## Facts

- August H. Schmitz died in January 1992, leaving two irrevocable trusts totaling about $583,000 for the benefit of his widow, Roberta A. Schmitz; a bank served as trustee.
- Roberta Schmitz discharged prior counsel and retained attorney Thomas E. Leiter and his firm to assist with trust-related matters, including changing trustees; the successor bank later paid Leiter from trust assets.
- Roberta Schmitz retained Leiter to defend against a guardianship petition filed by her daughter; that petition was dismissed.
- In March 1993, a Michigan probate court adjudicated Roberta Schmitz legally incapacitated due to a progressive dementing illness; a guardian was appointed and later succeeded by her daughter, Roberta L. Cripe.
- Cripe sued Leiter and his firm, alleging that from February 1992 through June 1994 the trusts paid $65,933.50 for legal services and that the fees were excessive and the billing fraudulent or deceptive.
- The complaint included claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act), among other nonstatutory theories.

## Issues

1. Whether a client may sue an attorney under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act based on alleged overbilling or excessive fees for legal services.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to a claim that an attorney charged excessive fees for legal services.
- The court reversed the appellate court’s judgment allowing the Consumer Fraud Act claims to proceed.
- The court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the Consumer Fraud Act counts for failure to state a claim.
- The decision left other, non–Consumer Fraud Act claims unaffected.

## Legal Principles

- The Consumer Fraud Act, though broadly addressing deceptive practices in “trade or commerce” and “services,” does not reach attorney-client fee disputes grounded in alleged overbilling for legal services.
- The attorney-client relationship is fiduciary and professional, and attorney fee regulation is primarily governed by the judiciary’s authority over the practice of law and professional discipline.
- Absent clear legislative intent to subject core aspects of legal representation (including billing and fee setting in an individual representation) to consumer-fraud liability, courts construe the Act to avoid conflict with the judiciary’s regulatory and disciplinary framework.
- Clients alleging improper billing remain able to pursue traditional remedies (e.g., malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, contract or restitution theories) and to seek disciplinary review, but not Consumer Fraud Act relief for ordinary fee disputes.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected using the Consumer Fraud Act to convert attorney overbilling allegations into statutory consumer-fraud litigation, holding that such disputes are handled through common law remedies and the judiciary’s regulation of attorney conduct rather than through the Act.


Cripe v. Leiter, 184 Ill. 2d 185, 703 N.E.2d 100 (Ill. 1998)