Goesel v. Boley International (H.K.) Ltd.

Dist. Ct. erred in refusing to approve settlement of personal injury claim involving minor, where basis of refusal was terms of plaintiff’s contingent fee agreement calling for counsel’s receipt of one-third of gross settlement, while all litigation expenses would be covered by plaintiff’s share of agreement, and where terms of contingency agreement resulted in plaintiff receiving only 42 percent of gross settlement. While Dist. Ct. indicated that it would only approve settlement if litigation expenses were deducted from gross settlement and plaintiff’s attorneys received one-third of net settlement and if computerized-research fees were removed as compensable litigation expense, Ct. of Appeals observed that: (1) amount of fees produced by agreement did not exceed market value of attorneys’ services or violate reasonableness test set forth in Rule 1.5 of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and (2) Dist. Ct. made no finding that amount plaintiff received under contingency-fee contract was inadequate to address minor’s future needs. Moreover, Dist. Ct.’s belief that instant fee agreement was contract of adhesion was not supported by record, where there was no evidence of coercion or overreaching. Dist. Ct., though, did not err in excluding computerized-research costs as recoverable expense in instant contingent-fee setting.