Peterson v. Winston & Strawn LLP

729 F.3d 750 (2013)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Peterson v. Winston & Strawn LLP

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
729 F.3d 750 (2013)

SC
Play video

Facts

Gregory Bell’s mutual funds (the funds) invested most of the funds’ money in organizations run by Thomas Petters. The four directors of the funds lived abroad and delegated full control of the funds to Bell. Petters’s operation purportedly financed other businesses’ inventories. However, Petters’s operation was a Ponzi scheme. Bell admitted that he formally joined Petters’s scheme in 2008. Bell stated, however, that he was unaware of Petters’s scheme until 2008. In 2005, the funds hired Winston & Strawn LLP (defendant) to revise the funds’ mutual fund circular. The circular stated that the funds would verify the existence of the inventory invested in and would make sure that the businesses’ repayments were made directly to legitimate financial institutions. However, Bell informed Winston that Petters did not verify inventory or ensure direct repayments to financial institutions. Nevertheless, Winston prepared the revised circular that was distributed to prospective investors. After the collapse of the funds, Ronald Peterson (plaintiff), the funds’ trustee in bankruptcy, brought a legal malpractice suit against Winston, seeking damages. Peterson stated that Winston should have informed the funds’ directors of the fraud and made truthful assertions in the circular regarding the inventory verification and investment repayments. The district court dismissed the complaint based on the doctrine of in pari delicto, finding that Bell’s and the funds’ culpability was greater than Winston’s and that the funds therefore had no recourse against Winston. Peterson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership