Opinion ID: 2709668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extra-contractual Theories

Text: In the alternative, Gomberg attempts to establish a legal right to a portion of Goyal’s settlement funds under either Illinois’ statutory lien provision or the equitable remedy of quantum meruit. Neither entitles Gomberg to any of Goyal’s settlement funds. The Illinois Attorney’s Lien Act, 770 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1, grants an attorney a lien “for the amount of any fee which may have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys and their clients.” Id. For the reasons explained above, Goyal and Gomberg’s retainer agreement did not provide for a lien on ten percent of the settlement offer GTI made during Gomberg’s representation. If the attorney and client have not made a fee agreement, the Act provides for reasonable fees and costs, but that provision is not available when the attorney and client entered into a fee agreement. 770 ILCS 5/1; In re Solis, 610 F.3d 969, 974 (7th Cir. 2010) (attorney could not rely on Illinois lien statute to increase fee above amount under valid fee agreement). As to quantum meruit, Illinois law provides an equitable remedy for attorneys retained on a contingent fee basis to “recover on a quantum meruit basis a reasonable fee for services rendered before discharge.” Leoris and Cohen, P.C. v. McNiece, 589 N.E.2d 1060, 1063-64 (Ill. App. 1992), citing Rhoades v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 399 N.E.2d 969 (Ill. 1979). This mechanism protects attorneys from the unfairness of being fired by a client on the brink of settlement or victory. It permits attorneys to recover reasonable fees even when clients inexplicably terNo. 12-3756 13 minate their representation shortly before realizing the financial benefit of their work. See Kannewurf v. Johns, 632 N.E.2d 711, 714-16 (Ill. App. 1994). Although Gomberg requested this relief in con- clusory terms, he has not argued why the circumstances of the termination of his representation of Goyal should actually entitle him to such compensation. See id. at 71516 (quantum meruit compensation is available only to attorneys who are discharged or who justifiably withdraw from representation). He failed to develop the argument before the magistrate judge and made no argument on the point before the district judge. We thus deem the argument waived.3 3 We are also confident that any such claim would have no merit. The factors to consider in determining reasonable value of services under quantum meruit include the difficulty of the work and the benefit to the client. See Ashby v. Price, 445 N.E.2d 438, 444 (Ill. App. 1983). Here, the terms of retainer agreement limited the scope and complexity of Gomberg’s representation so as not to include litigation. Gomberg himself appears to have believed that his responsibilities under the retainer agreement required minimal time and effort. In two emails Gomberg said that his services under the retainer agreement did not even include legal research — he wanted extra payment for research. Judge Keys aptly pointed out that this raised the question whether legal representation that does not include legal research is legal representation at all. Goyal also received no visible benefit from Gomberg’s representation. Gomberg represented him in a brief course of negotiations that produced only an unsatisfactory settlement offer that was (continued...) 14 No. 12-3756