## Facts

- An elderly trust beneficiary retained an attorney to transfer two trusts between banks; the receiving bank also retained the attorney regarding the trusts.
- The same attorney represented her in a later guardianship proceeding initiated by her daughter.
- After the daughter became guardian and conservator, she sued the attorney and his professional corporation.
- The operative complaint alleged the attorney sent billing statements that knowingly misstated hours worked on the trust and guardianship matters.
- The complaint alleged the client relied on the statements and suffered about $40,000 in damages.
- The complaint asserted fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice, and sought punitive damages on the fraud counts.
- The trial court struck punitive-damages requests on all counts except common-law fraud and certified an interlocutory question.
- In discovery, the attorney refused to produce individual income tax returns as ordered; the trial court held him in indirect civil contempt.
- The interlocutory appeal and the contempt appeal were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether 735 ILCS 5/2-1115 bars punitive damages for an independent common-law fraud claim arising in the context of legal services.
2. Whether the trial court properly compelled production of the attorney’s individual income tax returns in discovery.
3. Whether the indirect civil contempt order for noncompliance with the discovery order should stand, and under what conditions it should be vacated.

## Decision

- The court held that § 2-1115 does not prohibit seeking punitive damages when the complaint states a cause of action for common-law fraud, even if the fraud occurred in a professional-services setting.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to strike the punitive-damages request on the common-law fraud counts.
- The court held the attorney was required to comply with the discovery order compelling production of specified individual income tax returns.
- The court affirmed the contempt order as a coercive enforcement device but directed that it be vacated upon the attorney’s compliance.
- Disposition: affirmed and remanded with directions.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2-1115’s punitive-damages bar applies to malpractice-type actions arising from the rendering or failure to render professional services; it does not extend to an independent intentional tort of common-law fraud.
- A fraud count that merely restates professional negligence may be treated as malpractice for purposes of § 2-1115, but deliberate misrepresentation in billing can constitute independent common-law fraud supporting punitive damages.
- Individual income tax returns are not categorically privileged from discovery; they may be compelled upon a sufficient showing of relevance and need, subject to trial-court discretion and protective measures.
- Indirect civil contempt may be used to compel compliance with a discovery order; the contemnor may purge the contempt by complying, after which the contempt order should be vacated.

## Conclusion

The appellate court permitted punitive damages to remain available on properly pleaded common-law fraud claims against an attorney notwithstanding § 2-1115, and it enforced discovery of the attorney’s tax returns through a civil-contempt order that would be vacated upon compliance.


Cripe v. Leiter, 683 N.E.2d 514 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)