Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-21-2025
Case Style:
Case Number: 2017 CH 01343
Judge: Pamela McLean Meyers
Court: Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Not Available
Description: Chicago, Illinois personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a legal malpractice theory.
On January 28, 2015, Edward was discharged from Loyola University Medical Center (Loyola) following a heart transplant. Per Loyola's discharge instructions, Lynn gave a dosage of insulin to Edward later that evening. However, Edward had already received the same dosage earlier in the day. The extra dosage of insulin caused Edward to suffer hypoglycemia induced encephalopathy, put him in a hypoglycemic coma, and caused a severe brain injury.
On February 6, 2015, Edward and Lynn's son Tom Sennett called defendant Pliura whom Edward coached and mentored in high school. Pliura is both a doctor and a lawyer. Tom sought Pliura's advice concerning his father's "major medical problem." At some point, Pliura met with Lynn at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC) to discuss the matter.
The parties dispute the nature of the relationship between the Sennetts and defendants that developed after this meeting. They dispute whether Pliura was retained to represent Edward and Lynn regarding Edward's medical malpractice claim, whether Pliura offered to help the family pro bono, and what Pliura was authorized to do. No engagement agreement or written contingency fee agreement exists between the parties. Nevertheless, defendants claim they acted
on behalf of Edward and the Sennett family from March 2015 to September 2015 and, thus, are entitled to compensation for their legal services.
Specifically, defendants allege they communicated via phone and email with Virgina Beach, the director of claims services for Trinity Health (the health system that owns Loyola), regarding potential mediation; made a demand of $146 million to Loyola on behalf of the Sennett family; and met with Beach and one of Edward's treating physicians, Dr. David Ripley, to discuss Edward's medical needs. Defendants also claim Loyola "admitted liability" during a meeting with the Sennett family. Pliura claims to have "counsel[ed] the family members on how to conduct themselves" in the meeting. Defendants never filed a lawsuit on Edward or Lynn's behalf and no mediation occurred. Although Loyola did not offer to settle the case with the Sennetts, defendants claim they negotiated an agreement with Loyola to pay for the costs of Edward's care at RIC after January 30, 2015.
On September 9, 2015, Lynn emailed Pliura stating, "I want to thank you for all you have done as a friend and as our attorney. *** I feel this lawsuit is bigger than either of us thought it would be and I believe a bigger/Chicago based firm would be more advantageous for us now. Therefore, I am discharging you as attorney for Ed, my family, and myself with great appreciation for all you have done for us." Lynn offered to pay for "any expenses for reimbursement" and thanked Pliura for his "sincere help and support." The Sennetts subsequently hired Clifford Law Offices, P.C. (Clifford Law) to represent them in the matter, which resulted in the case settling for $14.5 million.
On November 27, 2015, more than two months after Lynn's discharge email to Pliura, defendants sent a "Notice of Attorney Lien" pursuant to 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2014) to Trinity Health. On January 13, 2016, they sent it again to Trinity Health and Clifford Law. Defendants purported to have a lien as to "all claims, causes of action, potential causes of action, agreements, settlements, payments, trial awards or judicial judgments related in any way to the medical care, diagnosis, or treatment of Ed Sennett, including any disputed damages or injuries suffered by Ed Sennett, his wife or family."
On January 20, 2016, the Will County circuit court appointed Lynn as temporary guardian of Edward's person and estate. She became plenary guardian of his person and estate on March 10, 2016. On May 9, 2016, Lynn, individually and as plenary guardian of Edward's estate, filed a complaint against Loyola for medical negligence and loss of consortium through Clifford Law. As noted above, the case settled for $14.5 million. On June 21, 2016, plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlement and distribution of settlement funds, and on June 29, 2016, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement.
On December 30, 2016, defendants sued Lynn and Edward for quantum meruit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint against defendants in Cook County, seeking declarations that (1) "all and any liens served by [defendants] in connection with the claims of the Sennetts *** are invalid, of no effect, and held for naught" and (2) defendants are "entitled to no such fee or compensation" under quantum meruit. Plaintiffs alleged the attorney lien was invalid because there was "never an agreement or contract for representation, in writing or orally," Pliura volunteered to help them pro bono "out of his friendship for the family and 'Coach Sennett,'" and the lien was not perfected, as it was not mailed until after any alleged attorney-client relationship had already terminated. On May 3, 2018, defendants filed a counterclaim for quantum meruit, seeking "reasonable compensation for the value of legal services" provided to plaintiffs prior to being discharged as the attorney for "Edward Sennett and any others."
* * *
Legal issue Can an attorney claim fees under quantum meruit or enforce an attorney lien without an established attorney-client relationship or without proper notice during such a relationship?
Headnote
CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs, affirming that defendants' quantum meruit counterclaim for legal fees could not succeed due to the absence of an agreement and lack of acceptance of services by the purported client who was incapacitated.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs declaring the defendants' attorney lien invalid, due to the lack of an attorney-client relationship and the lien notice being served after the termination of any alleged relationship.
CONTRACT LAW. CAPACITY TO CONTRACT. The court reinforced the principle that an incapacitated person is unable to knowingly accept services, affecting the enforceability of claims like quantum meruit based on implied contracts for services provided.
ATTORNEY LIEN LAW. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. The case highlights strict compliance with statutory provisions for perfecting an attorney lien, emphasizing the necessity of having an active attorney-client relationship when serving any lien notice.
Key Phrases Quantum meruit counterclaim. Declaratory judgment action. Attorney lien invalid. Legal representation agreement. Edward’s disability and guardianship.
Outcome: On August 3, 2021, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on defendants' quantum meruit counterclaim. The trial court found genuine issues of material fact as to "whether or not [defendants] performed a service to the benefit" of Edward and "whether or not [defendants] performed this service gratuitously." However, the court held there was "no question that Edward Sennett was not in a position to accept legal services from [defendants]. He was disabled and no guardian had been appointed for him." As such, he could not have accepted the benefit of defendants' services, which is a required element of quantum meruit.
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: