Court Opinion

ID: 9721661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:04:48.960623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.958973
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUSTICE UNVERZAGT delivered the opinion of the court:  In our original opinion, we erroneously concluded that, as of the time of the trial court’s decision, plaintiff had paid all of its attorney fees. It appears from the record, however, that Tan had not paid R & W’s bill for November 1979 in full. The bill is clearly itemized by date and sets forth the specific activities performed by the attorneys on that date, including correspondence, phone calls, and conferences, all of which appear to have been necessary and reasonably related to the proposed purchase of defendant’s property. In addition, an attorney for R & W testified that she and another R & W attorney worked almost exclusively on the proposed purchase during the entire month of November 1979. She stated that each had spent at least 40 hours per week on it. We note that an attorney’s testimony is competent evidence that her fee is reasonable. (See Sorenson v. Fio Rito (1980), 90 Ill. App. 3d 368, 376.) Using the attorney’s estimate, R & W charged $15,061.50 for a minimum of 320 hours of work, or approximately $47 per hour. We conclude that the fee was reasonable for the necessary work performed and adhere to our original opinion affirming the trial court’s award. See Omni Overseas Freighting Co. v. Cardell Insurance Agency (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 639, 645 (holding that attorney fees must be shown reasonable to be compensable). Petition for rehearing denied. REINHARD and NASH, JJ., concur.