## Facts

- Roy Krieger was an aviation-law attorney and a partner at a prior law firm, but left that firm because of geographic disagreements and began looking for new work.
- Krieger spoke with Fred Begy, a partner at Adler, Kaplan & Begy (AKB), about joining AKB’s aviation-law practice.
- During recruiting discussions, Begy allegedly told Krieger that AKB (1) was a stable firm, (2) would support Krieger’s efforts to develop new clients and cases, (3) had an established “partner track,” (4) would make Krieger a partner a short time after he joined, (5) would create a “senior trial attorney” position to signal to the public that Krieger was more than a typical associate while awaiting partnership, and (6) would pay Krieger a salary plus a bonus equal to 10% of fees collected from matters Krieger brought to the firm.
- Relying on those representations, Krieger turned down an existing job offer with the federal government and joined AKB.
- After Krieger started, he alleged AKB had high attorney turnover and management problems, including firing an attorney who refused to conceal evidence.
- Krieger further alleged the firm provided only limited support for his business-development efforts and, contrary to the recruiting statements, did not actually have an established partner track.
- About a year and a half after he joined, AKB terminated Krieger without making him a partner.
- Krieger alleged AKB never created the promised “senior trial attorney” role and instead held him out publicly as an associate.
- Krieger also alleged AKB failed to pay all compensation promised, including paying only part of his second and final 10% bonus.
- Krieger sued AKB for fraudulent inducement (based on the recruiting statements and his decision to forgo the federal job) and for breach of employment-related promises. AKB moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the recruiting statements about firm stability, an “established partner track,” near-term partnership, creation of a “senior trial attorney” position, and a 10% origination bonus could be treated as actionable misrepresentations of existing fact or present intent, rather than nonactionable opinion or predictions about the future.
2. Whether Krieger produced enough evidence of reasonable reliance—especially his decision to reject a federal-government job offer—to allow a jury to decide causation and damages on the fraud claim.
3. Whether the alleged compensation promise (10% of collected fees on originated matters) and other concrete employment terms were sufficiently definite to support contract-based claims for amounts allegedly unpaid.
4. Whether genuine disputes of material fact required denial of summary judgment on Krieger’s fraud and breach claims.

## Decision

- The court largely denied AKB’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact about what Begy and the firm promised during recruiting and whether the statements were false when made.
- The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Krieger reasonably relied on the recruiting representations, including by turning down a federal-government job offer.
- The court held that disputes about the existence and amount of the promised 10% origination-fee bonus, and whether AKB underpaid it, were not suitable for resolution on summary judgment.
- To the extent any recruiting statements could be characterized as generalized sales talk or predictions, the court treated those as less likely to support liability; however, the record supported sending the core fraud and promise-based disputes to a jury.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find for the nonmovant on material elements such as falsity, reliance, and damages.
- Under Illinois fraud principles, liability generally requires a false statement of material fact; statements about existing conditions (such as a firm’s current practices or the existence of an established advancement process) may be actionable if false when made.
- Promises about future action can support fraud when there is evidence the speaker lacked a present intent to perform or when the statements are tied to a broader course of deceptive conduct.
- Reliance and damages in fraudulent-inducement cases may include a lost-opportunity theory when the plaintiff can show he declined a concrete alternative (here, a federal job offer) because of the defendant’s representations.
- Even if an employment relationship is terminable at will, an employee may still pursue payment of specific, measurable compensation allegedly promised and earned during employment.

## Conclusion

In Krieger v. Adler, Kaplan & Begy, the court found that disputes over the firm’s recruiting representations—covering firm stability, advancement structure, a promised interim title, and a defined 10% origination bonus—could not be resolved as a matter of law, and that a jury could reasonably find reliance and damages based on Krieger’s decision to reject a federal job offer; accordingly, the court largely denied the firm’s summary-judgment motion and allowed the central fraud and compensation claims to proceed.


Krieger v. Adler, Kaplan & Begy, 1997 WL 323827 (1997)