Judgmental immunity is alive and well in Illinois.

Navar v. Tribler, Orpett & Meyer, P.C., 2015 WL 6163619 (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 19, 2015).

A 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.

The lawsuit arose out of Manuel Navar's sale of residential real estate to Dahlia Ponce. 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. After the sale, Ponce sued Navar. Naver retained the Tribler law firm to defend him in the action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ponce and awarded damages totaling $98,500. 

Following the judgment, Navar filed suit against Tribler for legal malpractice and other causes of action. 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. Navar further alleged that Tribler conducted insufficient discovery to thwart summary judgment.

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. 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 noted that in Illinois, the doctrine of judgmental immunity “provides that an attorney will generally be immune from liability, as a matter of law, for acts or omissions during the conduct of litigation, which are the result of an honest exercise of professional judgment.”

The court found judgmental immunity also barred the allegations that Tribler erred in failing to advise Navar to settle the case. The court found significant that Navar did not allege a failure to communicate a specific settlement offer, but instead alleged a general failure to guide to the client to a settlement that was less that eventual judgment. Specifically, Navar alleged that Tribler encouraged Navar to resist any settlement proposals which required payment from Navar in excess of $25,000. This amounted to a miscalculation of the settlement value versus the actual value of the judgment ($98,000), for which no liability could attach.

The court dismissed Navar's remaining malpractice allegations that Tribler did not conduct adequate discovery. The court concluded that no amount of discovery could have prevented summary judgment, as claimed by Navar, because Ponce's pleadings asserted claims that Ponce misrepresented the number of legal dwelling units, claims to which Navar had no valid legal or factual defense. Thus, Navar failed to plead any actual damages resulted as a proximate cause of Tribler's insufficient discovery efforts.

This case reinforces Illinois courts' commitment to the rule of judgmental immunity for discretion exercised by attorneys in the performance of legal services.