Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito, 2017 IL 121297

Ferris, Thompson & Zweig (plaintiff) and Esposito (defendant) executed joint retainer agreements in 10 workers’ compensation cases where fees were split 55/45 and defendant handled primary representation before the Commission.
The agreements disclosed the fee split, described each firm’s duties, were signed by clients (English or Spanish versions), and stated clients approved the terms.
After settlements yielded $109,390.89 in attorney fees, Esposito refused to pay Ferris its 45% share; Ferris sued for breach of contract and prejudgment interest.
Esposito moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, arguing the retainer agreements violated Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) because they did not expressly notify clients that the lawyers assumed joint financial responsibility when the primary service was a referral.
The trial court granted dismissal relying on the First District’s Fohrman decision; the Second District reversed, holding Rule 1.5(e) does not require written client notice that the attorneys assumed joint financial responsibility.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, affirmed the appellate court, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fee‑sharing referral agreements are unenforceable under Rule 1.5(e) unless the written client consent expressly states the lawyers have assumed joint financial responsibility	Ferris: Rule 1.5(e) does not require that the client writing expressly state the attorneys’ joint financial responsibility; written consent need only confirm the arrangement and fee shares	Esposito: Rule 1.5(e) (as construed in Fohrman) requires express written notice to the client that the lawyers assume joint financial responsibility when the primary service is a referral, or the agreement is unenforceable	Court: Rejected Esposito’s reading. Rule 1.5(e) imposes three separate conditions (joint financial responsibility between lawyers when referral is primary; client’s written agreement confirming arrangement and shares; reasonableness of total fee). The written client consent need not expressly state the joint financial responsibility.

People v. Dominguez, 2012 IL 111336 (Illinois Supreme Court decision on rule interpretation principles)
In re Storment, 203 Ill. 2d 378 (Ill. 2002) (explains joint financial/partnership‑type responsibility for referrals)
Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811 (Ill. 2014) (standard for 2‑615 motion review)
Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito, 2015 IL 117443 (Ill. 2015) (prior opinion addressing jurisdictional posture of related dispute)