Legal Opinion · Dissent

Horwitz v. Holabird & Root

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 2004No. 89351Published

1Dissent

JUSTICE FREEMAN,

also dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The question raised in this appeal is simple: May a client be held vicariously liable for tortious conduct committed by counsel during litigation on the client’s behalf in furtherance of that litigation? The majority holds that a client can only be liable when the client “specifically directed, controlled, or authorized the attorney’s precise method of performing the work or *** subsequently ratified acts performed in the exercise of the attorney’s independent judgment.” 212 Ill. 2d at 14. I believe this position is inconsistent with…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Woods v. ColeIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1999
  4. United States v. 7108 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, Feliberto Flores and Isabellita Flores, Claimants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  5. Feliberty v. DamonNew York Court of Appeals · 1988

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API