Apart from the foregoing, I don’t really have a legal opinion because I don’t know enough of the specific facts pointing to knowledge of the abuse , but I do have a “human” opinion. If the facts are as Plaintiff claims and his attorney was aware of his torment and did nothing, I have no issue with damages, punitive and compensatory, and a review of his counsel’s license by the Bar. The Judeo-Christian ethic is “Suffer the little children to come unto me,…,” not “Suffer, little children.

I appreciated your legal analysis and citations, which exemplify the legalistic basis of Turley’s blawg. Sure, all of the other non-lawyering comments that complement the bulk of this site are fun and important. However, legal comments by you and other bona fide attorneys genuinely add depth and uniqueness herein.

Thanks.

Now, do you have a personal opinion that is not reflected in your legal opinion? That is, given Attorney Platt’s CV, legal experience, and past selfless service to low-income people, is it likely that she erred legally in this instance?

****************

Plaintiff may be able to argue he recently learned of the negligence since Illinois subscribes to the “discovery rule” in tort cases which holds that the cause of action accrues when the nature of the injury and the wrongful conduct which caused it is discovered or should have been discovered through the exercise of ordinary care. Clay v. Kuhl, 189 Ill. 2d 603, 608, 727 N.E.2d 217, 220 (2000). The issue of proximate cause invariable gets mixed up with notions of duty since foreseeable injury is the bedrock of both concepts. I think the Rowland case imposes the duty here and plaintiff’s allegations of direct and indirect abuse would get this past a motion to dismiss in my estimation:

“In analyzing this issue, we bear in mind that legal duties are not discoverable facts of nature, but merely conclusory expressions that, in cases of a particular type, liability should be imposed for damage done. As stated in Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734 [69 Cal. Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, 29 A.L.R.3d 1316]: “The assertion that liability must . . . be denied because defendant bears no ‘duty’ to plaintiff ‘begs the essential question — whether the plaintiff’s interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’s conduct. . . . [Duty] is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the
particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.’ (Prosser, Law of Torts [3d ed. 1964] at pp. 332-333.)”

In the landmark case of Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496], Justice Peters recognized that liability should be imposed “for injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill” as expressed in section 1714 of the Civil Code. Thus,Justice Peters, quoting from Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503, 509 stated: “‘whenever one
person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another . . . that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct . . . he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.’”

TARASOFF v. REGENTS 551 P.2d 334 (1976)

Where would those poor—mostly underrepresented—clients be without the selflessness’ of the Platt’s of the legal world?