## Facts

- Real-estate and gaming-project developers retained a law firm and one of its partners to advise on development of an Oklahoma Indian gaming facility.
- The proposed site was Indian land, but tribal jurisdiction over the site was disputed between two tribes.
- The attorneys’ work included assessing regulatory requirements, drafting documents, meeting with regulators, and seeking legal and regulatory approvals.
- Plaintiffs alleged the attorneys assured them that jurisdictional issues would be resolved in plaintiffs’ favor and that an adverse agency ruling would not prevent the casino from opening and operating.
- After one tribe issued a gaming license to one plaintiff entity, plaintiffs alleged the attorneys advised the project could proceed without additional governmental permits or approvals.
- The State of Oklahoma later sued to stop the project, and a preliminary injunction issued but was vacated on appeal; no final adjudication resolved the jurisdiction question.
- While appellate proceedings were pending, the National Indian Gaming Commission issued a memorandum with a preliminary determination that required tribal jurisdiction over the site did not exist.
- Plaintiffs sued for legal malpractice, alleging they invested substantial funds in reliance on negligent advice and suffered losses when the project was enjoined and ultimately failed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged proximate causation and non-speculative damages where the underlying legality and regulatory permissibility of gaming at the site remained unresolved.
2. Whether the alleged faulty legal advice was non-actionable under Illinois law because it involved good-faith judgment on unsettled questions of law concerning tribal jurisdiction and Indian gaming regulation.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held plaintiffs did not plausibly plead proximate causation and cognizable damages because their alleged losses depended on unresolved and contested legal and regulatory determinations.
- The court held the challenged advice concerned uncertain and debatable legal questions, bringing the claim within Illinois’ protection for attorney judgment on unsettled law.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois law, legal malpractice requires pleading: (1) an attorney-client relationship, (2) a breach of duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) damages.
- Proximate cause and damages are inadequately pled when liability depends on speculative assumptions about how other courts or agencies would resolve unresolved legal issues.
- Illinois generally does not impose malpractice liability for a good-faith error of professional judgment on unsettled, doubtful, or debatable questions of law where reasonable lawyers could differ.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the malpractice action because plaintiffs’ alleged losses rested on conjecture about unresolved tribal-jurisdiction and regulatory outcomes, and the complained-of advice was treated as protected attorney judgment in an unsettled area of law rather than actionable negligence.


MCZ Dev. Corp. v. Dickinson Wright, PLLC, No. 13 C 6395, 2015 WL 7008134 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2015)