In 1993, defendant and Dahl ended their mutual participation, and defendant then hosted the afternoon radio talk show at WLUP. Just click the "Edit page" button at the bottom of the page or learn more in the Biography submission guide. Prior to trial, plaintiff presented a motion Maksym did opine at trial that the services performed by plaintiff in 2002 and 2003 were without value. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. Brian provided testimony detailing an account of the work performed by him on an itemized basis from September 2002 to September 2003. [4] Plaintiff filed articles of incorporation under the name "Todd W. Musburger, Ltd." with the Illinois Secretary of State on May 17, 1982. The new written agreement proposal was designed to supersede the parties' 1998 written agreement. Brian testified that he is not an attorney and has been employed by plaintiff law firm since 1998, that Todd Musburger is his father, that his duties were to assist in all negotiations on behalf of clients and analyze financial figures for radio and television ratings, and prepare presentations used in the negotiations on behalf of clients. Defendant was not "applying" for work; he was already employed by WLS.

We address each of defendant's arguments, but not in the order they are presented.Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his section 2-619 motion to dismiss count II of plaintiff's complaint, by denying him leave to file a fifth affirmative defense related to the Act (225 ILCS 515/0.01 et seq. NFL Agent Todd France, who represents Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott, has mutually agreed to part ways with his agency, CAA Sports, per a report from the Sports Business Journal. His wife, Cynthia Fircak, assumed the role of his agent in negotiations with WLS, and defendant received the bill for On cross-examination, defendant agreed that had negotiations in 2002 and 2003 been successful and a renewal of his contract achieved, plaintiff would have been entitled to 5% of the gross amount of the contract negotiated on his behalf.Cynthia Fircak testified as a witness on behalf of defendant at trial. Wife: Arlene (two sons) Brother: Todd Musburger (sports agent) 225 ILCS 515/1 (West 2006). In 1998, defendant hired plaintiff law firm to negotiate the terms of the renewal of his contract with WLS. In September 2003, he received an offer from WLS for a 10-year personal services contract for $12 million, which defendant considered to be below his market value.

The company's filing status is listed as Active. [2] We note that defendant has not filed a reply brief with this court. Todd and Brian Musburger both testified to the usual and customary fee in the community for their services. CAA Sports and powerful NFL agent Todd France have confirmed to @SBJSBD that they have mutually agreed to part ways.

In 1994, defendant became a feature reporter for WGN's morning television news show in Chicago. An application of the Act's record-keeping requirements to an attorney-client relationship such as that between plaintiff and defendant does not follow logically. That would unreasonably interfere with a client's right to discharge her attorney at any time. The complaint further alleges that plaintiff also agreed to provide advice and counseling "as needed," and to use its best efforts to locate other broadcast outlets that would be interested in defendant's services. Brian Musburger is Todd Musburger's son and is not an attorney and is employed by plaintiff law firm.

Maksym was disclosed as defendant's Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(3) (210 Ill. 2d R. 213(f)(3)) controlled expert witness prior to trial, and his proposed opinions were disclosed in a 16-page disclosure. He testified that Todd Musburger became increasingly difficult to reach. The proposed opinions of defendant's expert were disclosed in a 16-page disclosure. Maksym opined that there are various factors that are appropriate to consider when assessing the value of an attorney's services. However, misnomer must be distinguished from mistaken identity. However, as noted, defendant does not cite to and our review of the record does not reveal a section 2-619 motion to dismiss count II of plaintiff's complaint.It is the responsibility of the appellant to see that the record is complete, to enable a reviewing court to resolve the questions raised since the record on appeal binds the parties and also controls the reviewing court in its consideration of the appeal. The bill provided for 170 hours at a billing rate of $475 per hour for the work performed by Todd Musburger, and 40 hours at a rate of $300 per hour for the work performed by Brian Musburger, for a total of $92,750. He instructed plaintiff to begin negotiations at that figure so that there would be room for negotiation. Despite his instructions Todd met with WLS representatives, and defendant then terminated plaintiff law firm as his agent because he felt that his interests were not being properly represented. In particular, WLS offered both defendant and Conn a 10-year renewal contract where both defendant and Conn would each be paid over $1.2 million per year. Todd is and at all relevant times was the only attorney in the law firm. Dissatisfied with the offer, defendant instructed On cross-examination, Todd agreed that his law firm cannot bill for legal services for Brian because he is not a duly licensed attorney. The proposal included a clause giving plaintiff law firm the ability to "render similar services to others, including persons of the same general qualifications and eligibility for similar employment, and such representation shall not constitute a violation of [plaintiff's] fiduciary duty or other obligations." Defendant never sought to raise plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the licensing requirements of the Act until January 22, 2007, the day before trial.In its determination of whether to allow amendment to pleadings, the trial court can consider the timeliness of such request (Furthermore, we cannot say that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for leave to assert a fifth affirmative defense based on plaintiff's failure to be licensed under the Act was an abuse of discretion because the Act does not apply to the services for which plaintiff sought recovery.Section 1 of the Act requires employment agencies to procure a license to operate from the Department of Labor.