The Price Of Justice In Illinois Just Might Be $149 (US)

This cannot be a pleasant situation for the defendants. (That is with the possible exception that I am new to the actual practice of lawyering. This makes it possible for me to make technical errors and that is one reason I am sincerely asking for help from anyone and everyone who is willing.)

Let’s face it. The defendants are physicians, nurses, hospitals, medical centers, etc. and they are being sued by a medical doctor, i.e., an insider,  because he feels that they killed his father. This is no secret as there is a civil lawsuit.

The very fact that the plaintiff is “one of their own” likely makes them shudder. Why? Because if this lawsuit ever gets before jurors, they will probably suspect that since a doctor is suing other doctors, etc., there must be something to it.

They would be right.

For that reason alone, if you agree, these defendants have motivation to do anything they can to prevent this action from seeing the light of jury deliberation.

This includes lying, in my opinion, to the trial and appellate courts. (see page 5) [i]

These defendants include some pretty powerful persons and entities.

As you may recall, the defendants attempted to get this matter thrown out of court by suggesting that I was practicing law without a license. That whole issue would have been obviated by an additional license fee payment of $149. The reasons that did not occur were communicated to both the trial court and ARDC.

The trial court decided in my favor and that the ARDC chose not to pursue this matter, suggesting the absence of any wrongdoing.

However, the Illinois Appellate Court has seen fit to review this matter, rather than let it go based on the determinations of the trial court and ARDC. This, once again, raises the question of how cheaply some (the defendants) are willing to sell justice in Illinois as the possibility of an adverse outcome (to the plaintiffs) remains.

And an adverse outcome can affect more than just this case since legal precedent is what guides future court decisions.

In a right-thinking world, it should be inconceivable that the Appellate Court would conclude differently from the lower court and ARDC.

The Illinois State Medical Society offered a presentation on medical malpractice lawsuits which I attended. In it, the opposing attorneys were in communication with each other and basically the plaintiff’s attorney was telling the defendant’s attorney how much money he (the plaintiff’s attorney) had wrapped up in the case and what he would need to make the case go away. It did not sound like the kind of conversation that helped the injured plaintiff and smacked of backroom dealing.

Perhaps you have heard of similar happenings.

Conspiracy theorists might think that “The fix is in. Someone has gotten to the Appellate Court.” After all, the defendants are among the most powerful players in sick care in Chicago and likely the country, as well. Is this possible? Can there be backroom dealing when it comes to justice in Chicago, Illinois?

Please perish the thought. If you consider that the Appellate Court's final decision on this matter as a foregone conclusion, then you might be dissuaded from assisting. A defeatist attitude is never helpful.

For me, of course, the matter is settled. As a member of the Illinois Bar, an attorney in good standing and licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois, I presume that the Appellate Court agreed to review this matter because it felt it was an issue it had not previously addressed and that it believed there was value to doing so.

So please, consider providing help if you are qualified. To find out how, click here.