Hilary Marek Winniczek and Danuta Winniczek v. Sheldon B. Nagelberg
394 F.3d 505 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Illinois law, the 'actual innocence' rule, which bars a criminal defendant from suing their attorney for legal malpractice unless they can prove their innocence, does not bar a separate claim for breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of overcharging.
Facts:
- Hilary Winniczek was charged with federal criminal offenses related to a fraudulent commercial driver's license scheme.
- Winniczek initially hired a lawyer named Petro.
- Attorney Sheldon Nagelberg persuaded the Winniczeks to fire Petro and hire him, asserting that Petro was inexperienced in federal criminal matters.
- Nagelberg told the Winniczeks that Mr. Winniczek had a good defense and that presenting it at trial would cost $150,000 in fees plus $20,000 in expenses.
- Over the next year, the Winniczeks paid Nagelberg the full $170,000.
- Immediately after receiving the final payment, Nagelberg informed the Winniczeks that Mr. Winniczek had no viable defense due to prior statements and that he must plead guilty.
- Nagelberg then withdrew from the case.
- Represented by a new attorney, Winniczek pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 22 months in prison.
Procedural Posture:
- Hilary and Danuta Winniczek filed a diversity suit against their former attorney, Sheldon Nagelberg, in the U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged three counts: breach of contract/fiduciary duty, professional negligence (legal malpractice), and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The district court dismissed the entire complaint for failure to state a claim, presumably based on the 'actual innocence' rule.
- The Winniczeks, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Nagelberg as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'actual innocence' rule, which requires a plaintiff in a criminal legal malpractice action to prove their actual innocence, also bar a separate claim for breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty against the same attorney for alleged overcharging and fraudulent billing?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No, the 'actual innocence' rule does not bar a claim for breach of contract or fiduciary duty based on overcharging. The court reasoned that the policy considerations underlying the 'actual innocence' rule for malpractice claims—such as preventing convicted criminals from shifting blame for their crimes and the availability of other remedies like ineffective assistance of counsel claims—do not apply to a fee dispute. A claim for overcharging does not challenge the validity of the criminal conviction itself; rather, it challenges the financial aspects of the attorney-client agreement. The damages sought in a breach of contract claim are measured by the amount of the overcharge, not by the harm caused by the conviction (e.g., imprisonment). The court distinguished the malpractice claim (Count II), which was properly barred because Winniczek did not claim actual innocence, from the breach of contract/fiduciary duty claim (Count I), which is fundamentally a fee dispute and therefore not subject to the 'actual innocence' rule.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important limitation on the scope of the 'actual innocence' rule in legal malpractice cases arising from criminal representation. It clarifies that while the rule is a potent defense against claims challenging the outcome of a criminal case, it does not provide attorneys with a shield against liability for contractual breaches or financial misconduct. The ruling prevents attorneys from using a client's guilt as a defense to claims of fraudulent billing or overcharging, thus preserving a civil remedy for clients who have been financially wronged, irrespective of their guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal matter. This creates a clear distinction between claims about the quality of representation affecting the case's outcome and claims about the financial integrity of the attorney-client relationship.
