Its a concept rarely seen or heard, and even more rarely invoked because of the county, not country where the law suit is brought.  Guess?  The law firm is defending itself in this legal malpractice case, and has a little too much time on its hands.

The Madison County Record, a newspaper which frequently features news about legal malpractice reports:

"The Illinois Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon unanimously affirmed St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto’s decision to deny a motion to dismiss a legal malpractice case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Rick Rosen and the Rosen Law Firm had argued to Cueto that St. Clair County was an inappropriate forum for Ivan Brant’s professional negligence and fraud claims arising from the defendants’ representation of the plaintiff.

Rosen and his law firm are both reside in St. Clair County.

Brant filed a six-count complaint against Rosen, the law firm, and a third defendant, Dwight Hardin, who is employed as a consultant by Rosen’s firm.

He alleged that he retained Rosen and the law firm to represent him in his Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for damages against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad, for injuries he received during the course of his employment.

Brant alleged that both Rosen and Hardin told him that they were licensed, practicing attorneys, even though Hardin allegedly was not an attorney.

Brant alleged Rosen and Hardin negligently "instructed and counseled" him to settle his FELA case against the railroad for less than its fair value, failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the liability and damage evidence, and settled his case without filing suit or conducting any discovery and before he attained maximum medical improvement.

He also alleged that he received substantially less in settlement for his case than it was worth and, therefore, "suffered significant damages in the form of inappropriate compensation for past and future medical expenses, past and future wages, pain, suffering, disability and disfigurement."

In addition to the professional negligence claims, Brant also claimed that each defendant was guilty of fraud because Rosen, individually and through the law firm and Hardin made several untrue statements.

According to Brant, he was told that he was required to accept Union Pacific’s settlement offer of $150,000 or be forced to accept $20,000 and relocate to Utah as a security guard. "