¶ 15 ANALYSIS ¶ 16 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fail to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2016) ; Fox v. Seiden , 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 12, 403 Ill.Dec. 368, 53 N.E.3d 1005. If disputes as to material facts exist or if reasonable minds may differ with respect to the inferences drawn from the evidence, summary judgment may not be granted.
The defendants appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the circuit court erred by 6 entering summary judgment without any expert testimony and their affirmative defense of comparative negligence raised a question of fact precluding summary judgment. Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 10. ¶ 15 This court first determined that "[the circuit court's] ruling shows its evident intention that Draiman not be held accountable for her husband's violation of the [Act]." Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 17.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record as a whole, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Progressive Universal Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 215 Ill.2d 121, 127-28 (2005). Our review is de novo, meaning we owe no deference to the circuit court's ruling. Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 12.
"[T]he failure to present expert testimony is typically fatal to the plaintiff's cause of action." Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 23.
Barth v. Reagan, 139 Ill.2d 399, 406 (1990). In addition to proving there was an error in the legal representation, the plaintiff is required to prove that the error was negligent. Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 25. See also Barth, 139 Ill.2d at 406-07 (noting that "[t]he law distinguishes between errors of negligence and those of mistaken judgment"). A plaintiff is not entitled to recover for legal malpractice by merely demonstrating that it did not receive perfect representation.
¶ 44 Generally, a plaintiff must establish the standard of care against which the defendant-attorney's conduct must be measured through expert testimony, and the failure to present expert testimony is typically fatal to the plaintiff's cause of action. Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 23 citing Barth v. Reagan, 139 Ill. 2d 399, 407 (1990). In rare cases, judgment may be entered for a plaintiff as a matter of law without expert testimony regarding the standard of care—cases in which "the common knowledge or experience of lay persons is extensive enough to recognize or infer negligence from the facts, or where an attorney's negligence is so grossly apparent that a lay person would have no difficulty in appraising it. "
” Fox v. Seiden (Fox II), 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 23 (citations omitted) (common 31 knowledge exception did not apply to case in which “the question of legal malpractice [was] fraught with thorny legal and factual issues” such as “the American Rule, fee-shifting statutes, the law of conspiracy, waiver, forfeiture, and other legal and factual considerations that are beyond the ken of laypersons”).
¶ 20 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fail to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2020); Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 12. If disputes as to material facts exist or if reasonable minds may differ with respect to the inferences drawn from the evidence
¶ 21 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fail to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2020); Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 12.
¶ 18 Hubert appeals from the trial court's order granting the Board of Education's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fail to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2012); Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, ¶ 12. If disputes as to material facts exist or if reasonable minds may differ with respect to the inferences drawn from the evidence, summary judgment may not be granted.