The Bar News

Bar News Sections

Ethics

  • August 14, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Can I advertise a legal "specialization"?

    Q.  Am I allowed to advertise that I am “specialized” in a certain area of law?

    A.  Rule 7.4 allows lawyers to advertise that they do or do not practice in a particular field of law. However, the rule also states that the Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law. IRPC 7.4(c). For a full explanation, see Rule 7.4.

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    [Disclaimer. These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline. The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed. The information provided isn’t legal advice.  Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.]

  • August 8, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: What are the rules for communicating with an unrepresented person?

    Q.  What are the rules regarding communicating with an unrepresented individual?

    A.  IRPC 4.3 allows an attorney to communicate and negotiate with an unrepresented individual as long as certain requirements are met. The attorney “shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested” and “the lawyer shall not give any legal advice to the unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel.” For more information, see ISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion 14-02. 

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    Disclaimer.  These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline.  The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed.  The information provided isn’t legal advice.  Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.

    1 comment (Most recent August 8, 2014)
  • July 30, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Can I be sued for making a UPL complaint?

    Q.  Am I exposed to any civil liability for making a Himmel report or making a complaint to the ARDC about someone engaging in UPL?

    A.  Illinois Supreme Court Rule 775 provides that “any person … who communicates a complaint concerning an attorney or allegations regarding the unauthorized practice of law to the ARDC… shall be immune from all civil liability which, except for this rule, might result from such communications or complaint.” 

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    1 comment (Most recent July 31, 2014)
  • July 16, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Can I serve on legal aid staff after selling private practice?

    Q. I just sold my private practice, but now a friend wants me to serve on the staff of a legal aid clinic actively representing clients in our area. Can I?

  • July 9, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Does client confidentiality continue after I leave firm?

    Q. Do my duties of confidentiality to former clients continue even after I leave my firm?

    A. Comment 7 to IRPC 1.9 states that a lawyer changing professional association has a continuing duty to preserve confidentiality of information about a client formerly represented. However, this duty may not preclude a lawyer from using generally known information about that client. (IRPC 1.9, comment [8]). Comment [9] to the rule also allows for the provisions of 1.9 to be waived if the client gives informed consent. For a full understanding, please see IRPC 1.9.

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    Disclaimer.  These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline.  The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed.  The information provided isn’t legal advice.  Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.

  • June 26, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Is client consent required when outside lawyer fills in at status conference?

    Q. Do I need to get my client’s informed consent to have another lawyer (not in my firm) attend a routine status conference because I’ve got a scheduling conflict?

    A. RPC 1.2(e) provides that a lawyer can’t delegate to another lawyer not in that lawyer’s firm the responsibility for performing work for the client without the client’s informed consent. Comment [14] to that Rule clarifies that it is designed to prevent a lawyer from transferring “complete or substantial responsibility” of a matter to another lawyer.  The Comment goes on to say it is not intended to “prevent lawyers from engaging lawyers outside of their firm to stand in for discrete events in situations such as personal emergencies, illness, or schedule conflicts.” For further insight on the increasing use of “coverage attorneys” see this month’s Illinois Bar Journal.     

  • June 18, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Are criminal defense attorneys required to give clients copies of discovery?

    Q.  As a criminal defense attorney, do I have to give my client copies of the discovery?

    A. Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 imposes an ethical obligation on an attorney to maintain reasonable communication between an attorney and a client to keep the client informed and able to participate in representation. However, in People v. Davidson, 292 Ill. App. 3d 981, 686 N.E.2d 1231 (4th Dist. 1997) the Court determined that the defendant has no Constitutional right to read discovery. For further discussion, see ISBA Professional Opinion 13-10. 

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    Disclaimer.  These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline.  The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed.  The information provided isn’t legal advice.  Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.

  • June 11, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Can I block opposing counsel from representing other claimants?

    Q. I’m settling a case with plaintiff’s counsel in a matter that I know involves other potential claimants. Can I include a provision in the settlement agreement that precludes plaintiff’s counsel from soliciting, or representing, other claimants?

    A. RPC 5.6(b) provides that a lawyer may not offer or make an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy. Comment [2] to that Rule clarifies that it “prohibits a lawyer from agreeing not to represent other persons in connection with settling a claim on behalf of a client.”

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    [Disclaimer. These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline. The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed. The information provided isn’t legal advice. Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.]

  • June 5, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Can I charge a client for making copies?

    Q. Can I charge a client for services such as making copies?

    A. IRPC 1.5 addresses fees and expenses. Comment [1] states that “lawyer may seek reimbursement for the cost of services performed in-house, such as copying, or for other expenses incurred in-house, such as telephone charges, either by charging a reasonable amount to which the client has agreed in advance or by charging an amount that reasonably reflects the cost incurred by the lawyer.”  1.5(b) also notes that fees should be communicated to the client before representation. See the full text of 1.5 for further explanation.

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    2 comments (Most recent June 5, 2014)
  • April 30, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Can I take a security interest in a client's property to guarantee a fee?

    Q. Can I take a security interest in property my client owns (but not involved in the representation) to guarantee my fee?

    A. IRPC 1.8(i) provides that a lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation a lawyer is conducting for his client. See Supreme Court Rule 1.8.  Comment [16] to that Rule provides additional guidance on acquiring security interests from clients.  That Comment says: “When a lawyer acquires by contract a security interest in property other than that recovered through the lawyer’s efforts in the litigation, such acquisition is a business or financial transaction with a client and is governed by the requirements of paragraph (a)” of RPC 1.8 (which requires: objectively fair and reasonable terms; written disclosure of the terms; written notice that the client should seek review by another lawyer; and informed client consent in writing).

    ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

    2 comments (Most recent May 1, 2014)