 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. Hiter3/14/2005
note that the Firm would be precluded from receiving a percentage-based fee under its fee sharing agreement with Reske under Rule 1.5(f) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (134 Ill. 2d R. 1.5(f)).
Rule 1.5(f) provides, in pertinent part:
"(f) * lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not in the same firm, unless the client consents to employment of the other lawyer by signing a writing which discloses:
(1) that a division of fees will be made;
(2) the basis upon which the division will be made, including the economic benefit to be received by the other lawyer as a result of the division; and
(3) the responsibility to be assumed by the other lawyer for performance of the legal services in question." 134 Ill. 2d R. 1.5(f).
Our finding that the Firm and Reske engaged in a joint venture with respect to the Thompson wrongful death case hinged on our conclusion, as urged by the Firm, that Reske in representing the Thompsons was acting as a co-venturer rather than as an employee of the Firm. Consequently, both Reske and the Firm would be subject to the requirements of Rule 1.5(f) that when lawyers entered into a fee-sharing arrangement, they must disclose the terms of the fee sharing arrangement and obtain the clients' consent thereto in a written agreement. The contingent fee agreement in this case does not disclose the terms of the oral fee-sharing arrangement among the co-venturers and hence does not comply with the disclosure requirements of Rule 1.5(f), which must be strictly enforced. See, e.g., In re Spak, 188 Ill. 2d 53, 66-67, 719 N.E.2d 747, 754-55 (1999) (holding that there is no exception to Rule 1.5(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires that a contingent fee contract be in writing even where the client knew of the fee terms from the outset and the client herself confirmed the terms in writing). The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to all claims for fee sharing, regardless of whether the claim is asserted against the client or another attorney. Hofreiter v. Leigh, 124 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1055, 465 N.E.2d 110, 112-13 (1984) (applying Rule 2-107 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility (87 Ill. 2d R. 2-107), the predecessor to Rule 1.5, to a dispute between co-counsel over fees where one attorney was fired by client prior to settlement). Thus, the Firm and Reske's failure to comply with Rule 1.5(f) precludes enforcement of any oral fee-sharing agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court in favor of Reske is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McBRIDE and O'MALLEY, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|