CBA Record

Ethics Extra continued from page 49

CLASSIFIED ADS

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@ chicagobar.org. 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.

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

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@ sbcglobal.net.

CLASSIFIED AD RATES

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. 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