Ferris, Thompson, & Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito, 60 N.E.3d 160

Ferris, Thompson & Zweig (plaintiff) and Anthony Esposito (defendant) had a long-standing referral relationship for workers’ compensation clients; referral agreements signed by client, plaintiff, and Esposito allocated services and fee splits.
Plaintiff sued Esposito after he refused to pay under 10 referral agreements executed between 2007 and 2010; those agreements did not expressly state that the lawyers assumed “joint financial responsibility.”
Esposito moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, arguing the referral agreements were unenforceable because they failed to comply with Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e)(1).
The trial court granted dismissal; plaintiff appealed. Esposito did not file an appellee brief to this court.
The central legal question became whether Rule 1.5(e) requires a written referral agreement to expressly state that the lawyers assume “joint financial responsibility.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a written referral agreement must expressly state the attorneys assume “joint financial responsibility” under Ill. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.5(e)	Rule 1.5(e)(2) requires only that the writing confirm the client’s agreement to the arrangement and the share each lawyer will receive; it does not demand an express statement of joint financial responsibility	The agreements are unenforceable because they do not expressly state the attorneys assume joint financial responsibility as required by Rule 1.5(e)(1)	Court held plaintiff made a prima facie case of error; language, history, and committee comments support that the writing need not expressly state joint financial responsibility; reversed and remanded

Vernon v. Schuster, 179 Ill.2d 338 (Illinois 1997) (standard for section 2-615 motion).
Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422 (Illinois 2006) (de novo review of 2-615 dismissals).
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill.2d 128 (Illinois 1976) (appellate court may not affirm when appellee fails to file brief unless record simple).
In re Marriage of Nettleton, 348 Ill. App.3d 961 (Ill. App. 2004) (rules of construction applied to court rules).
Macknin v. Macknin, 404 Ill. App.3d 520 (Ill. App. 2010) (plain-meaning application to rule language).
People v. King, 349 Ill. App.3d 877 (Ill. App. 2004) (examining rule purpose when ambiguous).
In re Estate of Burd, 354 Ill. App.3d 434 (Ill. App. 2004) (use of committee comments to discern rule drafters’ intent).
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hayek, 349 Ill. App.3d 890 (Ill. App. 2004) (court must not read additional requirements into rule language).
Department of Transportation v. Singh, 393 Ill. App.3d 458 (Ill. App. 2009) (last-antecedent rule of construction applied).
In re Storment, 203 Ill.2d 378 (Illinois 2003) (discussion of referring lawyer’s financial responsibility for malpractice).