Zacarias v. RWE Management
Opinion
2019 IL App (1st) 191129-U FIRST DISTRICT,
SECOND DIVISION
December 24, 2019
No. 1-19-1129
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CARLOS ZACARIAS, )
)
Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
Circuit Court of
v. )
Cook County, Illinois.
)
RWE MANAGEMENT, )
No. 2016 L 001222
)
Defendant )
Honorable
)
Patricia O’Brien Sheahan, (Shea Law Group, )
Judge Presiding.
)
Third-Party Appellee). )
JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Trial court’s award of attorney fees affirmed where record on appeal was insufficient to determine the basis of trial court’s judgment.
¶2 This appeal concerns a dispute about attorney fees between plaintiff Carlos Zacarias and his former counsel, Shea Law Group.
¶3 In 2014, Zacarias was injured in a construction accident. He retained Shea to represent him on a contingency fee basis in a personal injury action and a workers’ compensation claim. Attorney Brian Hercule was assigned to Zacarias’ case. Six weeks later, Hercule left Shea’s employ and joined The Law Offices of John S. Eliasik. Zacarias discharged Shea and retained Hercule, now at Eliasik, to continue representing him.
¶4 Shea filed a fee petition claiming an attorney’s lien for the value of the work it did on Zacarias’ behalf. After a hearing, the trial court awarded $5400 to Shea on the basis of quantum meruit. Zacarias now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶5 BACKGROUND
¶6 On July 26, 2014, Zacarias fell from a scaffold while working and was hospitalized with severe injuries. Shortly thereafter, he contacted Shea to discuss the possibility of litigation. On July 28, two of Shea’s attorneys—Hercule and James Lawlor III—met with Zacarias in the hospital. Zacarias hired Shea on a contingency fee basis to represent him in a workers’ compensation claim and a personal injury action against the general contractor (defendant RWE Management, which is not involved in this appeal).
¶7 Because Zacarias only spoke Spanish, and Hercule also spoke Spanish, Hercule was Zacarias’ primary contact at Shea. Hercule and Lawlor worked on Zacarias’ case for six weeks until September 5, 2014, when Hercule left Shea to begin working for Eliasik. On September 24, 2014, Zacarias discharged Shea and retained Hercule at Eliasik. Hercule represented Zacarias through 2019, when Zacarias settled both of his claims.
¶8 Meanwhile, Shea filed a fee petition claiming an attorney’s lien for the value of the work it did on Zacarias’ behalf. Shea and Zacarias engaged in negotiations regarding the disputed
fees. On January 11, 2019, Patrick Brooks, one of Shea’s attorneys, sent an email to Hercule with the subject “Carlos Zacarias v. Salto Construction (14 WC 26846),” stating:
“By my calculations, Shea Law Group has approximately seven (7) hours spent on this case at the very beginning before Eliasik’s office took over. Most of that time was spent visiting client in hospital to sign up, investigation of third-party action and filing of WC claim. I would be willing to accept $1,400.00 ($200.00 per hour X 7 hours).”
Hercule agreed to that sum, and Zacarias paid $1400 to Shea.
¶9 Notwithstanding Zacarias’ payment, Shea continued to assert its lien, and further negotiations between the parties were unsuccessful. On March 21, 2019, Zacarias filed a motion to adjudicate Shea’s lien, arguing that his payment of $1400 constituted full compensation for Shea’s work on his case.
¶ 10 Shea filed a response arguing that Zacarias’ payment only covered the work done on his workers’ compensation claim, and that Shea was still due compensation for the work it performed on Zacarias’ personal injury action. Brooks filed an affidavit in support, stating that his offer of $1400 was only meant to cover the workers’ compensation claim. Shea additionally stated that Hercule and Lawlor spent a “minimum” of 30 combined hours working on Zacarias’ case (though it did not describe those hours in any greater detail) and asserted that Lawlor was a “Super Lawyer” entitled to a fee of $300 per hour. Finally, Shea attached an affidavit from Erin Shea, the executive director of Shea, who stated that Hercule’s wages totaled $6000 from July 28 to September 5, 2014.
¶ 11 In his reply, Zacarias argued that Shea lacked an enforceable attorney’s lien because it failed to give him written notice of the lien as required by the Attorneys Lien Act (Act) (770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2018)). He additionally argued that Shea was not entitled to additional payment
on the basis of quantum meruit since, per Brooks’ email, Zacarias already paid Shea for “investigation of third-party action and filing of WC claim.”
¶ 12 Following a hearing on May 3, 2019, the trial court found that Shea was entitled to quantum meruit attorney fees in the amount of $5400, representing 18 hours of work at a rate of $300 per hour. It based that decision on “the facts alleged in both the defendant’s response and plaintiff’s reply briefs, including the affidavit of Patrick Brooks and the statements made by counsel about the considerable work done on the case during the 6 weeks.”
¶ 13 ANALYSIS
¶ 14 Zacarias argues that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed because (1) Shea failed to fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the Act and (2) Shea presented no evidence that it was entitled to fees on a quantum meruit basis. We review the trial court’s award of fees for an abuse of discretion. DeLapaz v. SelectBuild Construction, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 969, 972 (2009).
¶ 15 Under the Attorneys Lien Act, an attorney may assert a lien for the reasonable value of services performed, but he must first perfect the lien by serving notice in writing on the party against whom he has a claim. 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2018); People v. Philip Morris, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d 87, 95 (2001). An attorney who does not strictly comply with the Act has no lien rights. Philip Morris, 198 Ill. 2d at 95; see Unger v. Checker Taxi Co., 30 Ill. App. 2d 238, 241 (1961) (suit to enforce attorney’s lien was properly dismissed where plaintiff did not give defendant written notice of lien, even though defendant had actual notice). Here, Zacarias alleges that Shea never served him with the requisite written notice. Shea does not dispute this point and, therefore, has forfeited any argument as to its compliance with the Act. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(i) (eff. May 25, 2018).
¶ 16 Instead, Shea argues solely that it is entitled to fees under the common-law doctrine of quantum meruit. See Lewsader v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 296 Ill. App. 3d 169, 175 (1998) (even where a statutory attorney’s lien is unavailable, the trial court may still exercise its inherent equitable powers to award attorney fees). When an attorney is hired on a contingency fee basis and then discharged, the attorney is entitled to payment for services rendered on the basis of quantum meruit, literally, “as much as he deserves.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DeLapaz, 394 Ill. App. 3d at 973. In determining a proper fee, the court considers such factors as the amount of time spent, the attorney’s skill and standing, the novelty and difficulty of the subject matter, the typical fee charged for such work, and the benefits to the client. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2019 IL App (1st) 191129-U (Zacarias v. RWE Management) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.