1 Permi tt in g a party to seek leav

e to appeal “f

rom an order of the ci

rcuit court granting a
m otion to dis qual

i f y the a ttorney f or any party .” 210Ill . 2d R. 3 06(a)( 7). SIXTH DIVISION Septembe r 28, 2007 No. 1-07- 0441
PEDERS EN A

ND HOUPT, P.C ., ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Coo k Count y, Ill in ois, ) Coun

ty D epartm

en t, v. ) Law Division. ) SUMMIT RE AL ESTATE GROUP, LLC, ) SUMMIT DE VELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, ) No. 06 L 8078 MAIN STREET VILLAGE W EST-PART 1, ) LLC, TIMOTH Y TYNAN, TYN AN, LLC, ) DARRYL SCHULTE, JR., and SCHULTE, LLC, ) Ho no r ab le ) Bi

l l Tay l or, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge Presidin g.

JU STI CEJO SEP H G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Pl ai ntif f -appe l l an t Peders en

& Houpt, P.C. (P&H), a l aw f i rm , bri ngs thi s i nterl ocutory appeal pursuant to I ll

in ois Suprem

e Court Rule 306(a)(7) 1 from the trial court ’s order dis qualif yi ng i t from represen

ting i tself in a l awsui t against its f

ormer clie nts for unpai

d atto rney f ees and costs. F or the re asons tha t fol l ow, we reverse th

e tri al court’s order.

I. BACKG

ROUND On Aug ust 1, 200 6, P&H fil ed a co mplaint fo r r eco ver y of legal fee s o wed by the defend ant s for legal se rvices per for med o n t heir beha lf. The defend ant s named in the c omp laint
ar e S ummit Re al E st at e G r o up , LL C ( Su mmit RE ) ; S ummit De ve lo pme nt Gr o up , LL C ( Su mmitNo. 1-07- 0441

Developmen

t); Ma i n Stree t Vi l l age W

est-Pa rt 1 (Mai n Stree t West); Ti

mothy Ty na n (Ty na n); Ty n an, L LC ; Da

rry l Sc h ul te, Jr . (S ch

ul te) ; an d S ch ul te, LL C. The u

n derl y i n g f acts p er tai n i n g to each of the counts, as all

eged in the compl

ain t, are as foll

ows. P& H is an I llino is c o r

po r at io n r eg ist er ed t o pr ac t ice law in t he St at e o f I llino is, wh ile Su m m i t RE , Su m m i t Dev el opm en t, Ty n an, L LC , a

n d S ch ul te, LL C, are I l l i

n oi s l i m i ted l i ab i l i ty corpo rations. The m

em bers of Sum

mi t Developmen

t are Tynan, Schul

te, and four other ind ividua ls no t pa r t y t o t his la ws uit
. T he membe r s o f Su mmit RE ar e T ynan , LL C ( wh o se o nly membe ris T ynan ) , an d S ch ult e, LL C ( wh o se o nly memb er is S ch ult e)
. T he membe r s o f Ma in Street West are Ty

nan , LLC, Schul

te, LLC, and JP Com

me rcial Inves tments, LLC ; the f

ormer t wo pa r t ies co llec t ive ly o wn a 5 0% sh ar e in t he co mp an y. Al l of the defe ndan ts are real estate devel

opers in the busi ness of purchas in

g, devel oping, sel l i ng, a nd/ or le asi ng I l l i noi s prope

rty. B oth Sum

m i t Dev elopmen

t and Sum m i t RE were i n v ol v ed i n dev el opi n g a pa rc el of l an d l oca ted i n Orl an d P ar k, I l l i n oi s, an d th ey re tai n ed P&H to prov i dea vari ety of corp orate

an d re al es tatel eg al

servi ce s i n c onn ec ti on w i th th i s ente rpr i se f rom 20 03 –0 4 o nw ar d. Fu r t he rmo r e, P& H r ep r es en t ed Su mmit RE in abr ea ch o f co nt r ac t law su it in wh i ch Sum m i t RE wasse ek

i ng to enf orce an ag ree men t i t ha d m ade to p urchase

12 a cre s of Orland Park pro pert y. Main Street West also hired P &H for what P&H t erms “LLC Main tenance.” P&H stat es that it co mpl eted all servi

ces it was requested to perform by these companies. The compl

ai nt further al

le ges that, due to the aforem entione d li

tigation s ervices provided by P &H , Su mmit RE wo n sp ec ific p er fo rman ce o f t he lan d s ale co nt r ac t . As a r es ult , it wa s a ble t o p ur chas e t hre e ac re s o f the Or land P ar k pr op er t y on Aug ust 22, 200 5, and t he r emaining nineNo. 1-07- 0441

-3-

ac r es o n Ja nu ar y 25 , 20 06
. As s o o n a s it ac qu ire d t he pr o pe r t y, S ummit RE immed iat ely tra n sf er re d i t to M ai n Str eet W est “ f

or n o or i n adeq ua te c on si dera ti on ”; as th i s was i ts o n l y as set, the compan

y h ad no further m

eans of pay in g creditors, in

cl udin g P&H. Summ

it RE later diss ol v ed on A ug us t 28 , 20 06 . Su

m m i t Dev el opm en t also d i ss ol v ed af ter di str i b uti n g al l i ts a ss ets to its m emb ers. P&H ave rs in its com pla in t t hat on January

17, 2006, before the Orland Park property had b een tra n sf er re d to M ai

n Str eet W est, P&

H h ad as se rte d a n attor n ey ’s l i en on th e p rop er

ty pursuant to t he A

tt orneys Li en A ct (770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2006)) t o cover paym ent of the f

ees that Summ it RE had i

ncurred as a resul

t o f P&H’s l

iti gation serv

ic es. The compl

ai nt further avers that someti me bef ore January

25, 2006, defenda

nts orall y prom is ed to pay all outstandi

ng legal fees t hat Su mmi

t RE ow ed t o P &H; t hat t hey also pr omised t hat Tynan, Tynan, LLC, Schu lte, and Sch ul te, LL C, woul

d pledge a 50% s ha re i n M ai n Stree t West to P&H i

n orde r to secure pay me nt; that P&H relie d on these promises, to its detrim ent, by not enforci

ng i ts att orney’ s lie

n on th e O rlan d P ar k p rop er ty or p re v en

ti n g th e c on v ey an ce of th e p rop er

ty to M ai n Str eet W est; but that t hese prom

is es were nev

er kept. As a resul

t, o nce Sum

mi t RE dissol

ved, P&H sti

ll had not been com

pensated f

or t he l egal servi ces i t pro vi ded to S umm

it RE, and despi

te repeated de man ds , i t wa s u na bl e to obtai n p ay men t of f ee s, f or wh i ch pur pos e i t f i l ed the i ns tan t sui t f or
r ec o ve ry. In c ounts I th

rough XXXII I, P&H

ass erts m ul tip l e cl ai m s f or brea ch of c ontract, quantum meruit , a nd ac co unt st at ed a gainst Su mmi t RE , S ummit De velop ment, Main St re et West , a ndNo. 1-07- 0441

2 Ty n an i s i n cl uded h ere b ec au se

P&H al l eg es

th at Ty n an pers on al l y h i re d P & H to represent Summ

it RE and prom

is ed that the legal

fees in curred would be pa

id. -4- Tynan for the legal f

ees in curred du ring P&H’s

representat ion of the compani es. 2 In c ou nt XXX V, P&H t hen se eks t o p ierce t he co rp or at e veil of S ummit RE t o ho ld Tynan, LLC, and Sc hu lt e, LL C, liable fo rt he leg al d eb t s t ha t Su mmit RE ha s a cc rue d t o P& H. I n su pp o r t o f t his cl ai m, P&H alle ges that Summ it RE i s a “m

ere fac ade of Ty

nan LLC an d Schul te LLC” and that there is “un ity of i nterest and ownershi

p” between the three parti es. Sim il arly , in counts XXXVI
an d X XX VI I , P& H s ee ks t o pie r ce t he co r po r at e v eils o f T ynan , LL C, an d S ch ult e, LL C, t o ho ld Tyn an an d Schul te, respectivel

y, respons ible

for the l egal

in debtedness

of thei r compani es, whi ch i t also a l l eg esare “ mere f ac ade[s ].”In

cou nt X XX IV, i t se ek s to p i erc e the c orporateve i l of Summ it Devel opmen

t t o hold Ty

nan and Sch ulte personal

ly li abl e for outst andi

ng attor ney ’s f

ees i n cu rre d b y Su m m i t Dev el opm en t. P&H al so se eksto enf

orce the attorney ’sl i en

i t al l eged l y place d on the Orl

and Park pro pert y i n the amount of its out standing atto rney f ees against Summi

t RE and Main Street West in cou nt XXX IX . T heir t heo ry for liabil ity aga inst M ain St re et West is tha t t he co mpany to ok t he prope rty su b j ect to the l

i en, w i th f ul l kn owl ed ge of i t. In a ddit ion, P&H claims rec ove ry o f its lega l fees und er a t heo ry o f unjust enr ichment (count XL) and success or li abi li ty (count XXXVIII) agains t Main Street West. P&H avers that Main St re et West only acq uire d t he pr op er t y becau se o f P&H’s re pr ese nt at ion o f Summit RE and
wo uld t her efo re be unjus t ly enriched if it w as a llowed t o k eep it w itho ut having t o p ay the att or ney’s f

ees incurred by Summi

t RE . Mo reo ver, Main St reet West assu med Summ it RE’sNo. 1-07- 0441

-5-

liabilit y t o P& H, sinc e t he t r an sfe ro f t he Or lan d P ar k p r o pe r t y wa s “in t en de d t o fr au du len t ly
es ca pe liabilit y t o it s c r ed it o r s, inc lud ing P& H. ” O n a simila rno t e, P& H is als o pu r su ing a c laim of f raudulen t convey ance (count XLI) agai

nst Summ it RE and Mai

n Street West, allegi

ng that S um mit RE t r an sfe rr ed t he Or lan d P ar k p r o pe r t y t o Ma in S t r ee t We st “w it h t he int en t t o de lay, hi nder, o r defraud its creditor s” in violation of the Unif

orm Fraudulent Transfer Act (740 I LCS 160/1 et seq . (We st 2006 )). Finally , P &H se eks re co ver y of its legal fees on t heo ries o f pro missor y est op pel ( co unt XL I I ) an d fr au du len t misr ep r es en t at io n ( co un t XL I V) ag ain st all d efe nd an t s e xc ep t Su mmit Devel opmen t, based on def

endan ts’ alle ged fal

se promi ses to pay. Pursuant to t hose al le ged pr omises , in co unt XLI II , P &H also see ks a n equ itable lien ag ainst t he 50 % sha re t hat Tynan, LLC, and S chult e, LLC, have in Main S t re et West , fo r t he amo unt of leg al fees o wed t o P &H by Sum m i t RE. In r esp ons e t o P &H’s c omp laint, defend ant s (e xcep t for Main St re et West ) mo ved t o ha ve P&H disqu alifi

ed fr om r epr ese nt ing itse lf on gr ou nds t hat it might impro per ly use client confi dences i n vi olation of Rul e 1.6 of the Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court Rules of Profes si onal Conduct (210 Ill . 2d R. 1.6(a)). Defe ndan ts pointed out t hat P&H ha d recei ved a weal

th of conf ide ntial informat ion in t he co ur se o f its r epr ese nt at ion o f Summit De velop ment a nd S ummit RE t hat might prove material

to the in stant laws uit. P&H opposed the motion, argui ng that it was al

lowed un der Ru l e 1 .6( c) (3 ) to u se

con f i den ti al cl i en t i n f orm ati on i n a l aw su i t to co l l ect f

ee s, an d th at a l l of i ts cl ai m s w ere i nd ee d re l ate d to f

eecol l ec ti on. De f

en da nts con ce de d that u

nd er th e p rovi si ons of Ru l e 1 .6( c) (3 ), P & H c oul

d u ti l ize such i n f orm ati on i n pu rsui t of i ts c l ai m s f or b re ach of con tra ct,No. 1-07- 0441

-6-

quantum m eruit, an

d a cc oun t sta ted ; h owe ve r, they arg ue d that P&

H’ s oth er a l l eg ed ca us esof
ac t io n w er e a n a t t emp t t o cr ea t e n ew liabilit ies be yo nd t he sc o pe o f it s c o nt r ac t ua l re lat io nsh ip wit h its c lients, so use of c lient co nfidences t o p ro ve t hos e claims was not per mitt ed u nder t he Ru l es of Pro f es si on al Con du ct. A f ter h ea ri ng the oral arg um en ts of cou ns el , the tri

al cou rt gran ted the de f en da nts ’ m oti on an d o r de r ed P& H t o find ne w c o un se l. I t is fr o m t ha t o r de rt ha t P& H file s t his a pp ea l. II. AN AL YSIS A trial court ’s decisi on to dis qualif y c ounsel wil l n ot be overturned on appeal absen t an abuse of d i scre tion , whi ch

i s de f i ne d asa rul

i ng th at no reasona

bl e pers on woul

d agre e wi

th. Schw artz v. Cortelloni , 17 7 Ill. 2d 166 , 17 6, 6 85 N .E .2d 871 , 87 6 (1 997 ); Skokie Gold S tandard Liquo rs, In c. v. J

ose ph E. Seagram &

Sons , Inc., 116 Ill . App. 3d 1043, 1053, 452 N.E. 2d 804, 812 (1983). In assessi

ng the decisi on of the court below, we are m in dful that att orney disqu alifi cat ion is ge ner ally conside re d a d ra st ic measu re , be cau se it bar s a p ar t y from r et aining the c ouns el

of i ts ch oic e an d thus des troys the a ttorney -cl i en t rel ati onsh

i p. Schw artz , 177 Ill .2d at 178 , 68 5 N. E. 2d at 877 ; SK Handtool Corp. v. Dresse r Industries, Inc. , 246 Ill .App.3d 979, 989, 61 9 N .E. 2d

12 82 , 12 89 (1 st D i st. 19 93 ). C our ts a reth eref oreca uti ous ab out g ra n ti n g m oti on s to di squa l i f y , l est the y be use d tactical

l y as m eans of ha rass men t. Schw artz , 177 Ill . 2d at 178, 685 N.E.2d at 877 ; SK Handtool Corp. , 246 Ill . App. 3d at 989, 999, 619 N. E.2d at 1288–89, 1295 (no t ing t hat a pa rt y who a t t empt s t o u se d isqua lif icat ion mo t ions a s a ha ra ssment t oo l may be
su bj ec t to sa

nc ti ons). Th

i s c onc ern m us t be ba l an ce d agai ns t the ne ed to enf orce the ca non s of leg al e t hic s, wh ich ar e d es ign ed t o pr o t ec t t he at t o rne y-c lient r ela t io nsh ip a nd maint ain pu blicNo. 1-07- 0441

-7-

confi dence i n the i ntegrity of the legal

professi on and the adm

in is trat ion of jus tice. SK Handtool Corp. , 246 Ill . App. 3d at 989, 619 N.E .2d at 1289. De fen da nt s’ mo t io n se ek ing dis qu alific at io n o f P& H a s c o un se l in r ep r es en t ing it se lf in thi s p roce edi

ng wa s p red i ca ted upon Rul e 1 .6( a) ( 210

Il l . 2d R. 1 .6( a)) , an

d i t wa s on the basis of t his cano n t hat t he t rial co ur t ent er ed it s o rd er of d isqua lif icat ion. Rule 1 .6 (a ) p ro vides t he ge ne r al r ule t ha t “alaw yer sha ll no t , du r ing o raft er t er minat io n o f t he pr o fes sio na l re lat io nsh ip wit h t he client , u se o r r evea l a co nfidence o r se cr et of t he client kno wn t o t he lawyer unless t he clie nt consents af

ter discl osure.” 210 Ill . 2d R. 1.6(a). P&H, on the other hand, contends that t his case is co nt ro lled by the e xcep t ion co nt ained in Ru le 1. 6( c) , w hich st at es in re levant par t , “A lawyer may us e o r r evea l *** (3 ) c onfide nces or sec re t s nec essa ry t o e st ablish or co llect t he la wyer’s f ee.” 210 Ill . 2d R. 1.6(c)(3) . P&H al so contends that its righ t t o pro ceed as i

ts own
counse l i n this sui t is protected by

i m pli cati on und

er Rul e 3.7(a), wh

i ch prov i des: “A lawyer s hall not acc ept or co nt inue emplo yment in co nt emplat ed o r p ending li tigation i f the l awy er knows or reasonabl

y s hould kn ow that t he l

awy er may be cal le d as a wit ness o n behalf of t he client , e xcep t t hat t he lawyer may under t ake t he emplo yment and m ay testif y :
*** (3) if the testim

ony w il l rel ate to the nature and val

ue of legal

servi ces rendered in the case by

the lawy er or the fi

rm to t he cl

ien t[. ]” 134 Ill. 2d R. 3.7(a)( 3). I t is t he sc o pe o f t he se ex ce pt io ns, as ap plie d t o t he alle ga t io ns in P& H’ s c o mpla int , t ha t is inNo. 1-07- 0441

3 We n ot e that the central question in volv in g the operative scope of the ex ception un

der Ru le 1
. 6( c) ( 3) is no t t he ex t en t t o wh ich a la wye rmay a ct as co un se l o n his o wn be ha lf in pursuin g a cl ai m f or legal fees , but rather is the ri

ght of a lawy

er to pursue his l egal

fees , whether he represen

ts hi ms el f or retains outside counsel to do so o n hi

s beh al f. Even if an attor ney
r et ain ed o ut sid e c o un se l t o pu r su e h is c laim fo rleg al fe es , he wo uld st ill po ss es s t he sa me co nfid en t ial info rmat io n g lea ne d t hr o ug h his r ela t io nsh ip w it h his fo rmer clie nt s, wh ich he co uld th en i m pa rt to a n y such outs i de cou n se l . Th us , the tr ue qu esti on to b e res ol

v ed i s th e exten t to whi ch an atto rney can uti li ze clie nt confi dences, wh

ether actin

g on beh al f of hi ms el f or through out si de counsel

whom h e chooses to ret ai

n f or t hat purpose. Ar gu ab ly, t he r efo r e, dis qu alific at io n o f t he r igh t o f an at t o rne y t o ac t as his o wn co un se l in t he pu rsu it o f legal fees w ou ld be inapp ro pr iate , since it w ou ld no t re so lve the que st ion o f the ext ent t o w hich he might u t ili ze t he co nfidences of his client t o w hich he wo uld st ill be pr ivy i f he
were on l y the pl ai nti f f an d s omeon e e l se wa s h i red to repres en

t hi m . Th us , th e di sti

nc ti on bet wee n himself as a par t y and himself as an at t or ney is only a mere for malism leading t o no su bst an t ive dis t inc t io n. We ne ed no t , ho we ve r , he r e r es o lve t he qu es t io n w he t he rRu le 1
. 6 s ho uld lead t o d isqua lif

icat ion o f a lawyer re pr ese nt ing himself i n suing his c lient, beca use we ha ve det ermined, a s shall be ful ly set fort h in the ensuing t ext , t hat the ent ire lawsuit bro ught by P&H pro per ly falls unde r t he excep tio n in Rule 1.6( c)( 3) a nd co nsequ ent ly may b e maintained by P&H whe t her as a p ar t y alo ne o r a s bo t h pa rt y and co uns el o n it s o wn b eha lf. -8- dis pute between the parties

here. 3 Th e p arti

esag ree tha t P& H acq

ui red con f i denti al i nf orm ati on during the course o f i

ts repr esentation of Summi t RE and Su mm

it Development. Defendants,No. 1-07- 0441

-9-

how ever , c ont end t hat t he exc ept ions t o c onfide nt iality of client informat ion in Rule 1 .6 (c )( 3) and by i m pli cati on i n R ul e 3.7(a )(3) onl y appl y to P&H’ s breach of

contrac t, quantum m eruit, a nd account stated clai

ms , which seek s im

ple coll ection of f

ees due an

d owing. P&H, on the ot her ha nd, u rges that al l of i ts al l eged caus es of action f al l und er the broad l anguag e of

Rul e 1.6(c )(3). In we i gh i ng the con ten ti ons of the pa rti es , we do n ot i nte rpret the m

ea ni ng an d s cop e of Rul e 1.6(c)(3) in a v

acuum ; rather, we l ook t o t he purpose beh in d the exception. P&H argues that an overly

narrow readin

g would be

fun dam entally unf ai r, sin ce i t would adversel

y a ff ect la wyers’ ab il

ities to co ll

ect fees b y de priv in g them of crucia l e vi dence. Indee d, concerns ab out fai rness to att orneys wi

th meritorious clai

ms agai nst cli ents feature pr omin

ently in cour ts’ i n ter pr eta ti on of th e c on f i den ti al i ty re qui re men ts o f th e r ul es of l eg al eth i cs . Th us , ou r c our ts have said that lawy

ers m ay use cl ie nt confi dences i n l itigation “ where such

a di sclosure becomes
necess ary f

or t he protection and preserv ation of the attorney’ s own ri ghts i nter se.” Sokol v. Mortimer , 81 Il

l . A pp . 2d 55 , 65 , 22 5 N .E. 2d

49 6, 5 01 (1 96 7) . C on f

i den ti al i ty i s n ot i n ten de d to be used as a sword by cl

ien ts in such s ituations. W i th th es e c ons i de rati

ons i n m i nd , we move to exam i ne the pa rticul ar c au se s of

ac ti on that defenda

nts clai m f all outsi de the scope of Rul e 1.6(c)(3). Defendan

ts contend, with ex

tended discussi on, t hat the wo rds “establish” and “ collect” as deploy ed in Rule 1.6(c)(3) (210 Ill. 2d R. 1. 6( c) (3 )) sho uld be c ons t ru ed na rr ow ly to app ly only to claims designe d “t o fix o r p ro ve t he
am ount o f f ees owed [and] obtain

pay me nt of that sum.” They

extrapolate this

defi ni tion i n an attem pt to li m i t the ex cepti on to col l ection actions pre dicated on bre ach of c ontract, quantum meruit , a n d acc oun

t sta ted . A n y oth er acti on s, th ey

as se rt, a re“ en ti re l y n ew th eor [ies ] of

l i ab i l i tyNo. 1-07- 0441

-10-

agai nst new parti es” i

n wh ic h conf ide ntial ity requirem ents stil l a pply with f ull force. P&H ur ges us t o lo ok beyond t he labels g iven to its va rio us c aus es o f act ion t o s ee t he
su b sta n ce b eh i n d i ts l eg al th eor i es : n am el y , that th e def en da n ts h av e del i b erate l y tak en ste psto avoi d li abi li ty to P&H for the le gal

servi ces that it has

rendered to t hem

, and P&H h

as em ploy ed the se m ul ti ple c au se s of

ac ti on to c oun

term an d de f en da nts ’ a l l eg ed ef f orts to e va depa y men t of th ei r i n de b ted n es s to th ei

r a ttorn ey s f or l eg al f ee s. If attor n ey s’ ri gh ts u n der R ul e 1 .6( c) (3 ) to bre ach cl i en t conf i den tia l i ty were l i m i ted onl y to si m ple ac tions f

or brea ch of c ontract, quantum meruit , or a cc oun t sta ted , they wou l d h av e n o re cou rs e to rec ov er

f ee s i n ca se s w h ere c l i en ts emp lo yed fr au du len t t r an sfe r s a nd co nve yanc es o ro t he rde vic es t o div es t t he mse lve s o f t he ir
as sets. A cc ordi

n g to th e a l l eg ati on s th at P & H m

akes i n i ts c om pl ai n t, i t wou l d b e u n ab l e to coll ect i ts f ees merel y by ass erti ng c l ai m s f or brea ch of c ontract, quantum m eruit, a nd ac co unt sta ted ag ai n st th e p ar ti es i t di re ctl y con tra cte d w i th , s i n ce th e rea l pa rties i n i n terest – th

e g h ost s i ns i de th e m

ach i ne , as i t were – h

av e m oved thei r ass ets away

f rom th ose ori gi na l com pan i es. Rather, in order to actually “obtain pay

men t o f that sum” i

nstead of winn

in g a meani ngl ess jud gme nt ag ain st t he dis so lve d a nd as se t - les s S ummit De ve lo pme nt an d S ummit RE , P& H is required to use addi

tional le gal theories to pursue its rem edi es. To require di squal if ic ation i n such si tua ti ons woul d b e u

nn ec es sa ry an d w oul d un f ai rl y res trict a nd obs truct the retr i eval of f ee s f rom unscrupul ous cli ents. Indeed, i

t would reward the kin

d of f raudulen t conduct t hat P&H al

le ges Ty na n a nd Sch ul te eng ag ed

i n. Suc h use of othe r leg al the ori essti

l l f i ts wi thi n th e def i ni ti on of t he phr ase “to est ablish or co llect, ” so long as t he us e o f the se t heo ries is d eplo yed so lely f or t he purpose of retrievi

ng f ees and c osts, not to establ is h other items of dam

age.No. 1-07- 0441

-11-

Th e m one tary va l ue s s ough t by P& H i n th e vari ouscl ai m s a l so s upp ort th e c onc l

us i on that P&H is

not go in g bey ond fee c ollection i

n the di sputed clai

ms . The sum

to tal of the b

reach of contr act claim

s against Summi

t RE, Main

Str eet West, and Tyn

an i s $305,467 .61; this i s also the exact am

ount tha t P&H s eeks

agai nst def endan ts i n e ach of c ounts X

XXV th rough XXXV III and X L t hro ugh X LIV of t he co mplaint. As for t he o t her cau ses o f act ion t hat ar e disp ut ed by de f en da n ts, th e a moun t so ug h t i n cou n t XX XI V – wh ere P & H is s eeki

n g to p i erce

th e c orp ora

te
ve il o f Su mmit De ve lo pme nt t o ho ld T ynan , LL C, an d S ch ult e, LL C, liable fo rit s d eb t s – is
ex actl y the s am e as the a mount of P&H ’sbre ach

of c ontract cl

ai m agai nst Sum m i t Dev elopmen

t. An d f i na l l y , coun t XXXIX d

eals wi th the attorney ’sl i en

that P&H pl

ace d upon

the Orl and Park propert y w

hen it was owned b

y Sum mi t RE, and it i s thi s sam

e lie n that P&H i s tryi

ng to enforce aga inst M ain St re et West . T hese synchro nized d ollar amou nt s de monst ra t e t hat P&H is not using
cou nts XX XIV thr ough XL IV to exp an

d l i ab i l i ty be y ond tha t wh i ch i t al l eg esi n i ts b rea ch of contrac t, quantum m eruit, and account stated clai ms ; rather, it i s usi

ng these l ater clai ms as al ter n ati v e m ea n s of re cov eri n g th e s am e a moun t. Thus, each

of the counts i

n the com pla in t seeks onl

y to recover lega

l f ees, under wh

atever theory i s ef

fecti ve to im ple me nt their recovery

, and i s therefore wel

l wi thin the scope and l

atitude
o f Ru le 1
. 6( c) ( 3)
. Co nse qu en t ly, w e mu st co nc lud e t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in di squa l i f y i ng th ese attorney s f rom r epres en tin g them sel ve s i n pu rsui ng th i s action f or fe e rec overy explici tly authorized under the rules of legal ethics. Or der re ver sed and c ase re manded for pr oc eed ings no t incons iste nt wit h t his op inion. McB RIDE, P.J ., and O’ MA LL EY, J., c oncu

r.