Court Opinion

ID: 9721126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:48:58.22815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.453859
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE HALL, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the dismissal of count II, but I most respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion in this case because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that an attorney’s duty to a client extends to advising him of potential causes of action not contemplated in the express contract of employment between the parties. The majority opinion in this case will open up a “Pandora’s Box” of malpractice litigation. The defendants in this case believed that they had limited their representation of the plaintiff to matters arising out of the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act by entering into an express agreement with him. The majority submits that a client would not understand from such an agreement that a worker’s compensation claim will become his exclusive remedy. It is hard to imagine that the agreement could have been any more explicit with regard to the limitations that the defendants placed on their representation of the plaintiff. The majority states that it is reasonably foreseeable that an injured worker would be uniformed about the possibility of a third-party action and therefore relies on his worker’s compensation attorney to advise him of all his potential legal remedies. In my opinion, it is also reasonably foreseeable that a client reading a contract limiting the area of representation would be prompted to ask about other potential areas of recovery. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.