gross error in Illinois

2004This court concluded that conversion of client funds to one’s own use is “an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, *** is a gross violation of the attorney’s oath, calling for the attorney’s disbarment.” Stillo, 68 Ill. 2d at 54 .

2004This court concluded that conversion of client funds to one’s own use is “an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, *** is a gross violation of the attorney’s oath, calling for the attorney’s disbarment.” Stillo , 68 Ill. 2d at 54 .

1982(See, e.g., In re Fumo (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 307 ; In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 50 ; In re Lingle (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 459 ; In re Patlak (1938), 368 Ill. 547 .) As this court stated in In re Stillo (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 49 , 54: “When a lawyer *** converts a client’s funds to his own personal use he commits an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, such conversion is a gross violation of the attorney’s oath, calling for the attorney’s disbarment.” (In re Royal (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 458, 464 ; In re Ahern (1962), 26 Ill. 2d 104, 110 .) Any mitigating factors u

1982(See, e.g., In re Fumo (1972), 52 Ill.2d 307 ; In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill.2d 50 ; In re Lingle (1963), 27 Ill.2d 459 ; In re Patlak (1938), 368 Ill. 547 .) As this court stated in In re Stillo (1977), 68 Ill.2d 49 , 54: "When a lawyer * * * converts a client's funds to his own personal use he commits an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, such conversion is a gross violation of the attorney's oath, calling for the attorney's disbarment." ( In re Royal (1963), 29 Ill.2d 458, 464 ; In re Ahern (1962), 26 Ill.2d 104, 110 .) Any mitigating factors urge

1982(See, e.g., In re Fumo (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 307 ; In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 50 ; In re Lingle (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 459 ; In re Patlak (1938), 368 Ill. 547 .) As this court stated in In re Stillo (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 49 , 54: “When a lawyer *** converts a client’s funds to his own personal use he commits an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, such conversion is a gross violation of the attorney’s oath, calling for the attorney’s disbarment.” (In re Royal (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 458, 464 ; In re Ahern (1962), 26 Ill. 2d 104, 110 .) Any mitigating factors u

1982(See, e.g., In re Fumo (1972), 52 Ill.2d 307 ; In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill.2d 50 ; In re Lingle (1963), 27 Ill.2d 459 ; In re Patlak (1938), 368 Ill. 547 .) As this court stated in In re Stillo (1977), 68 Ill.2d 49 , 54: "When a lawyer * * * converts a client's funds to his own personal use he commits an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, such conversion is a gross violation of the attorney's oath, calling for the attorney's disbarment." ( In re Royal (1963), 29 Ill.2d 458, 464 ; In re Ahern (1962), 26 Ill.2d 104, 110 .) Any mitigating factors urge

1992Stat. 1989, ch. 10, par. 112(a).) Case law has established that in addition to the grounds stated above, an arbitration award may be vacated if it results in the contravention of a paramount consideration of public policy (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State of Illinois (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 246, 260 , 529 N.E.2d 534 ), where a gross error of law or fact appears on the face of the award (Rauh v. Rockford Products Corp. (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 377, 393 , 574 N.E.2d 636 ), or where the award fails to dispose of all matters properly submitted to the arbitrators (Harris v

1992Stat. 1989, ch. 10, par. 112(a).) Case law has established that in addition to the grounds stated above, an arbitration award may be vacated if it results in the contravention of a paramount consideration of public policy (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State of Illinois (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 246, 260 , 529 N.E.2d 534 ), where a gross error of law or fact appears on the face of the award (Rauh v. Rockford Products Corp. (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 377, 393 , 574 N.E.2d 636 ), or where the award fails to dispose of all matters properly submitted to the arbitrators (Harris v

2011Chicago Teachers Union, 86 Ill. 2d at 477 .

1995Board of Education v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 469, 477 , 427 N.E.2d 1199, 1202 .

2010A panel exceeds its authority when “ ‘all fair and reasonable minds would agree that the construction of the contract made by the arbitrator was not possible under a fair interpretation of the contract.’ ” Garver v. Ferguson, 76 Ill. 2d 1, 9-10 , 389 N.E.2d 1181 (1979), quoting M.

2010A panel exceeds its authority when “ ‘all fair and reasonable minds would agree that the construction of the contract made by the arbitrator was not possible under a fair interpretation of the contract.’ ” Garver v. Ferguson, 76 Ill. 2d 1, 9-10 , 389 N.E.2d 1181 (1979), quoting M.

2007The Doctors' Company argues that this is gross error, and it points to Martin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 348 Ill.

2007The Doctors’ Company argues that this is gross error, and it points to Martin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 348 Ill.

2007The Doctors' Company points to the appellate court's pronouncement in American Service Insurance Co. v. Passarelli, 323 Ill.

2007The Doctors’ Company points to the appellate court’s pronouncement in American Service Insurance Co. v. Passarelli, 323 Ill.

2004Later, in In re Feldman, 89 Ill. 2d 7 (1982), this court ordered disbarment of an attorney who converted client funds and then compounded his wrongdoing by signing another client’s name on checks to obtain funds so that he could cover up the earlier conversion.

2004Later, in In re Feldman , 89 Ill. 2d 7 (1982), this court ordered disbarment of an attorney who converted client funds and then compounded his wrongdoing by signing another client’s name on checks to obtain funds so that he could cover up the earlier conversion.

2001App. 3d 916 , 628 N.E.2d 577 (1993) (defendant’s disagreement with arbitrator’s interpretation of the evidence does not constitute a gross error of law or facts).

2001App. 3d 916 , 628 N.E.2d 577 (1993) (defendant's disagreement with arbitrator's interpretation of the evidence does not constitute a gross error of law or facts).

2001Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. v. Van Den Bergh Foods Co., 276 Ill.

2001Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. v. Van Den Bergh Foods , 276 Ill.

1999App. 3d 678 , 584 N.E.2d 317 (1991)), or when a gross error of law or fact appears on the face of the award (Thomas v. Leyva, 276 Ill.

1999App. 3d 678 , 584 N.E.2d 317 (1991)), or when a gross error of law or fact appears on the face of the award ( Thomas v. Leyva , 276 Ill.

1999App. 3d 678 , 584 N.E.2d 317 (1991)), or when a gross error of law or fact appears on the face of the award (Thomas v. Leyva, 276 Ill.

1999App. 3d 678 , 584 N.E.2d 317 (1991)), or when a gross error of law or fact appears on the face of the award ( Thomas v. Leyva , 276 Ill.

1979(In re Agin [1970], 45 Ill. 2d 126, 131 .) When a lawyer, further, converts a client’s funds to his own personal use he commits an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, such conversion is a gross violation of the attorney’s oath, calling for the attorney’s disbarment.

1977(In re Agin, 45 Ill. 2d 126, 131 .) When a lawyer, further, converts a client’s funds to his own personal use he commits an act involving moral turpitude, and, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, such conversion is a gross violation of the attorney’s oath, calling for the attorney’s disbarment.

2020Indeed, giving the admonishment then would have been a gross error: it was too late to file a motion to vacate the judgment and withdraw the guilty plea. -9- 2020 IL App (2d) 180087 ¶ 27 Defendant’s third and fourth claims of error relate to the proceedings following his pro se motion.

2020Id.

2020“A gross error of law exists only where it appears from the face of the award that the arbitrator was so mistaken as to the law that, if the arbitrator had been informed of the mistake, the award would have been different.” Id. ¶ 20 No gross error of law appears on the face of the arbitration award as to the breach of oral contract claim, as the arbitrator correctly cited case law holding that for an oral contract to be -7- No. 1-19-2329 binding, the material terms of the agreement must be definite enough to determine the parties’ intent.

2009App. 3d at 130 , 845 N.E.2d at 862 . “[A] court may only vacate an arbitration award where a gross error of law or fact appears on the award’s face.” Beatty, 374 Ill.

2009App. 3d at 563 , 871 N.E.2d at 142 , citing Galasso, 364 Ill.

2007Yorulmazoglu, 359 Ill.

1996To quote Smith , an appraisal of $111,900 for a building purchased a week earlier for a fair-market value of $21,000 and having no special value to the insured is "absurd." Smith, 219 Ill.App. at 511 .