Dowling v. Chicago Options Associates, Inc.
226 Ill. 2d 277, 314 Ill. Dec. 725, 875 N.E.2d 1012 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Illinois, an 'advance payment retainer,' under which ownership of the funds passes to the attorney upon payment, is a permissible fee arrangement that makes the funds the property of the attorney and not subject to the claims of the client's creditors. If a retainer agreement is ambiguous, it will be construed as a 'security retainer,' which remains the property of the client.
Facts:
- Brian Dowling obtained two judgments against Michael E. Davis totaling $817,830.45.
- Davis hired the law firm DLA Piper (Piper) for assistance with purchasing a home in Florida and for general advice on asset protection.
- In February 2003, Davis and his wife, Emily Seibel, authorized Piper to allocate $100,094.72 from funds held for the home purchase to be used as a retainer.
- The engagement letter stated the retainer would be applied to monthly invoices and warned that litigation with Dowling was a 'virtual certainty.'
- Piper transferred the retainer funds from a client trust account to its general operating account and began applying them to monthly bills for work performed.
- On June 8, 2004, Seibel gave Piper an additional $50,000 payment from an account she held with Davis.
- Piper applied this $50,000 to legal bills related to Dowling's collection efforts.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Dowling initiated supplementary proceedings in the circuit court of Cook County to collect on judgments against Michael Davis.
- A citation to discover assets was served on 'Piper Rudnick LLP Trust' on October 17, 2003.
- After Piper stated it held no funds for Davis in its trust account, the trial court denied Dowling's turnover motion, and the initial citations were dismissed.
- A second citation was served on Piper (the firm) on August 6, 2004, after Dowling learned of payments made to Piper's general account.
- Dowling filed a motion for turnover of $137,576.53 held by Piper.
- The circuit court granted Dowling's motion and ordered Piper to turn over the funds.
- Piper, as appellant, appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's turnover order, with one justice dissenting.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted Piper's petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the unearned portion of a retainer paid by a judgment debtor to a law firm for future services considered the property of the debtor and thus subject to a turnover order by a judgment creditor?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Garman
No. An advance payment retainer, where ownership of the funds passes to the lawyer upon payment, becomes the property of the lawyer and is not subject to a turnover order by the client's judgment creditor. The court officially recognizes three types of retainers: general, security, and advance payment. Advance payment retainers are permissible and particularly useful for clients, like judgment debtors, who need to secure counsel without fear of their legal fees being seized. While the engagement letter in this case was ambiguous, it is construed as an advance payment retainer given the circumstances, particularly the client's need for asset protection. The new, stricter requirements for such agreements will apply prospectively. The subsequent $50,000 payment was also not subject to turnover because it was made and fully applied to legal fees at a time when no citation was pending against Piper.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Freeman
No, the court should not have decided the issue as a matter of law. While the opinion correctly recognizes the validity of advance payment retainers and establishes necessary future requirements, it errs by interpreting the specific agreement in this case. The majority acknowledges that the engagement letter is ambiguous. Under established principles of contract law, the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact that requires an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' intent. By resolving this factual dispute, the court improperly acted as a fact-finder instead of remanding the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the 'advance payment retainer' as a valid tool in Illinois, providing a safe harbor for attorneys representing clients with significant debt or assets subject to seizure. It clarifies the distinction between security retainers (client property) and advance payment retainers (attorney property), thereby affecting how attorneys must handle client funds. The court's imposition of strict, prospective requirements for these agreements—including written form, specific disclosures, and a default construction as security retainers in cases of ambiguity—is intended to protect clients and prevent abuse, balancing the need for counsel against the rights of creditors.
