CBA Record Sept. 2016

56 / 60

ranted criticisms.” First, the district court
unjustifiably criticized the William firm
for commenting on whether the settlement
was sufficient to compensate the minor’s
pain and suffering. Second, the court stated
that the district court’s “generalized reliance
on ‘fairness and right reason’ appeared to be
a rhetorical flourish.” Finally, the Seventh
Circuit found no support for the district
court’s characterization of the retainer
agreement “as a contract of adhesion.”
The William firm’s representation was
adequate, the fee was reasonable, and there
were no factual findings that the settlement
would be inadequate to compensate the
minor. Consequently, the district court
had abused its discretion in rewriting the
contingent fee.
Fees for Computerized Research
Additionally, the William firm sought to
recover nearly $10,000 for computerized
research. The Seventh Circuit stated that
“In fixed-fee [contingent] cases, these
charges (computerized-research) are not
separately recoverable; in lodestar cases,
they are.” Computerized research benefits
an attorney charging a contingent fee
because the fee remains the same even
though the attorney spends less time
researching. However, when an attorney
charges an hourly fee, the hours in comput-
ing the lodestar will be fewer because of the
time saved in researching. Therefore. the
Seventh Circuit held that computerized-
research costs were to be excluded from
the recoverable litigation expenses.
CLASSIFIED ADS
PRACTICE FOR SALE
Well-Established South Suburban Attorney. Built loyal fol-
lowing over 50 years. Real Estate, estate planning, wills and
trusts. Includes income property. Please respond to dilem@
.
CLASSIFIED AD RATES
Therates for classifiedads are $2.50 per wordfor CBAmembers
and $3.50 per word for nonmembers. Checks made out to The
Chicago Bar Association must accompany all ads.
56 SEPTEMBER 2016
Ethics
continued from page 48
ETHICS QUESTIONS?
The CBA’s Professional Responsibility Commit-
tee can help. Submit hypothetical questions to
Loretta Wells, CBA Government Affairs Direc-
tor, by fax 312/554-2054 or e-mail lwells@
to the authorities if there is a present and
substantial risk that a person who drinks
the water will contract a life-threatening or
debilitating disease and the lawyer’s disclo-
sure is necessary to eliminate the threat or
reduce the number of victims.
I believe that were this matter to be
considered under the Illinois Rules, the
attorneys in question would have been
found to have been in violation of the rules.
Issues related to a lawyer’s obligation to
the client versus obligation to the public
continue to arise.
Ethics Extra
continued from page 49