Antonacci v. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP

39 N.E.3d 225

Louis B. ANTONACCI, an individual, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, a Partnership, and Anita J. Ponder, an individual, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 1–14–2372.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Aug. 17, 2015.

Law Offices of Louis B. Antonacci, Washington, DC, Louis B. Antonacci, of counsel, for Appellant.

Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL, Matthew J. Gehringer and Bates McIntyre Larson, of counsel, for Appellees.

Stephen R. Patton, Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago, Chicago (Benna Ruth Solomon, Myriam Zreczny Kasper, and Suzanne M. Loose, of counsel), for Non–Party Appellee City of Chicago.

OPINION

Justice HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Louis B. Antonacci, appeals the order of the circuit court granting defendants Seyfarth Shaw, LLP (Seyfarth) and Anita J. Ponder's motion to dismiss his amended complaint alleging defamation per se, tortious interference, fraudulent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. Mr. Antonacci also seeks review of the court's denial of his second petition to substitute judge for cause, and its orders quashing subpoenas served upon the City of Chicago (City) and other third parties. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred (1) in dismissing his claim for defamation per se where Ms. Ponder suggested that Mr. Antonacci gave legal advice in violation of ethics rules and that Mr. Antonacci was to blame for a project being completed past the due date; (2) in dismissing his claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage where Ms. Ponder told lies about him and his work resulting in the termination of his employment with Seyfarth; (3) in dismissing his claim for fraudulent misrepresentation where Seyfarth attorneys affirmatively represented to Mr. Antonacci that Ms. Ponder was a good attorney to work for, and he relied on that misrepresentation in accepting an offer employment with Seyfarth (4) in denying his second petition for substitution of judge for cause where the trial judge displayed “favoritism and antagonism” making a “fair judgment impossible”; and (5) in quashing subpoenas he served upon the City of Chicago and other third parties.¹ For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 JURISDICTION

¶ 3 The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss upon reconsideration on July 23, 2014. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on July 29, 2014. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303 governing appeals from final judgments entered below. Ill. S.Ct. R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); R. 303 (eff. May 30, 2008).

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The following facts are relevant to the issues on appeal. In August 2011, Seyfarth hired Mr. Antonacci, who was licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C., as an attorney to support Ms. Ponder, a partner in its government contracts practice group in Chicago. According to Seyfarth's offer, Mr. Antonacci's employment was “at-will” meaning “either [Mr. Antonacci] or [Seyfarth] can terminate [his] employment with or without cause or notice.” Ms. Ponder assigned him to a project for the city that involved conducting interviews, research, and fact-finding.

¶ 6 The working relationship between Ms. Ponder and Mr. Antonacci became strained and on October 12, 2011, Seyfarth's professional development consultant Kelly Grofon sent an email to several members of Seyfarth's human resources staff after speaking with Ms. Ponder. The email, which addressed Ms. Ponder's “feedback” on Mr. Antonacci, stated:

“Trying to make the most of it, but it is not working out. Lou was hired primarily to work with her in Government Contract PG in Chicago, they even expedited hiring process. During hiring process, she explained the project without mentioning name of client to confirm his interest in work that he would be initially doing and confirm his capability in performing it. He assured them in process that he had significant interest in that project and developing firm's local Gov't Contract practice. He was hired knowing his experience was not state and local, but was federal. But, his asset was he had worked for another major law firm for a few years and would integrate well into our firm.

Shortly after he was hired, they had meetings with client that Anita thought he did not act appropriately in the sense that he was asking the wrong questions, providing advice to them, which he should not have been doing. A. he's not licensed in IL B. he wasn't knowledgeable about local procurement C. he wasn't knowledgeable of City of Chicago's process. Anita brought to his attention privately after meetings and Lou was very defensive. According to her, he handled criticism very inappropriately. He made comments undermining Anita's expertise in gov't procurement. The relationship continued to go downhill. He then had separate meetings with clients that Anita was aware of, but knew he had limited time to complete project. He missed deadlines that were initially set and have now been extended by the client and Anita. Recently, he told Anita he was able to meet the deadline and do the project. Then told her he couldn't, even with assistance with a second attorney. He had assured them in the interview he could do project on his own with limited supervision, but now can't.

Anita reported this to leadership (Kevin Connelly, Dave Rowland, Kate Perrelli). Kevin spoke with Lou and the Lou didn't show up to work one day after him/Anita had agreed to meet to discuss how to move forward. Lou gave Anita a revised schedule of what he could do by the deadline date and most of it was after the deadline date. So, Anita took on much more responsibility of the project and gave much of it to a Houston attorney. She told Lou he will not be responsible anymore for the project—but, Anita did give him another assignment, in which he was trying to reach out more to her and discuss with her and show interest. The attorney in Houston had to leave town for personal issue, so Lou agreed to do some work on her behalf yesterday. Anita found out Lou had reached out to pro bono director, which she assumed was to do more work without her. Now that license issue is coming up, his attitude has changed and he appears to act more interested the last few days. Anita feels his actions have been unsettling and inconsistent with what he portrayed in the interview.

She thinks her relationship with working with him in future is highly speculative. So, she does not feel we should be going out of our way to make exceptions for him and wants to leave door open for future options.

Let me know how you think we should proceed.”

¶ 7 In his amended complaint, Mr. Antonacci alleged that Ms. Ponder gave him the assignment “with an impending deadline, on which Ms. Ponder had done little or no work already.” Their working relationship was fine until September when “a discussion between Ms. Ponder and a client revealed that Ms. Ponder was wholly unaware of critical case law on the very issue on which she had been hired to provide legal guidance.” Embarrassed “that her ignorance had been exposed,” Ms. Ponder criticized Mr. Antonacci and yelled at him. She told him to review the relevant case law and prepare a memorandum summarizing the decisions.

¶ 8 On October 4, 2011, “Ms. Ponder set an arbitrary deadline of October 17, 2011, for Mr. Antonacci to present her with a substantially completed draft of the project” despite the fact the project was not due until three weeks after the deadline. She thus gave Mr. Antonacci two weeks to complete all of the work and reserved for herself three weeks for review. Mr. Antonacci alleged that this arbitrary deadline “was set by Ms. Ponder in a malicious attempt to criticize Mr. Antonacci and damage his career.”

¶ 9 Mr. Antonacci met with Seyfarth partners Jason Stiehl and Dave Rowland for guidance. Stiehl indicated that the firm was aware of complaints against Ms. Ponder's unreasonable and unprofessional behavior, and that Ms. Ponder was “on an island” because people refused to work with her. Rowland told him that others have found Ms. Ponder difficult to work with. On the advice of Stiehl and Rowland, Mr. Antonacci proposed an alternative schedule to Ms. Ponder for completion of the project. Mr. Antonacci alleged that Ms. Ponder called him into her office and proceeded “to scream at [him] in an unprofessional manner for approximately 90 minutes.” She made several accusations about his conduct and performance and although “he attempted to excuse himself from her office after 45 minutes, [she] insisted that he stay so that she could continue yelling at him for an additional 45 minutes.”

¶ 10 On the advice of Rowland, Mr. Antonacci spoke with partner Mary Kay Klimesh who suggested that he prepare a comprehensive schedule for completing the project on time. Mr. Antonacci alleged that “[u]nder the proposed schedule, [he] would be working every day and every weekend through the completion of the project, which would be well ahead of the client's deadline.” He sent the proposed schedule to Ms. Ponder who did not respond until four days later when she informed him in an email that he was no longer responsible for working on the project. After several weeks, however, “with Ms. Ponder unable to get any other attorneys to assist her with the project, Ms. Ponder again assigned Mr. Antonacci to complete the project.”

¶ 11 Mr. Antonacci alleged that Ms. Ponder made the statements in the email “to criticize Mr. Antonacci's professional judgment, diligence, and character in order to discredit him and threaten his employment, while at the same time protecting [her] reputation and employment.” He further alleged that “[u]pon information and belief, Ms. Ponder maliciously made numerous false statements concerning Mr. Antonacci to Ms. Pirelli, Ms. Gofron, Mr. Rowland, Mr. Connelly, and others.” He alleged “[u]pon information and belief,” Ms. Ponder made false statements to the client Mr....