation. Af

ter discovery

concl uded i n the l egal ma lpractice case, def

endan t file d a motion f or summ ary j udgme

nt, arguin g that t he two-year statute o f l im itations on pla in tif fs ’ legal
mal pra cti ceac ti on h

ad ex pi red . The c i

rcu i t cou rt ag ree d a nd gra nte d de f en da nt’ s m oti on f or su m mar y j udgm en t. Pl ai n ti f f s f i l ed a m oti on to re con si der, b ut i t wa s den i ed b y th e c i rc ui t cou rt. On appe al , pl

ai nti f f s c l ai m tha t: (1 ) th e tw o-y

ea r s tatute of l i m i tations pe riod had

not ex pi red when the y f i l ed the i r leg al mal pra cti ceac ti on;an

d (2 ) ev en i f the two-y ea r s tatute of lim itat ions p er iod had e xpire d befo re t hey fil ed t heir leg al malprac t ice ac t ion, defend ant sho uld be equ itably est op ped fro m raising a s t at ut e o f li mitat ions d efense beca use it mad e misrep re sent at ions t o p laintiffs, which w er e de signed t o d et er plaint iff s fro m fi ling a legal malpr act ice ac t ion. Fo r t he reasons stated below, we reverse and rem and. FA CTS In earl y 2000, pl

ai ntif fs in tended to sell

their property l

ocated at 381 Sheridan Road, Winnetk a, Illinois. O n Mar ch 2, 200 0, a r eal est at e co nt ra ct was exec ut ed be t wee n plaint iff s and the Browns, stating a purch ase pri ce of $3,055,000. On March 4, 2000, plai

ntif fs retained Pat t er so n, a par t ner at defend ant firm, t o r epr ese nt t hem in this r eal est at e t ra nsac t ion wit h t he Browns. The closi ng date o rigi

nal ly was set for April 27, 2000. On April 26, 2000 , t he Browns' at t or ney co nt act ed P at t er so n and r equ est ed a n ext ensio n in or der for t he Br ow ns t o o bt ain the1-06-0341

3

necess ary f

in anci ng. Patterso n draf

ted a letter and sent i

t t o t he Browns’ atto rney, whi ch stated t hat plaint iff

s ag re ed t o e xt end t he clo sing da t e t o M ay 11, 200 0, pr ovid ed t hat t he Br ow ns deposited $10,000 earnest m oney in an escrow account. The l etter agreem ent al so contained a liquidat ed d amage s clau se, which st at ed t hat t he $1 0, 000 ear nest money wo uld be fo rfeit ed in t he ev en t t ha t t he clo sing faile d t o o cc ur “fo ran y re as o n” o n Ma y 11 , 20 00 . I n a dd it io n t o t his li quida ted damages c la

use, the l etter agreem

ent al so stat ed that plai

ntif fs retained “

al l ri ghts i n l aw and i n e qui ty a s a re sul

t of the def aul t.” On Ma y 11, 200 0 and June 2, 200 0, t he Br ow ns re que st ed a ddit ional ext ensio ns t o t he clo sing da t e b ec au se t he y we r e s t rug glin g t o o bt ain t he ne ce ss ar y finan cin g. T he pla int iffs a ga in agr eed , bu t re quir ed t he Br ow ns t o d epo sit a ddit ional fund s in the esc ro w ac co unt . P at t er so n sent addi ti on al l ette r a gr eemen

ts m em ori al izi n g th e c l osi n g e xtensi

on s. Both

l ette r a gr eemen

ts con tai ne d a l i qui da ted da mag escl au se , con f i rm i ng tha t plai nti f f s w ere en ti tl ed to the es crow mone y i f the cl osin g did n ot occur. In additi on to the li quida ted damages c la

use, both le

tt er agreem ents al so stat ed that plai

ntif fs retained a

ll their l egal and equi table righ ts. As of Jun

e 2, 2000, the to tal am

ount deposited in

escrow was $342,750. On Ju ne 2, 2 000 , th e B rown

s a gai n f ai l ed to cl ose on th e p rope rty . A s a res ul t, Pa tters on r eq uir ed t he Br o wn s t o sig n a fo r m pr o vid ing au t ho r iza t io n t o r ele as e e ar ne st mo ne y. T his authorization to releas e earnest m oney stated t hat if

the Browns could n

ot obtain a

written loan co mmi t ment by Ju ne 8, 200 0, t he $3 42, 750 in earne st money wo uld be r elease d t o p laintiffs. T he Browns f ai le d to obtain the

necess ary f

in anci ng an d, on June 16, 2000, the real estate sales contr act was t ermi

nated and the t ot al escrow amount of $342, 750 was t ransferred to Plai ntif fs’1-06-0341

4

acc ount. On Aug ust 1, 200 0, t he Br ow ns’ at t or ney sent a let t er t o P at t er so n ask ing t hat t he $342,75 0 in

earnest money b e retu rned to the Bro wns. Plai ntif fs ref used to retu rn the earnest
m one y an d, on Oc tobe r 4, 200 0, th

e B rown s f i l ed sui t ag ai ns t plai nti f f s i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt of Co o k C o un t y, u nd er t he t he o r y o f un jus t en r ich men t . Pla int iffs r et ain ed t he law firm o f Ar nst ein & L eh r to def end the Brown s'l awsui

t. The Browns f

il ed a m ot ion f or judgm ent on the pl eadi

ngs, whi ch the ci rcuit court granted on August 2, 20 02. I n grant ing the Bro wns' motion, t he circuit co urt reaso ned that Pat ter son’s le tt er agreeme

nts dated Apri l 26, 2000, May 11, 2000, and June 2, 2000, whi ch reserv ed pla in tif fs ’ legal and equi table righ ts, rendered the li

quida ted damages c la

use unen forceabl e under Gros si ng er v . A meri ca n N ati ona l Ba nk & Trust Co. , 24 0 I ll. A pp . 3d 73 7 ( 19 92 ) . T he cir cu it co ur t t hen ent er ed jud gment aga inst p laintiffs in the a mou nt of $ 342 ,7 50, plus p re judg ment i n teres t. Pl ai n ti f f s a pp ea l ed . W h i l e th e a pp ea l wa s p en di n g, p l ai n ti f f s reach ed a s ettl em en t wi th the Browns and agree d to pay them $325,000. On Ma y 1, 2 003 , p laintiffs fi led t his legal malpra ct ice ac t ion ag ainst defend ant , a lleging t hat Pat t er so n’s failure t o d ra ft t he let t er agr eement s pr op er ly result ed in t he ad ver se r uling in the Brown l i ti ga ti on . A t th e c l ose

of di sc ov er y , de f en da n t f i l ed a m oti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t, arguin g that t he two-year statute o f l im itations had b egun to run between A ugust and October 200 0, when p laintiffs ret ained Ar nst ein & Lehr t o e valuat e t he merit s o f the demand lett er sent by the Brow ns ’ a ttorn ey . On

Ja nu ary 24, 200 6, th

e c i rcu i t cou rt gran ted de f en da nt’ s m oti on f or sum mary j udgm en t. Pl ai nti f f s f i l ed a m otion to recons i der, wh

i ch wasden i ed b y the c i rcui t court.1-06-0341

5

Pla int iffs t he n file d t his t imely a pp ea l. DISCUSSION On appeal, plai

ntif fs contend that the two -year statut e of l im itations for thei r legal mal pract ice action agai

nst defendant had not expired when they fi led thei r complai nt against de f en da nt on Ma y 1, 2 003 . Pl

ai nti f f s j us ti f y thi s p osi ti on b y as serti ng tha t the two-y ea r s tatute of limit at io ns d id n o t be gin t o run un t il Au gu st 2, 20 02 , wh en jud gme nt wa s e nt er ed ag ain st t he m in t he und er lyi

ng Br ow n litigat ion. Defend ant disag re es w ith p laintiffs' po sitio n and a sser t s t hat t he sta tute of l i m i tations com men ce d i n O ctob er 2 000 , wh

en pl ai nti f f s r etai ne d the l aw f i rm of Arnst ein & Lehr t o d efend t hem in the B ro wn litiga t ion. Defend ant co nt ends t hat since t he statut e of l

im itations began to run i n October 2000, and plai

ntif fs did n ot fi le the le gal ma lpractice ca se un ti l Ma y 1, 2 00 3, t

h e tw o-y ea r s tatu te of l i m i tati on s b ar s p l ai

n ti f f s' su i t. We a gr ee wi th plai ntif fs. This ap peal stem s f rom th e ci rcui t court'sgran

t of de f endan t's m otion f or sum mary judg ment. The st anda rd s go ver ning summary jud gment mot ions a re well est ablished. The pur po se o f summary judg ment is no t t o t ry a q ues t ion o f fact , bu t t o d et er mine whet her a ge nuine i ssue of material f act ex i sts. A da m s v . Nor the rn Il l i noi s G asCo. , 211 Il

l . 2d 32, 4 2-43 (2 004). "Su mmary judgment is pro per wher e, when view ed in t he light most favo ra ble to t he no nmoving par t y, t he plea dings, dep os itio ns, a dmissions, and a ffi davit s o n fil

e r evea l that t her e is no genu ine i ssue as to any material f act an d tha t the m ovi ng p arty i s en titl ed to j udgm

en t as a m atter of l aw." General Casual ty Insuran

ce Co. v. Lacey, 19 9 I ll. 2 d 2 81 , 28 4 ( 20 02 ) . Whe n r ev iew ing a c irc uit cour t's or der grant in

g summ ary j udgment, our standard o f revi ew is de no vo . Home Ins urance1-06-0341

6

Co. v . Ci nc i nn ati In su ran ceCo. , 213 Il

l . 2d 307 , 315 (2 004). Plai ntif fs ' acti on agai

nst def endan t alleges legal

ma lpractice. To prevail

on a l egal ma lpractice clai

m, the pl ai ntif f cl ie nt must plead an

d prove (1) that t he def

endan t att orney owed t he plaint iff

client a dut y of du e ca re ar ising fro m the a t t or ney-client re latio nship, (2 ) t hat t he defend ant at t or ney brea ched t hat dut y, and (3 ) t hat as a pr oximat e r esu lt, t he plaint iff client suf f ered i nj ury . Northern

Il l i noi s Em ergen cy Phy sici an s v . Lan

dau, O mah ana &

Kopk a, Ltd., 216 Ill . 2d 294, 306 (2005), ci ting Se xton

v . Sm i th , 112 Il l . 2d 187 , 193 (1 986). T he inju r y in a leg al ma lp r ac t ice ac t io n is no t a p er so na l inju ry ( Eastman v. Messn er , 188 Ill. 2d 40 4, 41 1 ( 19 99 )) , a nd it is no t t he a t t o rn ey's neg ligen t ac t it se lf ( Palmro s v. B ar celo na , 284 Ill . App. 3d 64 2, 646 ( 1996)) . Rather, it is a pecuniary

in jury to an i ntangib le propert y i

nterest caused by the la wyer's n egl ige nt act or omi ssion. See Eastman , 18 8 Ill. 2d at 411 ; Pal m ros , 284 Ill. App . 3 d at 646 . " Fo r p ur po ses o f a legal malpr act ice ac t ion, a client is not co nsider ed t o be in jured unless and until

he has suf

fered a loss f

or which he m

ay seek m onetar y dam

ages." Nort hern Ill

in ois Emergency

Phys ici ans, 216 Ill . 2d at 306, citing Grif fi n v. Goldenh

ersh , 32 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d 39 8, 40 7 ( 20 01 ) . T he fac t t ha t t he at t o rne y may ha ve br ea ch ed his d ut y o f ca r e is no t , in itse lf, sufficient t o s ust ain the client's cau se o f act ion; o n t he co nt ra ry, e ven if negligence on t he part o f the attorney is establ is hed, no action wi

ll li e agai nst the atto rney

unless that negl

ige nce proxim ately caused dam

age to t he cl

ie nt. See Metri

ck v . C h atz , 266 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 64 9, 654 ( 1994) . The exi stence of actual

dam ages, therefore, i s essen

tial to a vi abl e cause of a

ction f or legal ma lpractice (see Pal

m ros , 2 84 I ll. App. 3d a t 646 ) a nd "[ u] nless t he client can d emons t ra t e t hat he has s us tai ne d a mone tary l oss asa re sul t of som e n eg l i ge nt a ct on the l aw yer' s p art, hi

s c au se of1-06-0341

7

action cannot succeed" ( Nort hern Ill in ois Emergency

Phys ici ans, 216 Ill . 2d at 307, citing Far m Cr ed it Ba nk o f St . Lo uis v. Ga mble , 197 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 1, 103 ( 1990) ). Plai ntif fs , in support o f thei

r contention that the statut e of l im itations did n ot begi n to run until a fi nal adverse j udgme

nt was entered i

n the Browns'

sui t again st plai

ntif fs , rely on our dec ision in Lucey

v. Law Of

fi ces of Pretzel

& Stouffe

r, Chartered , 301 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 34 9 (199 8). In Lucey, th e p l ai

nti f f wa s em pl oyed by Th e C hi cago C orporati

on, wh i ch wa s i n th e b us i ne ss of provi di ng a dvi ce a nd b rokerag e se

rvi ces . Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 351. The plai ntif f was contem pl ati ng r esi gni ng f rom T he Ch i cago C orporati on to start hi s own f i rm . Lucey, 30 1 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 351. Pri

or to hi s res i gna

tion , the p l ai

ntif f sough t advi ce f rom th e def endan t la w f i rm regardin g whether i

t would be l

egal for hi m to soli ci t o ne of Th

e Chi cago Company ’s cl

ie nts at an upcom i ng m eeti ng. Lucey, 3 01 Ill. App . 3 d a t 35 1. Th e d efe nda nt law firm a dvis ed t he p laint iff that he co uld attend t he m eeting and ann

ounce his i

ntention to leav

e The Chicago Co rpo ration, so l ong a s the

pl ai nti f f attended i

n h i s i ndi vi dual capa ci ty a nd p aid f or the tri p hi m sel f . Lucey, 301 I ll. A pp . 3d at 35 1. I n r elia nc e o n t his a dv ice , t he pla int iff at t en de d t he mee t ing , an no un ce d h is i nten tion to lea ve The Ch i cago C orporati on, an

d res i gne d day

s later. Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 35 1. T he clie nt t r an sfe r r ed it s p o r t fo lio fr o m Th e C hic ag o Co r po r at io n t o t he pla int iff sh o r t ly there af ter, an d The Ch i cago C orporati on su

ed th e pl ai ntif f . Lucey, 3 01 I ll. App. 3d a t 352 . T he pla in tif f i ni tial ly retained the

defen dant la w fi rm to defen

d hi m i n the sui t, but later ret ai

ned di f f eren t couns el . Lucey, 301 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 352. While the C hicago Co rp or at ion litiga t ion wa s pe nding, t he plaint iff , no w r epr ese nt ed by new attorney

s, f i l ed a l egal mal practi ce acti on ag ai

nst the de f

endan t la w f i rm . Lucey, 30 1 I ll.1-06-0341

8

App. 3d at 352. The circui t cour t dism

is sed the plai

ntif f' s l egal ma lpractice action, h

oldi ng that the m al practi ce acti on wa s premature. Lucey, 30 1 I l l . A pp . 3d at 3 53 . Th

i s c our t ex pl ai n ed th at, i n I l l i noi s, " a c au se

of ac ti on f or leg al mal pra cti cedoe s n ot ac crue u

nti l a p l ai nti f f di sc ove rs , or wi th i n a r ea son ab l e ti me sh oul d di sc ov er , hi s i

n j ur y an d i n cu rs da mag es di re ctl y attr i b uta b l e to counsel’s n

eglect." Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 353, citin g Goran v. Glie

berm an , 276 Ill . App. 3d 590 , 5 94- 95 ( 199 5) . Mo re ove r, in Lucey, we cla rif ie d that, in Il

li nois , "a cause of ac

tion f or legal ma lpractice will

rarely accrue prior to t he en

try of an adverse j udgme

nt, sett le me nt, or dism

is sal of t he und er lyi

ng ac t ion in which plaint iff has be co me ent angled due t o t he pu rp or t edly negligent advi ce of hi s att orney." Lucey, 30 1 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 356 . Th us , si nc e a n a dvers e j udg

men t ha d n ot yet be en ent er ed in T he Chica go Co rp or at ion litiga t ion, t he plaint iff 's da mages wer e sp ecu lative and h e di d not know if

the dam ages he i ncurred were di

rectly attr ib utable to the defe

ndan t law fi rm’ s advi ce. As suc

h, we concl

uded that the stat ute of li

mi tations had n

ot begun to run and we af f i rmed th e ci

rcui t court'sdi sm

i ssa l of the pl ai ntif f 's prem aturel y f i l ed l egal mal practi ce s ui t. In t his case , t he su bst ant ive issue is w het her t he let t er agr eement s dr aft ed by Pa t t er so n, wh ich inc lud ed bo t h a liqu ida t ed da mag es pr o visio n a nd lan gu ag e r es er ving all le ga l an d e qu it ab le right s in the event of t he Br ow ns' de fault , a mou nt ed t o leg al malprac t ice. When t he Br ow ns i n i ti ate d l i ti ga ti on , pl ai n ti f f s d i d n ot kn ow i f th e B row n l i ti ga ti on wa s m er el y a f ri v ol ous atte m pt to recover $34 2,750, or w

hether the letter agre em

en ts were draf ted i n c ontraven

tion of Il l i noi s law. In fac t , p laintiffs co uld no t have k now n t hat Pat t er so n's let t er agr eement s we re fault y unt il the circui t co urt granted t he Browns' m ot ion f or summary

judgm ent. As stat ed above, in Il li nois, "a cau se o f act ion fo r leg al malprac t ice do es no t acc ru e unt il a plaintiff disco ver s, o r w ithin a1-06-0341

9

reaso nable time should discover, his i njury an d incurs damages direct ly att ributable to cou nsel’s negl ect. " Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 353, citin g Goran v. Glie

berm an , 276 Ill . App. 3d 590, 594- 95 (1995). Since pl

ai ntif fs did n ot actuall y di scover and reas onabl

y c ould not have

dis covered that the l etter agre em

en ts draf ted b y Patterson

were ne gli gen tly prepa red un til the c i rcui t court entered judgm

ent on the pl eadi

ngs i n the Browns'

fav or, we co ncl

ude that the entry of that adverse j udgm en t ma rked th e date on whi ch the statute of l

i m i tations com

menced. Defe ndan t asserts that t he statute o f l im itations began to run when

pla in tif fs in curred addi ti ona l attorn ey ’s f ee s f rom A rn ste i n & Le hr i n 2 000 an d, i n s upp ort of thi s a ss erti on, rel i eson ou r d ecisio n in Goran v. Glie berm an , 276 Il l . Ap p. 3d 59 0. In Goran , the defen dant atto rney r ep r es en t ed t he pla int iff in a n a pp ea l fro m an ad jud ica t io n o f mar r iag e d iss o lut io n a nd ch ild cus tody. Goran , 27 6 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 591 -92 . The d ef

en da nt a ttorn ey f i l ed an appe l l an t's br i ef on the p l ai ntif f 's beha l f , but the def

endan t attorney then wi thdre w f rom th e app eal . Goran , 27 6 I ll. App. 3d a t 591 . T he plaint iff subs equ ent ly hi

re d ano t her law firm to re pr ese nt her , a nd t he app ellate co ur t or der ed t he new law firm to re dr aft t he br ief tha t had be en filed by the d efenda nt attorney be caus e the

def endan t attorney 's bri ef di d not com

pl y wi th ap pel l ate court rul

es. Goran , 27 6 I ll. A pp . 3d at 59 1. T he pla int iff ult imat ely lo st he rap pe al a nd filed a le ga l malp r ac t ice cla im aga inst t he de fendant at t or ney, a lleging t hat t he de fendant at t or ney was ne gligent in rep re sent ing the p l ai ntif f . Goran , 276 Ill. App. 3d at 592. The defendant att or ney argued t hat t he plai ntiff ’s cause of action f

or legal ma lpractice arose when

the appella

te court required the pl

ai ntif f' s new attorn ey to red raf t the appe l l atebr

i ef tha t the de f en da nt a ttorn ey ha d pr ep are d i n c ontr aven ti on of appe l l atecou

rt rul es , wh

i ch i m medi ate l y ca us ed the pl ai nti f f to i nc ur l eg al f ee s i n th e a moun t of1-06-0341

10

$1,297
. Goran , 276 Ill . App. 3d at 595. The defen dant atto rney

stated t hat when

the pla in tif f h ad to pay her new atto rney $1,297 to bri

ng the def endan t att orney’ s brief i

nto compli

ance, sh e knew or reas onab l

y shoul d ha

ve know n that she was

i nj ured b y the def endan t attorney ’smal

practi ce. Goran , 276 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 596. Th

i s court confi rmed that, i

n Il li nois , a cause of action for l egal malp r ac t ice ac cr ue s w he n t he pla int iff kn o ws o rr ea so na bly sh o uld kn o w o f his in jur y and t ha t it wa s c au se d w r o ng fully a nd we he ld th at th e statu te of l i m i tati on s b eg an to ru n wh en th e a pp el l ate court requ

i red th e new f

i rm to dupli cate the def

endan t attorney 's ef f orts. Goran , 276 Ill . App. 3d at 596. As a resul

t, t hi s court co ncl

uded that the stat ute of li

mi tations had ex

pired. In an attempt to establish that the statut e of l im itations began to run i n October 2000 when pla in tif fs hi red Arnstei

n & L ehr to defend the B rowns' sui t, defendan

t suggests that o ur dec ision Goranst an ds fo rt he pr o po sit io n t ha t su bse qu en t ly incu rr ed at t o rne y fee s a ut o mat ica lly give r ise t o a cau se o f act ion fo r leg al malprac t ice ag ainst a fo rmer at t or ney. While we be lieve th at Goranwascorrectl

y deci ded, w e ca

nn ot agree wi

th de f endan t's b road rea di ng of that ca se. Ind eed , in Lucey, we cla

rif ie d that "the Goranholdi

ng i s a l im ited one: the i

ncurri ng of addi

tional att orney fees may trigger t he runni ng of the stat ute o f l

im itations for legal

mal pract ice purposes, but only w

here it is clea r, at the tim e the additional fees a re incu rred , that the fees

are dir ectly attributable to former counsel's neglect ( such as through a ruling adve rse to the client to that effect)." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Lucey, 3 01 I ll. App. 3d a t 355 . I ndee d, in Jac kso n Jo rd an, Inc . v. Ley dig, Voi t & May er , 15 8 I l l . 2d

24 0 ( 19 94 ), ou

r s up re me c our

t re cog n ize d th e p rob l em wi th defen dant's posi

tion, whi ch, i f adopted, would requi re a clie nt to fi le a provis iona

l m al practice act ion ag ainst his at t or ney whene ver t he at t or ney's legal ad vice has be en cha llenged. In Jack son1-06-0341

11

Jordan , our supreme court st ated: "The m ere a sse rtion of a contrar y clai m and the f i l i ng of a lawsui t [by a thi rd party are] not , in and of t hemselves, sufficient ly compelling t o ind uce t he client t o s eek a se co nd le gal opini on. Meritl ess cl

ai ms and n uis ance l awsui ts are, after all, a fai

rly comm onpla ce occurrence. It wo uld b e a strange rul e i f ev ery cl ie nt were required to seek a second l egal opinion whenever i

t found itself

threat ened with a l

awsuit." Jackson Jordan , 158 Ill . 2d at 253. Con trar y to de f en da nt' s a rgu men ts, w e c onti

nu e to b el i eve that, i

n I l l i noi s, " a c au se

of ac ti on f or l eg al mal pr ac ti ce wi l l ra re l y ac cr ue pri or to th

e en try of an ad v er se j udgm en t, settlem ent, or dism

is sal of the underl

yi ng acti on in

whi ch the pl ai ntif f h as becom e entangl ed due to the purpo rted ly

negligen t advice of his att orney." Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 356. He r e, wh ile the fi li ng of the B rowns' l

awsui t may have al erted plai

ntif fs to the possibil

ity that Pat terson's letter ag re eme nt s w er e inc o rr ec t ly dr aft ed and mo t ivat ed pla int iffs t o hire Ar nst ein & L ehr , p laint iffs had n o actionabl

e dam ages pri or t o t he an

adverse j udgme

nt from the ci rcuit court, whi

ch occurred on A ugu st 2 , 20 02, when

the ci rcu i t cou rt gran ted the Brow ns ' m oti on f or j udg men t on the ple adi ngs. As such, we m

ust conclude that the statute o f l im itations in pla in tif fs ' legal
mal practi ce acti on b egan

to run on A

ugust 2, 2002, a

nd th e ci rcui t court'sen

try of sum mary j udgm en t in def endan t's f av or in thi s ca se w as i

m proper. In su m , we con f i rm tha t, i n I l l i noi s, " a c au se

of ac ti on f or leg al mal pra cti cedoe s n ot accrue un til a pl ai nti f f di scovers, or wi

thi n a reas onab l e ti

me sh oul d di scover, h

i s i nj ury and i ncurs damages di

rectly attributable to co unsel 's negl ect. " Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 353, citin g Go ra n v.1-06-0341

12

Gli eberm an , 27 6 I ll. A pp . 3d 59 0, 59 4- 95 ( 19 95 ) . T he r e ma y be r ar e c as es in w hic h it is p ain fully obvio us, pr ior t o a ny adver se r uling aga inst t he plaint iff client, t hat he has been injur ed a s t he resul t o f profe ssional

negl ige nce. As a general rule, h owever, a cause of action for l egal
mal pra cti cewi l l not a cc rue pri or to th e entr

y of an ad ve rs e j udg men t, se ttl em en t, or di sm i ss al of t he und er lyi

ng ac t ion in which plaint iff has be co me ent angled due t o t he pu rp or t edly negligent adv i ce of his attorne

y . Lucey, 301 Ill . App. 3d at 356, citin g Herm i tage C orp. v. C ontractors Ad j ustm en t vCo., 166 Ill. 2d 72, 84- 87 ( 199 5) . P laintiffs in this cas e did no t disco ver and reasonabl y c ould not have

dis covered that Patt erson's l etter agreem

ents were negl

ige ntly prepared unt il August 2, 200 2, when t he circ uit co ur t gr ant ed t he Br ow ns' mot ion fo r jud gment on t he ple adi ngs. As such, the two-year statute o f l im itations on pla in tif fs ' legal ma lpractice action b egan to run on A

ugust 2, 2002. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f Cook County i s reversed and rem anded. Reversed a

nd rem anded. O' BRIEN , P.J., an

d GA LL AG HER, J ., conc

ur.