Predictions as to the merits and how the trial court will decide the lawsuit amount to mere errors in legal judgment, for which Tribler could not be liable. The court surmised that many of Navar's malpractice allegations were premised upon Tribler's incorrect assessment as to whether Navar would prevail in underlying lawsuit. Navar further alleged that Tribler conducted insufficient discovery to thwart summary judgment. Specifically, Navar alleged that during the pendency of the lawsuit with Ponce, Tribler negligently advised him that he would prevail in the action and also failed to advise Navar to try to settle the case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ponce and awarded damages totaling $98,500.įollowing the judgment, Navar filed suit against Tribler for legal malpractice and other causes of action. Naver retained the Tribler law firm to defend him in the action. During the course of negotiations, Navar misrepresented to Ponce that the property contained three dwelling units as opposed to the two dwelling units the property actually contained.
The lawsuit arose out of Manuel Navar's sale of residential real estate to Dahlia Ponce. 19, 2015).Ī recent Illinois appellate court decision held that a rule affording immunity to lawyers for errors in judgment precluded a client's claims against his former attorney for negligent advice regarding settlement and the defensibility of the client's case. Judgmental immunity is alive and well in Illinois.
0 kommentar(er)
