Illinois-based Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP beat a legal malpractice suit, after a federal judge held that no evidence linked the law firm’s conduct to any harm to litigation funding provider Signal Funding LLC.
Signal Funding accused Sugar Felsenthal of breaching its duty by also representing former Signal Funding employee Farva Jafri, who launched a competing venture, in adverse matters. The law firm was further accused of misrepresenting to Signal Funding that it wasn’t providing adverse advice to Jafri.
Judge Joan H. Lefkow of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Dec. 23 Sugar Felsenthal’s motion for summary judgment.
The decision comes three years after Sugar Felsenthal got a partial win in the case, which was primarily brought against Looking Glass Financial LLC, but also named the law firm as a defendant. Sugar Felsenthal allegedly advised on issues related to poaching a Signal Funding employee while still serving as the company’s outside counsel, Signal Funding had alleged.
Asking for summary judgment, Sugar Felsenthal argued that there was no evidence that its representation of Jafri and Signal Funding proximately caused any injury to Signal Funding.
Lefkow agreed, holding that the evidence doesn’t show that Sugar Felsenthal’s actions caused Signal Funding to lose investors or an employee.
“These facts do not permit a reasonable inference that Sugar Felsenthal’s alleged advice injured Signal Funding by causing it to lose” the investment, according to the opinion.
Sugar Felsenthal is represented by Konicek & Dillon PC, Sperling & Slater PC, and Konicek & Dillon PC. Signal is represented by Gekas Law Ltd.
The case is Signal Fin. Holdings LLC et al v. Looking Glass Fin. LLC, N.D. Ill., No. 1:17-cv-08816, 12/23/22.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
To read more articles log in.
Learn more about a Bloomberg Law subscription.