Legal Opinion

Warnell v. Ford Motor Co.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided June 11, 2002No. 98 C 1503, 98 C 5287PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BUCKLO, District Judge.

I here resolve a dispute between the named plaintiffs in these two class actions and their counsel about the enforcement of contingent fee agreements. Attorneys have fiduciary duties to their clients, not least when they represent a class of plaintiffs. They also have an obligation, as officers of the court, to disclose any potential conflicts of interest with their clients when they seek an award of attorneys’ fees out of the proceeds of a class settlement. I find that, at a minimum, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case violated the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Venegas v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. (Appeal of Attorneys' Fee Awards)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
  3. Skelton v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
  4. Alexander v. Chicago Park DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Van v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API