skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Illinois Legal Ethics

II. COUNSELOR

2.1   Rule 2.1 Advisor

2.1:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.1
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

2.1:101      Model Rule Comparison

IRPC 2.1 is identical with MR 2.1.

2.1:102      Model Code Comparison

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.1:200   Exercise of Independent Judgment

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.1
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:701, ALI-LGL § 151, Wolfram § 4.3

2.1:300   Non-Legal Factors in Giving Advice

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.1
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:701, ALI-LGL § 151, Wolfram § 4.3

2.2   Rule 2.2 Intermediary

2.2:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

2.2:101      Model Rule Comparison

There is no IRPC 2.2. The Illinois drafters felt that MR 2.2 created a concept which would raise more problems than it solved, and that the concepts involved are basically those of the representation of multiple clients, already referred to in IRPC 1.7(c).

There was no parallel rule in the Illinois Code.

2.2:102      Model Code Comparison

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.2:200   Relationship of Intermediation to Joint Representation

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram §§ 8.7, 13.6

2.2:300   Preconditions to Becoming an Intermediary

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram § 8.7, 13.6

2.2:400   Communication During Intermediation

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram § 8.7, 13.6

2.2:500   Consequences of a Failed Intermediation

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram § 8.7, 13.6

2.3   Rule 2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Persons

2.3:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

2.3:101      Model Rule Comparison

IRPC 2.3 is MR 2.3, modified in 2.3(a)(2), by the use of "disclosure" instead of "consultation."

There was no parallel provision in the Illinois Code. Although the transaction described seems so routine as scarcely to merit a Rule, some recent judicial opinions in other jurisdictions have questioned a lawyer's independence when acting on behalf of a debtor, in assuring a creditor of relevant facts; the Rule explicitly confirms conventional practice.

2.3:102      Model Code Comparison

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.3:200   Undertaking an Evaluation for a Client

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 71:701, ALI-LGL § 152, Wolfram § 13.4

2.3:300   Duty to Third Persons Who Rely on Lawyer's Opinion [see also 1.1:420]

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 71:701, ALI-LGL § 152, Wolfram § 13.4.4

2.3:400   Confidentiality of an Evaluation

Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 71:704, ALI-LGL § 152, Wolfram § 13.4.3

2.4   Rule 2.4 Lawyer Serving as a Third-Party Neutral

2.4:100   Comparative Analysis of IL Rule

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

MR 2.4 was added in February 2002. The Reporter's explanation of the change reads as follows:

The role of third-party neutral is not unique to lawyers, but the Commission recognizes that lawyers are increasingly serving in these roles. Unlike nonlawyers who serve as neutrals, lawyers may experience unique ethical problems, for example, those arising from possible confusion about the nature of the lawyer's role. The Commission notes that there have been a number of attempts by various organizations to promulgate codes of ethics for neutrals (e.g., aspirational codes for arbitrators or mediators or court enacted rules governing court-sponsored mediators), but such codes do not typically address the special problems of lawyers. The Commission's proposed approach is designed to promote dispute resolution parties' understanding of the lawyer-neutral's role.

2.4:101      Model Rule Comparison

Illinois has not adopted the new model rule.

2.4:200   Definition of "Third-Party Neutral"

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

Illinois has not adopted the new model rule.

2.4:300   Duty to Inform Parties of Nature of Lawyer's Role

Primary Illinois References:
Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

Illinois has not adopted the new model rule.