## Facts

- Todd W. Musburger, Ltd. is an entertainment law firm that negotiates and drafts personal services contracts in the radio and television industries.
- Garry Meier was a Chicago radio personality who sought the firm’s services to negotiate and draft his broadcast agreements.
- In February 1998, the parties executed a written agreement making the firm Meier’s exclusive representative for negotiating and drafting his radio and television agreements, with compensation tied to a percentage of Meier’s gross compensation.
- Over several years, the firm negotiated Meier’s employment agreements and renewals with broadcast employers, resulting in substantial compensation for Meier.
- Meier later terminated the relationship and disputed amounts the firm claimed were owed for services connected to later negotiations and renewals.
- The firm sued for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment; the trial court dismissed the contract and unjust enrichment counts before trial.
- A jury tried only the quantum meruit claim and returned a $68,750 verdict for the firm; judgment was entered on January 30, 2007.
- The trial court denied Meier’s post-trial motion and his petition for relief from judgment under Illinois Code of Civil Procedure section 2-1401.

## Issues

1. Whether the firm’s work negotiating and drafting Meier’s broadcast employment contracts made it an “employment agency” under the Illinois Employment Agency Act, barring recovery for lack of an agency license.
2. Whether the $68,750 quantum meruit verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence as to the reasonable value of services conferred and accepted.
3. Whether the trial court erred in procedural and evidentiary rulings, including denying leave to add an affirmative defense, limiting expert testimony, excluding certain payment evidence, and refusing to vacate the judgment based on an alleged misnomer of the plaintiff.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the firm on the jury’s quantum meruit verdict.
- The firm was not an “employment agency” under the Employment Agency Act on these facts, and the Act did not bar quantum meruit recovery.
- The quantum meruit verdict was supported by the evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its pleading rulings or evidentiary rulings.
- The claimed naming error was a correctable misnomer and did not justify vacating the judgment under section 2-1401.

## Legal Principles

- Quantum meruit requires proof that (1) services were performed for the defendant, (2) the services were not intended to be gratuitous, (3) the defendant accepted the services, and (4) no enforceable contract fixed payment for those services.
- A jury’s valuation of services in quantum meruit will not be overturned unless the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent under the manifest-weight standard.
- A law firm negotiating and drafting a client’s employment-related personal services contracts as legal representation is not necessarily an “employment agency” under the Illinois Employment Agency Act, and lack of an agency license does not automatically bar restitutionary recovery.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over amendment of pleadings and admission of expert testimony; reversal requires both error and resulting prejudice.
- A misnomer—incorrect naming of the right party—does not require vacatur where the correct entity was actually involved and identified in the litigation; it may be corrected without disturbing an otherwise valid judgment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury award to an entertainment law firm in quantum meruit for negotiating and drafting a radio personality’s broadcast agreements, rejecting the claim that the firm acted as an unlicensed employment agency and finding no reversible error in the trial court’s procedural, evidentiary, or post-judgment rulings.


Todd W. Musburger, Ltd. v. Meier, 394 Ill. App. 3d 781 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2009)