IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT,LAW DIVISION ROBERT SKERTICH,
Plaintiff,
v. N ENRICO MIRABELLI, SHAWN BERSSON
And NADLER, PRITIKIN & MIRABELLI, LTD., Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT NOWCOMES the Plaintiff, ROBERT SKERTICH, by and through his attorney, Charles M.
Shepherd, and for his Verified Complaint against ENRICO MIRABELLI, SHAWN
BERSSON and NADLER, PRITKIN & MIRABELLI, LTD., states as follows: 1. Plaintiff is seeking damages against Defendants
for legal malpractice relating to their representation of Plaintiff in a Law
Division matter and a subsequent appeal which resulted in a substantial
judgment against Plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff ROBERT SKERTICH (Skertich) is a
citizen and resident of the County of Cook, State of Illinois. 3. Defendant ENRICO MIRABELLI (Mirabelli) is a
citizen and resident of the County of Cook, State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, Mirabelli
was an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, Mirabelli
was a partner with the law firm of NADLER, PRITKIN & MIRABELLI, LTD. 4. Defendant SHALOM BERSSON (Bersson) is a
citizen and resident of the County of Cook, State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, Bersson
was an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois. At all times relevant hereto, Bersson
was a partner with the law firm of NADLER, PRITKIN & MIRABELLI, LTD. 5. Defendant NADLER, PRITKIN & MIRABELLI, LTD.
(NPM) is a law firm located in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of
Illinois. At its website located
at http://www.npmfamlaw.com, NPM holds itself out as a law firm
specializing in the practice of family law. FACTUAL
BACKGROUND 6. On
or about April 10, 1997, ANNE BORKOWSKI (Borkowski) married Skertich. 7. During
the course of their marriage, Borkowski was a medical doctor in the State of
Illinois. Skertich was a
construction contractor. 8. Prior
to living together, Skertich invested in a condominium on LaSalle Street in
Chicago, Illinois. After marrying,
the condominium was sold. The
proceeds on the sale, almost $29,000.00, were used by Skertich and Borkowski as
a partial down payment on a townhouse located at 363 B West Superior, Chicago,
Illinois 60610. 9. After
marrying, Borkowski informed Skertich that she wanted to adopt children. Both Borkowski and Skertich filled out
paperwork to adopt two children from Russia. Prior to, and on or about May, 2003, Borkowski prepared
paperwork which lauded Skertich and their marriage. 10. On or about May 13, 2003, Borkowski filed a
petition to divorce Skertich in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. (Borkowski v. Skertich, Case No. 2003 D 5260). 11. On or about July, 2003, an attorney-client
relationship was created between Skertich and Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM. Skertich was not provided with a
signed, written Attorney-Client Agreement. However, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM acted as Skertichs
attorney during the divorce. 12. Borkowskis divorce attorney represented to
Mirabelli that Borkowski would never provide any settlement or money to
Skertich unless a judge ordered her to do it. 13. On or about August 22, 2003, Borkowski filed a
lawsuit (the Lawsuit) against Skertich in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois. (See Exhibit A). Although the events alleged in the
complaint occurred during the marriage, Borkowski filed the lawsuit separate
from the divorce action. 14. Borkowski
sought damages against Skertich under three theories of liability Count I was
for Battery and Count II was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
and Count III was for ______________________. 15. On March 4, 2004, an attorney-client
relationship was created between Skertich and Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM. Skertich was not provided with a signed,
written Attorney-Client Agreement.
However, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM acted as Skertichs attorney during
the Lawsuit. 16. On March 4, 2004, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM
filed an appearance in the Circuit Court of Cook County on behalf of Skertich
in the Lawsuit. 17. In the Lawsuit, Borkowski alleged that during
the course of their marriage, she was the victim of domestic abuse by Skertich. 18. On January 31, 2005, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM
filed a demand for bill of particulars.
A copy was not provided to Skertich nor was Skertich informed what was
filed in response to the demand. 19. Borkowski alleged a number of incidents which allegedly
supported her claims in the Lawsuit.
These incidents include: a. Borkowski alleged
that on September 1, 2001, Skertich got angry, grabbed Borkowskis brother,
dragged him down concrete steps and threw him out of the house. Bob also threw Borkowski down the steps
and broke her rib. b. Borkowski alleged
that on September 21, 2001, Skertich grabbed Borkowski and punched her in the
arm during a fight about money. c. Borkowski alleged
that on October 5, 2001, Skertich yelled at Borkowski about money, grabbed her
robe and shoved her. d. Borkowski alleged
that on November 25, 2001, during a fight about money, Skertich punched
Borkowski in the nose and pushed her off the bed in their bedroom. e. Borkowski alleged
that between May, 2002 and December, 2002, Borkowski and Skertich had many arguments
over money. f. Borkowski alleged
that on December 31, 2002, Borkowski and Skertich got into an argument over
money and Skertich threw money across the floor, pushed papers off the kitchen
counter, threw a bottle of milk at the window and threw cat food. g. Borkowski alleged
that on May 1, 2003, Borkowski and Skertich fought over money, Skertich
screamed and threatened to sleep with someone else, threatened to light Borkowskis
coat on fire and Skertich. 20. Borkowski alleged that the motive for Skertichs
actions was that he never worked, never made money and never contributed to the
household. 21. Between November 14, 2006 and November 17,
2006, the lawsuit was tried before a twelve person jury in the law Division of
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. 22. On
November 16, 2006, while the case was pending, Borkowski filed a first amended
complaint. Count I alleged battery
from the November 25, 2001 incident and requested a judgment in excess of
$50,000, including punitive damages, costs and other equitable relief. Count II alleged intentional infliction
of emotional distress from the incidents alleged to have occurred from September
1, 2001 through July 9, 2003. 23. Mirabelli,
Bersson and NPM opposed the motion to amend and argued that they had not
conducted discovery, prepared for trial or conducted trial with the possibility
that punitive damages would be awarded. 24. On
November 17, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Borkowski and
against Skertich in the amount of $657,098.07 on the battery count and $243,500
on the intentional infliction of emotional distress. 25. On
___________, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of
Skertich with the Illinois Appellate Court, First District (Case No. 07-1472). 26. On
October 22, 2007, the Record on Appeal was prepared and filed in the Appellate
matter. The Record was incomplete
and Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM purposefully failed to include all of the
transcripts with the Record. 27. On
January 25, 2008, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM prepared and filed Brief and
Argument of the Defendant/AppellantRobert J. Skertich. On July 28, 2008, Borkowski filed her
Response Brief. On August 22,
2008, Skertich filed his reply Brief. 28. In
its argument on appeal, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM did raise any issues with
respect to the representation Skertich received at trial. Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM did admit
that they were unprepared for the possibility of punitive damages and were
unprepared to proceed with any claim relating to punitive damages. 29. On
__________, the Appeal of Skertich was denied. COUNT I LEGAL
MALPRACTICE 30. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates
paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein. 31. At all times relevant hereto, an
attorney-client relationship existed between Skertich and Bersson, Mirabelli
and NPM. 32. At all times relevant hereto, Mirabelli,
Bersson and NPM owed Skertich a duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care
and professional responsibility. 33. Mirabelli,
Bersson and NPM breached the duty owed to Skertich. Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM acted unreasonably as follows: a. During the discovery
phase of the Lawsuit, failed to attempt or obtain the adoption records which
would have undermined the credibility of Borkowski, impeached Borkowski and
would have demonstrated that Borkowski made prior inconsistent statements about
Skertich; b. During
the discovery phase of the Lawsuit, failed to consult or retain an expert
witness to address the alleged fractured ribs and fractured nose (none of which
were supported by visits to a hospital). c. During
the discovery phase and trial phase of the Lawsuit, failed to adequately
prepare for a request for or an award of punitive damages, as admitted in its
argument on appeal. d. During
the discovery phase of the Lawsuit, failed to obtain the records relating to
the money Skertich put into the Superior townhouse, thus undermining the
allegation that Skertich never contributed anything to the household; e. During
the discovery phase of the Lawsuit, failed to make adequate inquiries about the
alleged financial records of Borkowski, including the hiring of a forensic
accountant, to address the allegations that Borkowski provided Skertich large
amounts of cash. f. During
the discovery phase of the Lawsuit, failed to attempt to, or obtain, medical
records relating to the injuries allegedly suffered by Borkowski and
Borkowskis brother. g. In
the appeal, failed to address the failure of the trial counsel to adequately
prepare for the trial of this matter; h. Knowingly
making false statements to the appellate court and falsely telling Skertich
that Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM had hired a private investigator to find the
court reporter who transcribed the trial of this matter. i. During
the discovery phase of this matter, failed to obtain marriage counselor records
and records relating to Skertichs medical issues. j. During
the discovery phase of the Lawsuit, failed to obtain and review records showing
the construction projects on which Skertich worked, showing that he had an
income for this period of time. k. During
the discovery phase of this Lawsuit, failed to obtain and review records
relating to prescriptions written by Borkowski for Skertich; l. During
the discovery phase of the lawsuit, refused to hire a private investigator to
investigate claims that Borkowski had made prior false abuse allegations with
prior boyfriends. m. During
the trial of the Lawsuit, argued that Skertich was a martial arts expert who
when in fact he was not. 34. But for the unreasonable and outrageous conduct
of Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM, Skertich would not have been found liable at the
trial of the Lawsuit. In addition,
but for the unreasonable and outrageous conduct of Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM,
damages (including punitive damages) would not have been awarded or would not
have been awarded in the amount set at trial. 35. As
a result of the unreasonable and outrageous conduct of Mirabelli, Bersson and
NPM, Skertich has been damaged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROBERT SKERTICH
prays for an award of all damages available at law in excess of $50,000.00, an
award of punitive damages, all costs and any additional relief this Court deems
appropriate. COUNT II INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 36. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates
paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully set forth herein. 37. As outlined herein, Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM engaged
in outrageous and extreme conduct that goes beyond the bounds of common human
decency. Skertich trusted
Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM to protect his interests and to provide a defense to
the lawsuit. 38. The
outrageous conduct of Mirabelli, Bersson and NPM has caused Skertich
significant emotional harm, including depression, inability to sleep, loss of
appetite and feelings of hopelessness. 39. Skertich
has essentially been saddled with almost $1 million in debt because his
attorneys failed to do their job. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ROBERT SKERTICH
prays for an award of all damages available at law in excess of $50,000.00,
court costs and any additional relief this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully
Submitted ROBERT SKERTICH By:__________________________ One
of His Attorneys Mr. Charles M. Shepherd Attorney for Plaintiff 15 Spinning wheel Road, Suite 210 Hinsdale, Illinois 60521 (630) 908-3077 VERIFICATION Under
penalties of perjury provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, the undersigned hereby certifies that the statements set forth
in Plaintiffs Verified Complaint are true and correct except as to matters
therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the
undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true. _______________________________ Robert Skertich _______________________________ Date |
