A former executive at a now-defunct legal advocacy group launched by retired Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner has lost his attempt to recover $170,000 in alleged back pay. On Monday, an Indiana federal court ruled the claims by pro se litigant Brian Vukadinovich were both untimely and based on an unenforceable oral agreement.

U.S. District Judge Theresa L. Springmann granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Posner, finding that the alleged contract failed to meet the requirements under Indiana’s statute of frauds. She also determined that the unjust enrichment claim was brought too late to proceed.

Oral Agreement Collapses Under Legal Scrutiny

At the heart of the dispute was an alleged oral contract between Vukadinovich, a retired Indiana schoolteacher, and Judge Posner. Vukadinovich claimed that after being hired in February 2018 at an annual salary of $80,000 to lead the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's, Judge Posner later verbally promised a $120,000 lump sum payment after one year of service.

However, Judge Springmann found that because the terms of the agreement included a promise not intended to be fulfilled within a year, it fell under Indiana’s statute of frauds, which requires such contracts to be in writing. “The plaintiff has not offered evidence of an exception that removes this action from the Indiana Statute of Frauds,” the judge wrote.

Timeliness Sinks Unjust Enrichment Claim

Although unjust enrichment can sometimes provide a legal remedy when a contract is unenforceable, that path was also closed to Vukadinovich. He argued the claim accrued in July 2020 when payment was allegedly due. But the court determined the clock started ticking in July 2019, when Vukadinovich ceased working for the center—placing the May 2022 filing outside the allowable window.

“The court concludes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact” regarding the statute of limitations, Judge Springmann said in her decision.

Plaintiff Decries Ruling, Vows to Appeal

Vukadinovich, who represented himself throughout the case, expressed outrage in comments to Law360, describing the ruling as “corrupt and rotten to the core” and claiming the proceeding was “rigged.”

He also criticized the court’s denial of his request to reopen discovery, accusing Judge Springmann of shielding Posner and his legal team from potential exposure to “tax and financial crimes.” The court rejected that assertion, with Judge Springmann affirming the magistrate judge’s earlier ruling that discovery had been properly closed.

Vukadinovich stated that he intends to appeal the decision and will seek to have the matter heard in a different district.

Posner’s Legal Team Prevails

Judge Posner, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease after the Posner Center dissolved, was represented by attorneys Steven F. Molo, Kenneth E. Notter III, and Justin M. Ellis of MoloLamken LLP, along with David Beach of Eichhorn & Eichhorn LLP.

The lawsuit marked a dramatic post-retirement legal chapter for Judge Posner, once one of the most influential jurists on the federal appellate bench, known for his prolific opinions and unorthodox legal thinking.