1-05-3043

1-05-3 044, 1- 05-30 51, 1-0 5-305 3, 1-05 -3068 (cons .)

THE ES TAT E O F WILL IAM B ASS , D EC EAS ED , a nd by and ) thr ou gh its I ndepe ndent Co execu to r E DWARD BASS ; ) EDWAR D BASS, Indi

vi dually ; LYLE B. STREICHER; and ) NORTHWESTERN MEDICAL F ACULTY FOUNDATION, ) INC., ) ) Pl ai ntif f s-A ppel l ees and Cross -Ap

pel l an ts, ) Ap pe al fr o m t he Cir cu it ) Court of

Cook Coun

ty, v. ) La w Division. ) MELV IN L. K ATTEN ; K

ATTEN MUC HIN Z

AVIS ) ROSENMAN, a Profess iona l C orpo ration; LIZABETH N. ) HORN , LINDA L . MILLER;HA RVEY M. SILETS; DAVID M. ) No. 04 L 4640 KUSHN IR; DE LOIT TE TOU CHE , L. L.P .; PAU L ANGLI N; ) JAMES JACOBS ON, GRI FFIT H & JACOBS ON; ) MARC H. SCH WARTZ; LASER POKORNY , SCH WARTZ ) FR IEDMA N & EC ONOMOS; VEDDER, PRIC E, ) H on. Do nald J. O’Br ien, KA UFM AN & K AM MHO LZ ; IG OR PO TYM; VINC ENT A .F. ) Ju dge Pr esiding SERGI, P.C.; KRISTIN J. ACHTERHOF; J AMES CRA

IG ) AN DERSO N; N ICOLE NEHA

MA AU ERBA CH; STEVEN F
. ) BA NGHA RT; SHELD ON I. B AN OFF , P.C.; STEVEN L
. ) BA SHW INER, P.C .; J

ONA THA N K . BA UM; AL AN M. ) BERR Y, P.C.;VICTO R H. B EZMA N, P.C.;CRA

IG C. ) BRADLE Y; ROBE RT J. BRANT MAN; JAMES M. BR OEKI NG; ) EDW IN E. BR OOKS, MA

THEW S. BROWN ; DA

VID J . ) BRY ANT; J AMES A. B URNS , JR.;MICH AEL R. ) CALL AHA N; DA WN M. CA

NTY; JA NE J. CHOI; DAVID ) W. CLOU GH; S TE VIE D. C ONLO N; TANY A L. CU RTI S; ) THERESA

L. DA VIS; W. K

ENNETH DAVIS, JR .; DA VID R . ) DLUGIE; LEA

H J. D OMITR

OVIC ; W ILL IAM M. DO YLE, J

R.; ) DA VID M . DUNB AR, JEF FR EY L. EL EGA NT; J ONA THA N S. ) FELD; LE ONARD A. FERBE R; KURT W. FLORI AN, JR .; ) GA RY J . FOX ; R

ENEE M. FRIEDM

AN ; F ERDIN

AN D J. )1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068, 1- 05-31 18 (cons.)

-2- GALLO, II I; JAMES M. GECKER; S COTT MICHAEL ) GETTLESON; RENE GHANDIMI; RICHA RD E. GINSBERG; ) BA SIL V . GODEL

LA S; SU SAN

L. GO LDEN

BERG ; J ULIE L . ) GOT TS HALL; ST UART E . GR ASS; BR YAN J. GRE EN; ) LEWIS GRE ENB AUM; RUS SE LL E. GRE ENB LATT , P .C. ; ) ARTHUR W . HAHN; PA TRICIA M. HANSON;MEGAN ) HARDI MAN; CHARLE S HARRI S; MI CHAEL O. H ARTZ; ) ROBI N HE ISS ; TE D S. HELWI G; MARY E LLEN HEN NES SY; ) AMY A. HI JJAWI ; JANE T G OE LZ HO FFMAN; L IN DA ) LEME L HOS EMAN; KE NNE TH M . JACO BSON ; TARA GOFF ) KA MRA DT; M ELVIN L. K ATTEN , P.C.; DA

VID H. ) KIST ENB ROKER ; ADAM R. KLE IN; MARL A J. KRE IND LER; ) STEW AR T T. KU SPER; HOW

AR D S. LA NZN AR ; L AW RENC E) D. LEVIN; KEVIN S. MACKINNON; SETH R. MA DORSKY; ) RE ID A. MAN DE L; FLO YD A. MAND ELL , P .C .; LAU RA ) KEIDAN MA RTIN; NINA

B. MA TIS, P.C.; WIL

LIA M E. ) MATTINGL

Y, P.C.;THOM

AS J . MCF

AD DEN; AD AM

M. ) MEE K; KEN NE TH W. MI LLE R, PAT RIC K J. M ORR IS ; ALAN ) J. MUCHIN , P.C.; KA

THLEEN M. MU RPHY ; STEV

EN V. ) NAPOLITANO ; KY

LE E. NENNINGER; TERRY E. NEWMAN, ) P.C.; WESLEY G . NISS EN; J. PHILLIP O’BRIEN; STE VEN R. ) OLSO N; JOH N S. PANI AGUAS; KE IT H D. PASCU S; ) TIMOTH Y J. PA TENODE;JEF FR

EY R. PA

TT; MELVIN

E. ) PEAR L, P.C .; GER

AL D M. PEN

NER, P.C .; DA

NIEL J . ) PE ARLMAN; MI CHAEL M. P HILI P; GRE GORY P. L. P IE RCE; ) NA NCY J . RICH ; HOWA

RD M . RICH

AR D, P.C.;BRIA

N F. ) RICH ARDS; S AUL E. RUDO ; SUZANN E M. RUSS ELL; ) BARNE TT P. RUT TE NBE RG, P. C.; JAME S L. SAWYER ; ) RICH ARD M. SE LIGM AN, P .C. ; RUSS ELL B. SE LMAN; ) ST EVE N A. S HAPI RO, P. C.; D AVID R . S HEV IT Z, P .C. ; ) ORR IN S. SHIFR

IN; STUA

RT P. SH ULR UFF ; R OSS O. ) SI LVE RMAN; MARK C. SI MON ; ANN M ARIE SI NK; NI NA ) MOMTAZEE SITZER ; A NDREW D . SMA

LL ; PA MELA G. ) SMITH;GIL M . SOF FER ; B ONITA L. STON

E; M AR CIA W. ) SULL IVA N, P.C.;IRA

J. SW IDLER ; ER

NEST W . TORA

IN, ) JR.; J AMES D. V AN DE GRAAFF; TI MOT HY J. VEZE AU; ) ZACHARY D . WAGMAN; MI LTON S. WAKSCHLAG; ) HER BERT S. WANDER , P .C. ; MARYANN A. WARYJAS; ) ELI ZABET H FLEM ING WEBE R; WALTER S. WEIN BERG ; ) MARK S . WE IS BE RG; J OHN ROB ER T WE IS S; LI NDA ) JEFFRI ES WIGHT ; BRUCE G. WI LSON ; MARK D. WOO D; )1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

1 On Jun e 14, 2007, we granted a motion to spread Ly le Streicher’ s death of record. -3- SHELDON T. ZENNER; MAR K S. ZOLINO; and JOHN ) DOE Nos .1 through

600, ) ) Defendan t-Appellan

ts and Cro ss-Appell

ees. )

______________________________________________________________________________
JU STI CEMU

RP HY de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Will iam Bass, now dec eas ed, exec ut ed c onflict ing est at e plans in 200 0 and 200 2. The 20 02 es t at e p lan wa s a dmit t ed t o pr o ba t e, an d o ne o f t he be ne ficia r ies o f t he 20 02 pla n file d s uit i n th at c our t to ch al l en ge th e v al i di ty of th e 2 00 0 tr

ust an d r ec ov er f or th e e sta te a l l as sets alle gedl y trans ferred to the 2000 tr ust. Whi le that case was pendi

ng on appeal, the estate, Wil li am Bass’ s brother, Edward Bass, and hi s si ster, Lyl

e Streicher 1 (plai

ntif fs ), benef ic ia ries of the estate, bro ught an amend ed c ons olidat ed c omp laint ag ainst at t or neys involved wit h t he pr epa ra t ion o f the trust s. The trial

court dis mi ssed the m

al practice com

pla in t without prejudice on the bas is that pl ai nti f f s’ cl ai m s w ere pre matu re, si nc e the p rob ateappe al

i nv ol ve d the s am

e c ore i ss ue s. U pon pla in tif fs ’ m ot ion f or reco nsi deration, the trial

court aff irm ed i ts fi ndi ng of prem

aturity b ut
vaca t ed t he dismissal t o a void po t ent ially for eclo sing plaint iff

s’ ca use of a ct ion and st ayed t he
cas e un til the a ppel l ate an d suprem e courts re sol

ve d the proba te procee di

ngs . On ap pea l, de fendant s co nt end t hat t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion by st aying pr oc eed ings, des pit e its finding of pr emat ur ity, in o rd er t o a void app licatio n of t he limi t at ions a nd
r ep o se pe r io ds
. P lain t iffs cr o ss - ap pe al t he t r ial c o ur t ’s find ing o f p r ema t ur it y.1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-4- I. BACKG

ROUND Plai ntif fs ’ consolida

ted compl ai

nt all eges the f oll owing. W

il li am Bass, who accrued
su b sta n ti al as se ts d uri n g h i s l i f eti me, crea ted estate pl ans i n b oth 20 00an d 2 00 2. T

h e 2 00 0 e sta

te plan was drafted by Jam

es Jacobson, an att orney from the l aw fi rm Grif fi th and Jacobson, LLC, and were rev

ocabl e at Bass’s di

scretion. Unde

r this e state plan, Edward Bass and Ly le Streicher would recei

ve certai n gifts he ld i

n trust and the rema

in der, a sign

if ic ant port ion of

the estate,
wo uld p ass t o t he Bill Bass Fo unda t ion. The 200 0 es t at e plan na med Ja co bso n and S chwa rt z and coexecut ors and successo r cot rustee s. In late 2001, Bass retain

ed Katten, Muchi

n Zav is Rosenm an (KM ZR) to prepare a
re place ment e st at e plan. On Ja nuar y 8, 2 002 , he exec ut ed a will and re voc able t ru st naming Melvin Kat t en, a pa rt ner at KMZR, and P aul Anglin, a n acc ou nt ant , a s co exec ut or s and cotr ustees. Under the 2002 estate plan, after certain specifi c di stributions, the remai

nder passe d in equal shares to No rthwest ern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc. (Nor thwester n), Edwar d Bass i n tru st, an d L y l e S tre i ch er i n tru st. It al so a l l eg ed th at w h en W i l l i am Ba ss i n f orm ed Ja cob son th at h e ex ecute d th

e 2 00 2 e sta

te pl an, J ac ob son

di d n ot i n f orm K MZ R of th e 2 00 0 tr

ust an d i n ste ad tried to pe rsuade Ba ss to
re v oke th e 2 00 2 e sta

te p l an . In

addi ti on , Ig or P oty

m an d V edder Pr

i ce f ai l ed to disc l ose

to Will iam Bass t hat t her e wa s a p ot ent ial conflict among t he 20 00 p lan, t he 20 02 p lan, a nd Jacobson’s new estat e documents. The co mplaint allege d t hat altho ugh Ang lin knew t hat Will iam Bass int ende d t o r evo ke t he 2000 t rust , he fail

ed t o ensur e clear t itle to cert ain di sput ed asset s and to inf or m Katten o r KMZR1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-5- of th e ex i ste

n ce of th e 2 00 0 tr

ust. Fur th er more , K atte n an d K MZR f ai l ed to i n qui reab out, inv estigat e, o r discover the existence o f the 2000 esta te p lan and the manner i n which Bass’s
asse t s we re t itled . S pec ifi cally, in the summer o f 200 3, Kat t en disc ove re d t hat Bass ’s ac co unt wit h t he Va ngua rd Gr ou p, co nsist ing o f sto ck va lued a t $30 mil lion, w as t itled in the na me of t he 2000 trust . The compl

ai nt all eges that Katten and K

MZR also knew that title to Bass’s res ide nce ha d b een tr ansf erred to the 200 0 tru st, b

ut they f ai l ed to retr i eve the p rope

rty or con tac t Jacob son ab out th e 2 00 0 tr ust. Bas s di ed on Dece m ber 31, 20 03, an

d the 2002 w i l l wasadm i tted to probate on

Jan uary 28 , 20 04 . Th

e c om pl ai n t al l eg es th at af ter Ba ss ’s de ath, the ex ecutor

of th e e sta te a ttem pte d to cl ai m certai n prope rty of Ba ss ’s , but Schwartz

an d J ac obs on m

ai nta i ne d that a s s

uc ce ss or t ru st ees , t hey wer e ent itled t o t he as set s. T hey liquidat ed s har es in pr ivate ly held cor po ra t ions contr ary to t he i

ntent o f the estate, and soon t hereafter, t he m arket price of the shares rose
su bs t an t iall y. In Fe br ua ry 200 4, N orth

we stern , a b en

ef i ci ary of the 200 2 tru st, c

ha l l en ge d the val

i di ty of the 2000 trust and sought t o recover for the estate all assets al le gedl y trans ferred to the 2000 trust. The

proba te court di sm

i sse d the ci tation peti tion wi th pre j udice. North

western, Ed

ward Bass, an d Ly le Streicher appea

le d the dis

mi ssal to this court under docket number 1-04-3240. In N ove mber 2 004 , t he es t at e and beneficiar ies filed the co nso lidat ed c omp laint, asse rt ing claims for malpra ct ice, bre ach o f fi duc iary du t ies, a nd int ent ional misco nduc t . I t so ught t he f oll owi n g r el i ef : (1 ) i m pos i ti on of a c on str uc ti v e tr ust or r es ul ti n g tr ust on al l prope rty an d a ss ets held in t he 20 00 t ru st , ( 2) a de clara t ion t hat t he 20 00 t ru st is invali d, (3 ) c omp ensa t or y and1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-6- pun i tiv e dam ages , and (4) attorne

y f ees and costs. Defend ant s move d t o d ismiss t he co mplaint o n t he bas is tha t it w as p re matu re given t he pen den cy of the prob ate l

i tig ati on. On

Jul y 15, 200 5, i

n a mem orand um opi ni on, the tria l court noted that a c lai

m f or legal m alpractice does not mature until the plain tiff has suf fered an adverse judg ment, set t lement, or dismissal of an u nder lyi ng ac t ion d ue t o t he at t or ney’s neg ligence. The court f ound th at the s am

e core i ssue, i.e. , w het her t he 20 00 o r 2 002 will and t ru st go ver ned t he dis positi on of Bass ’s property, exi sted in both the ma

lpractice case an

d the probate appeal. Each
caus e of action i n the m al practi ce c ase , regar

dless of the the ory

of re cove

ry , rested on thi s core issue, and “if t he ap pea l det er mines tha t Plaint iff s will ret ain the benefit s o f the 200 2 T ru st and Wi ll they wi ll not have been dam

aged by the actions of the various Defendants.” The co urt also rejected plai

ntif fs ’ argum ent that they were dam

aged by pay in g atto rney

fees , sin ce atto rney

fees
mus t be directl

y rel ated to the atto rney ’s n

eglige nce to be recoverabl

e. Accordin

gly , the trial
co ur t dis miss ed t he co mpla int wit ho ut pr eju dic e “ as be ing pr ema t ur e, wit h le av e t o r efile , if
ne ces sary.” Pl ai n ti f f s f i l ed a m oti on to re con si der the d i sm i ss al, a rgui n g th at i f th ey weref orc ed to
re fil e aft er t he mat ur at ion o f the ir claims, d efenda nt s wo uld likely arg ue a fte r r eso lut ion o f the pr oba t e ap pea l that t he st at ut e o f rep os e wo uld bar t hem. Any re fil ing wo uld have t o o ccu r by July 16, 2006 , and it was unlikel y that the pro bate appeal would be resolved by then. “As a
matte r of eq ui ty , a n d to a v oi d th i s m ora ss ,”pl ai n ti f f s req ue ste d th at th e c our t sta y th e c as e to prev en t ef f orts by def endan ts “to as sert pu

rel y tech ni cal ba rri ers to a re sol

uti on on th

e m eri ts.” On Au gust 24 , 2005, th

e tri al court orall

y ruled that i

t di d not need b

ri ef i ng on the m otion
.1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-7- The co ur t ru led t hat it “will sta nd in its finding o f pre matu rit y as t o a ll i ssu es a nd de nies t he motion to reconside

r as i t addresses the f

in din g on that issue.” However, it am ended i ts previ ous orde r f rom a di sm i ss al wi thou t pre j udi ce“ to avoi d pote

nti al l y f orec l osi ng pl ai nti f f s’ ca us e of action on th

ree pr ocedura l ba ses ” an

d ci ted the l i m i tations an d repos e peri

ods i n s ection 13- 214.3 of the Code

of C i vi l Procedu re (735 ILCS 5/13-2 14.3 (W est 2004)). The tri al

court there f

ore st ayed a ll pro cee dings p ur sua nt t o S upr eme Co ur t Rule 3 05 ( 155 Ill. 2d R. 305 ) u nt il the appella te and suprem

e courts reso lv

ed the probate pro ceedi

ngs. The court’s order was
me morialized on August 30, 2005. De fen da nt s file d a no t ice o f int er lo cu t o ry ap pe al p ur su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 30 7( a) ( 1) ( 18 8 I ll. 2 d R
. 30 7( a) ( 1) ) , ch alle ng ing t he st ay. Pla int iffs file d a cr o ss - ap pe al o f t he Ju ly 15, A ugust 24, an

d A ugust 30, 2005 , orders u

nde r Rul e 307 (a)(1) on

the b asis tha

t the tri al court
errone ousl

y f ound th ei r clai ms to be p

rem ature. II. AN AL YSIS A. Moo tness Duri ng th e pen den cy of th i s ap peal , the probate a

ppea l wassettl ed an

d di sm i sse d. Plai ntif fs fi le d a m ot ion to dismi

ss the m al practice appeal

because Rul e 307(a)(1) no longer pr ovid es a basis fo r t he co ur t ’s jur isdict ion since t he pu rp os e o f the st ay was s at isfied when t he pr oba t e ca se w as se t t led and dismissed, and e ven if Rule 30 7( a) (1 ) jur isdict ion exist s, t he
co rr ect ness o f ent er ing a st ay is moo t beca use t he st ay is no lo nger in effect . D efenda nt s re spo nd tha t an ac tual con trov ers y ex i sts f or wh i ch thi s c ourt c an

gra nt e f f ec tual rel i ef . Th i s c ourt took pla in tif fs ’ m ot ion wi th the case.1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-8- A court should n

ot decide a case wh

en the occurrence of

even ts after an appeal

has b een filed mak es it impo ss ible f o rt he r ev iew ing co ur t t o r en de reffe ct ua l re lief a nd t he jud gme nt wo uld ha ve onl y an adv i sory ef f ect. Berlin v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center , 179 Il l . 2d 1, 7- 8 ( 19 97 )
. “An a pp ea l is mo o t if no ac t ua l co nt r o ve r sy e xist s o rif ev en t s ha ve o cc ur r ed t ha t mak e it im possible for the revi

ewi ng court t o grant t he com pla in in g party ef fectual reli ef.” In re Marriage of Peters-Farr

ell , 216 Ill . 2d 287, 291 (2005). The m oot ness doctr in e stems from a concern that par t ies t o a re so lved lega l disput e lack a su ffi cient per so nal st ake in the o ut co me to assu re t he ad ve rs ari al rel ati ons hi p that sha rpe ns the pre senta ti on of i ss ue s u pon wh i ch the cou rt de pends f or i l l um i na tion of d i f f i cul t questi ons. Peter

s-Far rell , 216 Il

l . 2d at 29 1. However, “whe

re a deci sion ‘could h

ave an im pact on the rights an

d duties of

the parties there is li fe i n the appeal .’ [Citations .]” Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C. , 225 Ill . 2d 52, 63 (2 006 ). In Mohanty , o ur sup re me co ur t fou nd t hat issue o f the enfo rc eability of r est rict ive
co venant s t hat a do ct or ent er ed int o w as no t moo t , e ven t hou gh t he t ime per iod of t he co venant had lapsed, becau se a det ermin ation o n that issue would have a direct im pact on t he doc to r’s potential dam ages i n h i s coun terclai m f or mi sap propriati on an

d un j ust en ri ch men t. Mohanty , 225 Ill . 2d at 6 3-6 4. S eealso Sara Bush Lincoln Health Center, 17 9 Ill. 2d at 7-8 ; People ex rel
. Bernardi v. City of

Highland

Park, 121 Il

l . 2d 1, 6- 7 (198 8). The b as i s of

de f en da n ts’ argu men t i n th e tr i al cou rt w as th at p l ai n ti f f s d i d n ot de mon strate da mag es b ec au se th ere w as

n ot y et a f i n al, a dver se

j udgm en t i n th e u n derl y i n g acti on , the prob ate
cas e. On ap pea l, de fendant s cha llenge t he pr op riet y of st aying a malpra ct ice co mplaint, for t he sol e pur pos e of av oi di n g th e p oten ti al f ore cl osu reof pl ai n ti f f s’ ca us e of acti on , un

ti l th e a pp el l ate1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-9- an d sup re me c our

ts res ol v e th e prob ate proce ed i n gs . D ef en da n ts’ pos i ti on i n th ei r oppos i ti on to pla int iffs’ mo t io n is t ha t a r ev er sa l o f t he st ay o r de rwo uld r eq uir e p laint iffs t o r efile t he ir c laim upo n t he r eso lut ion o f the pr oba t e ap pea l and t hat suc h re fil ing wo uld be ba rr ed by t he r epo se a nd li mi tations peri ods of section 13-214.3. Even though the stay h

as expi red, the consequences f l owi ng f rom th e propri ety of the stay

, i.e. , t he pot ential

barring of pl

ain tiff s’ m alpractice claim

s, are stil l i m portant i ssues to be

resol ve d, an d i t is not i m possi bl e to gran t ef f ectual rel i ef
. T he r ef o r e, we ha ve jur isd ict io n t o co ns id er wh et he rt he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly g r an t ed t he st ay. Ac co r din gly, we de ny p laint iffs’ mo t io n t o dis miss t he ap pe al. B. Imposi

tion of the Stay De fen da nt s c o nt en d t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed wh en it st aye d t he pr o ce ed ing s t o av o id foreclosin g pla in tif fs ’ clai ms . “The sc ope of review i n an in terlocuto ry appea

l f rom an order gran tin g a m otion to stay procee di ngs i s l i m i ted to a determ

i na tion as to whethe

r the tri al court abused i ts discretion in

grantin g the stay.” Goodw

in v. McHenr

y County Sheriff’s Office Merit Comm ’n , 3 06 I ll. App. 3d 2 51, 257 (1 999 ). Unde r t he abu se- of- discr et ion st anda rd , a re viewing court does not decide wh ether it agrees wi

th the ci rcuit court’s decis ion b

ut, rat her, determi

nes whet her t he circ uit co ur t “ ‘ “act ed a rbit ra rily witho ut t he emplo yment o f co nscient iou s judg ment or, in vi ew of al l the c ircum

stances, exceeded the bounds of reason an

d ign ored reco gni

zed prin ci ple s of l aw so that substantial

prejudi ce resul ted.” ’ [Citations.]” Kaden v. Pucinski , 26 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d 61 1, 61 5 ( 19 94 )
. “T he o nly que st io n be fo r e a r ev iew ing co ur t o n int er lo cu t o ry ap pe al is whether th

ere wa s a suf f i ci en t sh owi ng made to the tri

al cou rt to su stai

n i ts ord er g ran ti ng or deny in g the reli ef s ought.” Lindsey v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago , 127 Ill . App.1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-10- 3d 4 13, 418 (1 984 ). A review ing co ur t loo ks t o t he su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e, not t o d et er mine
con trov erte d ri

gh ts or to d ec i dethe meri ts of the ca se , but on

l y f or th e l i m i ted pur pos e of
asc ertai ni ng w hether the tri al

court ab use d i ts di scre tion i n enteri ng th e i nterl ocutory order. Lindsey , 127 Ill . App. 3d at 418. A sta y orde r s eeksto pre serv e the s tatus quo e xi sti ng on th e dateof i ts entr y an d doe s n ot addre ss i n a ny way the m eri ts of th e un derl y i ng d i spute. Kaden , 26 3 I ll. A pp . 3d at 61 5. A c irc uit court ma y s tay proceedi

ngs as part o f i ts in herent authority

to contro l the di

sposition of cases be f ore i t. Philips Electronics, N.V. v. New Hampshire Insurance

Co. , 295 Ill . App. 3d 895, 901 ( 19 98 )
. I t may c o nsid er fac t o r s s uc h a s t he o r de r ly ad minist r at io n o f jus t ice an d ju dic ial e co no my i n de term i ni ng w hether to stay

procee di ngs . Philips Electronics , 295 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 901-02. Defendan ts do not cite any authority where a trial court stayed a legal mal pract ice case pend ing t he o ut co me of t he und er lyi ng ca se. Inst ead , d efenda nt s re ly extens ively on Lucey v. Law Off ices of Pretzel &

Stouff er, Chartered

, 3 01 I ll. App. 3d 3 49 ( 199 8) . I n Lucey , t he p laint iff dec ided t o r esign fr om his emplo yer and begin his o wn firm. H e so ught legal ad vice fro m the de fen da nt s, an at t o rne y and a la w fir m, ab o ut t he pr o pr iet y o f so licit ing clie nt s be fo r e h is
re signat ion. One o f the employer ’s client s t ra nsferr ed it s po rt folio t o t he plaint iff ’s new firm, and th e em pl oy er sued h i m b as ed on th e l oss of th at acc oun

t. Th e p l ai n ti f f re tai n ed th e def en da n ts to de fen d h im in t he su it , t he n r et ain ed o t he rco un se l an d file d a malp r ac t ice ac t io n a ga inst t he m. The co urt held that beca use t he underlyi ng case re mai

ned unreso lved, the plaintif f’s
mal practi ce acti on wa s premature. Lucey , 30 1 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 353 , 35 8. A

ca us e of ac ti on f or l eg al mal pra cti ce“wi l l rarel y ac crue p rior to th e entr

y of an ad ve rs e j udg men t, se ttl em en t, or1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-11- dis miss al o f t he un de r lying a ct io n in w hic h p laint iff ha s be co me e nt an gle d d ue t o t he pu r po rt ed ly negl ige nt advi ce of hi s atto rney .” Lucey , 301 Ill . App. 3d at 356. The court ci ted “[s]ound policy reasons” opposin

g a rule that would requi

re a pla in tif f to fi le a “provi sional

ma lpractice action *** when ever the attor ney ’s l

egal advi ce has been ch

alle nged.” Lucey , 301 I ll . App. 3d at 357. T hese i nc l ude j udi ci al ec onom y , pres erv ati on of the attorn ey -cl i en t rel ati ons hi p, a nd pre ve nti on of i nc onsi sten t verd i cts res ul tin g f rom s i m ul tane ous l i tig ati on. Lucey , 301 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 357-58. When uncertainty exi

sts as t o t he very

fact of damages, i

nstead of the amount o f dam ages, dam ages are s pecu l ati ve , and a ca

use of a cti on f or ma l practi ce doe s n ot exi st. Lucey , 30 1 I ll. App. 3d at 355. Whi

le the compl

ai nt was properly

dis mi ssed, i t should n ot have been

dis mi ssed wi th pre j udice. Lucey , 30 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 36 0. T he pla int iff sh o uld ha ve be en pe rmit t ed t o r efile i f and when

the u nde rl y i ng l i tig ati on wa s res olv

ed ad versel y to hi m . Lucey , 301 Ill . App. 3d at 359. Simil

ar ly, in Schulte v. Burch , 151 Ill . App. 3d 332 (1986), t he pl ai ntif fs fi le d a l egal
mal pra cti cecl ai m ag ai ns t an attorn ey wh o f ai l ed to f i l e a sui t wi thi n th e p res cri be d ti me p eri od f or a mecha nics’ lien for eclo sur e ag ainst a su bco nt ra ct or for who m they fur nished su pplies. The
co ur t fou nd t he malpr act ice claim to be pr emat ur e as a mat t er of law beca use t he plaint iff s might st ill have ha d valid ca use s o f act ion ag ainst t he ge ner al co nt ra ct or and t he su re t y on his labo r a nd
material pay men t bond
. Schulte , 15 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 33 6. Alt ho ug h t he y might no t ha ve be en ab le t o r eco ver fro m the c ont ra ct or and s ur et y, t he malpr act ice ac t ion wo uld no t beco me ripe unt il the
caus e of action on th

e b ond w as l

ost. Schulte , 1 51 I ll. App. 3d a t 336 . T he co ur t uphe ld t he dis miss al b ut ame nd ed t he jud gme nt t o ex pr es s t he fac t t ha t it wa s no t int en de d t o ba ran ac t io n if1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-12- such a n acti on ri pen ed. Schulte , 151 Ill . App. 3d at 336. Def endan ts contend th

at under Lucey

and Schulte , dis miss al w it ho ut pr eju dic e is “t he o nly authorized resul

t.” While Lucey

and Schulte

hold that dism

issal without p rejudice is proper , they did not hold

that dism i ssa l wi thout prej udice was the

onl y rem edy und er the se c i rcum stan ces . I nd ee d, ne it he ro f t he se ca se s s pe ak s t o t he pr o pr iet y o f st aying a c as e in st ea d o f dis miss ing it wit ho ut pr eju di ce . Alt ho ug h t he t r ial c o ur t init iall y fo llo we d t he pr o ce du r es o ut line d b y Lucey and Schulte

when i t dismi ssed the case without prejudice, once the tr ial cour t reinstat ed the case
o n Au gu st 24 , 20 05 , it wa s w it hinit s d isc r et io n t o imp o se a s t ay. Some of the f

actors t hat support dism

is si ng wi thout prejudi

ce a “provisional ” m

al practice
ca se --j udi ci al ec onom y an d the des i re to prev en t i nc ons i stent v

erd i ctstha t m i gh t res ul t f rom simultane ou s litigat ion, as e lucidat ed in Philips Electronics and Lucey
- - als o su pp o rt t he pr inc iple that t rial cour ts should have the discretion to gr ant a stay in cases such as the one before us. Inde ed , an

orde r of the ci rcu i t cou rt en teri ng a s tay of proc ee di ng s provi de s a

mea su re of pr ot ect ion t o t he pa rt ies t hat a dismissal wit hou t pr ejudice do es no t . I n International Insurance Co. v. Morton Thiokol, Inc. , 185 Ill . App. 3d 686 (1989), t he ci rcuit court dism

is sed wi thout prej udi ce a n i ns urer’ s de claratory

action se eki

ng r ef orma tion or resc i ssi

on of two of i ts pri mary liabil ity po licies pend ing t he r eso lut ion o f a dispu t e bet wee n t he pa rt ies co ncer ning t he und er lyi ng env ironm ent si te clai ms that aro se i

n an ot her state. This c ourt hel d that t he di sm

is sal without prej udi ce was n ot fi na l and app eal

ab l e an d di sm i sse d the appe al
. Morton Thiokol , 185 Ill . App. 3d at 691. Conversel y, i t is wel l s ettled that the deni al

of a m ot ion to stay proceedi

ngs m ay be treated1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-13- as a deni al of a request for a prelim

in ary i nj unction, an

d this ma y f orm the bas is

for an i nterl ocutory appe al as of ri ght pu rsua nt to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 307 (a)(1). Lundy v. Farmers Group, Inc. , 322 Ill . App. 3d 214, 216 (2001), citin g Beard v. M

ount Carroll M

utual Fire Insurance Co. , 20 3 Ill. App. 3d 7 24, 727 (19 90) ; Zurich Insura nce Co. v. R aymark Industri es, Inc. , 21 3 I ll. A pp . 3d 59 1, 59 4 ( 19 91 )
. An o r de rgr an t ing a s t ay o f pr o ce ed ing s is simila r ly app ealable a s o f right pur sua nt t o S upr eme Co ur t Rule 3 07( a) (1 ): “An app eal may be t ake n t o t he Appel la te Court from

an i nterlocutory order o f court: (1) granting, m odif yi ng, refus in

g, di ssol vi ng, or re f usi ng to dissol

ve or modi f y an i nj unc tion .” 188 Ill . 2d R. 3 07(a)( 1). In addi tion, there was a strong i

ndication that pl ai

ntif fs ’ legal ma lpractice compl

ai nt had
mer it
. A leg al ma lpr ac t ice cla im ca n a cc rue be fo r e t he clie nt su ffer s a fina l, ad ve r se jud gme nt in t he u nde rlying ac t io n wh er e it is “p lainly o bvio us , p rio r t o any a dve rs e r uling ag ains t t he p laint iff, t ha t he ha s be en inju r ed as t he r es ult o f pr o fes sio na l ne glig en ce ” o rwh er e a n a t t o rne y’s ne gle ct is a di rect ca use of the legal

ex pense i nc urred b y the p l ai ntif f
. Lucey , 301 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 355, 358
. Here , the c om

pl ai n t al l eg ed th at K atte n an d K MZR f ai l ed to tak e step s to re triev

e th e ti tl e to Wi ll ia m B ass’s Vanguard account or hi s m ulti mi ll ion-dolla r residen ce, which h

ad been transferred t o t he 20 00 t ru st . I n add itio n, it alleged t hat altho ugh J aco bso n knew t hat Bass had e xecu t ed t he 2002 estate plan, h

e di d not inf

orm KM ZR of the ex

is tence of the 2000 trust and, after Bass di ed, l i qui dated s ha res of Bas s’ s pri

va tel y he l d corporati

ons, c ontrary

to the wi shes of

the exe cutor. The se a ct ions, as a lleged in t he co mplaint, ar e a d irect cau se o f the legal exp ense s incur re d by pla in tif fs , regardless

of the outco me

of the probate li

tigation. See Palmros v. Barcelona , 28 4 I ll. App. 3d 642 (1996). For t hese reas ons, we reje ct defen dants’ argum

ent that the tr ia

l c ourt ’s stay1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-14- condones provi sional

ma lpractice cases, wh

ic h Il li nois court s hav

e di scouraged. See Romano v. Morrisroe , 32 6 Ill. App. 3d 2 6, 3 2 (2 001 ); York W oods Community Ass’n v. O’Brien , 35 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d 29 3, 299 ( 2004)
. Defe ndan ts nonetheless argue that a stay un der these ci

rcumstances vi

olates the poli

cy reas ons b ehi

nd r epose peri ods. Section

13-21 4.3(b ) of th

e Code of C i vi l Procedu re prov i desf or a two- ye ar statut e of l

im itations , and sub section (c) i mposes a repose period for legal

ma lpractice cl ai ms of “6 y ears af ter t he date on whi

ch the act or omis sion occurred.” 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3( c) (Wes t 200 4). In

ca se s w he re th e i njury doe s n ot occur u

nti l the de ath of the pers on f or wh om pro fessi onal servi ces were rendered and t he person’s wil l is admi tt ed to pro bate, t he action must be co mmenc ed wit hin t he t ime fo rfiling cla ims a ga inst t he es t at e o ra p et it io n c o nt es t ing t he will of the deceased perso n, whichever i s later, as pro vided by the Probate Act of 1975. 73 5 ILCS 5/ 13 -2 14 .3 (d ) ( Wes t 19 94 ). Und er t he P ro bat e Ac t o f 19 75 , a pe t it io n t o co nt es t t he v alidit y of a wil l m ust be f il ed wi thin si x m onths af ter t he adm

is sion of the wi

ll to probate. 755 ILCS 5/8-1(a) (Wes t 200 4) . T he t rial co ur t not ed, and t he pa rt ies do not dispu t e, t hat all of t hese lim itat ions a nd repose periods potential

ly appl y h ere. Unlike a s t at ut e o f li

mitat ions, which is t rigg er ed w hen a c aus e o f act ion ac cr ues , t he provisions i

n s ubs ections ( c) an

d (d) ac t as pe ri ods of repose . Poullet

te v. Silve rstei n , 32 8 I ll. A pp . 3d 79 1, 7 96 (2 00 2) . “W

h i l e w e a recog n iza n t th at th e e f f ect on pl ai n ti f f i n th i s c as e w as

to shorten the period of ti

me in whi ch sh e had to fi le her cl ai m, ‘[w]e can

nei ther restrict nor enlarge the me ani ng of an unam bi guous stat ute.’ ” Poullet te , 328 Ill . App. 3d at 796, quo ting Perlstein v. Wallach , 198 Il

l . 2d 439 , 448 (2 002). W hen the wi

l l ha s b een adm i tted to probate, the legi slature1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-15- i nte nd ed to term i na te the p oss i

bi l i ty of l i ab i l i ty af ter a de f i ni te p eri od of ti me, reg ard

l es s of whethe r a pl ai ntif f ’scaus e of

action has a

ccrue d. Poullet

te , 328 Ill . App. 3d at 796. The fact that
a r ep o se pr o visio n ma y, in a p ar t icu lar inst an ce , ba ran ac t io n be fo r e it is ne ce ss ar ily dis co ve r ed is considered “an

accidental

rather than nec essary

consequenc e.” Mega v. Holy Cross Hospital, 111 Ill . 2d 416, 424 (1986). See Lucey , 301 Ill . App. 3d at 362 (six-year statut e of repose “m ay cut off man y trans actional

mal practi ce acti ons b ef

ore they accrue”)
. Defend ant s re ly on Golla v. General Motors Corp. , 16 7 Ill. 2d 353 (19 95) ; Griffin v. Goldenhersh , 323 Ill . App. 3d 398 (2001); and Serafin v. Se ith , 28 4 I ll. A pp . 3d 57 7 ( 19 96 ) , in
su pp o rt o f t he ir a r gu men t . I n t ho se ca se s, ho we ve r , t he de fen da nt s r ec eiv ed no t ice o f cla ims years aft er t he limi

t at ions p er iod s had ru n. H er e, plaint iff s filed the ir co mplaint w ithin t he appl i ca b l e l i m i tati on s a n d r ep ose periods prov i de d b

y se cti on 13 -2 14 .3. Theref

ore , de f en da n ts were on notice of pl

ai ntif fs ’ clai ms when they fi le d their com

pla in t. Defendan

ts could take whateve r s tep s w ere

ne ce ss ary

to pre serv e evi

denc e a nd ensu re th at the p as sa

geof ti me di d n ot prej udi ce thei r ab i l i ty to m ount a def

en se. We find t hat unde r t hese circu msta nces , t he t rial co ur t did no t act ar bitr ar ily wit hou t t he
em ploy me nt of consci

entious j udgme

nt or, in revi

ew of al l the c ircum

stances, exceed the bounds of re ason and ignore

recogn ized pri nc i ples of l aw s o sub stan

tia l prej udice re sul

ted. Kaden , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 615. To rule otherwi se would cons titute a pot entia

l b ar to cl ai

ms on techni cal gr ou nds w hen plaint iff

s at t empt ed t o be ing t he ac t ion in a t imely fashion. C. Plai ntif fs ’ Cross-Appeal Plaint iff s filed an inte rlo cut or y appe al and c ro ss- app eal pu rsu ant t o R ule 30 7( a) (1 ) o f the1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-16- po rt io ns o f t he co ur t ’s o r de r s o f Ju ly 15 , Au gu st 24 , an d A ug us t 30 , 20 05 , t ha t fo un d t he ir c laims to be prem

ature. Rule 307(a)(1) all

ows an appeal

to be taken to the appell

ate court of an in terlocuto ry order “gran

ting, m odif yi ng, refus in

g, diss olvi ng, or refusi

ng to dissol

ve or modify

an in jun ction.” 134 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)(1). Defen dants contend that this

court la cks j urisdi

ction over plaint iff s’ ap pea l and cr os s-a ppe al beca use t he o nly i ssu e t his co ur t has t o d ecide is whet her t he trial cou rt p rop erl y i ss ue d th e stay. Pl ai n ti f f s a rgue th at b ec au se

th e tr i al cou rt’ s pre matu

ri ty fi ndi ng f ormed the underl

yi ng basi s of the stay

order, it is revi

ewabl e under Rul

e 307. In an i nte rlocu tory appe al , th e s cop e of

rev i ew i s n orm al l y l i m i ted to an exam i na ti on of whethe r the tri al court ab use d i ts di scre tion i n gr an tin g or ref usi ng to gra nt the i nterl ocutory rel i ef
. In re Law ren ce M. , 17 2 I l l . 2d

52 3, 5 26 (1 99 6) . Ev

en wh en th e c our t h as j uri sd i cti on to
re view an o rd er , it do es no t have jur isdict ion t o r eview findings o f fact t hat do not affect t he spe cif i c rem edi es f or whi ch the a ppea l i s al l owed. Murges v. Bow

man , 254 Ill . App. 3d 1071, 1081 ( 1993)
. T o t he ex t en t ne ce ss ar y, h o we ve r , a r ev iew ing co ur t may c o nsid er su bst an t ive iss ue s in order to determ

i ne whethe r the tri al court acted

wi thi n i ts authority
. In re

Law ren ce M. , 17 2 I ll. 2d a t 526 . I n People v. Kerr-McGee C hemical Corp. , 1 42 I ll. App. 3d 1 104 (1 986 ), t he defend ant so ught summary judg ment w ith r esp ect t o t he St at e’s r equ est for injunct ive relief o n t he b as i s th at th e tr i al cou rt’ s j uri sd i cti on wa s pre em

pte d b y f ederal l aw . Al ter n ati v el y , i t so ug h t a stay of proceedin

gs on the ground that prim ary jurisdi ction over the sub

je ct of the li

tigation rested wi th a f edera l ad m i ni stra ti ve ag en cy . The def

en da nt a ppe al ed the deni al of the sta y of pr oc eed ings und er Rule 3 07( a) (1 ) a nd co nt ende d t hat t he fede ra l pre empt ion q ues t ion sho uld be1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-17- de ci de d on appe al . The c ourt h

el d, h oweve r, that w hi l e the c l ai m di d c ha l l en gethe au thor i ty of t he circ uit co ur t t o e nt er t he injunct ive relief re que st ed by t he St at e, it d id no t challenge t he jurisd ictio n of t he circ uit co ur t t o he ar t he ca use or t o g ra nt t he o t her re lief requ est ed by t he State. Kerr-McGee , 14 2 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 110 6. Th

e f edera l pre em ption c l ai m , “wh i ch be ars not on t he pr op riet y of t he ** * st ay but ra t her on t he nat ur e o f the re lief which may be grant ed if t he Stat e prevai

ls at tr ia l, wi ll not be decided at this ti

me .” Kerr-McGee , 142 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1106. The re for e, t he inte rlo cut or y or der app ealed fro m wou ld be r eviewe d t o d et er mine whet her t he tria l court ab use d i ts di scre tion i n de ny i ng th e stay. Kerr-McGee , 142 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1106. Here , th i s c our t n ee d n ot co n si der w h eth er pl ai n ti f f s’ cl ai m s a repr em atu rei n order to de t er mine t he is su e o f whe t her t he t ria l co ur t er ro neo us ly st aye d t he c as e. Fu rt her mo re , p laint iffs do not ch al l enge the prem

aturi ty f i ndi ng on l y i n the con text of the i m posi tion of the stay; they

are als o ap pe aling t he Ju ly 15 , 20 05 , o r de rt ha t dis miss ed t he ca se wit ho ut pr eju dic e. T his g o es we ll bey ond the sc ope of

a Rul e 307 (a)(1) i

nterl ocutory appe al chal l engi ng a n orde r stay i ng th e ca se. “ ‘An app eal und er Rule 3 07 d oe s no t op en t he do or t o a gene ra l review o f all ord er s ent er ed by the trial court up to the date of the order t hat is appealed.’ ” Murges , 254 Ill . App. 3d at 1080, quot in g Panduit Corp. v. All State Plastic Manufacturing Co. , 84 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 44, 115 1 (198 0). T he r efo r e, we ho ld t ha t t his c o ur t do es no t ha ve jur isd ict io n o ve rpla int iffs’ cr o ss - ap pe al.

III. CONCLUSION1-05-3 043, 1- 05-30 44, 1-0 5-305 1, 1-05 -3053 , 1-05-3 068 (c ons.)

-18- At the t im

e the motion to dism

iss was m ade, t he trial court had t he di scretion to dism iss t he ca se w itho ut pr ejudice or t o s t ay it. One fac t or t he t rial co ur t might c ons ider is whet her t he le gal ma lpractice case h

as potential . Based on the compl ai nt, it would appear that addi tional le gal fees would m ost li kel y b e i ncurred bas ed on the actions a nd i nacti ons of the attor ney

s i nvol ved. Pl ai ntif f s’ motion to dis m i ss th e app eal i s deni ed, an d pl ai ntif f s’ cross -appe al

i s dism i sse d. W e af f i rm th e i m pos i ti on of th e stay an d r em an d th e c as e to th

e tr i al cou rt.