Docket Nos. 90185, 90186–Agenda 38–May 2001.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. 

								PHILIP MORRIS, INC. (Hagen & Berman et al., Appellees).

Opinion fileid d October 18, 2001.

	JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

	The questions presented for review are: (1) does a circuit

court have jurisdiction to adjudicate an attorney’s lien against the

proceeds of a settlement where the State of Illinois was the plaintiff

in the underlying action and where the settlement funds have never

come into the possession or control of the state; and (2) did the

circuit court of Cook County abuse its discretion in this case by

establishing an escrow account to hold disputed attorney fees

pending adjudication of an attorney’s lien? We answer the first

question in the affirmative. We do not answer the second question

because it is premature.

BACKGROUND

	This cause is before us following a motion to dismiss pursuant

to sections 2–619(a)(1) and (a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure

(735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(1), (a)(9) (West 1998)). In ruling on a

section 2–619 motion to dismiss, the trial court may consider

pleadings, affidavits, and other proof presented by the parties.

Torcasso v. Standard Outdoor Sales, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 484, 486 (1993); Bloomingdale State Bank v. Woodland Sales Co., 186 Ill. App. 3d 227, 232 (1989); see generally 4 R. Michael, Illinois

Practice §41.8 (1989). The record contains the following facts.

	In April 1996, the Attorney General of Illinois began to

consider filing a civil lawsuit on behalf of the state against tobacco

companies. Throughout the summer and fall of 1996, the Attorney

General interviewed a number of law firms to represent Illinois in

its suit against the tobacco industry.

	The Attorney General chose the following law firms for the

position of “national counsel,” who would supervise tobacco

lawsuits in multiple states: Hagens & Berman, the law offices of

Steven C. Mitchell, Barrett Law Offices, and Lieff Cabraser

Heimann & Bernstein. The Attorney General also chose the firm of Freeborn & Peters for the position of “local counsel” in Illinois’

suit against the tobacco industry (firms hereafter referred to

collectively as “Illinois Special Counsel” or “ISC”). The ISC were

hired based on their expertise, professional reputations, and their

willingness to represent the state for a contingent fee.

	On September 17, 1996, the Attorney General announced that

Illinois would join other states in suing tobacco companies. The

lawsuit sought to recover Illinois’ share of billions of dollars spent

to treat smoking-related illnesses. The Attorney General predicted

a long fight in Illinois courts and conceded that the suit was “not

a dead-bang winner.” He wanted to ensure that Illinois would be

included in any possible settlements with tobacco companies. He

explained that his office would attempt to cover the expenses of

the costly suit by, inter alia, “asking private law firms to work on the case free.”

	On September 27, 1996, the Attorney General declared that

Illinois taxpayers would not pay the legal bill for his decision to sue

tobacco companies. He said that the state was looking for private

law firms wiling to “absorb the cost of the suit and eat the cost if

they don’t prevail. The taxpayers aren’t going to pay for it.” He

explained that the other states suing the tobacco industry “used

outside counsel because it’s an enormous undertaking. We don’t

have the resources within the office to do this alone.”

	On October 9, 1996, the Attorney General entered into a

“Contract Agreement for Legal Services” with national counsel

and, on November 12, entered into a similar contract with local

counsel (both contracts hereafter collectively referred to as

“contract”). Under the contract, which the Attorney General

drafted, Illinois Special Counsel were charged with the

responsibility of representing the state in litigation against the

tobacco industry. The Attorney General retained “final authority

over all aspects of the litigation” that affected the state’s claims.

Illinois Special Counsel were obligated to “consult and obtain the

prior approval” of a member of the Attorney General’s staff

“concerning all policy and other major, substantive issues affecting

the litigation.”

	Regarding compensation, the contract provided in pertinent

part that neither the state nor the office of the Attorney General was “liable for payment of compensation otherwise than from

amounts collected for the State of Illinois” and that compensation

would be contingent upon recovery of monies, whether by

settlement or agreement, from those liable for damages. The

contingent fee would be: “Ten percent (10%) of the total recovery

to the State of Illinois.” Also, Illinois Special Counsel would

absorb the costs of the litigation; ISC would be reimbursed only in

the event of a recovery.

	According to Richard Stock, the Attorney General’s chief of

staff: “This fee arrangement allowed the State of Illinois to pursue

the tobacco industry without having to risk any taxpayer dollars on

attorneys’ fees or costs.” At the time of the contract, the 10%

contingent fee “was the lowest agreement of its kind amongst the

states which had brought actions against the industry.” Stock

averred: “At the time it was negotiated, I and all who worked on

this issue in my office believed that the ten percent was fair and

reasonable based upon the risk involved.”

	On November 12, 1996, Illinois Special Counsel filed a

complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against members of

the tobacco industry. In announcing the suit, the Attorney General

repeated his explanation for employing private law firms based on

a contingent fee. He added: “If they lose they’re paid nothing.”

	On November 13, 1998, the proposed settlement of the

tobacco litigation was announced. On November 20, the Attorney

General announced that Illinois would join in the settlement. On

November 23, 1998, Illinois entered into the “Master Settlement

Agreement” (MSA). Under the MSA, Illinois is to receive from the

tobacco defendants approximately $9 billion to $360 million

annually for 25 years. Thereafter, the tobacco industry will

continue to make payments in perpetuity based on factors such as

the volume of tobacco products sold and the fiscal health of the

settling private tobacco companies.

	Section 17 of the MSA, with its implementing document

(“Illinois Fee Payment Agreement”), provided that the tobacco

defendants pay a liquidated or arbitrated fee to Illinois Special

Counsel to reduce the amount of fees owed. An arbitration panel

awarded ISC $121 million, which would be paid over

approximately 25 years and deducted from their contingent fee.

	On December 8, 1998, the circuit court approved the MSA

and entered a “Consent Decree and Final Judgment” incorporating

the MSA. Under the consent decree, the circuit court retained

jurisdiction over the case, including the settlement funds to be

distributed by the tobacco company defendants. With limited

exceptions not applicable here, section VII of the consent decree

recognized that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction to

implement and enforce the decree.

	On September 28, 1999, Illinois Special Counsel served notice

of their attorney’s lien pursuant to the Attorneys Lien Act (770

ILCS 5/1 (West 1998)). Based on their contingent fee agreement

with the Attorney General, they claimed a lien of 10% of any

amount recovered from the tobacco defendants.

	On December 22, 1999, Illinois Special Counsel petitioned the

circuit court to adjudicate its attorney’s lien. The State moved to

dismiss the petition; the court denied the motion. Illinois Special

Counsel moved to establish an escrow account. The court ordered

the State and the tobacco defendants to direct that 10% of all

settlement payments be deposited into the account pending a

decision on the merits of the lien petition. In opposing the

attorney’s lien petition and the escrow account, the State argued

that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the

entire lien proceeding.

	The State appealed from the circuit court’s escrow order

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307 (188 Ill. 2d R. 307); the

appellate court dismissed the appeal. While that appeal was

pending, the circuit court certified the following question for

permissive interlocutory appeal (see 155 Ill. 2d R. 308):

		“Does the Circuit Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a

petition under the Attorney’s Lien Act brought by counsel

for the State of Illinois, against the proceeds of a

settlement, where the State of Illinois was the plaintiff in

the underlying action and where the settlement funds have

never come into the possession or control of the State?”

The appellate court denied the State’s application for leave to

appeal.

	We allowed and consolidated the State’s separate petitions for

leave to appeal from the appellate court’s: (1) dismissal of the

State’s Rule 307 appeal; and (2) denial of the State’s Rule 308

appeal (177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)). The Coalition for Consumer Rights

and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association each sought leave to

submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Illinois Special Counsel, which we now grant (see 155 Ill. 2d R. 345).

DISCUSSION

	The purpose of a motion to dismiss under section 2–619 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2–619 (West 1998)) is to

afford litigants a means to dispose of issues of law and easily

proved issues of fact at the outset of a case, reserving disputed

questions of fact for a trial. Section 2–619(a)(1) allows dismissal

when “the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of

the action,” and subsection (a)(9) allows dismissal when “the claim

asserted *** is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal

effect of or defeating the claim.” 735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(1), (a)(9)

(West 1998). Specifically, a section 2–619(a)(9) motion to dismiss

admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s action much in the

same way as a section 2–615 motion to dismiss admits a

complaint’s well-pleaded facts. Review is de novo. Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 115-17 (1993).

I. Attorney’s Lien

	Illinois circuit courts have original jurisdiction over all

justiciable matters. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §9. However, it is well

settled that when a court’s power is controlled by statute, the court

is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction. While the legislature

generally has no power to limit or preclude a court’s constitutional

jurisdiction to hear a matter, an exception exists when the

legislature creates a right having no counterpart in common law or

equity, since the legislature has defined the justiciable matter by enacting the

statute. In re M.M., 156 Ill. 2d 53, 65-66 (1993); DeKing v. Urban Investment & Development Co., 155 Ill. App. 3d 594, 596-97 (1987) (and cases cited therein).

	The Attorneys Lien Act provides in pertinent part:

			“Attorneys at law shall have a lien upon all claims ***

which may be placed in their hands by their clients for suit

or collection *** for the amount of any fee which may

have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys and

their clients ***. To enforce such lien, such attorneys shall

serve notice in writing *** upon the party against whom

their clients may have such suits *** claiming such lien

and stating therein the interest they have ***. Such lien shall attach to any verdict, judgment or order entered and

to any money or property which may be recovered ***

from and after the time of service of the notice. On

petition filed by such attorneys or their clients any court of

competent jurisdiction shall, on not less than 5 days’

notice to the adverse party, adjudicate the rights of the

parties and enforce the lien.” 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 1998).

The Act sets forth the requirements for effective liens. The attorney

must have been hired by a client to assert a claim. The attorney

must then perfect the lien by serving notice, in writing, upon the

party against whom the client has the claim. The lien attaches from

and after the time of the service of the statutory notice. Rhoades v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 78 Ill. 2d 217, 227 (1979).

	The Act “creates new rights which have heretofore not been

recognized in this State.” Standidge v. Chicago Rys. Co., 254 Ill. 524, 533 (1912). Since the attorney’s lien is a creature of statute,

the Act must be strictly construed, both as to establishing the lien

and as to the right of action for its enforcement. Attorneys who do

not strictly comply with the Act have no lien rights. Haj v. American Bottle Co., 261 Ill. 362, 366 (1913); DeKing, 155 Ill. App. 3d at 597; Unger v. Checker Taxi Co., 30 Ill. App. 2d 238, 241-42 (1961).

	Once the attorney’s lien is perfected, upon petition “any court

of competent jurisdiction” may adjudicate the lien. 770 ILCS 5/1

(West 1998). This includes the circuit court that heard the

underlying matter (Standidge, 254 Ill. at 533), or the circuit court that has jurisdiction over the money recovered (McCallum v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 379 Ill. 60, 68 (1942)).

	In this case, the State chose to sue the tobacco defendants in

the circuit court. The State hired private attorneys and sent those

attorneys into the circuit court to litigate its cause. After two years

of litigation in the circuit court, the State agreed to settle its

dispute with the tobacco defendants. The State then requested the

circuit court to approve the settlement. The court approved the

settlement that created the proceeds upon which the lien was

perfected. Illinois Special Counsel complied with the Attorneys

Lien Act. They perfected the lien and petitioned the circuit court

to adjudicate it. The circuit court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the lien, either because it heard the underlying matter, or because it has

jurisdiction over the settlement proceeds.

	However, the State invokes the principle of sovereign

immunity. “In the United States, sovereign immunity has been

justified as a rule which embodies a policy that protects the State

from interference in its performance of the functions of government

and preserves its control over State coffers.” S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. State of Illinois, 93 Ill. 2d 397, 401 (1982).

	The 1970 Illinois Constitution abolished the common law

doctrine of sovereign immunity “[e]xcept as the General Assembly

may provide by law.” Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, §4. The legislature

has provided that “the State of Illinois shall not be made a

defendant or party in any court,” except as provided in the Court

of Claims Act. 745 ILCS 5/1 (West 1998). Section 8 of the Court

of Claims Act provides in pertinent part that the Court of Claims

shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine “[a]ll claims

against the State.” 705 ILCS 505/8(a), (b) (West 1998).

	The State contends that jurisdiction to adjudicate the

attorney’s lien of Illinois Special Counsel lies not with the circuit

court, but rather with the Illinois Court of Claims. That body “was,

and continues to be, a part of the legislative branch of State

Government.” Pub. Act 83–865, §1, eff. September 26, 1983. The

Court of Claims is not a court within the meaning of the judicial

article of our state constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI); its

function is not to adjudicate cases. Rather, the General Assembly

established the Court of Claims to receive and resolve claims

against the state. Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Court of Claims, 109 Ill. 2d 72, 78 (1985); see generally S.J. Groves & Sons, 93 Ill. 2d at 401-02. “It is in essence the legislature–the body called upon to

fund any awards–that is deciding through the Court of Claims the

merits of the claims before it.” S.J. Groves & Sons, 93 Ill. 2d at 405.

	The State contends that, for several reasons, the lien petition

of Illinois Special Counsel constitutes “a claim against the State.”

Therefore, according to the State, the Court of Claims has

exclusive jurisdiction thereof. “The determination of whether an

action is in fact a suit against the State turns upon an analysis of the

issues involved and the relief sought, rather than the formal designation of the parties.” Currie v. Lao, 148 Ill. 2d 151, 158 (1992).

	We cannot accept the State’s contention that ISC’s lien

petition constitutes a claim against the State of Illinois. In its

arguments, the State misapprehends the nature of an attorney’s lien

under the Attorneys Lien Act.

	The State first argues that the attorney’s lien petition of Illinois

Special Counsel “is, in substance, a breach of contract action

against the State.” However, it is quite settled that an attorney’s

lien under the Act “is a lien upon the proceeds, only, of the

litigation or settlement of the claim.” Baker v. Baker, 258 Ill. 418, 421 (1913). The attorney’s only interest is in the proceeds of the

litigation or its settlement. Process Color Plate Co. v. Chicago Urban Transportation District, 125 Ill. App. 3d 885, 891 (1984). This court explained long ago:

		“By serving the notice claiming a lien the attorney in effect

becomes a joint claimant with his client *** in the

proceeds of any settlement that may be made by the client,

and to the extent of the amount of his fee has the same

interest in such proceeds *** as his client and is entitled to

his pro rata share thereof.” Baker, 258 Ill. at 421.

Indeed, it is settled that, outside of the Act, attorneys can still sue

their clients to recover for their services. Baker, 258 Ill. at 421; DeKing, 155 Ill. App. 3d at 597.

	Further, once an attorney serves proper notice of the lien on

the client’s adversary, that party bears responsibility for respecting

the lien. If the underlying defendant does not respect the lien, then

the defendant becomes liable for the attorney fees. Sutton v. Chicago Rys. Co., 258 Ill. 551, 553 (1913); Process Color Plate, 125 Ill. App. 3d at 890. A petition under the Attorneys Lien Act is

not a contract action against the attorney’s client. This

distinguishes the present case from cases such as People ex rel. Manning v. Nickerson, 184 Ill. 2d 245 (1998), which involved claims “against the State.”

	The State contends that the attorney’s lien petition of Illinois

Special Counsel constitutes “a claim against the State” for several

additional reasons. The State argues that adjudication of the attorney’s lien would threaten to subject the state to liability and

would control the actions of the state. A suit will be considered a

claim against the state if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff could

operate to control the actions of the state or subject it to liability. Currie, 148 Ill. 2d at 158.

	The State argues that the circuit court’s adjudication of Illinois

Special Counsel’s lien subjects the state to liability. However, our

discussion of the Attorneys Lien Act shows that it does not infringe

on the state’s statutory sovereign immunity. The defendants in the

underlying litigation are charged with honoring the lien, not the

state. Under no circumstances can the general funds of the state be

reached to satisfy this obligation of the tobacco defendants. See

Graham v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 182 Ill. 2d 287, 297 (1998), quoting People v. Illinois Toll Highway Comm’n, 3 Ill. 2d 218, 227 (1954).

	Also, the State argues that the circuit court’s adjudication of

the attorney’s lien would control the actions of the state.

According to the State, a circuit court adjudication of the lien

“would force the State to pay those settlement funds to [ISC]

without any legislative appropriation.” Again, however, the state

is not appropriating any money whatsoever. The tobacco

defendants, and not the state, will pay the attorney fees. This was

understood and repeatedly acknowledged from the inception of the

litigation.

	Indeed, the whole point of contingent fee agreements is to

remove from the client’s shoulders the risk of being out-of-pocket

for attorney fees upon a zero recovery. Instead, the lawyer assumes

that risk and is compensated for it by charging what is in effect an

insurance premium. See 1 G. Hazard & W. Hodes, The Law of

Lawyering §8.6, at 8–15, 8–16 (3d ed. 2001); T. Schneyer, Legal- Process Constraints on the Regulation of Lawyers’ Contingent

Fee Contracts, 47 De Paul L. Rev. 371, 374-78 (1998).

	The State next argues: “Resolution of this dispute necessarily

requires a determination of the State’s interest in the disputed

settlement funds, an inquiry that implicates the State’s sovereign

immunity.” When property of the state is involved, the state

becomes directly and adversely affected by the suit and the action

must be held to be one against the state. Sass v. Kramer, 72 Ill. 2d 485, 491 (1978); Hollander & Hollander v. Kamenjarin, 201 Ill. App. 3d 799, 801 (1990).

	We cannot at this juncture consider the tobacco settlement to

be state funds. First, whether the payment of ISC’s attorney fees

would be a money judgment against the state can be determined by

examining the source from which the attorney fees would be paid.

See Shell Oil Co. v. Department of Revenue, 95 Ill. 2d 541, 547- 48 (1983). In this case, the source of the attorney fees is not the

state’s general revenue fund, but rather is “the bank or other entity

with which the fund was invested.” See Shell Oil Co., 95 Ill. 2d at 548.

	Second, the withholding of funds from the state treasury does

not automatically render a case a suit against the state. Saltiel v. Olsen, 85 Ill. 2d 484, 492 (1981), quoting City of Springfield v. Allphin, 74 Ill. 2d 117, 126 (1978). In this case, the tobacco settlement funds, which have never been in the state’s hands, are

not “state funds” until after ISC’s attorney fees are paid and the

funds go into the state treasury. See Saltiel, 85 Ill. 2d at 491-93. The courts of other states that participated in the tobacco

settlement have reached this conclusion. See Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening, 349 Md. 660, 681, 709 A.2d 1230, 1240-41 (1998); accord Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 603 N.W.2d 143, 149 (Minn. App. 1999).

	We note the State’s attempt to show that the State of Illinois,

and not the tobacco defendants, is “the true target” of Illinois

Special Counsel’s attorney’s lien. The State points to sections 3

and 4 of the Illinois Fee Payment Agreement, which provide

essentially that ISC waive all future claims against the tobacco

defendants in exchange for the attorney fees received pursuant to

the agreement. The State reasons: “If [ISC] are correct, however,

and their claim for attorneys’ fees pursuant to their attorney’s lien

is truly a claim against the Tobacco Defendants, then that lien must

be dismissed with prejudice because [ISC] irrevocably waived that

claim under IFPA §§3 and 4.” (Emphasis omitted.) ISC counters

that, pursuant to section 5 of the agreement, their arbitrated fee has

no effect on their contingent fee contract with the State.

	This is an issue for the circuit court at the adjudication of

ISC’s attorney’s lien, not for this court in the present appeal. We conclude that the circuit court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the

attorney’s lien of Illinois Special Counsel. Accordingly, we answer

the certified question in the affirmative.

II. Escrow Order

	The circuit court established an escrow account and ordered

that 10% of all settlement payments be deposited there until further

order. The State appealed from the circuit court’s order pursuant

to Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1), which allows interlocutory

review of an order “granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or

refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction.” 188 Ill. 2d R.

307(a)(1). The appellate court dismissed the State’s interlocutory

appeal.

	Before this court, the State initially contends that since the

circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Illinois Special

Counsel’s attorney’s lien, then the court necessarily lacked

jurisdiction to enter the escrow order. However, our above-stated

answer to the certified question disposes of this contention.

	The State next characterizes the escrow order as injunctive in

nature. Based on that characterization, the State contends that the

circuit court abused its discretion in entering the escrow order

because Illinois Special Counsel did not satisfy the requirements for

a preliminary injunction.

	“To determine what constitutes an appealable injunctive order

under Rule 307(a)(1) we look to the substance of the action, not

its form. *** Actions of the circuit court having the force and

effect of injunctions are still appealable even if called something

else.” In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 260 (1989). “Ministerial” or “administrative” orders of the circuit court, i.e., orders that regulate only the procedural details of litigation before the court,

cannot be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Such orders do

not affect the relationship of the parties in their everyday activity

apart from the litigation and, therefore, are distinguishable from

traditional forms of injunctive relief. In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d at 262.

	A majority of the cases ruling on the question have held that

an order directing the payment of money into court is not appealable. The most common reason for denying an appeal from

such orders is that they are merely interim orders, designed to

preserve a fund until rights to it can be established; they are not

orders establishing such rights. In re Estate of Basile, 32 Ill. App. 3d 618, 620 (1975), citing Annotation, Appealability of Order Directing Payment of Money Into Court, 15 A.L.R.3d 568, 570 (1967).

	In the present case, the record shows that this was the circuit

court’s view of the escrow order. The court reasoned: “I think an

escrow should be established because it would simplify the process

here.” The court further noted: “Nobody won here today, nobody

lost here today, it’s just a simple matter of bookkeeping and

accounting, as far as I’m concerned.” We hold that the appellate

court did not err in dismissing the State’s interlocutory appeal of

the circuit court’s escrow order.

CONCLUSION

	In sum, Illinois Special Counsel’s lien proceeding is not a

claim against the State of Illinois. Rather, it is a statutory claim

against a fund of monies to be paid by private defendants. The

circuit court may adjudicate the claim against the fund. Further,

because the source of the fund at issue is not the state treasury,

sovereign immunity is not implicated. Accordingly, the circuit

court, and not the Court of Claims, is the proper forum to

adjudicate the attorney’s lien.

	For the foregoing reasons, the question certified by the circuit

court of Cook County is answered in the affirmative. We do not

address the propriety of the trial court’s escrow order, as it is

premature. The cause is remanded to the circuit court of Cook

County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Certified question answered;

cause remanded.

	JUSTICE McMORROW took no part in the consideration or

decision of this case.