On appeal, the court concluded that the facts established that the associate had the implied authority to act for the defendants. The evidence in Granite Properties showed a clear intent by the defendants to have the vacationing attorney represent them. Moreover, the evidence clearly established the existence of a relationship between the attorney that the defendant hired and the attorney that acted for the defendants. Here, however, the record contains no credible evidence that would connect Tinglio with Cleveland or that would support a conclusion that Tinglio represented plaintiff when Cleveland filed the Cook County action. Absent this evidence, we find Granite Properties factually inapposite.
Defendant next argues that Cleveland had apparent authority to file the action.
Apparent authority arises when the principal, through words or conduct, creates a reasonable impression that the agent has authority to perform a certain act. Defendant argues that Cleveland's apparent authority to file the action arose from plaintiff's hiring of Tinglio. While neither party disputes the fact that, at some time, plaintiff hired and then fired Tinglio, the only evidence connecting Tinglio with Cleveland is bare speculation and is clearly insufficient to support a conclusion that plaintiff's action of hiring Tinglio would create a reasonable impression that Cleveland had the authority to represent her. Defendant's final argument is that plaintiff ratified Cleveland's action of filing the Cook County complaint. 203 Ill. App.