){kind=logo}
Loeb & Loeb secured a significant appellate victory on behalf of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, an Am Law 200 firm, and a Benesch lawyer in a multimillion-dollar legal malpractice action brought by a former client who alleged that the lawyer at Benesch had a conflict of interest while representing her in a product design dispute involving Novolex Holdings. On Aug. 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead harm caused by the alleged misconduct and that the vicarious liability claim against Benesch likewise failed as a matter of law.
The plaintiff, a former client of Benesch, asserted a wide array of claims—including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress—arising from the firm's representation in a product design dispute. At the heart of the case was the allegation that the lawyer at Benesch harbored a conflict of interest while advising the plaintiff in settlement negotiations with an adverse party's outside counsel. The district court dismissed the operative complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit conducted a thorough review of the plaintiff’s allegations and concluded that she had not plausibly alleged the critical element of causation required under Ohio's legal malpractice standard. The court carefully examined the viability and timeliness of the plaintiff's purported underlying claims and determined that each was either time-barred before the representation began or otherwise insufficiently connected to the alleged misconduct. The court further held that the plaintiff's remaining theories of harm could not be sustained on the facts alleged.
The Loeb team that represented Benesch in the matter was led by Litigation partner Andy DeVooght and included partner Alexandra Schaller.
The plaintiff, a former client of Benesch, asserted a wide array of claims—including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress—arising from the firm's representation in a product design dispute. At the heart of the case was the allegation that the lawyer at Benesch harbored a conflict of interest while advising the plaintiff in settlement negotiations with an adverse party's outside counsel. The district court dismissed the operative complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit conducted a thorough review of the plaintiff’s allegations and concluded that she had not plausibly alleged the critical element of causation required under Ohio's legal malpractice standard. The court carefully examined the viability and timeliness of the plaintiff's purported underlying claims and determined that each was either time-barred before the representation began or otherwise insufficiently connected to the alleged misconduct. The court further held that the plaintiff's remaining theories of harm could not be sustained on the facts alleged.
The Loeb team that represented Benesch in the matter was led by Litigation partner Andy DeVooght and included partner Alexandra Schaller.
-
Co-Chair, White Collar Criminal Defense & Investigations -
.jpg?rev=a2f6f9721ed440aa9dc06c2306fa929b&hash=499198BEFABC323C3A860A5D315C810B)
Partner