Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies Circuit Court Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Attorneys Liens
The Illinois Appellate Court for the First Judicial District recently clarified the jurisdiction of a circuit court to adjudicate attorneys liens when the underlying action is the subject of a pending appeal. In Moenning v. Union Pacific R.R., 2012 IL App (1st) 101866, the appellate court found that a circuit court has jurisdiction to adjudicate attorneys liens notwithstanding a pending appeal of the judgment in the underlying action.
Background and Procedural History of Underlying Action
Moenning commenced an action against Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific) for personal injuries suffered while disembarking from a passenger train car. Moenning asserted claims for negligence and willful and wanton conduct against Union Pacific. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Moenning in the amount of $125,000 after finding that he was fifty percent at fault for his injuries. Moenning filed a combined motion for a new trial and for sanctions against Union Pacific for denying that it was negligent, and the circuit court denied the motion.
Moenning subsequently appealed the judgment entered on the jury verdict and the circuit court’s denial of his combined motion for a new trial and for sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and issued a mandate to the circuit court on May 7, 2010.
Moenning’s Engagement of Counsel in the Action and the Attorneys Lien Claim
Moenning engaged Norman Lerum as his counsel in the action under a contingency fee arrangement, pursuant to which Lerum was entitled to one third of all monies recovered “before, during or after trial, whether by suit, settlement or otherwise, excluding any recovery made during or after an appeal or a retrial.” [Emphasis in original.] 2012 IL App (1st) 101866 at ¶4. Moenning further agreed to reimburse Lerum for all expenses incurred during the course of the action. The agreement did not obligate Lerum to represent Moenning in any appeal.
Lerum filed a petition to adjudicate and enforce his attorneys lien, pursuant to the Attorneys Lien Act, 770 ILCS 5/1, after the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment but before the appellate court issued the mandate to the circuit court. The petition alleged that Lerum expended 341.5 hours in connection with the action and provided, in detail, the services he performed for Moenning. The petition further itemized unpaid litigation expenses totaling $9,471.03. The petition also alleged that Lerum sent notice of his attorneys lien to an attorney at Union Pacific.
Moenning responded to the petition and asserted Lerum did not properly perfect his attorneys lien and the circuit court thus lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the lien. The circuit court granted the petition in the amount of $51,137.69 over Moenning’s objection, and Moenning filed a motion to reconsider. In the motion to reconsider, Moenning asserted, inter alia, that the circuit court was divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate the attorneys lien because the appeal of the underlying judgment was still pending since the mandate had not been issued to the circuit court. The circuit court ultimately denied Moenning’s motion to reconsider, and Moenning appealed.
The Appellate Court’s Decision on the Attorneys Lien Issue
After setting forth the requirements to enforce an attorneys lien, the appellate court addressed the circuit court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate Lerum’s lien. The appellate court began its analysis by noting that a notice of appeal takes the cause of action beyond the jurisdiction of a circuit court, but the circuit court retains jurisdiction to decide matters that are “independent of or collateral or incidental to the judgment.” 2012 IL App (1st) 101866 at ¶22.
The appellate court found that the circuit court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the attorneys lien because “the attorneys lien did not address [the issues on appeal] or challenge the judgment, which was subject to the earlier notice of appeal.” 2012 IL App (1st) 101866 at ¶26. The appellate court thus relied on the fact that Lerum’s lien did not deal with the issues raised in Moenning’s appeal — the jury’s finding of contributory negligence and the entry of a directed verdict on his willful and wanton claim — and only sought a determination as to the amount and extent of his lien rights.
The appellate court further referenced the fact that the petition was not pending at the time Moenning filed his notice of appeal and his engagement did not entitle him to any recovery made during or after an appeal or retrial. The appellate court thus found that the circuit court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Lerum’s lien because the petition was filed after Moenning’s notice of appeal, the terms of his engagement did not entitle him to any amounts recovered during or after an appeal, and the petition did not impact the issues that were then on appeal.
Conclusion
The Moenning decision is noteworthy due to its holding with respect to the jurisdiction of a circuit court to adjudicate an attorneys lien. If an attorney’s engagement letter is properly structured and pursuing the lien does not impact a pending appeal, attorneys are entitled to petition a circuit court to adjudicate the amount and extent of their attorneys liens.
