Radio Personality Must Pay for Lawyer's Services

In a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Musburger sought $92,750 from Meier for 170 hours at his attorney rate of $475 per hour, and for 40 hours at $300 per hour for services performed by Musburger's son Brian, a non-lawyer in the firm. The trial judge dismissed Musburger's breach-of-contract claim against Meier. A jury then awarded Musburger quantum meruit fees of $68,750 for the services actually rendered Meier, including payment for his son's services. (In a separate suit, a magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois later dismissed a claim Meier had filed against Todd Musburger under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Meier v. Musburger, 588 F. Supp.2d 883 (N.D.Ill. 2009).)

In affirming the quantum meruit award, the Appellate Court of Illinois, in an opinion written by Presiding Justice Robert E. Gordon, first noted: “An attorney representing a client on a contingent basis who is discharged prior to the consummation of a transaction is entitled to recover the reasonable value of [his or] her services rendered. The attorney is not, however, entitled to enforce a contractual fee agreement or collect on the contingency [for breach of contract]. That would unreasonably interfere with a client's right to discharge her attorney at any time.”

The appellate court decided that, by raising the issue the day before trial, Meier had waited too long to argue that he owed Musburger no fees because Musburger had failed to obtain a license under the Illinois Private Employment Agency Act (PEAA). The court added that, in any case: “PEAA does not apply to the services for which plaintiff sought recovery. ' Plaintiff was not providing recruiting or placement services for defendant. Rather, plaintiff was engaged in negotiating and drafting the terms of defendant's contracts and providing legal counsel on the contract negotiations. Plaintiff law firm represented defendant as his legal counsel and was not sending defendant out to employers to apply for work. Plaintiff was working on a renewal of an existing contract while exploring the industry for a more lucrative contract from other radio and television stations. The services provided by plaintiff to defendant were vastly different than the recruiting and placement services governed by the PEAA.”

As for the functions provided by Musburger's son Brian, the appellate court noted: “In order for his services to be separately reimbursable, the cost of Brian's services must not be an overhead cost as would be the cost of other staff employee's work. ' The testimony at trial established that Brian's role at plaintiff law firm was to develop presentations, prepare industry analyses by determining what other similar talk show hosts were earning, and assist in negotiations. The testimony at trial also established that the services provided by Brian were not legal in nature and were not defrayed by Todd's fees.”

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed a quantum meruit award based on contract-negotiation representation that attorney Todd Musburger provided to talk show personality Gary Meier. Musburger v. Meier, 1-07-3080.

Musburger described his practice as “an entertainment law firm that focuses on negotiating and drafting personal services contracts for broadcasters, writers, performers and directors, as well as negotiating and drafting contracts for entertainment projects in development.” Meier co-hosted the Roe and Garry radio show on WLS-AM in Chicago from 1996 to 2004.

In 1998, Meier had hired Musburger to represent him under a written agreement that promised Musburger 5% of the gross amount of contracts he negotiated for Meier, plus attorney expenses. Musburger then re-negotiated Meier's contract with WLS for a term through 2004. In 2002, Meier retained Musburger again ' this time under an oral agreement, under the same terms as the 1998 written retainer agreement ' to once more re-negotiate Meier's radio contract as well as “to explore and investigate potential alternative deals with competing broadcast outlets interested in [defendant's] services” as “an alternative to WLS and to generate competitive interest.” Then in 2003, Meier notified Musburger that he no longer wanted his services.

In a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Musburger sought $92,750 from Meier for 170 hours at his attorney rate of $475 per hour, and for 40 hours at $300 per hour for services performed by Musburger's son Brian, a non-lawyer in the firm. The trial judge dismissed Musburger's breach-of-contract claim against Meier. A jury then awarded Musburger quantum meruit fees of $68,750 for the services actually rendered Meier, including payment for his son's services. (In a separate suit, a magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois later dismissed a claim Meier had filed against Todd Musburger under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Meier v. Musburger , 588 F. Supp.2d 883 (N.D.Ill. 2009).)

In affirming the quantum meruit award, the Appellate Court of Illinois, in an opinion written by Presiding Justice Robert E. Gordon, first noted: “An attorney representing a client on a contingent basis who is discharged prior to the consummation of a transaction is entitled to recover the reasonable value of [his or] her services rendered. The attorney is not, however, entitled to enforce a contractual fee agreement or collect on the contingency [for breach of contract]. That would unreasonably interfere with a client's right to discharge her attorney at any time.”

The appellate court decided that, by raising the issue the day before trial, Meier had waited too long to argue that he owed Musburger no fees because Musburger had failed to obtain a license under the Illinois Private Employment Agency Act (PEAA). The court added that, in any case: “PEAA does not apply to the services for which plaintiff sought recovery. ' Plaintiff was not providing recruiting or placement services for defendant. Rather, plaintiff was engaged in negotiating and drafting the terms of defendant's contracts and providing legal counsel on the contract negotiations. Plaintiff law firm represented defendant as his legal counsel and was not sending defendant out to employers to apply for work. Plaintiff was working on a renewal of an existing contract while exploring the industry for a more lucrative contract from other radio and television stations. The services provided by plaintiff to defendant were vastly different than the recruiting and placement services governed by the PEAA.”

As for the functions provided by Musburger's son Brian, the appellate court noted: “In order for his services to be separately reimbursable, the cost of Brian's services must not be an overhead cost as would be the cost of other staff employee's work. ' The testimony at trial established that Brian's role at plaintiff law firm was to develop presentations, prepare industry analyses by determining what other similar talk show hosts were earning, and assist in negotiations. The testimony at trial also established that the services provided by Brian were not legal in nature and were not defrayed by Todd's fees.”