In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 180783

In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 180783

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 180783 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., 2019).
- Petitioner: Slobodan Pavlovich. Respondent (former client): Aneta Pavlovich. Appellant (former counsel): Hoffenberg & Block, LLC (H&B).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether an attorney without a written engagement agreement can recover attorney fees under section 508 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/508 (West 2016)), including recovery on a quantum meruit theory via the Act.
- Whether a court may entertain a common‑law quantum meruit claim within the dissolution proceeding or must the attorney pursue a separate action.

3) Holding / outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of H&B’s fee petition. The court held that section 508 requires a written engagement agreement (including the client rights/responsibilities statement under §508(f)) as a precondition to a fee hearing under §508(c). Absent such a written agreement, §508 does not permit fee recovery in the dissolution proceeding; the attorney’s remedy is a separate common‑law action.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory text controls. Section 508(c)(2)(i) explicitly conditions a final fee hearing on the existence of a written engagement agreement that meets subsection (f) requirements. Section 508(c)(3) contemplates quantum meruit only to govern awards for services not based on the written agreement — i.e., after the court considers and enforces the written contract terms first.
- Section 508(a) makes subsection (c) the exclusive mechanism for counsel of record to petition for fees during the dissolution proceeding. Therefore, an attorney who lacks the required written agreement cannot utilize §508’s fee‑petition process; the statute’s plain language forecloses reading §508 as an alternative pathway to award quantum meruit fees where the statutorily required writing is absent.
- The court rejected H&B’s contention that the trial court could hear a common‑law quantum meruit claim within the family case or transfer the claim, holding the statutory scheme controls eligibility to seek fees during the proceeding.

5) Practice implications (for family law attorneys)
- Always use and retain a written engagement agreement compliant with §508(f) — include the statutorily required client rights/responsibilities — and obtain the client’s signature promptly.
- Preserve detailed billing/time records and attach required documentation to fee petitions under §508(c).
- File fee petitions within the post‑judgment motion period (30 days) where applicable.
- If no compliant written agreement exists, prepare to pursue fee recovery by a separate common‑law action (quantum meruit) in the appropriate civil division rather than by motion in the dissolution case.
- Be mindful courts may reduce or deny awards for unconscionably excessive aggregate billings.