Arnstein & Lehr's Litigation Group Gains Three Victories

Arnstein & Lehr's Litigation Group Gains Three Victories
April 6, 2015

[caption id="attachment_3048" align="alignright" width="150"] Louis Lehr[/caption] [caption id="attachment_3050" align="alignright" width="150"] Katelyn Miller[/caption] [caption id="attachment_3047" align="alignright" width="150"] Hal Morris[/caption]

Chicago partner Hal Morris and associate Katelyn Miller achieved three recent victories. With the help of retired partner Louis Lehr, they secured a significant appellate victory in a long-running matter. Miller and Lehr, assisted by Chicago partner Jason Tremblay, had won a $988,000 judgment in a wrongful termination and breach of oral contract matter on behalf of a discharged employee. That matter was appealed by the employer. Although a portion of the ruling was reversed, the Illinois Appellate Court found that the trial court had not erred by entering judgment in favor of the client in the amount of $988,000.   

Morris and Miller were also successful in securing a $700,000-plus turnover order against an insurance company.  Previously, the trial court had granted turnover but stayed collection to permit the judgment creditor and insurance company to move to reconsider. Before oral argument on the motion to reconsider, the judgment was reversed in part. However, they were successful in convincing the court that the reversal in part did not warrant reconsideration and that the policy under which payment was being made should be construed to permit collection. In addition, the judgment debtor’s counsel sought recovery of its attorney’s fees in defending the case and prosecuting an appeal. The court agreed that the citation lien was first in time and therefore the attorneys would not be paid.

Additionally, Morris and Miller were successful in the Illinois Appellate Court in protecting a dismissal with prejudice of a claim against a $4 million estate. In the case, the claimants sought to overturn the estate and will by claiming that the attorney who drafted the will was an interested party because he was named as a contingent trustee. However, when the claim was dismissed by the trial court and claimants were given leave to replead, they chose to stand on the dismissed claim. The appellate court agreed with the position that by failing to replead, claimants waived error. The court reasoned that the complaint as pled did not provide sufficient facts and by failing to replead (after being granted leave to do so), there could be no error in the dismissal.