In this complaint, plaintiff charges defendants with intentional interference with the attorney/client relationship. The plaintiff states that the actions of the defendants in interfering with the attorney/client relationship were willful, wanton, malicious and obtrusive and that punitive damages should be accessed against the defendants.
Interference With Attorney Client Relationship In Illinois
Category:
State:
Multi-State
Control #:
US-000295
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
1 ABA Model (and Illinois) Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel provides “in representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the ...
An example is when a tortfeasor offers to sell a property to someone below market value knowing they were in the final stages of a sale with a third party pending the upcoming settlement date to formalize the sale writing. Such conduct is termed "tortious interference with a business expectancy".
The elements of the tort can vary by state but generally include the following: A valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party exists. The defendant has knowledge of that contract. The defendant has the requisite intent to induce the third party to breach the contract with the plaintiff.
Under Illinois law, a claim for tortious interference requires intentional interference. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted intentionally with the aim to injure the plaintiff.
Illinois Tort law is an area of civil law that typically allows an individual to take legal action against another individual, business, or organization for any injury or harm suffered from their actions. It is a broad area of the state's civil law that governs wrongdoings committed against another person.
Illinois common law attorney-client privilege protects “communications which the claimant either expressly made confidential or which he could reasonably believe under the circumstances would be understood by the attorney as such” Garvy v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2012 IL App (1st) 110115, ¶ 30.
The plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of entering into or continuing a valid business relationship with a third party. The defendant knew of that expectation. The defendant intentionally and without justification interfered with that expectation.
A concurrent conflict of interest arises under Illinois Rule 1.7 when either of two conditions are met: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the lawyer's representation of a client will be materially limited by responsibilities to ...
In Illinois, the “common interest” doctrine has the capacity to both shield information from certain legal adversaries and to compel the disclosure of privileged information under other circumstances.