________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE MAAG delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, Deborah Todt, Ella Monroe, Bonnie McMinn, and Daniel McKay,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action suit andsettlement on November 10, 1997, in order to settle a suit against the defendants, AmeritechCorp. (Ameritech) and Ameritech Services, Inc. (ASI), The Ohio Bell Telephone Company(Ohio Bell), Indiana Bell Telephone Company (Indiana Bell), Wisconsin Bell, Inc.(Wisconsin Bell), and Michigan Bell Telephone Company (Michigan Bell). When this classaction suit (the Todt case) was filed, putative class action suits were already pending againstAmeritech in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. See Monroe v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., No.2:95-CV-376 JM (S.D. Ind. October 23, 1995); Seavers v. Ameritech Corp., No. 95-CV-500(Ohio Cir. Ct., Erie Co. November 14, 1995); Hankins v. Ameritech Corp., No. 96-623978-NP (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Co. May 21, 1996). These cases concerned Ameritech'smarketing and billing practices with respect to inside wire maintenance service (IWMS)plans. Ameritech also provides telephone service in Illinois. On that same date, an"Agreement of Class Action Settlement" was achieved in Folkerts v. Ameritech Corp., No.95-L-912 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Co. March 10, 1995) (Folkerts). Class counsel in the presentcase were also class counsel in the Folkerts case. The Folkerts case was composed of Illinoisplaintiffs and alleged violations of Illinois law, and the Todt case claimed violations of theconsumer-fraud statutes in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

On November 12, 1997, the circuit court issued an order granting preliminaryapproval of the Todt case. On April 6, 1998, and April 20, 1998, a fairness hearing was held. On October 30, 1998, the circuit court created two subclasses. One subclass was composedof the residents of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Tri-state subclass). The other subclasswas composed of only the residents of Indiana (Indiana subclass). That same day, the circuitcourt approved the settlement agreement as to the Tri-state subclass. After renotice, thecircuit court held supplemental fairness hearings pertaining to the Indiana subclass. Thecircuit court entered its final judgment on June 28, 1999. Sheila Kennedy and Judy Brunetti(Kennedy intervenors) moved for a reconsideration. On February 8, 2000, the circuit courtissued its final order approving the settlement agreement as to the Indiana subclass. TheKennedy intervenors filed this appeal on March 7, 2000, claiming that the circuit court erredwhen it approved the class action settlement as to the Indiana subclass.

The relevant facts are as follows. Ohio Bell, Indiana Bell, Wisconsin Bell, andMichigan Bell (collectively, the State Bell Companies) are wholly owned subsidiaries ofAmeritech and are engaged in the telecommunications business in their respective states. ASI is a corporation that is owned and controlled by the State Bell Companies. BothAmeritech companies are Illinois corporations. The State Bell Companies offered for salecertain products and services, including IWMS. The dispute in the instant case centeredaround Ameritech's, ASI's, and the State Bell Companies' marketing and billing practiceswith regard to the IWMS plan. The circuit court entered an order on November 12, 1997,certifying a class for settlement purposes only, authorizing notice to be mailed to individualclass members and by publication of notice in the USA Today newspaper, and preliminarilyenjoining all class members from prosecuting any actions asserting any of the settled claims. Various objectors claimed that the settlement agreement was negotiated without notice to thecounsel involved in the same litigation pending in other states.

The circuit court then held fairness hearings on April 6, 1998, and April 20, 1998. Some intervenors (Michigan intervenors) were counsel for the plaintiffs in the case ofConverse v. Ameritech Corp., 179 F.R.D. 533, 539 (W.D. Mich. 1997). Counsel in theConverse case were never able to certify a class. The Michigan intervenors focused theirefforts on obtaining an award of attorney fees. The Madison County circuit court determinedthat the Michigan intervenors had done nothing of benefit to the class. The Michiganintervenors filed an appeal but later withdrew it.

Some intervenors (Ohio intervenors) were cocounsel in Seavers v. Ameritech, No. 95-CV-500 (Ohio Cir. Ct., Erie Co. November 14, 1995). The record shows that prior to thesettlement in the Todt case, counsel in Seavers had not done any discovery for 2