Daniel v. AON Corp.
952 N.E.2d 638
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- This appeal concerns an action for additional attorney fees in a settled class action against Aon Corp.
- Six law firms (Kirby McInerny & Squire, Futterman & Howard, The Jacobs Law Firm, Edward Joyce & Associates, Patchett Law Firm, Freed & Weiss) formed Williamson counsel in the Williamson ratio to the Daniel v. Aon action.
- December 28, 2000 letter agreement provided Williamson counsel with 15% off the top of plaintiffs’ fees and other work allocations.
- The class settlement awarded $19 million in fees to class counsel; plaintiff collected $43,931.50 lodestar for 142.8 hours; the Williamson dispute centered on the 15% off-the-top share.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff sought additional $950,000; the circuit court later released the funds to defendants.
- Court analyzes whether common fund doctrine and fee-sharing agreements justify additional fees and applies Rule 1.5(e) requirements to any fee division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to additional fees from the 15% off-the-top award. | Daniel argues prior work and joint venture entitle 950,000. | Defendants claim no work beyond lodestar; fee sharing violates Rule 1.5(e). | No; no further fees permitted. |
| Whether the 15% off-the-top award was for Williamson’s work proportionally and enforceable. | Letters and joint venture imply 1/3 of 15% to plaintiff. | Agreement fails Rule 1.5(e); no proper basis to allocate beyond lodestar. | Not enforceable; allocation invalid. |
| Whether Rule 1.5(e) requirements were satisfied to permit fee division. | Substantial compliance supports equal sharing. | No written, proportional division; silent on labor performed; not compliant. | Not satisfied; noncompliant with Rule 1.5(e). |
| Whether a joint venture exists to permit fee sharing. | Williamson counsel formed joint venture with defendants. | Joint venture requires enforceable fee agreement; not shown. | Even if joint venture exists, no enforceable fee agreement shown. |
| Whether the court should adopt a lodestar or percentage-of-fund approach for common fund fees. | Either method could justify a larger fee. | Fees must reflect contribution to the fund; plaintiff failed to show additional work. | Either method yields no additional fees; lodestar already paid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B., 168 Ill. 2d 235 (1995) (common fund fees; ownership of fund; equitable recovery)
- West American Ins. Co. v. J.R. Construction Co., 334 Ill. App. 3d 75 (2002) (de novo review for section 155 attorney-fee awards on summary judgment)
- In re Agent Orange, 818 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1987) (fee-sharing agreements; cannot force based on expenses)
- Phillips v. Joyce, 169 Ill. App. 3d 520 (1988) (joint-venture fee sharing requires substantial compliance with Rule 1.5(e))
- Johnson v. Holstein, 133 Ill. 2d 516 (1989) (joint representation; enforceability of fee arrangements)