1. To: Supervising Attorney
From: Research Assistant Michael Currie
Date: 9/19/2016
In Re: Ipana Case and Quantum Meruit
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The principle of quantum meruit revolves around fair compensation for services
rendered, especially when an individual may become unjustly enriched by those services. With
roots in contract law, this principle can be applied to many facets of law where one provides
legal services. The focus of this memorandum is on the use of a contingency agreement between
an attorney and a client. The contingency agreement is based on the recovery of the client,
meaning that the attorney agrees to bear a loss if there is no recovery and the client agrees to pay
the attorney a certain percentage of the award if there is recovery in the case. This agreement can
pose difficulties for attorneys and legal professionals who provide services to clients and are
subsequently discharged without adequate compensation. This memorandum will discuss the
rules of quantum meruit in Illinois, highlighting relevant statutory and case law.
FACTS
The current case at hand is a personal injury case in which the plaintiff named Ida
Ipana brings suit against Shipley Supermarket Inc. for injuries sustained during a slip and fall
accident. Ipana is suing for negligence, under the premise that the spill was the direct cause of
her fall which resulted in serious and potentially permanent injuries to the head, back, and limbs.
Initially, Mrs. Ipana hired the law office of McDonald and Fontana to handle the case. Mrs.

2. Ipana subsequently discharged McDonald and Fontana from the case and is looking for our
services in pursing her negligence case against Shipley supermarket Inc.
According to the client files, the law office of McDonald and Fontana did
substantial work on the Ipana case including drafting and filing the complaint and answering
interrogatories directed at Mrs. Ipana. McDonald and Fontana also recovered the accident bill
and report from Dr. Claudia Grossman including a report of previous treatment from a skiing
accident Mrs. Ipana suffered four years prior. A client intake form was also completed, which
details the accidents and the injuries sustained as a result of the accident.
ISSUE
The problem that arises in this scenario is created by the crossing of the client’s
freedom to discharge an attorney with the attorney’s right to fair and just compensation for
services rendered. The principle was created out of a need for fairness paired with the need for
job security. In most situations, an attorney that does substantial work on a case and then is
discharged by the client with or without cause does have a right to a certain amount of the
recovery from that case. The question at hand is how much of the recovery is a previous attorney
entitled to under the principle of quantum meruit? Relevant statutes and case law in Illinois seeks
to address this question by creating law through both legislation and precedent.
RULE
The main statutory rule in Illinois as it relates to the concept of Quantum Meruit and
attorney’s fees is found in the Illinois Compiled Statutes. The Attorney’s lien for fees;
enforcement reads “Attorneys at law shall have a lien upon all claims, demands and causes of
action, including all claims for unliquidated damages, which may be placed in their hands by
their clients for suit or collection, or upon which suit or action has been instituted, for the amount

3. of any fee which may have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys and their clients, or,
in the absence of such agreement, for a reasonable fee, for the services of such suits, claims,
demands or causes of action, plus costs and expenses.” 770 ILCS 5/1 (West 2016). This statute
gives authority to the courts to enforce a discharged attorney’s lien and lays the foundation for
the principle of quantum meruit.
There is applicable case law from the first district appellate court in Illinois that
address this issue. A relevant case involves a mother filing suit for her minor son as an indigent,
following the services rendered by the attorney. The court ruled that the attorney was able to
recover a third of the recovery of the plaintiff, even after prior discharge. The court stated “The
Attorney's Lien Act provides that the attorney shall have a lien “for the amount of any fee which
may have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys and their clients,” or, in the absence
of such agreement, for a reasonable fee, for the services of such attorneys rendered or to be
rendered.” Caruso v. Pelling 271 Ill.App. 318, 324 (1st
Dist. Ill. 1933).
A second relevant case also comes from the first district. This case illustrates how
the trial court did not err in awarding contingency fees to a previously discharged attorney. The
court used the quantum meruit principle to award a percentage of the recovery to the previous
attorney handling the case. The court stated “The trial court did not award attorney fees based
upon a percentage of work performed by each attorney. Here, the trial court employed the
exception to the general rule that a discharged attorney receives fees for services rendered prior
to discharge based upon a quantum meruit basis.” DeLapaz v. SelectBuild Const., Inc., 394 Ill.
App. 3d 969, 976, 917 N.E.2d 93, (1st
Dist. Ill. 2009).
A third relevant case from the first district deals with this issue in a similar way. This
court ruled that an attorney employed on a contingent fee contract that was discharged without

4. fault, is not entitled to full compensation of the contract but is limited to quantum meruit
recovery. The case states “Where an attorney enters a case knowing of the contractual rights of a
previously retained attorney and that the rights of a minor are involved, it is against public policy
to allow the second attorney to enforce his fee contract fully and especially when he was not the
attorney who achieved the settlement.” Johnson v. Long, 15 Ill. App. 3d 506, 508, 305 N.E.2d 30,
31 (1st
Dist. Ill. 1973).
A secondary source that may be helpful in understanding the rules of quantum meruit
can be found in the Trial Handbook for Illinois Lawyers. The handbook states that “To recover
under a quantum meruit theory, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) he performed a service to
benefit the defendant; (2) he did not perform this service gratuitously; (3) the defendant accepted
this service; and (4) no contract existed to prescribe payment for this service” 2 Trial Handbook
for Illinois Lawyers - Civil § 69:46 (8th ed. West 2016). The handbook also states “Quantum
meruit” is an equitable theory under which a party can obtain restitution for the unjust
enrichment of the other party, and it is often pleaded as an alternative to a breach of contract
claim so that the plaintiff can recover the value of its work even if the trial court finds that the
plaintiff cannot recover under the contract.” Id page 1.
ANALYSIS
In analyzing the mentioned cases and statutes and comparing them to the situation at
hand, it is clear that the theory of Quantum Meruit is applicable to the Ipana case. There is solid
case law on the matter which has a strong tendency to enforce the principle of quantum meruit.
Since substantial work was done on this case by the law office of McDonald and Fontana, that
office would likely be able to enforce a previous contract and earn a percentage of the recovery.
If there was no initial contract between the two parties, the law office of McDonald and Fontana

5. would likely be able to recover a reasonable amount of services rendered, as determined by the
courts. Since it is clear that McDonald and Fontana drafted and filed the complaint, responded to
interrogatories and recovered medical bills and documents, they would be entitled to retain a
percentage of the recovery or place a lien on the recovery until the dispute is resolved.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the principle of quantum meruit can be used by an attorney to obtain
just compensation for legal services rendered to a client. In the case at hand, the law offices of
McDonald and Fontana would have high probability of proving the elements found in the trial
handbook for Illinois lawyers. These elements are guidelines for making a quantum meruit
argument. Furthermore, there is consistent case law on the matter that points to enforcing the
principles of fair and just compensation as it pertains to discharged attorneys. It is likely that the
law office of McDonald and Fontana would pursue a contract action on the matter and plead
quantum meruit in the alternative. It is recommended that a consultation take place between the
parties involved to reach an agreement before this case is accepted.