CHICAGO - A split Illinois appeals court decision will allow international law firm Baker & McKenzie to face a legal malpractice lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court over the seizure of a coal mine in Russia, even though none of the parties involved in the case have any real connection to Chicago.
In a statement following the ruling, Baker & McKenzie said the case represents a prime example of "forum shopping" and is an "affront" to legal doctrines governing where lawsuits should be heard. The law firm said the case should be heard in the United Kingdom, where Baker & McKenzie is headquartered.
Cook County courts have gained notoriety through the decades as being famously plaintiff-friendly venues.
Bertina E. Lampkin
| illinoiscourts.gov
According to court documents, Lehram Capital Investments and Daniel Rodriguez sued four Baker & McKenzie defendants, but only Baker & McKenzie's office in Chicago, which operates as Baker & McKenzie LLP, was served and answered.
Cook County Judge James Snyder denied Baker’s motion to dismiss based on an argument the venue was inappropriate, prompting appeal to the Illinois First District Appellate Court in Chicago.
Justice Bertina Lampkin wrote the 2-1 majority opinion, filed Feb. 14; Justice Rena Van Tine concurred. Justice Debra Walker dissented.
Lehram Capital is based in London and Rodriguez is a citizen of Spain.
The lawsuit stems from Lehram's purchase of a Russian coal mine in 2013. That mine was seized by Russian government officials, allegedly acting at the behest of Russian mobsters.
Lehram sought to use Russian courts to recover the mine, hiring Baker & McKenzie lawyers in the unsuccessful effort.
Lehram then sued Baker & McKenzie in Cook County, alleging legal malpractice in the Russian legal fight.
Lehram said it chose Cook County to file its lawsuit because they alleged the international law firm has its principal place of business in Chicago and “alleged that defendants operated as one unified body of thousands of lawyers in dozens of domestic and international offices, holding themselves out to the public as ‘Baker & McKenzie,’ and registered in each jurisdiction according to that jurisdiction’s specific requirements.”
In arguing for dismissal, Lampkin wrote, the firm “disputes plaintiffs’ description of named defendants as having legal relationships or bases of liability for each other. Baker LLP asserts that plaintiffs engaged Baker CIS and not Baker LLP. Baker LLP contends that no attorneys of Baker LLP located in Chicago or anywhere else in the United States participated in the Russian litigation regarding the mine.”
Judge Snyder determined Baker “failed to show that the private and public interest factors weighed so strongly in favor of Moscow that plaintiffs’ right to select Chicago as the forum should be overturned,” according to Lampkin, adding that when Baker appealed the plaintiffs moved for summary affirmance, citing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an additional factor. Baker responded my insisting on Moscow and seeking a stay or remand so it could supplement its motion to suggest London as an alternative.
In October 2022, Snyder again denied the dismissal motion. In January 2023 Snyder denied a motion for reconsideration but denied a motion to strike certain parts of an affidavit “based on Rodriguez’s claim of personal knowledge regarding threats to his safety in England, his payments to defendants’ Cook County bank account, a response to his Freedom of Information Act request regarding the Cook County attorneys practicing under the name Baker & McKenzie, and his receipt of legal advice from Baker & McKenzie attorneys across the world,” Lampkin wrote. Snyder did strike statements that “appeared to be efforts to authenticate public records of the Cook County Clerk’s Office.”
In reviewing Baker’s rulings for abuse of discretion, Lampkin said the court limited its inquiry to the public and private interest factors of Moscow or London over Chicago, not Baker’s assertion the plaintiffs were “forum shopping.”
In her dissent, Walker acknowledged a “trial court is vested with broad discretion” on such matters but determined Snyder abused that discretion. She said Lehram retained Baker attorneys based in Russia and that Snyder “erred in concluding that ‘a legal unity of liability’ exists for all Baker defendants when the issue is in dispute and will ultimately be decided at trial. Moreover, the court relied on its premature conclusion to find that the events underlying plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim ‘regard the services of a Chicago-based law firm.’ The record indisputably shows that the alleged wrongful conduct underlying plaintiffs’ malpractice claim actually occurred in Russia by Russian-based attorneys, none of whom worked for Baker LLP.”
Walker said the parties agree the claims fall under Russian substantive law but acknowledged a forum in that country is unavailable, making London a suitable venue based on public and private interest factors.
“All accessible witnesses with personal knowledge of the occurrence are in London, not Cook County. As a result, it would be less expensive, and more expeditious, to conduct the trial in a London court,” Walker wrote. “It would be unfair to burden Cook County residents with the cost and effort of a jury trial on a case involving little local interest.”
Walker also said Snyder put outsized significance on the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial, calling it a “practical problem” that foreign plaintiffs view American courts as extremely attractive based on the availability of jury trials and saying the majority’s decision increases the likelihood of such litigation entering a congested legal system.
Lampkin disagreed with that position, saying Snyder “raised the jury trial discussion in the context of (her) analysis of the public interest factor concerning the fairness of placing the burden of jury duty on the residents of Cook County. In this context, the trial court stated that decision-making by juries was considered an affirmative value of the Illinois civil court system rather than a burden.”
In response to questions from The Cook County Record, Baker McKenzie issued the following statement: “We continue to believe this alleged claim has no merit. Moreover, a foreign U.K. company and a Spanish citizen filing a claim in Cook County, Illinois, to complain about work carried out several years ago in Moscow by Russian attorneys, arising out of a mining project in central Russia, and governed by Russian law, in which none of the alleged events took place in the United States, nor involved U.S. attorneys, constitutes forum shopping and is an affront to the forum non conveniens doctrine.
"The record demonstrates that resolution of this dispute in the adequate alternative forum of London, where witnesses and evidence reside (unlike Illinois), would better serve the needs of justice. Litigating this matter in Illinois would represent an unwarranted and unnecessary burden on the county’s courts and taxpayers, and not serve the public interest. We are assessing the appellate court’s decision — we believe the dissent got it right — and reviewing our further options.”
Baker & McKenzie is represented in the case by attorneys Karen Kies DeGrand, Robert W. Smyth Jr., Monica L. Smit and Laura Coffey Ieremia, of Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC, of Chicago.
Lehram is represented by attorneys Daniel F. Konicek and Amanda J. Hamilton, of Konicek & Dillon P.C., of Geneva.