Articles Posted in Immunity

Zander v. Carlson and the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, 2019 IL App (1st) 181868, is a legal malpractice opinion which holds that a union member who retains a union appointed attorney to represent him in challenging an employment action, cannot file a malpractice claim because filing such a claim would circumvent the collective bargaining agreement.

The facts and procedural history are set forth as follows:

¶ 4 Under the Illinois Municipal Code, a police officer facing discharge is entitled to a hearing before the local Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (police board), unless a collective bargaining agreement between the municipality and the officer’s union provides for arbitration of such disputes. See 65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-17 (West 2018). The collective bargaining agreement between the Village and the FOP provides that an officer may elect to challenge his discharge either before the police board or through the agreement’s ordinary grievance-arbitration procedure. On Carlson’s advice, Zander elected to proceed via arbitration. After a two-day hearing, the arbitrator upheld the decision to terminate Zander’s employment.

The case is captioned Nelson v. Quarles and Brady, LLP, 1-12-3122, Illinois Appellate Court, First District. This is probably the most important legal malpractice case decided in Illinois in 2013. The opinion is thoughtful and scholarly.

The underlying case

The underlying dispute was a contract dispute between two business partners, Kenneth Nelson and Richard Curia. The facts are exceedingly complicated and revolve around two written agreements and an oral agreement.

McClintock v. West, Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2013 – Google Scholar.

The Illinois courts have held that a guardian ad litem is immune from a lawsuit from one of the parties. A guardian ad litem is a lawyer appointed by the court in a family law case usually to protect the interests of a minor child. Family law litigants often become frustrated with the guardian ad litem. Here the frustrations mounted after the guardian submitted a fee petition.

This case is unusual in that the guardian was appointed to protect the interests of the plaintiff husband, who was suffering from extreme depression. Here, the plaintiff’s causes of action of negligence, fraud and legal malpractice were dismissed on the ground that the guardian ad litem was immune from suit. The court held that the negligence and fraud causes of action were barred by quasi-judicial immunity.