Much Shelist Freed Denenberg & Ament, P.C. v. Lison

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, although a law firm did not obtain its client’s signature on a contingency-fee agreement in violation of Rule 1.5(c), its lapse “was not sufficiently serious to taint plaintiff’s lawsuit for quantum meruit recovery”
• distinguishing, inter alia, Leoris v. Dicks, 150 Ill.App.3d 350, 103 Ill.Dec. 584, 501 N.E.2d 901, 904 (1986)
• distinguishing cases where the attorneys involved violated statutes or rules associated with attorney fees or the attorney-client relationship from those in which the attorneys were prohibited from entering into the agreement itself
• cause of action for attorney working on contingency fee accrues upon client’s recovery or attorney’s discharge, whichever occurs first
• “The cases involving unenforceable agreements *** do not bar quantum meruit recovery whenever an ethical rule is not followed unless it involves public policy.”
• a client may discharge an attorney at any time, with or without cause, and doing so causes a contingent-fee contract to cease to exist

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).