Horwitz v. Holabird & Root
Illinois Supreme Court
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
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Woods v. ColeIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
- Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1999
- United States v. 7108 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, Feliberto Flores and Isabellita Flores, Claimants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Feliberty v. DamonNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.