|
 Stanley H. Jakala was honored Monday, March 1, 2010 by the Hoffman Estates Village Board for earning a place in Illinois Super Lawyers magazine. Only 5 percent of lawyers in each state are chosen for Super Lawyers magazine.
Jakala, a Berwyn attorney, who has been practicing law for 53 years, is best known for his appellate work. He has 111 published opinions and won 40 percent of those cases. One of his best-known cases involved a Des Plaines police officer who left his job during a flood in August 1987 after his wife called him because their townhouse was flooding. The officer was fired. Jakala prevailed on the officer's behalf in the Illinois Appellate Court but lost when the Illinois Supreme Court rules that when a superior officer assigns an officer to a post, the officer cannot disobey and leave his post. Jakala, 83, celebrated his proclamation on Friday, March 5, 2010 which the Hoffman Estates Village Board declared Stanley H. Jakala Day. Please click here in order to read the newspaper article. Please click here in order to view this proclamation. Mr. Jakala has also been featured in over 70 newspaper and magazine articles, including Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Daily Herald, Associated Press, and South China Morning Post. A policeman's disability application cannot be denied based upon one dissenting doctor selected by the Police Pension Board. This article was authored by Daniel P. Jakala and Stanley H. Jakala. The article appeared in the May 2008 issue of Administrative Law, the Newsletter of the ISBA's Section on Administrative Law, published by the Illinois State Bar Association. Wall Street Journal: page one article on lawsuit involving gun store owners (1999) Business and Health Magazine: article on privacy rights of employees (1995) Money Magazine: article on privacy rights of employees (1994) A Current Affair and Donahue: Launius v. DesPlaines (1988) By Stephanie Potter
Law Bulletin staff writer The 1st District Appellate Court on Friday reinstated a legal-malpractice suit brought by an elderly woman who admitted she did not read the deed to the property she sold, citing the woman’s contention that she relied on her attorney’s advice. Catherine Tuchowski sued Elizabeth M. Rochford in November 2003. Rochford represented Tuchowski in the November 2000 sale of a house she owned in Chicago. The house stood on two lots, with a third lot mostly vacant except for a shed and a grill. Tuchowski alleges that Rochford included the vacant lot in the $575,000 sale without her knowledge, costing her $125,000 she could have gotten for the lot separately. Although Tuchowski, then 77, was present at the closing and signed all the necessary forms, she said she did not discover until the fall of 2003 that the vacant lot had been included in the sale. Cook County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Lawrence dismissed Tuchowski’s second amended complaint against Rochford as untimely under Section 2-619(a)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5). Lawrence ruled that Tuchowski failed to file suit within two years of the date she should have known that Rochford had altered the sales contract to make it include all three lots. "It is her responsibility to look at the documents," the appeals court quoted Lawrence as saying. But in a 10-page opinion, written by Justice Jill K. McNulty, the appeals court reversed. "We hold that Tuchowski adequately alleged facts from which a trier of fact could infer that Tuchowski reasonably relied on her attorney when she signed the documents without reading them, " McNulty wrote. As such, the appeals court could not say as a matter of law that Tuchowski should have known about the sale of the lot more than two years before she filed her complaint. In her complaint, Tuchowski alleged that Rochford knew that the owners of the property next to the vacant lot had offered $125,000 for it. She also said that, at the closing, Rochford directed her to sign the documents quickly because Rochford had to go to another closing. Tuchowski said she did not read the deed or other documents, but relied on Rochford. In an affidavit, Rochford said Tuchowski asked her to amend the contract for the sale of the property to include the nearly vacant lot, the opinion said. Tuchowski, on the other hand, said she specifically told Rochford to limit the sale to the two lots with the house on them. The appeals court reviewed the pleadings in the light most favorable to Tuchowski. Typically, McNulty wrote, courts hold parties responsible for knowing the contents of documents they have signed. Breckenridge v. Cambridge Homes Inc., 246 Ill.App.3d 810, 819 (1993). But in some cases involving fiduciary relationships, courts have excused ignorance of the content of signed documents, she wrote, citing Prueter v. Bork, 105 Ill.App.3d 1003, 1006 (1982). McNulty cited the example of Melvin State Bank v. Crowe, 97 Ill.App.2d 82 (1968). In Crowe, a defendant invested money in a business Crowe ran and later signed a guarantee for a loan he took from the bank. The bank then sued Crowe and the defendant, seeking to recover the loan. The defendant countersued to recover her investment. She testified that she did not read the papers she signed concerning the investment and the guarantee and instead relied on the bank’s representations. The trial court found in favor of the bank, but the Crowe court reversed, finding a trial should be held focusing on the bank’s fiduciary duties to the defendant. In this case, Rochford had fiduciary duties as Tuchowski’s attorney, the appeals court said. Rochford said Tuchowski signed the deed only three lines below a line that showed three separate index numbers for the property to be sold. As such, Rochford argued that Tuchowski must have seen the line and deduced that the deed gave the buyers title to all three lots. “We agree that the deed can support an inference that Tuchowski should have known, when she signed the deed, that the deed referred to all three lots,’’ McNulty wrote.“However, we find that some rational triers of fact might not reach that same inference from the evidence as a whole. Taking into account the size of the typeface, Tuchowski’s age and sophistication, and the time constraints Rochford placed on her, a trier of fact may believe that Tuchowski either did not see the line at issue, or she did not understand the special significance of the sequence of digits, slashes, dashes and spaces on that line.’’ Justices James Fitzgerald Smith and Denise O’Malley concurred in the opinion. Tuchowski was represented by Berwyn attorney Stanley H. Jakala. Rochford was represented by Donald J. Brown Jr., Karen Kies DeGrand and Laurie A. Rompala, all of Donohue, Brown, Mathewson & Smyth LLC. Brown and Rochford could not be reached for comment Friday morning. Jakala said he was pleased with the ruling and would seek expedited discovery when the case is returned to the trial court because his client is now over 80 years old. Catherine Tuchowski v. Elizabeth M. Rochford, No. 1-05- 0491. Chicago Tribune:
"Top state cops use letter to boost suit
Endorsing governor had perks, union says" By Courtney Flynn
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 30, 2006 A letter produced in court this week seeks to bolster a claim by top Illinois State Police officers that they lost a vacation provision because they declined to endorse Gov. Rod Blagojevich in his last election.
The non-unionized command officers filed a lawsuit in 2004 that claims unionized rank-and-file troopers kept the benefit after endorsing the governor, and the letter written June 14 by the union president reminds members of what their support meant. "I believe that the speed in which we successfully negotiated our recent collective bargaining agreement, the most lucrative in Lodge history, can be attributed to the endorsement of the governor," wrote L.H. "Buddy" Parker of State Troopers Lodge No. 41.
"I can tell you that this endorsement has garnered the lodge unprecedented communication access to the governor's staff, resulting in the resolution of issues that had been, and may still be unresolved without that access."
Berwyn attorney Stanley Jakala, who represents the State Police Command Officers Association, introduced the letter as part of a routine court hearing Wednesday regarding the non-union officers' lawsuit.
The lawsuit, against Blagojevich and State Police Director Larry Trent, seeks to restore the policy that governed how much vacation non-union state employees could accrue before Blagojevich took office.
"Not until the June 14, 2006, faxed letter ... was there a written document that specifically established a quid pro quo concept ... that Lodge 41 received the most lucrative contract in Lodge history because of its endorsement of Rod R. Blagojevich for governor," according to court documents Jakala filed.
Lawyers for the governor and Trent referred calls to the governor's press office. Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman for Blagojevich, called the lawsuit's quid pro quo allegations "completely off base."
"The improvements in state police trooper equipment and benefits are the results of our broad efforts to realign state government," she said.
Parker said he could not comment on the lawsuit, but he said he stood by his letter.
"In my experience, and I would have to attribute it to the endorsement, I have enjoyed extremely open communications with the governor's staff, not only personally but also through our lobbyist," Parker said Thursday.
He also wished the command officers the best in their lawsuit.
"I hope they are successfully able to resolve their issues," Parker said. "It benefits all members regardless of rank."
Jakala declined to comment Thursday.
The lawsuit hinges on a March 5, 2003, order by Blagojevich that limited to five the number of unused vacation days that can be carried over from one year to the next for about 3,000 non-union state employees, including Illinois State Police command officers.
The order came after Blagojevich said 140 state employees under former Gov. George Ryan left their jobs and got lump-sum payments between $50,000 and $90,000 in unused vacation pay.
The command officers' inability to accrue vacation was tied to their neutrality in the last gubernatorial campaign, according to the lawsuit. Court documents also allege that salary increases were frozen for command members while state police union members continued to get salary increases after the election.
Late last month, a judge in Lake County, where the case is being heard, denied a motion by Jakala to amend the lawsuit to include the concept of quid pro quo between the state police union and Blagojevich.
In light of the letter, Circuit Judge David Hall on Wednesday allowed Jakala to file a motion for reconsideration of that denial. The next hearing on the case is scheduled for Aug. 22.
| 
