Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP today announced that Hillary Weigle has joined the firm as a partner in the Professional Responsibility, Professional Liability, and Risk Management practice group in the Chicago office. Formerly with Smith Amundsen, she has served as lead counsel in more than 20 jury trials, primarily involving construction, insurance, and general liability matters.

The U.S. law firm Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP today announced that partner Marissa I. Delinks was selected by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2021 as one of their Top Women of Law. Each year, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Top Women of Law recognizes the achievements of 50 exceptional women lawyers who are pioneers, educators, trailblazers, and role models.

The Legal Malpractice and Risk Management (LMRM) Conference, of which Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is a lead sponsor, concluded its 16th annual edition earlier this month. In addition to welcoming more than three hundred attendees, the conference also received extensive media coverage from reporters at Law360 and Bloomberg BNA. The following is a brief summary of the media coverage provided by these publications.Malpractice: Proximate Causation is Key in Legal Malpractice CasesElizabeth Cohen, Associate Editor of the Bloomberg BNA/ABA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct, provided coverage of three panels involving Hinshaw lawyers as panelists. The first panel was moderated by Hinshaw's Thomas McGarry and looked at several recent legal malpractice cases in which causation proved decisive. The second panel, moderated by Hinshaw's Cassidy Chivers, offered a year in review of significant professional malpractice cases. The third panel, which included Hinshaw's Matthew Henderson, focused on indemnity provisions in lawyer retention agreements, especially in outside-counsel guidelines – a "hot topic" according to Henderson.

Hinshaw’s Marissa Delinks and Joanna Storey will co-present a program titled “Reemerging for 2022: Ways to Protect Your Hybrid Practice,” on February 3, 2022. Presented by the New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers–the program will offer tips to lawyers on how to navigate the top five risks in the new “hybrid” version of practicing law.

Insurance Agent Not Liable for Negligent MisrepresentationsPlaintiff insured purchased a flexible premium, variable life insurance policy from an insurer. His agent was also an agent for the insurer. The agent prepared several illustrations showing hypothetical results. The insured purchased the policy in 1990 and paid in excess of $260,000 in premium payments. He also obtained loans against the policy.The insured did not read the insurance contract but rather relied upon the agent’s representations that further premium payments would not be required. The representations were not consistent with the policy’s terms. The insured sued, seeking to establish that he owed no further premiums and that the full $1 million in policy limits were guaranteed to his beneficiary.The California Court of Appeal found the policy to be clear and not ambiguous. It had an integration provision which merged all prior oral agreements and limited the ability to orally modify the written terms of the contract. Thus, the court ruled as a matter of law that the insured could not reasonably rely upon any statements made prior to the issuance of the contract.It was undisputed that the agent was not authorized to make any statements that would modify the terms of the policy after its inception. Indeed, the application and the policy contained statements limiting the agent’s authority to modify the terms of the insurance contract. Therefore, the court found that the insured could not reasonably or justifiably rely upon any post-issuance statement by the agent. The court held that justifiable reliance was a necessary element of the claim. It determined that as a matter of law the insured could not rely upon any statement from the agent that differed from the terms of the insurance contract.The insured was not represented by counsel. It is not clear whether this affected the court's determination that the insured could not rely upon anything other than the written documentation. Because the decision is unpublished, however, the effect of this very positive case is limited. As a caveat, there are likely to be California courts that would deny a summary ruling and allow an insured to proceed to trial in an effort to demonstrate that it was reasonable to rely upon the insurance agent rather than the written policy. The insured does not appear to have presented those facts to the court in this case. This case demonstrates the important defenses that can be raised when the application and the policy expressly state that the policy cannot be modified by oral statements or negligent misrepresentations.For further information, please contact  your regular Hinshaw attorney.

Reacting to “rampant foreclosures and short sales,” a California court of appeal held that a sellers’ agent was liable to buyers for not disclosing to them before they signed the purchase agreement that the sellers’ debt on the property substantially exceeded the sales price of the property. Holmes v. Summer, No. G041906 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2010). More specifically, the court announced the following new rule, expanding the duty of disclosure that sellers’ agents owe to buyers:

Auditor

It's one of the most gut-wrenching events in a lawyer's practice when they suspect the client is lying about the facts to cover up fraudulent or criminal activity. The client may be hiding liabilities when applying for a loan or negotiating a deal. Or, the client provides the lawyer with intentionally vague information about their finances to avoid reporting the information to the IRS or other governmental agency. Or worse, the lawyer may suspect the client is using the representation to launder money. Wink-winks may be involved.

Life happens fast. Blink, and you may miss important legal ethics opinions that capture the latest risk management trends. Our New Year's Edition of the Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter highlights 11 opinions from 2021 that may not have made front-page legal news but should be on your radar.

By: Edward F. Donohue, IIIOverviewIn a review engagement, no external verification of the client’s financial information is normally required. A review engagement is distinguished from an audit engagement in that the accountant provides a “negative opinion.” The accountant verifies only that the financial statement has been prepared in accordance with accepted accounting standards and that no known material changes need to be made. The resulting unaudited financial statement is considered the representation of management. The accountant expresses no affirmative opinion as to whether the underlying financial information has withstood testing pursuant to audit standards.

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Professional Line - May 2011

The Right to Privacy and the Right to Bear Arms – Two United States Supreme Court Decisions That Impact Local Units of Government