Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc.

State: Illinois

Docket No: 102578 Rel

Case Date: 05/03/2007

Preview:Docket No. 102578.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

BRIAN DOWLING, Appellee, v. CHICAGO OPTIONS ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. (DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (US), LLP, Appellant). Opinion filed May 3, 2007.

JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Fitzgerald and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Freeman concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion, joined by Justices Kilbride and Burke.

OPINION Plaintiff, Brian Dowling, commenced proceedings to collect on two judgments he obtained against defendants, Chicago Options Associates and Michael E. Davis. In the process, Dowling learned that Davis had paid retainers to his lawyers, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (US), LLP (now known as DLA Piper (US) LLP) (hereafter Piper), in connection with efforts to protect his assets from Dowling's judgments. Dowling sought turnover of those retainers from Piper. The circuit court of Cook County ruled in Dowling's favor and

ordered Piper to pay over to Dowling the sum of $137,576.53. The appellate court affirmed. 365 Ill. App. 3d 89. BACKGROUND Dowling sued defendants for breach of contract. As a result of this action, two judgments were entered on behalf of Dowling in the total amount of $817,830.45. Thereafter, Davis set out to shield his assets from the reach of Dowling's judgments. In February 2003, Davis hired Piper to represent him in connection with the purchase of a home in Florida. For this purpose, Davis deposited a large sum of money in a trust account held by Piper. The purchase of the home was completed on February 24, 2003, with funds paid from the trust account. On February 26, 2003, Davis and his wife, Emily Seibel, authorized Piper to allocate $100,000 (the actual amount was $100,094.72) of that money as a retainer, based upon an agreement referred to by the parties as an "engagement letter." Piper transferred that money to its general account and applied it to monthly bills attributable to work performed for Davis and Seibel in connection with the purchase of their Florida home and, later on, in connection with the instant Illinois litigation with Dowling. The engagement letter was addressed to Davis and Seibel and referenced "Client Engagement; 308813

Download Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc..pdf