Attorneys and Clients

Callis, Papa, Jackstadt & Halloran, PC v Norfolk and Western Railway, Co, 195 Ill 2d 356, 748 NE2d 153, 254 Ill Dec 707 (Ill 2001).

Facts: A railroad employee claimed he received an injury from falling at work, which left him walking with a limp and unable to perform his job. The employee hired a law firm to represent him in proceedings against the railroad under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The railroad's superintendent of terminals accused the employee of lying about the injury after secretly observing employee at work, walking without a limp and performing physical tasks with no difficulty. Pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement, which governed the employee, the railroad sought to conduct an investigative hearing as to whether the employee was dishonest as to his injuries and his ability to work.

The terms of the collective-bargaining agreement provided that neither the employer nor the employee was allowed to have attorneys present at the hearing. The law firm sought a preliminary injunction, alleging the railroad was tortiously interfering with its contractual relationship with employee. The law firm claimed it would suffer immediate irreparable harm because by interrogating the employee outside of the presence of counsel, the railroad would interfere with "the firm's prospective economic advantage by preventing the law firm's legitimate expectancy from ripening into a valid business relationship." The circuit court granted the preliminary injunction and the appellate court affirmed.

Holding: Reversed. The tort of intentional interference with the attorney retainer employment contract was not sufficiently established; therefore it is inappropriate to grant a preliminary injunction. The law firm's complaint did not allege that the railroad's actions caused the contract to be breached or terminated; therefore there is no cause of action for intentional interference. The law firm was hired to represent an employee in a FELA action and its ability to represent the employee in a FELA proceeding was not made impossible by the railroad's disciplinary proceedings. The law firm was also not intentionally excluded from disciplinary proceedings by the railroad, but instead by a collective-bargaining agreement between the railroad and its employees.

The court further held it is too speculative to conclude that evidence harmful to the employee's FELA action would be revealed at the disciplinary proceeding and would lead to the law firm's termination. Therefore, it is inappropriate to grant a preliminary injunction based upon the mere possibility that the disciplinary hearing will lead to a breach or termination of the employment contract and therefore lead to intentional interference by the railroad.

© ATG atgc0207vol26

 

Print this page